CFD Analysis of a 15 Stage Axial Compressor: Part I — Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow field of a 15 stage axial compressor is analyzed using a 3-D Navier-Stokes CFD tool. The compressor under investigation is a prototype first compressor version before optimization of the Siemens V84.3A family. A methodology is described for steady state and transient flow simulations of the entire 15 stages compressor in one computation (not piece by piece). The simulation includes tip gaps, mass bleeds, hub leakage flows, and ranges from single passage to full 360 degrees analysis. The work is divided into two companion papers. This first part, “CFD Analysis of a 15 Stage Axial Compressor Part I: Methods” describes the overall methodology used, based on a middle portion of the compressor R5S9 (Rotor 5 to Stator 9). Various effects are analyzed: mesh style and refinement, boundary conditions, steady or transient, tip clearance, and numerical issues (turbulence model choice, advection model choice, parallel processing performance). A high sensitivity of the predictions to the tip clearance height was found. Excellent design point predictions are obtained with steady-state frame change interface models (Stage average interface), as well as with transient simulations (transient rotor-stator interface).
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it