A New Loss Generation Body Force Model for Fan/Compressor Blade Rows: Application to Uniform and Non-Uniform Inflow in Rotor 67
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite advances in computational power, the cost of time-accurate flows in axial compressor and fan stages with spatially non-uniform inflow is still too high for design-stage use in industry. Body force modeling reduces the computation time to practical levels, mainly by reducing the problem to a steady one. These computations are important to determine efficiency penalties associated with non-uniform inflows. Previous studies of body force methods have, in most cases, relied on computations with the presence of the blades to calibrate loss models. In some recent studies, uncalibrated models have been used, but such models can drop off in accuracy at conditions where separation would occur on the blade surfaces. In this paper, a neural-network-based loss model introduced in a recent paper by the authors is implemented for NASA rotor 67 for both uniform and non-uniform inflow conditions. For uniform inflow, the spanwise trend of entropy variation is generally captured with the new body force model. Although there are discrepancies at some span fractions, the present model generally predicts the compressor’s isentropic efficiency to within 3% compared to bladed Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations. For non-uniform inflow, we consider a stagnation pressure profile representative of boundary layer ingestion. The results show that the region of maximum entropy generation is captured by the present model and the prediction of isentropic efficiency penalty due to the non-uniform inflow is only 0.2 points less than that determined from bladed computations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".