Calculation of the velocities induced by the trailing vorticity in the rotor plane of a horizontal-axis turbine or propeller
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifting line (LL) analysis of propellers and horizontal-axis turbines requires the axial and circumferential velocities induced by the vortex system representing the blades and the trailing vorticity. If the blades are straight and radial, the induced velocities along the LLs are due only to the trailing vorticity. Accurate two-term approximations for these velocities have been developed from the exact Kawada–Hardin (KH) equations for the velocity field of a doubly infinite helical vortex of constant pitch and radius, Wood et al. (Ocean Engineering, 2021, 235). This paper describes a straightforward extension of the approximations to give the induced velocities anywhere in the equivalent of the rotor plane for a doubly infinite helix. The third term in the approximation of the KH equations is derived and compared to an alternative third term due to Okulov (Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2004, 521, 319–342). Both three-term approximations produce a small improvement in accuracy over the two-term approximations for a range of operating conditions for turbines and propellers. Okulov’s third term is superior. To determine the induced velocities for a singly infinite trailing vortex behind a rotor, an additional equation is derived from the Biot–Savart law. Numerical examples show that the resulting equations provide accurate estimates for the induced velocities over the rotor plane. The main application of the analysis is to account for blade sweep and coning by including the angle between the vortex origin and the control point at which the velocities are required, often the center of each blade element.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".