Mistuned Forced Response Predictions of an Embedded Rotor in a Multistage Compressor
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
This paper covers a comprehensive forced response analysis conducted on a multistage compressor and compared with the largest forced response experimental data set ever obtained in the field. The steady-state aerodynamic performance and stator wake predictions compare well with the experimental data, although losses are underestimated. Coupled and uncoupled unsteady simulations are conducted on the stator–rotor configuration. It is shown that the use of a decoupled method for forced response cannot yield accurate results for cases with strong inter-row interactions. The individual and combined contributions of the upstream and downstream stators are also assessed. The downstream stator is found to have a tremendous impact on the forced response predictions due to the constructive interactions of the two stator rows. Finally, predicted mistuned blade amplitudes are compared to mistuned experimental data. The average amplitudes match the experiments very well, while the maximum response amplitude is underestimated.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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