Experimental Investigation of Double Rows Film Cooling on Vane Pressure Side
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation has been performed to study the effect of hole shape and position on the cooling performance of a gas turbine stator. Two rows of laid-back fan-shaped holes are placed on the pressure side of a scaled vane in a two-dimensional cascade and compared with two identical rows of standard cylindrical exit. Both hole shapes have the same base diameter and were investigated at three different blowing ratios (1, 1.35, and 1.7) with the same coolant flow rate used in each case. The experiments are conducted for the first row of holes only, then for the second row only, and finally for both two rows together at a 0.9 density ratio. The mainstream inlet Reynolds number based on the true chord is 1.4E5 and the exit Mach number is 0.23. The local distributions of the heat transfer coefficient and film cooling effectiveness are obtained using a transient TLC technique. The second row of holes, with by a higher local radius of curvature, shows a 40% decrease in the cooling effectiveness as well as a 10% increase in the heat transfer coefficient near downstream of the hole compared with that obtained by the first hole. The double injection provides a slight increase in the cooling effectiveness and a lower heat transfer coefficient due to the favorable interaction between both injections.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".