MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017368362 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-39084

Identifying Crack Parameters in Slow Rotating Machinery Using Vibration Measurements and Hybrid Neuro-Particle Swarm Technique

2010· article· en· W2017368362 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed S. Senousy, Tamer Khattab, Mohamed Alqaradawi, Mohamed S. Gadala

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationParticle swarm optimizationRotor (electric)AcousticsFault (geology)SIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceHarmonicsEngineeringFeature extractionFast Fourier transformArtificial neural networkStructural engineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringVoltagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-cycle fatigue-initiated cracks may result in failure in slow-rotating equipments. Online monitoring to identify such fault/crack parameters, namely crack size and crack location, would be critical in providing an early warning signal to the operator and would be used in calculating estimate about the remaining safe life of the equipment in operation. In an earlier study, a scaled-down slow-rotating washer drum was constructed to experimentally investigate the vibrations of a cracked rotor and/or drums. Cracks were simulated using the bolt removal method (BRM), and the vibration signals identifying signatures of certain cracks were measured. Thereafter, a 3D finite element model was used to solve the forward analysis of the inverse problem of crack identification. In this paper, the scaled-down experimental setup is introduced to cracks at different locations of the drum/rotor. Vibration signals identifying signatures of such cracks are measured. Since noisy signals, similar patterns of faults, and similar vibration fault signals create particular challenges for feature extraction systems, two techniques for feature extraction are considered and compared in this work. The fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the vibration signals showing variation in amplitude of the harmonics as time progresses are presented for comparison with the full time signal feature extraction. A hybrid particle-swarm artificial Neural Networks (neuro-particle swarm) is used to identify both the crack size and crack location. The hybrid neuro-particle swarm technique is compared with the previously investigated fuzzy genetic algorithms.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207