Number of Blades’ Influence on the Performance of Rotor with Equal Solidity in Open and Shrouded Configurations: Experimental Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the implications of the number of blades on the performance of both open and shrouded rotors. By conducting a thorough experimental analysis at a fixed solidity ratio, this research seeks to enhance our understanding of rotor dynamics and efficiency. Two-, three-, four-, and five-bladed rotors were designed and manufactured to have the same solidity ratio. This leads to smaller chord distribution values for higher blade numbers. The experimental analysis aims to quantify the effects of the number of blades and provides a comparative analysis of performance differences between the two rotor configurations (shrouded and open). For the open rotor, results indicate that increasing the number of blades has a minimal impact on overall performance. This is due to the decrease in the tip loss factor being counterbalanced by a decline in efficiency caused by the two-dimensional airfoil performance, which results from a smaller chord and a lower Reynolds number. In contrast, the shrouded rotor exhibits a noticeable performance decay with an increased blade count. Since tip loss is inherently absent in shrouded designs, the decline is primarily attributed to the two-dimensional airfoil performance. This decay occurs while maintaining a constant solidity ratio, highlighting the significant effect of blade count on shrouded rotor efficiency, thereby contributing to the optimization of rotor design in various engineering applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".