MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289544560 · doi:10.1017/aer.2022.41

Sand erosion modeling in generic compressor rig testing

2022· article· en· W4289544560 on OpenAlexaff
Lei‐Yong Jiang, X. Wu, Qi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErosionComputational fluid dynamicsGas compressorEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyStructural engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringMechanicsEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on erosion coupon tests, a sand erosion model for 17-4PH steel was developed. The developed erosion model was validated against the results of compressor erosion tests from a generic rig and from other researchers. A high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the test rig was built, a user-defined function was developed to implement the erosion model into the ANSYS CFD software, and the turbulent, two-phase flow-field in multiple reference frames was solved. The simulation results are consistent with the test results from the compressor rig and with experimental findings from other researchers. Specifically, the sand erosion blunts the leading edge, sharpens the trailing edge and increases pressure-surface roughness. The comparisons between the experimental observations and numerical results as well as a quantitative comparison with three other sand erosion models indicate that the developed sand erosion model is adequate for erosion prediction of engine components made of 17-4PH steel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207