Vibration response of coupled rotor systems with crack and misalignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier research on the vibration signatures of a crack or misalignment fault have typically been attempted considering one fault at a time. The condition of simultaneous existence of crack and misalignment (in addition to unbalance) was ignored. However, prolonged existence of misalignment preload could develop a fatigue crack in the rotor shaft. The present study aims to investigate the steady-sate vibration response of misaligned coupled rotors with a crack on one of the rotor shafts. This is perhaps the first study where unbalance, crack, and misalignment faults are considered simultaneously. Along with the axial and torsional vibration features, a detailed full spectrum analysis is carried out to reveal the fault-specific whirl signatures. Two new whirl parameters δ 1 and δ 2 were introduced based on differences in forward and backward whirling 1X and 2X spectral components. The influence of misalignment level and type, crack size, and crack location on these parameters is investigated for examining the effect of growth of one fault on the whirl nature of the vibration motion of the rotors with coexisting faults (i.e. unbalance, crack, and misalignment). The effects of a fault growth on the whirl parameters are found to be typical of a fault for crack and parallel misalignment faults. However, for the angularly misaligned rotors, the increase in misalignment level results in decrease/no change in the parameter δ 2 in the presence/absence of a crack. This non-linear trend of the δ 2 parameter cannot be related to any single fault, but it is typical of the coexisting faults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".