MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111737389 · doi:10.1115/power2007-22064

Importance of Physics-Based Prognosis for Improving Turbine Reliability: RRA 501KB Gas Turbine Blade Case Study

2007· article· en· W2111737389 on OpenAlexaff
Ashok K. Koul, Saurabh Bhanot, Ajay Tiku, Brent Junkin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsLife Prediction Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilReliability (semiconductor)TurbineEngineeringTurbine bladeLife extensionIndustrial gasMarine engineeringService lifeBenchmark (surveying)Mechanical engineeringReliability engineeringPower (physics)Structural engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prognosis and health monitoring (PHM) technology needs to be developed to meet the challenges posed by aging gas and steam turbines in power plants, transportation systems, gas pipelines, and other industries. It is necessary to use physics based residual life prediction and life extension techniques to take into account the state of damage due to prior service. This paper focuses on the requirements of the technology and the state of the development to date. In this study, Life Prediction Technologies Inc.’s (LPTi’s) prognosis tool known as XactLIFE™ was successfully used to establish the fracture critical location of RRA 501KB first stage gas turbine blades under steady state loads and to compute the average life to creep crack initiation in the blade airfoils. The analysis used typical engine operating data from the field in terms of engine speed and average turbine inlet temperature (TIT). The blade is known to suffer airfoil untwist and lengthening during service and this is obviously followed by stress rupture failure. The primary objectives of the case study are to show how prognosis can allow a user to predict fracture critical locations to avoid failures.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207