Critical Components Life Update for Gas Turbine Engines: Case Study of an International Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes results of the international collaboration that led to revision of the declared lives for critical components of a turbo-prop gas turbine engine. Four nations contributed to the program—Australia, Canada, USA and South Africa under the auspices of a Component Improvement Program led by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). This international collaboration was initiated as a result of the decrease in the declared life for some critical components of this engine by the OEM. The core of the program consisted of a detailed stress analysis performed in South Africa, and spin rig testing of selected life-limited, rotating turbine components—two stages of discs and two stages of spacers—performed in Australia and Canada. The general objectives of the program were to provide more accurate low cycle fatigue crack initiation data and to verify crack growth life analysis techniques using advanced 2D and 3D finite element analyses and spin rig testing for selected components. The crack initiation results are used to improve the life management procedures. Since the OEM does not recommend using life limits that exceed the safe crack initiation life of the rotating turbine components, the crack growth analysis results are used only for risk assessment and risk management by the engine operators. The basis of analytical techniques used for preparing the tests as well as the testing procedures are described. In addition, the development of NDE (Non Destructive Evaluation) methods and the inspections of these components during and after the tests are discussed. The economical benefits of such an international collaboration are demonstrated. The uniqueness of this approach to life revision of critical components of gas turbine engines, particularly for engines that have been in operation for many years, includes close cooperation of an international team of the engine manufacturer, the major engine users and their respective scientific organizations. In addition, a significant amount of operational experience that has been accumulated by the OEM, has allowed for verification of the spin rig test 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".