MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1415691218 · doi:10.1115/gt2015-43026

Effects of the Intake Air Humidity on the Gas Turbine Performance Monitoring

2015· article· en· W1415691218 on OpenAlexaff
Houman Hanachi, Jie Liu, Avisekh Banerjee, Ying Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRefrigeration and Air Conditioning Technologies
Canadian institutionsLife Prediction Technologies (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumidityEnvironmental scienceMoistureInletEvaporative coolerRelative humidityMeteorologyEngineeringMechanical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas turbine engines (GTEs) are extensively used in locations with high humidity such as offshore platforms. However, in the dry regions, GTEs are often equipped with water spray inlet coolers for warm seasons. In both cases, the moisture affects the thermodynamic properties of the intake air and drifts the performance off the dry condition, especially during the warm days, when the moisture content of the air is high and the inlet air cooler is operational. In this paper, a detailed steady state model is proposed to simulate the GTE performance with the humid air, and it is linked with a thermodynamic model to quantify the total moisture content of the air after the cooler. The developed framework is used to analyze the operating data of a GTE during the three years of service. The results are then utilized for model-based performance monitoring of the GTE, using a recently introduced performance indicator. A comparative analysis is performed between the results received from the primary model overlooking the humidity effects, and the developed enhanced performance model with humidity effects. A better accuracy for the performance indicator was observed where the enhanced model is employed, suggesting the importance of considering the intake air humidity for model-based performance monitoring.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRefrigeration and Air Conditioning TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207