MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970222692 · doi:10.1115/2001-gt-0548

Development of Fault Diagnosis and Failure Prediction Techniques for Small Gas Turbine Engines

2001· article· en· W1970222692 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig R. Davison, A. M. Birk

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Aircraft Engine; Marine; Turbomachinery; Microturbines and Small Turbomachinery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnical Engine Diagnostics and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGas turbinesFault (geology)TurbineOperating pointCombined cycleAutomotive engineeringReliability engineeringPower (physics)Gas engineEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computer model of a gas turbine auxiliary power unit was produced to develop techniques for fault diagnosis and prediction of remaining life in small gas turbine engines. Due to the relatively low capital cost of small engines it is important that the techniques have both low capital and operating costs. Failing engine components were identified with fault maps, and an algorithm was developed for predicting the time to failure, based on the engine’s past operation. Simulating daily engine operation over a maintenance cycle tested the techniques for identification and prediction. The simulation included daily variations in ambient conditions, operating time, load, engine speed and operating environment, to determine the amount of degradation per day. The algorithm successfully adapted to the daily changes and corrected the operating point back to standard conditions to predict the time to failure.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Aircraft Engine; Marine; Turbomachinery; Microturbines and Small TurbomachinerySame topicTechnical Engine Diagnostics and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207