Effects of Area Ratio and Mean Rise Angle on the Aerodynamics of Interturbine Ducts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work, a continuation of a series of investigations on the aerodynamics of aggressive interturbine ducts (ITD), is aimed at providing detailed understanding of the flow physics and loss mechanisms in four different ITD geometries. A systematic experimental and computational study was carried out by varying duct outlet-to-inlet area ratios (ARs) and mean rise angles while keeping the duct length-to-inlet height ratio, Reynolds number, and inlet swirl constant in all four geometries. The flow structures within the ITDs were found to be dominated by the boundary layer separation and counter-rotating vortices in both the casing and hub regions. The duct mean rise angle determined the severity of adverse pressure gradient in the casing's first bend, whereas the duct AR mainly governed the second bend's static pressure rise. The combination of upstream wake flow and the first bend's adverse pressure gradient caused the boundary layer to separate and intensify the strength of counter-rotating vortices. At high mean rise angle, the separation became stronger at the casing's first bend and moved farther upstream. At high ARs, a two-dimensional separation appeared on the casing and resulted in increased loss. Pressure loss penalties increased significantly with increasing duct mean rise angle and AR.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".