Wall-Resolved LES of a Linear Compressor Cascade with Moving Endwall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wall-resolved compressible Large-Eddy Simulation has been performed on a linear compressor cascade with tip-gap with a moving end-wall and is compared to a stationary endwall configuration in order to study its effects on the aerodynamics and the noise generated by the tip-clearance flow. A new boundary condition has been implemented in the compressible Large Eddy Simulation code AVBP, and validated through the classic lid-driven cavity benchmark in order to obtain an adiabatic and viscous moving wall as boundary condition. The aerodynamic analysis has been coupled with the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings acoustic analogy to compute the far-field noise and investigate the main noise sources related to the tip-clearance flow. This study provides the first wall-resolved compressible LES on a linear compressor cascade with a moving end-wall in order to investigate the noise related to the tip-leakage flow. Overall similar noise sources are found between the stationary and moving end-wall cases. Only the dipolar sound directivity is slightly shifted downstream with less marked lobes at high frequencies. Moreover, the noise source caused by the tip separation vortex at 6 kHz is slighty moved upward at 50% chord instead of 75% chord in the stationary end-wall case.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".