MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040641240 · doi:10.1115/gt2006-91271

Aerodynamics of a Family of Three Highly Loaded Low-Pressure Turbine Airfoils: Measured Effects of Reynolds Number and Turbulence Intensity in Steady Flow

2006· article· en· W2040641240 on OpenAlexafffund
Ivan Popović, Jihong Zhu, Weiping Dai, S. A. Sjolander, T. J. Praisner, E. A. Grover

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAirfoilReynolds numberMechanicsStall (fluid mechanics)FreestreamTurbulenceAerodynamicsFlow separationPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The steady, midspan aerodynamic performance of a family of three low pressure (LP) turbine airfoils has been investigated in a low-speed cascade wind tunnel. The baseline profile has a Zweifel coefficient of 1.08. To examine the influence of increased loading as well as the loading distribution, two additional airfoils were designed, each with 25% higher loading than the baseline version. All three airfoils have the same design inlet and outlet flow angles. The aerodynamic performance was investigated for Reynolds numbers ranging from 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%. The flow field was measured with a three-hole pressure probe. Also, detailed loading distributions were obtained for all three airfoils using surface static pressure taps. The baseline airfoil and the new aft-loaded airfoil showed a separation bubble on the suction side of the airfoil under most of the conditions examined. In addition, a sudden and intermittent stall was observed at low Reynolds numbers for the new aft-loaded airfoil. The relatively short separation bubble would abruptly “burst” and fail to reattach. As the Reynolds number was decreased over a narrow range, the percentage of time that the flow was fully-separated increased to 100%. By comparison, the separation bubble on the baseline airfoil gradually increased in size in an orderly way as the Reynolds number was decreased. The new front-loaded airfoil provided the most encouraging performance: no separation bubble was present except at the very lowest Reynolds numbers. The absence of a separation bubble also had a favourable effect on the loss behaviour of this airfoil: despite its much higher aerodynamic loading, it exhibited very similar midspan losses to those observed for the baseline airfoil.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207