MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788389019 · doi:10.1115/1.4039404

Nonlinear Dynamic Modeling of the Cracked Rotor Ball Bearing System With Emphasis on Damage Detection Capabilities

2018· article· en· W2788389019 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajiv Kumar Vashisht, Qingjin Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of vibration and acoustics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHelicopter rotorBearing (navigation)Nonlinear systemRotordynamicsRotor (electric)EngineeringHarmonicsFinite element methodStatorStructural engineeringControl theory (sociology)Condition monitoringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is confirmed experimentally that in case of a rotor with crack, multiple harmonics are generated when the rotor revolves at a particular frequency. Only few modeling techniques successfully predict this particular behavior of the cracked rotor. It is observed in this research that modeling cracked rotors using conventional finite element methods cannot predict this particular behavior successfully. A nonlinear dynamic model of the flexible rotor with ball bearings is developed using discrete mass spring damper elements combined with an existing model of the crack to truly predict this confirmed experimental behavior. Certain crack detection techniques based on the steady-state response work well on this basic concept of the multiharmonics generation due to nonlinearities caused by cracks in the rotor. The presence of ball bearings, rotor-coupling misalignment, rotor-stator rub, and rotor bow can also cause significant nonlinearities in the overall system. These additional nonlinearities render these crack detection techniques to lose their effectiveness. Our work justifies through simulations that the Jeffcott rotors are the over simplified version of real-life rotor-bearing systems. Hence, these crack detection techniques cannot be efficiently applied for condition monitoring of real-life rotor-bearing systems. The proposed model also helps to understand that the presence of flexible bearing supports affects the dynamics of the system considerably and negatively affects the effectiveness of these crack detection techniques.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of vibration and acousticsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207