Influences of Inlet Swirl Distributions on an Inter-Turbine Duct: Part II—Hub Swirl Variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inter-turbine transition duct (ITD) of a gas turbine engine has significant potential for engine weight reduction and/or aerodynamic performance improvement. This potential arises because very little is understood of the flow behavior in the duct in relation to the hub and casing shapes and the flow entering the duct (e.g., swirl angle, turbulence intensity, periodic unsteadiness and blade tip vortices from upstream HP turbine blade rows). In this study, the flow development in an ITD with different inlet swirl distributions was investigated experimentally and numerically. The current paper, which is the second part of a two-part paper, presents the investigations of the influences of the hub swirl variations on the flow physics of ITD. The results show that the radial movement of the low momentum hub boundary layer and wake flow induces a pair of hub counter-rotating vortices. This pair of counter-rotating vortices merges with the upstream vorticity, forming a pair of stronger vortices, which persist until ITD exit. Due to the hub streamwise adverse pressure gradient, the hub 3D separation occurs at the exit of the ITD. The hub counter-rotating vortices are strongest with the highest inlet swirl gradient. The hub boundary layer thickness is thickest with the largest inlet hub swirl angle. The hub 3D separation is reduced by the increased hub swirl angle. Based on the studies in both parts of this paper, a detailed loss mechanism has been described. The total pressure coefficient shows that the loss increases gradually at the first bend, and then increases more rapidly at the second bend. The total pressure coefficients within the ITD are significantly redistributed by the casing and hub counter-rotating vortices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".