MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1768263917 · doi:10.1109/citcon.2003.1204707

Development of a tool to detect faults in induction motors via current signature analysis

2003· article· en· W1768263917 on OpenAlexaff
M. Fenger, B.A. Lloyd, William T. Thomson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignature (topology)Induction motorStatorRotor (electric)Electromagnetic coilCurrent (fluid)Computer scienceTorqueEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper demonstrates through industrial case histories, how current signature analysis can reliably diagnose rotor cage problems in induction motor drives. Traditional CSA measurements can result in false alarms and/or misdiagnosis of healthy machines due to the presence of current frequency components in the stator current resulting from nonrotor related conditions such as mechanical load fluctuations, gearboxes, etc. Theoretical advancements have now made it possible to predict many of these components, thus making CSA testing much more robust and less error prone technology. Based on these theoretical developments, case histories are presented which demonstrate the ability to separate current components resulting from mechanical gearboxes from those resulting from broken rotor bars. From this data, a new handheld instrument for reliable detection of broken rotor bars, air gap eccentricity, shorted turns in LV stator windings and mechanical phenomena/problems in induction motor drives is being developed and is described. Detection of the inception of these problems prior to failure facilitates remedial action to be carried out thus avoiding the significant costs associated with unexpected down time due to unexpected failures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207