MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088373757 · doi:10.1115/1.4023668

A Methodology for Protective Vibration Monitoring of Hydropower Units Based on the Mechanical Properties

2013· article· en· W2088373757 on OpenAlex
Mattias Nässelqvist, Rolf Gustavsson, Jan-Olov Aidanpää

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUppsala UniversitetEnergimyndighetenKungliga Tekniska HögskolanChalmers Tekniska HögskolaCentre for Energy Advancement through Technological Innovation
KeywordsHydropowerVibrationStandardizationEngineeringSpecific speedStructural engineeringDisplacement (psychology)Hydraulic machineryMechanical engineeringAccelerationAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceImpellerElectrical engineeringAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to monitor the radial loads in hydropower units in order to protect the machine from harmful radial loads. Existing recommendations in the standards regarding the radial movements of the shaft and bearing housing in hydropower units, ISO-7919-5 (International Organization for Standardization, 2005, "ISO 7919-5: Mechanical Vibration-Evaluation of Machine Vibration by Measurements on Rotating Shafts-Part 5: Machine Sets in Hydraulic Power Generating and Pumping Plants," Geneva, Switzerland) and ISO-10816-5 (International Organization for Standardization, 2000, "ISO 10816-5: Mechanical Vibration-Evaluation of Machine Vibration by Measurements on Non-Rotating Parts-Part 5: Machine Sets in Hydraulic Power Generating and Pumping Plants," Geneva, Switzerland), have alarm levels based on statistical data and do not consider the mechanical properties of the machine. The synchronous speed of the unit determines the maximum recommended shaft displacement and housing acceleration, according to these standards. This paper presents a methodology for the alarm and trip levels based on the design criteria of the hydropower unit and the measured radial loads in the machine during operation. When a hydropower unit is designed, one of its design criteria is to withstand certain loads spectra without the occurrence of fatigue in the mechanical components. These calculated limits for fatigue are used to set limits for the maximum radial loads allowed in the machine before it shuts down in order to protect itself from damage due to high radial loads. Radial loads in hydropower units are caused by unbalance, shape deviations, dynamic flow properties in the turbine, etc. Standards exist for balancing and manufacturers (and power plant owners) have recommendations for maximum allowed shape deviations in generators. These standards and recommendations determine which loads, at a maximum, should be allowed before an alarm is sent that the machine needs maintenance. The radial bearing load can be determined using load cells, bearing properties multiplied by shaft displacement, or bearing bracket stiffness multiplied by housing compression or movement. Different load measurement methods should be used depending on the design of the machine and accuracy demands in the load measurement. The methodology presented in the paper is applied to a 40 MW hydropower unit; suggestions are presented for the alarm and trip levels for the machine based on the mechanical properties and radial loads.

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.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.160 · 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