Time-Transformation Simulation of a 1.5 Stage Transonic Compressor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-accurate transient blade row (TBR) simulation approaches are required when there is a close flow coupling between the blade rows, and for fundamentally transient flow phenomena such as aeromechanical analysis. Transient blade row simulations can be computationally impractical when all of the blade passages must be modeled to account for the unequal pitch between the blade rows. In order to reduce the computational cost, time-accurate pitch-change methods are utilized so that only a sector of the turbomachine is modeled. The extension of the time-transformation (TT) pitch-change method to multistage machines has recently shown good promise in predicting both aerodynamic performance and resolving dominant blade passing frequencies for a subsonic compressor, while keeping the computational cost affordable. In this work, a modified 1.5 stage Purdue transonic compressor is examined. The goal is to assess the ability of the multistage time-transformation method to accurately predict the aerodynamic performance and transient flow details in the presence of transonic blade row interactions. The results from the multistage time-transformation simulation were compared with a transient full-wheel simulation. The aerodynamic performance and detailed flow features from the time-transformation solution closely matched the full-wheel simulation at fractional of the computation cost.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".