Measurements of Endwall Flows in Transonic Linear Turbine Cascades: Part I—Low Flow Turning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current two part paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of the endwall flows in four transonic linear turbine cascades with two levels of flow turning: 90° and 112° of total flow turning, respectively. For each case, two levels of aerodynamic loading were examined. Part I of the paper examines the low-turning case. A seven-hole pressure probe was used to document the flow fields downstream of the cascades. The experimental results include blade surface pressure distributions, total pressure losses, secondary kinetic energy and streamwise vorticity distributions. The turbine cascades considered in Part I are referred to as SL3F and SL4F (exit Mach number ≈ 0.8). The airfoils have the same inlet and outlet design flow angles, but different aerodynamic loading levels: SL4F has a Zweifel coefficient that is 30% higher than that for SL3F. The midspan flow measurements indicate that SL4F produces higher profile losses than SL3F. SL4F also exhibits stronger secondary flow with larger exit flow-angle variations. Consequently, SL4F produces higher secondary losses. Growth of secondary losses has been documented by collecting additional measurements downstream of the SL3F cascade. Vortex dissipation and endwall boundary layer growth result in additional secondary losses. The loss coefficients and the secondary flow parameters are integrated over the entire measurement plane to present their individual contributions to total entropy generation. In this context, the profile and secondary loss results from two different loss-breakdown schemes are presented and compared. The treatment of near-endwall losses in the absence of detailed pressure probe results is also discussed here.
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".