MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2732826855 · doi:10.4050/f-0073-2017-12086

Wear Sensors for Pitch Control Bearing Condition Based Maintenance

2017· article· en· W2732826855 on OpenAlexaff
Brandyn Lewis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsBell Helicopter Textron (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBearing (navigation)Control (management)Automotive engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-lubricating rotor blade pitch control bearings are critical to safe operation and fleet readiness. However, detecting bearing liner wear can be subjective and time consuming. Standard measurement techniques could lead to unsafe operational conditions or poor bearing life utilization. Excessive inspections, unplanned downtime and poor part utilization may be driven for safety and result in increased cost. New Hampshire Ball Bearings (NHBB) has developed a novel new approach that provides clear indication of when a bearing should be replaced. An embedded bearing liner wear sensor is connected to an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) communication device to communicate bearing status to a hand held reader. Status of each individual bearing is reported. This new technology will allow operators and maintainers to conduct bearing maintenance when it is required by actual bearing condition instead of a fixed schedule based on Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) systems. Application specific and component functional testing on the wear sensor system (conducted at NHBB) shows wear performance similar to traditional blade pitch control applications with no impact to overall system operational capabilities. NHBB and Bell Helicopter are collaborating to introduce this technology on the Bell 525 with flight testing tentatively planned for 2017. Future work on this project will focus on aircraft and maintenance system integration.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207