The Efficient Computation of Transient Flow in Turbine Blade Rows Using Transformation Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational predictions of the transient flow in turbine blade rows are considered. Adjacent blade rows typically contain unequal numbers of blades and vanes, requiring a computation over multiple passages per row to permit application of simple periodic boundary conditions. For typical geometries, use of conventional solution methods requires computation over all or a significant portion of the wheel to ensure a time accurate solution. The computational load is significantly reduced by methods which enable a one or two-passage solution to accurately model the full wheel (or part wheel, if applicable) solution. In this work, three methods are used: Profile Transformation, Fourier Transformation and Time Transformation. This paper will concentrate on the evaluation of these methods on two turbine geometries. The first test case is a frozen gust analysis for a high pressure transonic turbine; the geometry includes hub and casing cavities together with a complex tip. The second test case is a low pressure turbine stage run over a range of operating points. Comparisons between the various methods and the equivalent part wheel periodic solution are made to demonstrate the accuracy and computational efficiency of the transformation methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it