MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404191623 · doi:10.1017/aer.2024.108

Isolating influences of varying pitch from the effects of non-zero compound angles on effusion cooling

2024· article· en· W4404191623 on OpenAlexaff
Yeongmin Pyo, Jongsang Son, P. Richer, Bertrand Jodoin, Mohsen Broumand, Sean Yun, Zekai Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdiabatic processMaterials sciencePitch angleEffusionCombustorMechanicsAngle of attackFlow (mathematics)ChemistryPhysicsThermodynamicsCombustionAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Effusion cooling is the state-of-the-art cooling technology for gas turbine hot-gas path components. Typically, effusion cooling holes across the entire combustor liner are aligned with the combustor axis, rendering a nominal zero compound angle between highly directional miniature effusion cooling jets and the main flow direction. The pitch of effusion cooling holes is optimised accordingly. However, the swirling main flow results in a non-zero compound angle and an effectively different pitch from the design. The directional effect of effusion cooling as a result of swirling main flow on the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness (AFE) is a combined effect of a non-zero compound angle and a varied pitch. The current experimental study aims to investigate the isolated effects of compound angle on AFE by excluding the influences of varying pitch. With an improved understanding of the sole effects of non-zero compound angles on AFE, the roles that a varied pitch plays in modifying AFE are further discussed to guide future effusion cooling designs under swirling main flow conditions. Binary pressure sensitive paint (PSP) was used to determine AFE experimentally.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207