MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153872588 · doi:10.1109/isie.2010.5637963

Rotor fault detection in induction motors using the fast orthogonal search algorithm

2010· article· en· W2153872588 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory G. King, Mohammed Tarbouchi, D. McGaughey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)StatorFast Fourier transformInduction motorFault (geology)Computer scienceFault detection and isolationSquirrel-cage rotorSampling (signal processing)Control theory (sociology)Condition monitoringTransient (computer programming)AccelerationAliasingAlgorithmEngineeringVoltageUndersamplingElectrical engineeringActuatorPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method of detecting rotor faults in induction motors using the fast orthogonal search (FOS). Proper online condition monitoring of induction machines is very important to ensure safe operation, timely maintenance, and efficiency. It has been shown that when a fault occurs in the rotor, it will exhibit itself as a series of sidebands around the fundamental frequency in the stator current, which can be detected using a spectrum analyzer. Conventional methods based on the fast Fourier transform (FFT) are inadequate for motors operating under light load because the fault signatures will be close to the fundamental. Therefore a balance between resolution and sampling time must be achieved, which is difficult with the FFT. The higher degree of resolution of FOS makes it a promising choice for broken bar detection in motors operating under light load, and the reduction in sampling time is beneficial for motors that are prone to transient conditions. Experimental results using a 1/4 horsepower motor with a rotor winding fault are presented to verify this approach.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207