Impact of Aerodynamic Asymmetry on the Embedded Rotor Forcing and Mistuned Blade Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper continues previous research by the current authors in a series of papers describing the impact of multi-row interaction on the forced response behavior of embedded compressor rotors. Specifically, this work dives into an aspect of the embedded rotor forcing that has been sparsely addressed in literature — the impact of an asymmetry in the upstream stator on the forcing function and blade vibration. Although the concept of introducing an asymmetry was introduced nearly 50 years ago, no papers in literature talk about the impact of multi-row interaction with an upstream asymmetric stator in place. All of the current authors’ previous work has discussed the impact of symmetric stators exciting a rotor upstream and downstream. This impact has been quantified at multiple torsional mode crossing some of which result in one-half of the asymmetric stator exciting the rotor and a crossing which results in the downstream stator exciting the rotor. Due to the inability of model reduction methods to model this phenomenon, full wheel computational domains were utilized for all simulations. A commercial code CFX was used for all simulations. In all of the multi-row cases investigated, only a single row excites the rotor. The additional downstream row serves as a reflecting wall that reflects physical waves, which leads to interference. The second section of this paper describes the details of the in-house mistuning code utilized to predict the blade responses of the individual rotor blades in the system. One of the inputs to this code is the modal force obtained using unsteady CFD in the paper’s first section. The in-house code is based on the FMM, which couples both aero and structural dynamics to predict the blade responses. The key conclusions from this study were: 1) An asymmetry in the upstream stator results in a significant reduction in the forcing function at the crossing frequency. However, the magnitude of forcing could remain significant with a shift to a ‘sideband’ frequency. 2) Introducing an asymmetry is beneficial only when the asymmetric stator excites the rotor and not when any of the other rows excites the rotor. 3) The impact of physical wave reflections was constructive at all torsional mode crossings in line with the earlier conclusions. 4) The mistuned response was well predicted by the FMM at all crossings despite the presence of significant blade disk interaction at these crossings.
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".