MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021545532 · doi:10.1115/gt2016-58043

Automated Thermal and Stress Preliminary Analyses Applied to a Turbine Rotor

2016· article· en· W3021545532 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Moret, Alexandre Delecourt, Hany Moustapha, François Garnier, Acher-Igal Abenhaim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)CalculatorComputer scienceProcess (computing)TurbineStatorTip clearanceDesign processControl engineeringEngineeringSimulationMechanical engineeringWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) techniques at the preliminary design phase (PMDO) of a gas turbine engine allows investing more effort at the pre-detailed phase in order to prevent the selection of an unsatisfactory concept early in the design process. Considering the impact of the turbine tip clearance on an engine’s efficiency, an accurate tool to predict the tip gap is a mandatory step towards the implementation of a full PMDO system for the turbine design. Tip clearance calculation is a good candidate for PMDO technique implementation considering that it implies various analyses conducted on both the rotor and stator. As a first step to the development of such tip clearance calculator satisfying PMDO principles, the present work explores the automation feasibility of the whole analysis phase of a turbine rotor preliminary design process and the potential increase in the accuracy of results and time gains. The proposed conceptual system integrates a thermal boundary conditions automated calculator and interacts with a simplified air system generator and with several conception tools based on parameterized CAD models. Great improvements were found when comparing this work’s analysis results with regular pre-detailed level tools, as they revealed to be close to the one generated by the detailed design tools used as target. Moreover, this design process revealed to be faster than a common preliminary design phase while leading to a reduction of time spent at the detailed design phase. By requiring fewer user inputs, this system decreases the risk of human errors while entirely leaving the important decisions to the designer.

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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207