Behaviour of Secondary Coolant Flow on the Turbine Blade Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the fluid mechanic behaviour of secondary flows, cooling injection from inside the blade, on the turbine blades surfaces has been studied for its aerodynamic influence. A standard T-106A turbine blade profile has been chosen for study. The blades are arranged in a linear cascade with a solidity of 0.5 and aspect ratio of 1.5. It is first intended to find the most effective single blowing location, which has been found at 10% of the blade surface from the leading edge. Then the study has focussed on finding a blowing ratio at which the secondary flow boundary layer sustains itself over most part of the turbine blade surfacesboth the suction and the pressure surfaces. Further, fluid mechanic studies have been conducted at this effective blowing ratio ( 0.8) to explore the boundary layer behaviour of the injected cooling flow. The boundary layer development has been studied at various chord-wise locations along the blades surfaces. It is observed that at the effective blowing ratio a single row of cooling injection at approximately 8.25% of axial chord behind the leading edge may be sufficient to create sustained cooling boundary layer over the entire turbine blade surfaces. The present study has been carried out with cold flows at low speeds to accommodate experimental validation in a low speed cascade tunnel in near future. The heat transfer related issues are not part of the present study.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".