MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888294708 · doi:10.1115/1.4041168

Predictive Compressor Wash Optimization for Economic Operation of Gas Turbine

2018· article· en· W2888294708 on OpenAlexaff
Houman Hanachi, Jie Liu, Ping Ding, Il Yong Kim, Chris K. Mechefske

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas compressorFoulingGas turbinesTurbineEngineeringProcess engineeringAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas turbine engines (GTEs) are widely used for power generation, ranging from stationary power plants to airplane propulsion systems. Compressor fouling is the dominant degradation mode in gas turbines that leads to economic losses due to power deficit and extra fuel consumption. Washing of the compressor removes the fouling matter and retrieves the performance, while causing a variety of costs including loss of production during service time. In this paper, the effect of fouling and washing on the revenue of the power plant is studied, and a general solution for the optimum time between washes of the compressor under variable fouling rates and demand power is presented and analyzed. The framework calculates the savings achievable with optimization of time between washes during a service period. The methodology is utilized to optimize total costs of fouling and washing and analyze the effects and sensitivities to different technical and economic factors. As a case study, it is applied to a sample set of cumulative gas turbine operating data for a time-between-overhauls and the potential saving has been estimated. The results show considerable saving potential through optimization of time between washes.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207