MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040520307 · doi:10.1115/gt2010-23810

CMC Combustor Liner Demonstration in a Small Helicopter Engine

2010· article· en· W2040520307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Bhatia, David Jarmon, Jun Shi, Scott Kearney, Aleksandar Kojović, John Hu, Alexander Prociw

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Aircraft Engine; Ceramics; Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Education; Electric Power; Manufacturing Materials and Metallurgy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustorInjectorMaterials scienceFabricationFuel injectionCombustionAutomotive engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UTRC and P&W Canada partnered to demonstrate an advanced combustor configuration that was enabled by high temperature CMC materials, in a PW200 series combustor. The PW200 series have reverse-flow combustors and the program presented significant challenges in design and fabrication. The advanced CMC configuration was successfully tested in a PW206 combustor rig. At full power, a 40–50% reduction in pattern factor relative to the bill-of-material metal combustor was measured. The combustor exit plane temperatures were generally better mixed due to the combined effects of (1) eliminating the cold film layers near the combustor walls and (2) the increase in fuel injector count enabled by the increase in dilution air. The CMC combustor was also successfully tested in an engine configuration. Post test gas path surfaces of the EBC coated CMC combustor components were in good condition.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Aircraft Engine; Ceramics; Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Education; Electric Power; Manufacturing Materials and MetallurgySame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207