Investigation of the conjugate heat transfer and cooling mechanism of film cooling holes with different ellipticities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cooling characteristics and cooling mechanisms of various elliptical film cooling holes were analyzed at blowing ratios of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. Five different elliptic film cooling hole structures were obtained based on the cylindrical hole model by varying the aspect ratio of the film cooling holes. To examine the cooling performance of individual film cooling apertures under both adiabatic and conjugate heat transfer conditions, numerical simulations were carried out using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and conjugate heat transfer (CHT) techniques. The cooling mechanisms were elucidated based on these simulations. The results indicate that elliptical film cooling apertures exhibit the maximum cooling efficiency at a moderate blowing ratio. A decrease in ellipticity leads to a structural alteration in the shear layer vortex within the flow field. Apertures with lower ellipticity induce more robust shear layer vortices, improving the cooling effectiveness. Additionally, among the analyzed elliptical holes, those with an ellipticity of 0.5 exhibited superior comprehensive cooling effectiveness and film coverage efficiency, showing the best film cooling performance.
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".