MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014820250 · doi:10.1115/gt2009-60078

On the Effects of Unsteadiness on the Condensation Process in Low-Pressure Steam Turbines

2009· article· en· W2014820250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keramat Fakhari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
KeywordsSubcoolingCondensationMechanicsCascadeSteam turbineNozzleTurbineTurbomachineryMomentum (technical analysis)Mass fluxTurbine bladeFlow (mathematics)AirfoilHeat transferMaterials scienceThermodynamicsPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The condensation process in a turbomachine is in reality an essentially random and unsteady phenomenon. On a time-averaged basis, the condensation zone is spread over a much greater distance in the flow direction than a simple steady-flow calculation would indicate. The droplet growth rate also shows different characteristics which are observed in experiments measured in real low-pressure steam turbines. These differences are mainly introduced by the large-scale temperature fluctuations which are caused by the segmentation of blade wakes by successive blade rows. Furthermore, the additional losses by condensation have to be reconsidered for an unsteady simulation. This paper describes a time-accurate Eulerian/Lagrangian two-phase model which is implemented within the DLR in-house code TRACE [1]. The phases are coupled through appropriately generated source terms for heat, mass and momentum. For the subcooled thermodynamic properties of steam the local formulation of IAPWS-IF97 [2, 3] is used. The implementation has been validated in a previous publication of the author [4] using one and two-dimensional experiments of Laval nozzles and a cascade blade from literature. The focus of this work is on the unsteady Phenomena which are investigated in a stage of an industrial low-pressure steam turbine.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsFrench-language works237,207