A Novel Approach to Evaluation of Vibration Source Separation Based on Spatial Distribution of Sensors and Fourier Transforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An obstacle in diagnosis of multicomponent machinery using multiple sensors to acquire vibration data is firstly found in the data acquisition itself. This is due to the fact that vibration signals collected by each sensor are a mixture of vibration produced by different components and noise; it is not evident what signals are produced by each component. A number of research studies have been carried out in which this problem was considered a blind source separation (BSS) problem and different mathematical methods were used to separate the signals. One complexity with applying such mathematical methods to separate vibration sources is that no metric or standard measure exists to evaluate the quality of the separation. In this study, a method based on statistical energy analysis (SEA) is proposed using Fourier transforms and the spatial distance between sensors and components. The principle of this method is based on the fact that each sensor, with respect to its location in the system, collects a different version of the vibration produced in the system. By applying a short time Fourier transform to the signals collected by multiple sensors and making use of a priori knowledge of the spatial distribution of sensor locations with respect to the components, the source of the peaks on the frequency spectra of the signals can be identified and attributed to the components. The performance of the method was verified using a series of experimental tests on synthetic signals and real laboratory signals collected from different bearings and the results confirmed the efficacy of the method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".