MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413215872 · doi:10.1115/gt2025-153825

Physics Informed Machine Learning Model for Local Creep Prediction in Turbine Blade

2025· article· en· W4413215872 on OpenAlexaff
Vipin Pal, Amit Kumar Singh, Souvik Chakraborty, Jason Abdallah, Rishabh Shrivastava

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepFinite element methodTurbine bladeArtificial neural networkMechanical engineeringComputer scienceTurbineStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gas turbine blades are an essential part of modern power generation systems, where they operate under high temperature, pressure and centrifugal load for prolonged period. Over time, these operating conditions lead to creep deformation, which can cause significant damage to the turbine. Conventionally, Creep assessment is carried out using Finite Element Method (FEM) which is a time-consuming process. Various material models namely strain hardening, time hardening, Norton Bailey Law, Garofalo Law etc. are used to describe the creep response of a given material, particularly metals and crystalline solids. The motivation behind this work is to reduce the time to run creep assessment. This paper focuses on exploring hybrid machine learning techniques to predict the local creep strain in turbine blades. This hybrid machine learning model can prove to be effective for quick sensitivity checks, decision making on service request and to study manufacturing related deviations in design. Multiple approaches were evaluated such as neural network, physics informed neural network, stress prediction using machine learning followed by creep prediction using physics-based formulation, ensemble neural network, generalized linear model (GLM) and time series method. Data driven approach significantly reduced the creep run time from few days to minutes and therefore provide flexibility in terms of analysing multiple models with different boundary conditions, material cases etc.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
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 topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207