MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236811513 · doi:10.29007/gz11

Technico-economic modelling of maintenance cost for hydroelectric turbine runners

2018· paratext· en· W4236811513 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thibaud Lamothe, Michel Blain, Martin Gagnon, Jérôme Lonchampt, Antoine Tahan

Bibliographic record

VenueEasyChair preprint · 2018
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersMitacs
KeywordsHydroelectricityReliability (semiconductor)Monte Carlo methodReliability engineeringProbabilistic logicTurbineAsset managementAsset (computer security)Net present valueSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Operations researchEngineeringProduction (economics)BusinessPower (physics)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large utilities need to optimize the investment made to maintain their assets. For a utility like Hydro-Québec (37 GW) an important part of those investments are made to maintain their hydroelectric facilities. To minimize the maintenance cost, technico-economic model enabling the propagation of uncertainty associated with the degradation processes of a given component seems essential. Therefore, for Francis hydroelectric turbine runners, we developed two technico-economic models: one for crack propagation and one for cavitation. Since these are the main degradation mechanisms leading to failure of Francis runners, they enable us to study the effect of maintenance strategies on the maintenance cost of these components. The model has been created using VME, an asset management software developed by EDF R&D (Électricité de France). VME uses Monte-Carlo simulations to generate stochastic failure dates and obtains probabilistic indicators of the net present value of a given management strategy. We will use a study case based on a Hydro-Québec (Québec, Canada) facility to illustrate the importance of the proper assessment of current and expected long-term reliability on maintenance cost. The paper will be structured as follows. First, an overview of the modelling strategy will be presented. Then, we will have a closer look on how VME, the tool used for Monte-Carlo simulations, derive its results. Finally, we will present a study case and discuss the results obtained in terms of the sensitivity to the reliability assessment uncertainties.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEasyChair preprintSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207