Application of Non-Axisymmetric Endwall Contouring to Conventional and High-Lift Turbine Airfoils
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we report on the application of non-axisymmetric endwall contouring to mitigate the endwall losses of one conventional- and two high-lift low-pressure turbine airfoil designs. The design methodology presented combines a gradient-based optimization algorithm with a three-dimensional CFD flow solver to systematically vary a free-form parameterization of the endwall. The ability of the CFD solver employed in this work to predict endwall loss modifications resulting from non-axisymmetric contouring is demonstrated with previously published data. Based on the validated trend accuracy of the solver for predicting the effects of endwall contouring, the magnitude of predicted viscous losses forms the objective function for the endwall design methodology. This system has subsequently been employed to optimize contours for the conventional-lift Pack B and high-lift Pack D-F and Pack D-A low-pressure turbine airfoil designs. Comparisons between the predicted and measured loss benefits associated with the contouring for Pack D-F design are shown to be in reasonable agreement. Additionally, the predictions and data demonstrate that the Pack D-F endwall contour is effective at reducing losses primarily associated with the passage vortex. However, some deficiencies in predictive capabilities demonstrate here highlight the need for a better understanding of the physics of endwall loss-generation and improved predictive capabilities. More detailed analysis of the contouring results for the Pack B design is presented in a companion paper (Knesevici et al. [1]).
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.
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 it