A practical investigation to solving the inverse problem of crack identification through vibration measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the feasibility of using single/multi variable optimisation techniques with vibration measurements in solving the inverse crack identification problem. Design/methodology/approach The finite element method is used to solve the forward crack problem with a special nodal crack force approach. The multi‐variable optimisation approach is reduced to a much more efficient single‐variable one by decoupling the physical variables in the problem. Findings It is shown that, for the crack identification problem, global optimisation algorithms perform much better than other algorithms relying heavily on objective function gradients. Simultaneous identification of crack size and location proved to be difficult. Decoupling of the physical variable is introduced and proved to provide efficient results with single‐variable optimisation algorithms. Research limitations/implications Need for improving the reliability and accuracy of the procedure for smaller crack sizes. Need for developing and investigation more rigorous and robust multi‐variable optimisation algorithm. Practical implications Any information about approximate crack size and location provides significant aid in the maintenance and online monitoring of rotating equipment. Originality/value The paper offers practical approach and procedure for online monitoring and crack identification of slow rotating equipment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".