MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009769167 · doi:10.1115/gt2005-68159

Aerodynamic Performance of a Family of Three High Pressure Transonic Turbine Blades at Off-Design Incidence

2005· article· en· W2009769167 on OpenAlexafffund
D. Corriveau, S. A. Sjolander

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersPratt and Whitney Canada
KeywordsTransonicMach numberAirfoilAerodynamicsReynolds numberTurbineMechanicsStructural engineeringAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear cascade measurements for the aerodynamic performance of three transonic High Pressure (HP) turbine blades have been presented previously by Corriveau and Sjolander [1] [2] for the design incidence. The airfoils were designed for the same inlet and outlet velocity triangles but varied in their loading distributions. Results from the earlier studies indicated that by shifting the loading towards the rear of the airfoil an improvement in the profile loss performance of the order of 20% could be obtained near the design Mach number of 1.05. The measurements have been extended to off-design incidence to investigate the effects of incidence on the performance of HP turbine blades having differing loading distributions. The additional measurements were performed for incidence values of −10.0°, +5.0°, and +10.0° relative to the design incidence. In addition, two-dimensional Navier-Stokes numerical simulations of the cascade flow were performed in order to help in the interpretation of the experimental results. The exit Mach number was kept at the design value of 1.05. The corresponding Reynolds numbers, based on outlet velocity and true chord, is roughly 10 × 105. The measurements include midspan losses, outlet flow angles, blade loading distributions and base pressures. The results show that the superior loss performance of the aft-loaded profile, observed at design incidence and Mach number, could also be seen for off-design values of incidence ranging from about −5.0° to +5.0°. However, it was found that for incidences greater than about +5.0° the performance of the aft-loaded blade deteriorated rapidly. The front-loaded airfoil showed generally similar performance to that of the baseline mid-loaded airfoil up to an incidence of +5.0°, at which point its performance also deteriorates significantly.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207