4.6 Article

Fatigue reliability estimation framework for turbine rotor using multi-agent collaborative modeling

期刊

STRUCTURES
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 1967-1978

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.068

关键词

Fatigue reliability; Low cycle fatigue; Agent model; Neural network

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51975028, 51575024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proposed MACM approach combines the strengths of improved differential evolution algorithm and neural network model to improve the computing accuracy and simulation efficiency of fatigue reliability estimation for turbine rotor. Through the engineering case study of a typical turbine rotor, the method shows high efficiency and accuracy in considering material variabilities, load fluctuations, and model randomness.
To improve the computing accuracy and simulation efficiency of fatigue reliability estimation for turbine rotor, a multi-agent collaborative modelling (MACM) approach is proposed by absorbing the strengths of improved differential evolution (IDE) algorithm and neural network model into decomposed-collaborative strategy. The fatigue reliability estimation framework is presented in respect of MACM approach. Furthermore, the fatigue reliability estimation of a typical turbine rotor is considered as engineering case to evaluate the presented approach with respect to material variabilities, load fluctuations and model randomness. The estimation results reveal that the probabilistic fatigue life of a turbine rotor under reliability 99.87% is 6 050 cycles; fatigue strength coefficient sigma(f)' and strain range Delta epsilon(t) play a leading role on the fatigue life since their effect probabilities of 45% and 36%, respectively. The comparisons of methods (direct Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), quadratic polynomial (QP), neural network (NN), neural network agent (NNA)) show that the presented MACM approach holds high efficiency and accuracy for fatigue reliability estimation of turbine rotor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据