MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066268229 · doi:10.1115/gt2006-91080

Flame-Out Detection for Gas Turbine Engines Based Upon Thermocouple Signal Analysis

2006· article· en· W2066268229 on OpenAlexaff
David Gardiner, Greg Pucher, W. Allan, Marc LaViolette

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Aircraft Engine; Ceramics; Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Controls, Diagnostics and Instrumentation; Environmental and Regulatory Affairs · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermocoupleTemperature measurementMaterials scienceCombustionDiffusion flameTurbineAcousticsChemistryCombustorMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an experimental study to examine the potential of using Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) thermocouples for prompt flame-out detection in gas turbine engines. The approach taken involved accelerating the response of a shielded, slow response thermocouple using electronic processing of the signal. Thus, the abrupt drop in temperature characteristic of a flame-out could be detected within a much shorter time period than would be possible through a conventional thermocouple temperature measurement method. This was intended to provide a robust alternative to existing optical flame-out sensors which have fast response but can be susceptible to false flame-out indications due to window sooting. A production EGT thermocouple with online electronic processing was compared with a production optical flame sensor from a GE F-404 and a laboratory photodiode sensing system. The devices were tested in a full scale GE J-85 combustion chamber sector rig with optical access. The results showed that the thermocouple flame sensor had a response time to flame-outs of less than 100 ms. This was much faster than a conventional thermocouple, but still an order of magnitude longer than the optical flame sensor. However, whereas the optical flame sensor could yield ambiguous results about the presence of flame under some conditions, the thermocouple flame sensor provided a clear indication of flame-out events for all the conditions that were tested.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.174
Teacher spread0.170 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Aircraft Engine; Ceramics; Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Controls, Diagnostics and Instrumentation; Environmental and Regulatory AffairsSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207