MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047817706 · doi:10.1109/icrms.2009.5269999

Gear crack assessment based on cyclic correlation analysis

2009· article· en· W2047817706 on OpenAlexaff
Zhipeng Feng, Ming J. Zuo, Rujiang Hao, Fulei Chu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclostationary processVibrationModulation (music)AutocorrelationFrequency modulationStructural engineeringFrequency domainAcousticsMagnitude (astronomy)Amplitude modulationEngineeringPhysicsMathematicsTelecommunicationsStatisticsMathematical analysisBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gear vibration signals are mainly due to the gear rotating, gear pair meshing and their coupling effects, and are usually modeled as amplitude modulation and frequency modulation (AMFM) processes. The modulation feature of vibration signals is related to the health status of gears. As well, their statistics change periodically with gear rotation, i.e. they are cyclostationary, so cyclostationary analysis is suitable to extract the modulation features of gear vibration signals, so as to detect and assess gear damage. The cyclic auto-correlation function of AMFM signals is deduced, and its properties in cyclic frequency domain are summarized. The ratio between the cyclic autocorrelation slice magnitude at cyclic frequencies of modulating frequency and 0 Hz is a monotonically increasing function of the modulation magnitude, so it is able to indicate the modulation magnitude. Since the modulation magnitude of gear vibration signals is related to localized gear damage degree, the ratio is used to assess the condition of gears. In the analysis of gear crack simulation vibration signals, it shows a monotonically increasing trend with the development of the gear damage. It has potential to early detect incipient damage, to prognosticate severe damage, and to assess gearbox damage.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGear and Bearing Dynamics AnalysisFrench-language works237,207