MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161068205 · doi:10.1109/icit.2006.372274

Neuro-WPT Based Diagnosis and Protection of Three-Phase IPM Motors

2006· article· en· W2161068205 on OpenAlexaff
M. A. S. K. Khan, M.A. Rahman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrippingFault (geology)Artificial neural networkLine (geometry)Computer scienceWaveletWavelet packet decompositionWavelet transformControl theory (sociology)EngineeringElectronic engineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringMathematicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the practical implementation of a novel fault diagnosis scheme for an interior permanent magnet (IPM) motor protection using the neural network (NN). The preprocessing of line currents of different faulted and normal unfaulted conditions of an IPM motor are carried out by the wavelet packet transform (WPT) in order to minimize the structure and the training time of the proposed neural network based protection technique. It has been shown that the wavelet packet transformed second level high frequency coefficients (dd <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ) of line currents are able to differentiate between the healthy and faulted conditions. These are used as the input sets of a three-layer feed-forward neural network. The scheme is evaluated and tested on-line on a laboratory 1-hp IPM motor using the ds1102 digital signal processor board. Three types of faults such as single line to ground (L-G) fault, line-to-line (L-L) fault, and single phasing fault are investigated. In all the tests carried out, the types of fault are classified and identified promptly and properly, and the tripping action is initiated within one cycle of the fault occurrence based on a 60 Hz system.

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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207