Aerodynamic Investigation of a Linear Compressor Cascade with Tip Gap Using Large-Eddy Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow in a linear compressor cascade with tip gap is simulated using a wall-resolved compressible Large-Eddy Simulation. The cascade is based on the Virginia Tech Low Speed Cascade Wind Tunnel. The Reynolds number based on the chord is 3.88 10 5 and the Mach number is 0.07. The gap considered in this study is 4.0 mm (2.9% of axial chord). An aerodynamic analysis of the tip-leakage flow allow us identifying the main mechanisms responsible for the development and the convection of the tip-leakage vortex downstream of the cascade. A region of high turbulence and vorticity levels is located along an ellipse that borders the top of the tip-leakage vortex. The influence of the airfoil suction side boundary layer development on the tip-leakage vortex is highlighted by tripping the flow. A tripped boundary layer induces a stronger and larger tip-leakage vortex that tends to move further away from the airfoil suction side and from the endwall compared with an untripped flow. The boundary layer turbulent state influences the tip-leakage flow development.
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".