MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010005539 · doi:10.1115/gt2007-27537

Comparative Investigation of Three Highly Loaded LP Turbine Airfoils: Part I — Measured Profile and Secondary Losses at Design Incidence

2007· article· en· W2010005539 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsAirfoilFreestreamReynolds numberAerodynamicsTurbineMechanicsCascadeStall (fluid mechanics)TurbulenceTurbulence kinetic energyStructural engineeringMaterials scienceMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.196 · 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