MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200787236 · doi:10.1115/gt2021-58798

Performance Evaluation of Leading Edge Tubercles Applied to the Blades in a 2-D Compressor Cascade

2021· article· en· W3200787236 on OpenAlexaffabout
Satpreet S. Sidhu, Asad Asghar, W. Allan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas compressorMach numberStall (fluid mechanics)Leading edgeAxial compressorCascadeWind tunnelStatic pressureGeometryMechanicsAerospace engineeringOpticsPhysicsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the present paper, the performance of compressor blades modified with leading edge tubercles was evaluated and compared with that of a baseline profile at a high subsonic Mach number in a 2-D cascade. Specific tubercle geometries were selected based on an extensive literature survey and a Self-Organizing Map analysis. The compressor blade geometry of a popular aero-engine was reverse-engineered using laser-scanning. Baseline and tubercled compressor blades were 3-D printed and tested. Two sinusoidal tubercle shapes based on different amplitudes and wavelengths and one with a power law profile were selected. A 2-D compressor cascade was designed and commissioned to test these blades at high subsonic Mach number in the transonic wind tunnel at Royal Military College of Canada. Surface flow visualizations were performed with oil for observing and locating compressor blade stall for different sets of blades. Flow direction and the total pressure at the cascade exit were measured using a 5-hole, fast-response, traversing probe. Compressor blade performance was measured and compared with various tubercled blades at various angles of incidence, while maintaining periodicity at the inlet and exit planes. Total pressure loss coefficients were calculated for all 4 blades and compared for 6 positive angle of incidence. Power series tubercled profile resulted in slight improvements in the loss coefficient at 0° incidence and none of tubercled geometry compromized performance at the design point. The baseline blade stalled at 8° and tubercles were capable of delaying stall at this condition. Power series profile outperformed the baseline at all angle of incidence (AOI) with significant improvements at 8° AOI. Power series tubercled profiles performed better than other tubercled geometries at almost all AOI except 10° where sinusoidal tubercled profiles performed better. The presence of smaller valley and broader peaks is attributed with the performance improvement, supported by the flow visualization results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207