Effects of Cavity Purge Flow on Intermediate Turbine Duct Flowfield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase the power output without adding additional stages, ultra-high bypass ratio engine, which has larger diameter low pressure turbine, attracts more and more attention because of its huge advantage. This tendency will lead to aggressive (high diffusion) intermediate turbine duct design. Much work has been done to investigate flow mechanisms in this kind of duct as well as its design criterion with numerical and experimental methods. Usually intermediate turbine duct simplified from real engine structure was adopted with upstream and downstream blades. However, cavity purge mass flow exists to disturb the duct flow field in real engine to change its performance. Naturally, the wall vortex pairs would develop in different ways. In addition to that, purge flow rate changes at different engine representative operating conditions. This paper deals with the influence of turbine purge flow on the aerodynamic performance of an aggressive intermediate turbine duct. The objective is to reveal the physical mechanism of purge flow ejected from the wheel-space and its effects on the duct flow field. Ten cases with and without cavity are simulated simultaneously. On one hand, the influence of cavity structure without purge flow on the flow field inside duct could be discussed. On the other hand, the effect of purge flow rate on flow field could be analyzed to investigate the mechanisms at different engine operating conditions. According to this paper, cavity structure is beneficial for pressure loss. And the influence concentrates near hub and duct inlet.
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".