A Comparison of Three Simulation Techniques for Modeling the Fan Blade–Composite Abradable Rub Strip Interaction in Turbofan Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turbofan engine models for foreign object impact simulations must include a representation of fan blade interactions with surrounding components of the engine, including rubbing against the abradable lining. In this study, three numerical techniques, namely, the finite element method (FEM), smoothed particles hydrodynamics (SPH), and the adaptive (hybrid) FEM/SPH approach (ADT), were evaluated for their applicability to modeling of the blade–abradable rub strip (ARS) interaction. Models developed using these methods in the commercial code LS-DYNA were compared in terms of their computational cost, robustness, sensitivity to mesh density, and certain physical and non-physical parameters. As a result, the applicability of the models to represent the blade-ARS interaction was ranked as follows (1—most applicable, 3—least applicable): 1—SPH, 2—FEM, and 3—ADT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".