MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093855923 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2020-0102

A blade tip-timing method without once-per-revolution sensor for blade vibration measurement in gas turbine engines

2020· article· en· W3093855923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chengwei Fan, WU Ya, Pete Russhard, Can Ruan, Anjenq Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBladed Disk Vibration Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlade (archaeology)VibrationTurbine bladeRotor (electric)AcousticsApproximation errorGas turbinesStructural engineeringControl theory (sociology)TurbineComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringAlgorithmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blade vibration measurement is crucial for gas turbine engines to ensure safe operations. One of the techniques is blade tip-timing (BTT), which is under the assumption that rotor speed is constant and depends on a once-per-revolution (OPR) timing reference to calculate the blade tip displacement and to identify the blade sequence. However, this assumption is incorrect for transient conditions, and the installation of an OPR sensor sometimes is not allowable and reliable. These reasons greatly limit the application of the BTT technique. This paper proposes a self-correcting (SC)-BTT method to realize the blade vibration measurement under different operating conditions without the use of an OPR sensor. The proposed method is based on polynomial fitting, and a reference probe is used to correct high-order fitting coefficients. Numerical results show that the SC-BTT method can greatly reduce the fitting error caused by blade pitch and vibrational parameters. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method is capable of removing the limitation of the lack of an OPR sensor and overcoming the drawbacks of the OPR system, such as the failure of the OPR sensor or low-speed resolution. For three investigated cases, the relative errors of derived rotor speed are below 0.12%. The relative error of blade peak-to-peak amplitude (PPA) and initial phase angle are around 3% at the resonance region with engine order (EO) 2.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicBladed Disk Vibration DynamicsFrench-language works237,207