MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968486765 · doi:10.1115/imece2004-59349

Gearbox Fault Detection Using Empirical Mode Decomposition

2004· article· en· W1968486765 on OpenAlexafffund
Xianfeng Fan, Ming J. Zuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformHilbert transformWavelet transformSIGNAL (programming language)Fault (geology)Instantaneous phaseEnvelope (radar)Computer scienceFault detection and isolationTime–frequency analysisWaveletVibrationSignal processingPattern recognition (psychology)Mode (computer interface)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionSpectral densityAcousticsComputer visionWhite noiseTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local faults in a gearbox cause impacts and the collected vibration signal is often non-stationary. Identification of impulses within the non-stationary vibration signal is key to fault detection. Recently, the technique of Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) was proposed as a new tool for analysis of non-stationary signal. EMD is a time series analysis method that extracts a custom set of bases that reflects the characteristic response of a system. The Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs) within the original data can be obtained through EMD. We expect that the change in the amplitude of the special IMF’s envelope spectrum will become larger when fault impulses are present. Based on this idea, we propose a new fault detection method that combines EMD with Hilbert transform. The proposed method is compared with both the Hilbert-Huang transform and the wavelet transform using simulated signal and real signal collected from a gearbox. The results obtained show that the proposed method is effective in capturing the hidden fault impulses.

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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207