MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536823562 · doi:10.1109/pedes.2010.5712482

Comparison of results for eccentric cage induction motor using Finite Element method and Modified Winding Function Approach

2010· article· en· W2536823562 on OpenAlexaff
T. Ilamparithi, Subhasis Nandi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction motorFault (geology)Eccentricity (behavior)StatorRotor (electric)Control theory (sociology)Squirrel-cage rotorFinite element methodFault detection and isolationEngineeringComputer scienceStructural engineeringActuatorVoltageArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air-gap eccentricity is a fault that mainly affects large induction motors. In the worst case an eccentricity fault can result in a stator rotor rub thereby causing severe damage to the motor. As a result eccentricity fault detection has gained considerable significance. Of all detection schemes for this fault, Motor Current Signature Analysis (MCSA) is the most widely used technique. This scheme relies on identifying fault specific frequency component in the line current spectrum of the motor to identify the type of fault. The severity of the fault can be estimated by monitoring the magnitude of the characteristic frequency component. To characterize the fault severity an accurate model of induction motor has to be developed. Two models - Finite Element(FE) based model and Modified Winding Function Approach (MWFA) based model are used in this paper to estimate the magnitude of fault specific frequency components for different eccentricities at full load condition. The results obtained from the two methods are compared to find the suitability of MWFA based model in characterizing the fault severity.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207