MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999654575 · doi:10.1115/gt2014-26423

Residual Life Assessment of a Critical Component of a Gas Turbine: Achievements and Challenges

2014· article· en· W1999654575 on OpenAlexaff
W. Bereś, Zhong Zhang, D. Dudzinski, W.R. Chen, Xijia Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidualFinite element methodFracture (geology)Materials scienceGas turbinesComponent (thermodynamics)StriationTurbineFracture mechanicsStructural engineeringNucleationComputer scienceComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineeringAlgorithmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The residual life assessment of a turbine spacer from a gas turbine engine is presented. The spacer has been identified as one of the safety critical components of the engine, therefore the useful life of this component significantly affects economic operation of the fleet. Numerical analyses of fatigue crack propagation at one critical location of the spacer were performed using both three dimensional (3D) finite element based method and the weight function method. These results combined with the material data allowed for basic assessment of the damage tolerance of this component. Experimental validation of the spacer life was performed in a spin rig facility. During this validation, two sets of spacers were tested and the number of cycles to appearance of a detectable crack was recorded. Moreover, a fractographic study was conducted on the fracture surfaces of two spin rig tested spacers using scanning electronic microscopy techniques. It was found that crack nucleation occurred at multiple sites and crack propagation occurred by a mixed mode of striation formation and faceted fracture. Therefore it was concluded that the mixed mode interaction should be considered in predicting the fatigue life of the spacer. Finally, the paper describes the challenges and pitfalls encountered during preparation and execution of the analyses and tests, including availability of engine and operational data and also uncertainties in interpretation of the results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207