MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087521749 · doi:10.2514/6.2002-2922

High Altitude Small Engine Test Techniques at the NASA Glenn Propulsion Systems Lab

2002· article· en· W2087521749 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Raymond Castner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlenn Research CenterPratt and Whitney Canada
KeywordsPropulsionAerospace engineeringAeronauticsJet propulsionComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A High Altitude Test was performed in the Propulsion Systems Lab (PSL) at the NASA Glenn Research Center using a Pratt and Whitney Canada PW545 jet engine. This engine was tested to develop a highaltitude database on small, high-bypass ratio, engine performance and operability. Industry is interested in the use of high-bypass engines for Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles (UAV's) to perform high altitude surveillance. The tests were a combined effort between Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and NASA Glenn Research Center. A large portion of this test activity was to collect performance data with a highly instrumented low-pressure turbine. Low-pressure turbine aerodynamic performance at low Reynolds numbers was collected and compared to analytical models developed by NASA and PWC. This report describes the test techniques implemented to obtain high accuracy turbine performance data in an altitude test facility, including high accuracy airflow at high altitudes, very low mass flow, and low air temperatures. Major accomplishments from this test activity were to collect accurate and repeatable turbine performance data at high altitudes to within 1 percent. Data were collected at 19,800m, 16,750m, and 13,700m providing documentation of diminishing LPT performance with reductions in Reynolds number in an actual engine flight environment. The test provided a unique database for the development of engine analysis codes to be used for future LPT performance improvements.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207