A Review of Application of Signal Processing Techniques for Fault Diagnosis of Induction Motors – Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract - Use of efficient signal processing tools (SPTs) to extract proper indices for fault detection in induction motors (IMs) is the essential part of any fault recognition procedure. The Part1 of the two parts paper focuses on Fourier-based techniques including fast Fourier transform and short time Fourier transform. In this paper, all utilized SPTs which have been employed for fault fetection in IMs are analyzed in details. Then, their competency and their drawbacks for extracting indices in transient and steady state modes are criticized from different aspects. The considerable experimental results are used to certificate demonstrated discussion. Different kinds of faults, including eccentricity, broken bar and bearing faults as major internal faults, in IMs are investigated. The use of efficient signal processing tools (SPTs) to extract proper indices for faultdetection in induction motors (IMs) is the essential part of any fault recognition procedure. In thefirst part of the present paper, we focus on Fourier-based techniques, including fast Fourier transformand short time Fourier transform. In this paper, all utilized SPTs which have been employed forfault detection in IMs are analyzed in detail. Then, their competency and their drawbacks to extractindices in transient and steady state modes are criticized from different aspects. Different kinds offaults, namely, eccentricity, broken bar, and bearing faults as the major internal faults in IMs, areinvestigated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".