Numerical-Experimental Comparison in the Simulation of Rotor/Stator Interaction Through Blade-Tip/Abradable Coating Contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher aircraft energy efficiency may be achieved by minimizing the clearance between the rotating blade tips and respective surrounding casing. A common technical solution consists in the implementation of an abradable liner which improves both the operational safety and the efficiency of modern turbomachines. However, unexpected abradable wear removal mechanisms were recently observed in experimental set-ups as well as during maintenance procedures. Based on a numerical strategy previously developed, the present study introduces a numerical-experimental comparison of such occurrence. Attention is first paid to the review and analysis of existing experimental results. Good agreement with numerical predictions is then illustrated in terms of critical stress levels within the blade as well as final wear profiles of the abradable liner. Numerical results suggest an alteration of the abradable mechanical properties in order to explain the outbreak of a divergent interaction. New blade designs are also explored in this respect and it is found that the interaction phenomenon is highly sensitive to (1) the blade geometry, (2) the abradable material properties, and (3) the distortion of the casing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".