Comparative Investigation of Three Highly Loaded LP Turbine Airfoils: Part I — Measured Profile and Secondary Losses at Design Incidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the 2006 ASME-IGTI Turbo-Expo, low-speed cascade results were presented for the midspan aerodynamic behaviour of a family of three highly loaded low-pressure (LP) turbine airfoils operating over a wide range of Reynolds numbers (25,000 to 150,000 based on the axial chord and inlet velocity), and for values of freestream turbulence intensity of 1.5% and 4%. All three airfoils have the same design inlet and outlet flow angles. The baseline cascade has a Zweifel coefficient of 1.08 and the two additional blade rows have values of 1.37. The new, more highly-loaded blade rows differ mainly in their loading distributions: one is front-loaded while the other is aft-loaded. The new front-loaded airfoil was found to have particularly attractive profile performance. Despite its exceptionally high value of Zweifel coefficient, it was found to be free of a separation bubble on its suction side at Reynolds numbers as low as 50,000, and this was reflected in very good profile loss behaviour. However, it was also noted in the earlier paper that the choice of a particular loading level and loading distribution would be influenced by more than its profile performance at design incidence. The present two-part paper extends the midspan aerodynamic comparison of the three airfoils to the secondary flow performance. The first part of the paper discusses both the profile and secondary flow performance of the three cascades at their design Reynolds number of 80,000 (or ∼ 125,000 based on exit velocity) for two freestream turbulence intensities of 1.5% and 4%. The secondary flow behaviour was determined from detailed flowfield measurements made at 40% axial chord downstream of the trailing edge using a seven-hole pressure probe. In addition to providing total pressure losses, the seven-hole probe measurements were also processed to give the downstream vorticity distributions. As has been found in other secondary flow investigations in turbine cascades, the present front-loaded airfoil showed higher secondary losses than the aft-loaded airfoil with the same value of Zweifel coefficient.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".