MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167528014 · doi:10.3233/sav-2011-0558

Gear Tooth Failure Detection by the Resonance Demodulation Technique and the Instantaneous Power Spectrum Method – A Comparative Study

2011· article· en· W2167528014 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemodulationPower (physics)Resonance (particle physics)AcousticsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of gears in industry for speed and torque variation purposes is obvious. The gearbox diagnostic methods have been improved quickly in recent years. In this paper, two of the newest methods, the resonance demodulation technique (R.D), and the instantaneous power spectrum technique (IPS) are applied to gearbox vibration signals and their capabilities in fault detection are compared. Yet, the important role of time averaging should not be dispensed with, as it is the primary step for both techniques. In the present study, the mathematical method of these techniques, according to the mathematical vibration model of gears, is introduced, these techniques are applied to the test rig data, and finally the results of both methods are compared. The results indicate that in each method, the location of fault can be estimated and it is located in the same angular position in both methods. The IPS method is applicable to severe faults, whereas the resonance demodulation technique is a simple tool to recognize the fault at each severity and at the early stages of fault generation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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