Flow Control in an Aggressive Interturbine Transition Duct Using Low Profile Vortex Generators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental investigation of the flow mechanisms in an aggressive interturbine transition duct with and without low-profile vortex generators flow control. The interturbine duct had an area ratio of 1.53 and a mean rise angle of 35 deg. Measurements were made inside the annulus at a Reynolds number of 150,000. At the duct inlet, the background turbulence intensity was raised to 2.3% and a uniform swirl angle of 20 deg was established with a 48-airfoil vane ring. Results for the baseline case (no vortex generators) showed the flow structures within the duct were dominated by counter-rotating vortices and boundary layer separation in both the casing and hub regions. The combination of the adverse pressure gradient at the casing's first bend and upstream low momentum wakes caused the boundary layer to separate on the casing. The separated flow on the casing appears to reattach at the second bend. Counter-rotating and corotating vortex generators were installed on the casing. While both vortex generators significantly decreased the casing boundary layer separation with consequential reduction of overall pressure losses, the corotating configuration was found to be more effective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".