Strut Losses in a Diverging Annular Diffuser With Swirling Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation into the overall influence of struts spanning a double divergent annular diffuser followed by a straight cored annular diffuser has been undertaken in order to determine the performance of various strut configurations over a wide range of inlet swirl conditions. Two strut profiles have been investigated in four and eight strut configurations. Results have shown that the presence of struts under no swirl conditions have a relatively small effect on the overall total pressure loss. Increasing the inlet swirl angle to 20° has shown that the struts are able to assist in recovery of the swirling flow such that the pressure recovery nearly approaches that without struts, despite increased total pressure losses. Performance at 40° swirl is highly dependent on strut profile; the higher thickness-to-chord ratio strut configurations show minimal decrease in pressure recovery compared to 20° swirl, while the lower thickness-to-chord ratio configurations experiences a significant decrease as the result of significant flow separation from the struts. The exit swirl number has been shown to correlate strongly with the strut profile shape, while the number of struts had only a secondary influence. The exit velocity profiles show significant distortions at 40° swirl, and as a result the ideal pressure recovery calculated from the inlet and exit profiles change with strut configuration at 40° swirl.
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) | 0.000 | 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".