Aerothermal Optimization and Experimental Verification for Discrete Turbine Airfoil Film Cooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimization aims to maximize the film cooling performance while minimizing the corresponding aerodynamic penalty. The cooling performance is assessed using the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness, while the aerodynamic penalty is measured with a mass-averaged total pressure loss coefficient. Two design variables are selected: the coolant-to-mainstream temperature ratio and the coolant-to-mainstream total pressure ratio. Two staggered rows of discrete cylindrical film cooling holes on the suction surface of a turbine vane are considered. A nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) is coupled with an artificial neural network (ANN) to perform a multiple-objective optimization of the coolant flow parameters on the vane suction surface. Three-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulations are employed to construct the ANN network that produces low-fidelity predictions of the objective functions during the optimization. The effect of varying the coolant flow parameters on the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness and the aerodynamic loss is analyzed using the optimization method and RANS simulations. The computational fluid dynamics predictions of the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness and aerodynamic performance are assessed and validated against corresponding experimental measurements. The optimal solutions are reproduced in the experimental facility and the Pareto front is substantiated with experimental data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".