MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560787771 · doi:10.1115/detc2016-59398

Gear Fault Detection With the Energy Operator and its Variants

2016· article· en· W2560787771 on OpenAlexaff
Elise Mayo, Ming Liang, Natalie Baddour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy operatorOperator (biology)Noise (video)Filter (signal processing)Interference (communication)Computer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Fault (geology)VibrationFault detection and isolationSimple (philosophy)Control theory (sociology)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceAcousticsMathematicsComputer visionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibration analysis is currently the most efficient, non-invasive way to monitor the condition of the gears. Faults in gears can be of two distinct types, distributed or local. Many fault detection methods are effective for one type of fault or the other but not both. Also, many methods have the inconvenience that they are not simple and/or require initial information about the state of gear. In this paper, several methods are proposed with the objective of finding a filter-free, simple and efficient method for the detection of both types of faults. The calculus enhanced energy operator (CEEO), previously designed for fault detection in bearings, is proposed here for the first time on gears. Two new methods, the EO123 and EO23, based on the original energy operator are also proposed and evaluated. All the proposed methods are filter free, computationally simple and can handle a certain level of noise and interference. With the exception of low rotational frequencies of the gears, it is demonstrated via simulated and experimentally obtained signals that the CEEO method can handle noise better than the other proposed methods and that the EO23 method can handle interference better than the others. Different conditions determine the effectiveness of the methods.

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 score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGear and Bearing Dynamics AnalysisFrench-language works237,207