MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1427644118 · doi:10.1115/gt2015-44101

Health Monitoring and Degradation Prognostics in Gas Turbine Engines Using Dynamic Neural Networks

2015· article· en· W1427644118 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrognosticsNonlinear autoregressive exogenous modelAkaike information criterionArtificial neural networkComputer scienceRecurrent neural networkMetric (unit)Degradation (telecommunications)Gas turbinesCondition monitoringTurbineNetwork architectureArtificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper two artificially intelligent methodologies are proposed and developed for degradation prognosis and health monitoring of gas turbine engines. Our objective is to predict the degradation trends by studying their effects on the engine measurable parameters, such as the temperature, at critical points of the gas turbine engine. The first prognostic scheme is based on a recurrent neural network (RNN) architecture. This architecture enables ONE to learn the engine degradations from the available measurable data. The second prognostic scheme is based on a nonlinear auto-regressive with exogenous input (NARX) neural network architecture. It is shown that this network can be trained with fewer data points and the prediction errors are lower as compared to the RNN architecture. To manage prognostic and prediction uncertainties upper and lower threshold bounds are defined and obtained. Various scenarios and case studies are presented to illustrate and demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed neural network-based prognostic approaches. To evaluate and compare the prediction results between our two proposed neural network schemes, a metric known as the normalized Akaike information criterion (NAIC) is utilized. A smaller NAIC shows a better, a more accurate and a more effective prediction outcome. The NAIC values are obtained for each case and the networks are compared relatively with one another.

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.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Diagnostics and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207