Acoustical case studies of large high power hydroelectric generators: Correlation between acoustic and vibration measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In power plants, acoustical signals are generally easier to measure than vibration signals at specific location because the security procedures are restricting the installation of accelerometers during the operation of the hydroelectric group. Specific acoustical measurements have been developed at the Hydro-Québec research center to set some maintenance actions or to gain more information about the operating conditions of the hydroelectric groups. These include acoustical airborne and structure-borne pressure measurements with conventional microphones at different locations around and inside the generator (including a microphone on the rotor) to correlate with vibration signals. Also, several vibration measurements were performed to allow ODS “Operating Deflection shape” of the generator displacement and correlation studies with the acoustic signals. Furthermore, some acoustical intensity measurements for mapping the generator floor permit the illustration of the emission pattern of the generator. All these acoustical measurements are interpreted in terms of operating conditions and specific frequencies. These acoustical and vibration measurements that were performed on several hydroelectric groups will be presented. The main goal of these measurements is to make multiphysics links between the acoustic, vibration and electromagnetic signals to perform non invasive maintenance and increase knowledge of the hydroelectric groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".