MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130490421 · doi:10.1109/aero.2004.1368170

Diagnostic fault detection for internal combustion engines via norm based map projections

2004· article· en· W2130490421 on OpenAlexaff
Barry Murphy, Tea Galić, Carl S. Byington, M.S. Lebold, Karl Reichard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkFault detection and isolationDiesel engineAutomationCombustionInternal combustion engineComputer scienceFault (geology)Automotive engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One proven technique for monitoring health of a sealed internal combustion engine is to analyze combustion pressure cycle curves of the individual cylinders. Most techniques that are available are either overly simplistic or rely on artificial intelligence based methodologies such as neural networks. While neural network based methods can be useful, there is normally no quantitatively hard way to determine how accurately a trained neural network represents the desired goal. For this reason, neural networks have little real acceptance by industrial communities that deal with critical applications. This paper describes a technique developed for detecting combustion pressure cycle related faults in diesel engines. This method has been developed at the Pennsylvania State Universities, Applied Research Laboratories, Complex Systems Monitoring and Automation Department and applied to a fully instrumented diesel engine test bed. The new methodology utilizes pressure curve information derived from reliable and relatively inexpensive optical fiber based pressure sensors. The technique outlined in this paper uses a combination of norm based and statistical methods to develop a fault analysis map for particular internal combustion engines. A fully instrumented diesel engine test bed allows for generation of training data sets consistent with actual engine operation. Results from this technique applied to test bed data not used during development of the map show results closely match seeded fault conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207