MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067953092 · doi:10.1115/1.4000491

Redesign of a Low Speed Turbine Stage Using a New Viscous Inverse Design Method

2010· article· en· W2067953092 on OpenAlexaff
Benedikt Roidl, Wahid Ghaly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Turbomachinery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsStatorTurbulenceRotor (electric)TurbineRobustness (evolution)InverseTurbine bladeMechanicsBlade (archaeology)Mechanical engineeringComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The midspan section of a low speed subsonic turbine stage that is built and tested at DFVLR, Cologne, is redesigned using a new inverse blade design method, where the blade walls move with a virtual velocity distribution derived from the difference between the current and target pressure distributions on the blade surfaces. This new inverse method is fully consistent with the viscous flow assumption and is implemented into the time-accurate solution of the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations. An algebraic Baldwin–Lomax turbulence model is used for turbulence closure. The mixing plane approach is used to couple the stator and rotor regions. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis formulation is first assessed against the turbine stage experimental data. The inverse formulation that is implemented in the same CFD code is assessed for its robustness and merits. The inverse design method is then used to study the effect of the rotor pressure loading on the blade shape and stage performance. It is also used to simultaneously redesign both stator and rotor blades for improved stage performance. The results show that by carefully tailoring the target pressure loading on both blade rows, improvement can be achieved in the stage performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TurbomachinerySame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207