MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401941552 · doi:10.1115/gt2024-127818

Generic Framework for an Accurate, and Efficient Flutter Analysis

2024· article· en· W4401941552 on OpenAlexaff
Laith Zori, Purvic Patel, Sunil Patil, Stephen Orlando, Rubens Campregher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering Techniques
Canadian institutionsAnsys (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterComputer scienceEngineeringAerodynamicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate and efficient prediction of blade aerodynamic damping is critical for the design and durability of turbomachines such as gas and steam turbines. Several empirical and linearized methods have been developed and used with varied degrees of success over the past decade, especially for bladed components. This paper presents a generic framework to carry out flutter analysis which is equally applicable for bladed turbomachinery components as well as other complex components in the engines such as seals, and valves. A streamlined workflow to carry modal analysis and then perform efficient CFD analysis using one or multiple modes to obtain accurate aerodamping is outlined. A recent implementation of phase-lag approach with traveling wave method in Ansys Fluent is described. This approach enables calculation of flutter for any nodal diameter with just a single sector of the turbomachinery. Furthermore, the implementation of Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient method for a very fast turnaround time to get aerodamping for a range of nodal diameters is discussed. The framework presented is validated and presented for two cases. The first testcase is Rotor 1 from the 4.5 stage high-speed Hannover compressor, which represents standard bladed turbomachinery. A range of nodal diameters are investigated using both the travelling wave method and influence coefficient method. The accuracy of phase lag approach is compared with the reference full-wheel solution. The speedup provided by the phase lag approach and influence coefficient method is discussed in detail. The second testcase is a generic gas turbine seal representing a complex feature in modern turbomachinery. It is shown that the framework presented and validated for bladed geometry can be used without any further modifications for such a complex case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207