MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889036670 · doi:10.1109/icphm.2018.8448521

Physics-based Model and Neural Network Model for Monitoring Starter Degradation of APU

2018· article· en· W2889036670 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Zhang, Jie Liu, Houman Hanachi, Xin Yu, Yu-Bin Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsLife Prediction Technologies (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarterDegradation (telecommunications)Artificial neural networkPower (physics)EngineeringAuxiliary power unitBackpropagationTransient (computer programming)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceControl engineeringAutomotive engineeringElectronic engineeringMachine learningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An electric starter provides the initial power to run the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) during the startup process. With the starter degradation, its output power declines, which affects the APU starting performance, and eventually leads to the starting failure. Previous works have attempted to estimate the starter degrading trend, however a clear symptom for the starter degradation is not provided, which can be instrumental for the preventive maintenance. This paper develops a physics-based transient model to assess the starter degradation using the gas-path measurements of the APU. To overcome shortcomings for the lack of component characteristics, a generic modeling approach is adopted. For the comparative study, a back-propagation, feedforward neural network model is structured, trained and tested. Both models are implemented in the nominal and degraded conditions, and their capabilities as monitoring tools for the starter degradation are verified. The physics-based approach provides more accurate results for the cases with degraded starters, whereas the neural network model shows superior results with the starters in healthy condition.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207