MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rotor Pole Inter-Turn Insulation Deterioration Assessment in Hydrogenerator: Methodes Comparison Including SFRA

2025· article· en· W4413442766 on OpenAlexaff
Joël Pedneault-Desroches, Arezki Merkhouf, Kamal Al‐Haddad, Éric David

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureHydro-QuébecBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)Turn (biochemistry)Structural engineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsNuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The deterioration of rotor pole interturn insulation is a significant failure mode in large salient pole generators. The failure mode in this case can lead to the short circuit between turns that can be considered as a stray current. This causes a reduction of magnetic flux, resulting in magnetic imbalances and vibrations, which can lead to costly unplanned maintenance. To address this, modern techniques have been developed to detect insulation failures by monitoring the rotor pole flux during operation either by stray or air gap flux. Additionally, several tests can be performed during maintenance outages. These include the voltage pole drop test, the Impulse Frequency Response Analysis (IFRA/Surge), and more recently, the Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) has been getting interest. Other tests can also be conducted with the rotor poles removed from the generator. However, the results from these measurements often contradict each other, and the causes are not always clear. Factors such as the sensitivity of the tests, environmental conditions, and the specific nature of the inter-turn short-circuit (ITSC) in the rotor poles can all influence the outcomes. An investigation is conducted on a 310 MVA hydrogenerator that exhibits significant anomalies in the pole winding inter-turn insulation upon visual inspection were a lot of poles has shown migration of this insulation. In service, this generator also shows signs of vibrations. The study presents comparative various tests, including flux measurement, Surge, SFRA, pole voltage drops tests at different frequencies all with the rotor poles in situ including experimental measurements.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207