Prediction of Noise Sources in Axial Compressor from URANS Simulation
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
As part of a larger aeroacoustic study focused on rotor–stator interaction noise, the unsteady flow in a single-stage axial compressor is achieved by a numerical Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulation. The flowfield is precisely analyzed and assessed by comparing it with available experimental and numerical data. Specifically, the rotor wakes correctly agree with previous laser Doppler anemometry measurements. The unsteady flow, especially the potential effects created by the stator vanes, is then investigated, showing that the stator potential field is responsible for a major secondary tonal noise source on the rotor blades. The rotor wake velocity and turbulent content correspond to the excitations for tonal and broadband noise, respectively. They are greatly influenced by the vane potential effects and, to a lesser extent, by their convection with the mean flow. Two methods of extraction are surveyed along the whole span, showing the need to consider the blockage induced by the stator on the wakes. Finally, the realistic tonal acoustic sources of rotor–stator interaction extracted in time on the stator vane surfaces show a noise mechanism mainly driven by the leading edge and some significant variations from hub to tip.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it