Assessment of a Novel Non-Axial Counter-Rotating Compressor Concept for Aero-Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the first assessment of a new non-axial counter-rotating compressor concept. This concept consists of replacing the stator of a mixed-flow compressor stage or the diffuser of a centrifugal compressor stage with a counter-rotating rotor that will turn the flow back to the axial direction with much lower diffusion factor, while providing the equivalent in work of the upstream mixed-flow rotor or impeller. This concept has two advantages. First, the very high stage pressure rise means that only a single counter-rotating rotor may be required, making mechanical implementation simpler than for multi-stage axial counter-rotating compressors. Second, the replacement of the high flow turning (high loss) stator/diffuser in a non-axial stage with a low flow turning counter-rotating rotor gives the new concept potential for achieving higher efficiency than conventional non-axial compressors. As a first proof of concept, a subsonic counter-rotating mixed-flow compressor and its conventional (i.e. rotor-stator) equivalent have been designed with the intent of being implemented in a test rig. CFD simulations have been carried out for a comparative evaluation of both configurations. Results show that the counter-rotating mixed-flow compressor produces more than double the pressure rise of its conventional version with a slightly higher peak-efficiency while having a smaller axial length. Moreover, the counter-rotating configuration has a better stall margin than its conventional counterpart, for which the boundary layer separation from excessive flow turning in the stator causes early stall.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".