Automatic band selection algorithm for envelope analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Envelope analysis has been widely used to detect early stage faults of rolling element bearings. The primary initial step of envelope analysis is the proper selection of the resonance band for demodulation. Current band selection methods, such as wide band selection, “power spectral density” comparison, and selecting the accelerometer resonance band have limitations such as disturbance of the wide band, the need for a healthy signal for comparison, and the implementation of specialized sensors. In this study, an enhanced method of resonance band selection for envelope analysis was developed. The developed method implements high-pass filtering and “time synchronous averaging” to remove dominant speed-dependent (nonsynchronous and synchronous) spectral contents of a vibration signal. Wavelet packet transform and “root mean square” were then applied to determine the energy distribution of the residual signal. The band with the highest energy (resonance band) was selected for envelope analysis. An experimental study was designed for cross-validation of the developed method. The developed method in this study is more practical than current band selection methods and has no special requirement for sensors. The developed algorithm can be implemented as a processing algorithm in a commercial vibration analyzer, which enhances its ability in early-stage bearing fault detection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".