MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982123533 · doi:10.1115/1.1995767

Effect of the Specific Heat Ratio on the Aerodynamic Performance of Turbomachinery

2002· article· en· W1982123533 on OpenAlexafffund
S. K. Roberts, S. A. Sjolander

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbomachineryGas compressorAerodynamicsCentrifugal compressorMechanicsOverall pressure ratioIsentropic processImpellerReal gasWorking fluidAxial compressorHeat capacity ratioThermodynamicsMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many gases, including carbon dioxide and argon, have been considered as alternative working fluids to air in a number of design studies for closed and semi-closed gas turbine engines. In many of these studies, it has been assumed that if the gas constant R and specific heat ratio γ are included in the speed and flow parameters, the compressor map or turbine characteristic is applicable to other working fluids. However, similarity arguments show that the isentropic exponent itself is a criterion of similarity and that the turbomachinery characteristics, even when appropriately nondimensionalized, will, in principle, vary as the γ of the working fluid varies. This paper examines the effect of γ on turbomachinery characteristics, mainly in terms of compressors. The performance of a centrifugal compressor stage was measured using air (γ=1.4), CO2(γ=1.29), and argon (γ=1.67). For the same values of the nondimensional speed, the pressure ratio, efficiency, and choking mass flow were found to be significantly different for the three test gases. The experimental results have been found to be consistent with a CFD analysis of the impeller. Finally, it is shown that the changes in performance can be predicted reasonably well with simple arguments based mainly on one-dimensional isentropic flow. These arguments form the basis for correction procedures that can be used to project compressor characteristics measured for one value of γ to those for a gas with a different value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207