MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486019011 · doi:10.21595/jve.2016.17377

Curve similarity recognition based rolling bearing degradation state estimation and lifetime prediction

2016· article· en· W2486019011 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Lü, Laifa Tao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vibroengineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBearing (navigation)Degradation (telecommunications)Similarity (geometry)Computer scienceState (computer science)Artificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The health state of a rolling bearing keeps changing from a normal state to a slight degradation state followed eventually by a severely degraded state. To make reasonable inspection and maintenance plans, it is necessary to estimate the degradation state and predict the lifetime of a running rolling bearing accurately and in a timely fashion. This paper presents a new method for rolling bearing degradation state estimation and lifetime prediction based on curve similarity recognition. Different from existing methods, this method employs a dynamic time warping algorithm to recognize the curve similarity of those extracted features of rolling bearings in different states of health, which can reflect the intrinsic state of the rolling bearing; it discretizes the bearing degradation state reasonably through curve similarity. Next, the curve similarity is used to train the degradation state estimation model and a support vector machine based lifetime prediction model. Finally, this paper conducts a case study for a rolling bearing with impact degradation and one with wear degradation, respectively. The experimental results indicate that the new proposed method is highly efficient in recognizing the bearing’s degradation state and predicting its lifetime.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VibroengineeringSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207