MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Stress Prediction during Load Rejections in Hydraulic Turbines

2025· article· en· W4409234083 on OpenAlexaff
S Afara, Christine Monette, B Nennemann

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic turbinesStress (linguistics)Dynamic stressDynamic load testingEnvironmental scienceControl theory (sociology)Structural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringDynamic loadingTurbineMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Load rejections occur when a hydraulic turbine, producing power, is disconnected from the electric grid. The sudden loss of load will trigger the emergency guide vane closing sequence, and the turbine will accelerate to a maximum speed before decelerating. During this event, the runner can experience large dynamic stresses, which can significantly decrease its fatigue life if load rejections occur frequently. So far in the reported literature the approach of simulating a load rejection is to perform a transient analysis, which includes the guide vane closing sequence. This approach is difficult to setup, due to the moving mesh required for closing the guide vanes and demands large computational effort. In the current work, an alternative quasi-steady approach of predicting the maximum dynamic stresses during load rejection is presented and validated against prototype measurements. The method involves a one-way fluid-structure interaction simulation with pressure loads obtained from an unsteady CFD simulation performed at the guide vane opening corresponding to the maximum speed during the load rejection. At this speed, the runner is momentarily in a no-load condition, and measurements show that the dynamic stresses are at a maximum. With this approach, it is shown that the maximum dynamic stresses are well predicted during a load rejection. Given the high level of uncertainty in the measurements and the stochastic nature of load rejections, it can be concluded that the approach gives conservative and satisfactory results, thus validating the quasi-steady assumption.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207