Measurements of Secondary Losses in a High-Lift Front-Loaded Turbine Cascade With the Implementation of Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring
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
This paper is the second in a series from the same authors studying the mitigation of endwall losses using the low-speed linear cascade test facility at Carleton University. The previous paper documented the baseline test case for the study. The current work investigates the secondary flow in a cascade of more highly-loaded low-pressure turbine airfoils with and without the implementation of endwall profiling. This study is novel in two regards. First, the contouring is applied to low-pressure turbine airfoils, whereas studies conducted by other researchers have focused their endwall profiling efforts on the high-pressure turbine. Second, while previous researchers have optimized contouring designs for a given airfoil, the current work demonstrates the potential to open the design space by employing high-lift airfoils in conjunction with endwall contouring. Seven-hole pneumatic probe measurements taken within the blade passage and downstream of the trailing edge track the progression of the secondary flow and losses generated. The contouring divides the vorticity associated with the passage vortex into two weaker vortices, and reduces the secondary kinetic energy. Overall the secondary losses are reduced and the loss reduction is discussed with regards to changes in the flow physics. A detailed breakdown of the mixing losses further demonstrates the benefits of endwall contouring.
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