Application of an Overset Grid Method to the Large Eddy Simulation of a High-Speed Multistage Axial Compressor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims at evaluating the feasibility and the accuracy of the Large-Eddy Simulation of an actual high-pressure multistage compressor, performed with the TurboAVBP numerical method. TurboAVBP relies on the coupling of several domains via an overset grid method. The latter is demonstrated to keep the order of accuracy of the numerical scheme across six successive rotor-stator interfaces. The simulated configuration corresponds to the 3.5 stage axial compressor CREATE. Three unstructured grids of CREATE, with different resolutions, are generated. They contain 37 blades, the actual rotor tip clearances and a recirculating cavity. The predictions of the global aerodynamic performances and of the radial profiles are found to agree well with experimental data. The analysis of the flow shows that the finest grid exhibits the turbulent flow structures expected in such a configuration, including the blade and vane wakes and the rotor tip leakage vortices.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".