MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389540951 · doi:10.17118/11143/20944

On scaling design and dynamic response prediction of rotorsystems

2023· article· en· W4389540951 on OpenAlexaff
Runchao Zhao, Zengtao Chen, Yinghou Jiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMagnetic Bearings and Levitation Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science and Technology Major ProjectNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsScalingComputer scienceRotor (electric)Control theory (sociology)Dynamic scalingControl engineeringEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Rotor-bearing systems are widely used in wind turbines, gas turbines and other rotating machinery. However, due to economic and realizable factors, it is difficult to directly experiment and test the prototype in the design process of the new rotor system. Therefore, it is very important to design a small-size scaled rotor system that can reflect the dynamic characteristics of the prototype. In this study, a prototype model of the rotor system was established. Based on the similarity theory, six scaled rotor models with different sizes and materials were designed to predict the critical speeds of the prototype rotor system. The results show that when the speed scaling factor is changed, the error of critical speed increases with the decrease of the length scaling factor. The deviation of the first two critical speeds predicted by the model M3, which adjusted the length and speed scaling factor simultaneously, are -0.08% and -0.01%, respectively, this model can accurately predict the first two critical speeds of the prototype rotor system. After the equivalent modeling of rotor system with complex structure, the results presented in this paper can be further applied to the scaling design and fault diagnosis of the full-size rotating machinery.

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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMagnetic Bearings and Levitation DynamicsFrench-language works237,207