Impeller-Diffuser Interaction in Centrifugal Compressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports several CFD analyses of a centrifugal compressor stage with a vaned diffuser at high pressure ratio using different techniques to model the rotor-stator interaction. A conventional steady stage calculation with a mixing-plane type interface between the rotor and stator was used as a baseline. This simulation gave excellent agreement with the measured performance characteristics at design speed, demonstrating the ability of the particular steady simulation used to capture the essential features of the blockage interaction between the components. A full annulus simulation using a transient rotor-stator interaction (TRS) method was then used at the peak efficiency point to obtain a fully unsteady reference solution, and this predicted a small increase in peak efficiency. Finally, a computationally less expensive unsteady calculation using a Time Transformation (TT) method was carried out. This gave similar results to the fully transient calculation suggesting that this is an acceptable approach to estimate unsteady blade loading from the interaction. The impeller diffuser spacing was then reduced from 15 to 7% of the impeller tip radius using the more affordable TT approach. This identified an increase in efficiency of 1% and predicted unsteady pressure fluctuations in the impeller which were 116% higher with the closely spaced diffuser.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".