Numerical Investigation of Rotating Stall Characteristics and Active Stall Control in Centrifugal Compressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on providing better view for the understanding of rotating stall phenomenon in centrifugal compressors by using numerical simulations and presents a study of the role of air injection method in delaying stall inception by using different injection parameters aiming at increasing the efficiency of this method. Results showed that the formation of stall begins at the impeller inlet due to early flow separation at low mass flow rates and due to the increase of the turbulence level and the absence of fluid orientation guidance at the vaneless region. The flow weakness causes back flow that results in the formation of the tip leakage flow which causes stall development with time. Results also showed that using air injection at specified locations at the vaneless shroud surface at injection angle of 20° and with injection mass flow rate of 1.5% of the inlet design mass flow rate, can delay the stall onset to happen at lower mass flow rate about 3.8 kg/s comparing with using injection with angle of 10° with different injection mass flow rates and also comparing with the case of no injection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".