A shock loss reduction method for the low-pressure rotor of a vaneless counter-rotating turbine using circulation redistribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes the circulation redistribution for the low-pressure (LP) rotor of a highly-loaded vaneless counter-rotating turbine (VCRT) to reduce the LP shock losses. The method is to decrease the mid-span circulation and increase the tip circulation at the exit of the LP rotor with unchanged high-pressure (HP) and LP power output. The LP Blade-to-Blade flow field can be considered as a Laval nozzle model. And the high static pressure drop from the throat to the exit results in strong trailing edge (TE) shocks near the LP mid-span. Also, the suction side TE shock (ST) and the reflected shock of the pressure side TE shock (RPT) near the LP mid-span merge into a relatively strong shock very close to the TE. These two factors result in high shock losses. To reduce the shock losses under the design condition, decreasing the stagger angle and the blade exit angle near the LP mid-span are adopted to reduce the LP mid-span exit circulation. This changes the throat area to exit area ratio near the LP mid-span, prompting the actual static pressure drop from the throat to the exit to be reduced and closer to the theoretical value, so that the TE shock strength is reduced. Besides, the intersection of the RPT and the ST is delayed owing to the improved flow angle distributions near the TE, further contributing to the LP mid-span shock loss reduction. Since the LP power output is decreased and the LP tip-leakage flow (TLF) losses are far lower than the HP TLF losses, increasing the stagger angle and the blade exit angle in LP tip regions are employed to increase the LP exit circulation and decrease the HP exit circulation in tip regions. Then the HP and LP efficiency are both raised with unchanged HP and LP power output after optimizing the blade profiles near the mid-span and in tip regions of the LP rotor. The remarkable thing is that the TE shock strength in LP tip and root regions are both reduced after improved because of the decreased ratio of the exit area to the throat area. And the intersection of the RPT and the ST in LP tip and root regions are also both delayed, leading to reduced shock losses. The reduced TE shock losses along the whole LP span appreciably raise the LP and VCRT efficiency by 0.96% and 0.32% respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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".