MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044282185 · doi:10.1115/gt2010-22169

Probabilistic Creep Life Prediction of Turbine Discs

2010· article· en· W2044282185 on OpenAlexaff
Ashok K. Koul, Ajay Tiku, Srinivasan Shanks Shankar, Jun Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsLife Prediction Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepProbabilistic logicTurbineProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceMaterials scienceStructural engineeringReliability engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the results of a probabilistic creep life study on F5001P turbine discs and demonstrates the importance of using physics based probabilistic damage modeling techniques to deal with life prediction uncertainty in forged components. In physics based modeling, the influence of individual microstructural or thermal-mechanical loading factors on metallurgical crack initiation can also be studied with relative ease. In a previous study, Life Prediction Technologies Inc.’s (LPTi’s) prognosis tool known as XactLIFE™ was successfully used to conduct deterministic analysis to establish the fracture critical location of F5001P first stage discs under steady state loads. In this paper, the variability in life is further established as a function of prior austenite grain size. The analysis used typical engine operating data from the field in terms of engine speed and average exhaust gas temperature (EGT). The primary objectives of the case study are to show how prognosis can allow a user to assess fleet reliability for engine specific operating conditions. The lower bound deterministic creep life and probabilistic creep life at 0.1% cumulative probability of failure are very close in magnitude.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207