CFD Analysis of a 15 Stage Axial Compressor: Part II — Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow field of a 15 stage axial compressor is analyzed using a 3-D Navier-Stokes CFD tool. The compressor under investigation is a prototype engine, first compressor version before optimization of the Siemens V84.3A family. The paper describes steady state and transient flow simulations of the entire 15 stages compressor in one computation (not piece by piece). The simulation includes tip gaps, mass bleeds, hub leakage flows, and ranges from single passage to full 360 degrees analysis. The work is divided into two companion papers. The second paper, “CFD Analysis of a 15 Stage Axial Compressor Part II: Results” describes the application of the methods in Part I to the entire 15 stage compressor (Belamri et al, 2005). The flow in the compressor is modeled first with one blade passage per component (periodicity assumed, an interface pitch change model employed). Steady state and transient models are compared. In a second series of computations, all blade passages in 360 degrees are modeled, (no periodicity or pitch change assumptions required), for portions of the compressor. The various simulation approaches are compared to each other, and to experimental data. Good agreement between predictions and experimental results, both in the details of the flow field and the integral prediction of operating range of the compressor, were found.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".