MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409359852 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2024-0004

An efficient optimization design method for centrifugal compressor blades

2025· article· en· W4409359852 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jisheng Liu, Manxian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Lubrication Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugal compressorGas compressorMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the time-consuming problem of centrifugal impeller optimization design, an efficient optimization design method is proposed. A bionic evolutionary algorithm based on a multi-surrogate model is established, model management strategies and geometric properties of the sigmoid function are investigated, and the penalty mechanism of infeasible solutions is revealed, which finally increases the speed of iterations and improves the optimum solution of constraint optimization problem for centrifugal compressor blades. Combining multi-surrogate model evolutionary algorithm, surface parameterization method, and CFD for aerodynamic optimization of blade shape, the optimization results shows that the isentropic efficiency increased by 1.9%, the mass flow rate increased by 4.61%, the total pressure ratio increased by 0.81%, and the computational time was reduced by 54.9%. The sigmoid-based multi-surrogate model evolution algorithm improves the isentropic efficiency by 1.19% and the total pressure ratio by 0.63% compared with the unconstrained multi-surrogate model evolution algorithm, while the sigmoid-based multi-surrogate model evolution algorithm improves the isentropic efficiency by 1.16% and the total pressure ratio by 0.55% compared with the feasible point dominance constrained multi-surrogate model evolution algorithm, verifying the efficiency of the sigmoid-based multi-surrogate model evolution algorithm.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicTribology and Lubrication EngineeringFrench-language works237,207