MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964507602 · doi:10.1115/detc2007-35181

Cracked Rotor Diagnostics Using Soft Computing

2007· article· en· W1964507602 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. Samanta, C. Nataraj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemArtificial intelligenceWaveletComputer scienceHelicopter rotorArtificial neural networkTransient (computer programming)Pattern recognition (psychology)Rotor (electric)Soft computingWavelet transformEnergy (signal processing)Moment (physics)Fuzzy logicEngineeringFuzzy control systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study is presented for detection and diagnostics of cracked rotors using soft computing techniques like adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), artificial neural networks (ANN) and genetic algorithms (GA). A simple model for a cracked rotor is used to simulate its transient response during startup for different levels of cracks. The transient response is processed through continuous wavelet transform (CWT) to extract time-frequency features for the normal and cracked conditions of the rotor. Several features including the wavelet energy distributions and the grey moment vectors (GMV) of the CWT scalograms are used as inputs for diagnosis of crack level. The parameters of the classifiers, ANFIS and ANN, along with the features from wavelet energy distribution and grey moment vectors are selected using GA maximizing the diagnostic success. The classifiers are trained with a subset of the data with known crack levels and tested using the other set of data (testing data), not used in training. The procedure is illustrated using the simulation data of a simple de Laval rotor with a ‘breathing’ crack for different crack levels during run-up through its critical speed. A comparison of diagnostic performance for the classifiers is presented. Results show the effectiveness of the proposed approach in detection and diagnosis of cracked rotors.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207