MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073460955 · doi:10.1115/gt2010-22760

Measurements of Endwall Flows in Transonic Linear Turbine Cascades: Part II—High Flow Turning

2010· article· en· W2073460955 on OpenAlexafffund
Farzad Taremi, S. A. Sjolander, T. J. Praisner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsMach numberTransonicMechanicsAerodynamicsSecondary flowFlow visualizationVortexVorticityTurbineFlow separationPhysicsAirfoilFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceThermodynamicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental investigation of two low-turning (90°) transonic linear turbine cascades was presented in Part I of the paper. Part II examines two high-turning (112°) turbine cascades. The experimental results include total pressure losses, streamwise vorticity and secondary kinetic energy distributions. The measurements were made using a seven-hole pressure probe downstream of the cascades. In addition to the measurements, surface flow visualization was conducted to assist in the interpretation of the flow physics. The turbine cascades in Part II, referred to as SL1F and SL2F, have the same inlet and outlet design flow angles, but different aerodynamic loading levels: SL2F is more highly loaded than SL1F. The surface flow visualization results show evidence of small flow separation on the suction side of both airfoils. At the design conditions (outlet Mach number ≈ 0.8), SL2F exhibits stronger vortical structures and larger secondary velocities than SL1F. The two cascades, however, produce similar row losses based on the measurements at 40% axial chord lengths downstream of the trailing edge. Additional data were collected at off-design outlet Mach numbers of 0.65 and 0.91. As the Mach number is raised, the cascades become more aft-loaded. The absolute blade loadings increase, but the Zweifel coefficients decrease due to higher outlet dynamic pressures. Both profile and secondary losses decrease at higher Mach numbers; the main vortical structures and the corresponding peak losses migrate towards the endwall, and there are reductions in secondary kinetic energy and exit flow angle variations. The streamwise vorticity distributions show smaller peak vorticities associated with the passage and the counter vortices at higher exit Mach numbers. The corner vortex, on the other hand, becomes more intensified, resulting in reduction of flow overturning near the endwall. The results for SL1F and SL2F are compared and contrasted with the results for the lower turning cascades presented in Part I. The possible effects of suction-surface flow separation on profile and secondary losses are discussed in this context. The current research project is part of a larger study concerning the effects of endwall contouring on secondary losses, which will be presented in the near future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207