Comparison of flow and loss aspects in the rotors of a counter-rotating turbine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A counter-rotating turbine (CRT) is considered as an alternative way of obtaining more work without the use of another guide vane in a multi-stage turbine. In such a scenario, the present study discusses the flow transmission that takes place in rotors, which are rotating in the reverse direction to each other. The CRT stage with nozzles and rotors is modeled using ICEMCFD 14.5. Total pressure is specified at the inlet of the turbine stage, and flow rate is specified at the second rotor outlet. Contours of total pressure and turbulence kinetic energy provide the flow pattern in terms of steadiness, wake formation, incidence, flow circulation, and flow turbulence. Velocity vectors and streamlines offer clarity about flow separation, vortex formation, and wake detection. The deviation of flow characteristics from inlet to outlet of the CRT stage is also presented. For further understanding of the flow, transverse planes at different locations of the rotors are taken. Entropy and secondary velocity vectors are used to identify the loss aspect at each section of the rotors. From the blade-to-blade contours, the effect of the absence of a second guide vane is clear. Clearly, flow through rotor 1 is advantageous, and flow through rotor 2 is chaotic.
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".