Numerical Investigation of the Influence of Real World Blade Profile Variations on the Aerodynamic Performance of Transonic Nozzle Guide Vanes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the issue of aerodynamic consequences of small variations in airfoil profile. A numerical comparison of flow field and cascade pressure losses for two representative repaired profiles and a reference new vane were made. Coordinates for the three airfoil profiles were obtained from the nozzle guide vanes of refurbished turboshaft engines using 3D optical scanning and digital modeling. The repaired profiles showed differences in geometry in comparison with the new vane, particularly near the leading and trailing edges. A numerical simulation was conducted using a commercial CFD code which uses the finite element approach for solving the governing equations. The computational predictions of the aerodynamic performance were validated with experimental results obtained from a transonic cascade consisting of blades with the same airfoil profiles. A CFD analysis was performed for the cascade at subsonic inlet and transonic exit conditions. Boundary layer growth, wake formation, and shock boundary layer interactions were observed in the two-dimensional computations. The flow field showed the presence of shock waves downstream of the passage throat and near the trailing edges of the blades. A conspicuous change in flow pattern due to subtle variation in airfoil profile was observed. The calculated flow field was compared with the flow pattern visualized in the experimental test rig using the Schlieren method. The total pressure calculation for the cascade exit showed an increase in pressure loss for one of the off-design profiles. The pressure loss calculations were also compared with the multi-hole total pressure probe measurement in the transonic cascade rig.
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".