MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985992878 · doi:10.1108/jqme-10-2018-0087

Fault detection for parallel operating machines

2019· article· en· W2985992878 on OpenAlexaff
Dustin Helm, Markus Timusk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Fault detection and isolationResidualComputer scienceAutoregressive modelFault (geology)Condition monitoringVibrationBearing (navigation)Reliability engineeringReal-time computingControl engineeringEngineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that by utilizing the relationship between redundant hardware components, inherent in parallel machinery, vibration-based fault detection methods can be made more robust to changes in operational conditions. This work reports on a study of fault detection on bearings operating in two parallel subsystems that experience identical changes in speed and load. Design/methodology/approach This study was carried out using two identical subsystems that operate on the same duty cycle. The systems were run with both healthy and a variety of common bearing faults. The faults were detected by analyzing the residual between the features of the two vibration signatures from the two subsystems. Findings This work found that by utilizing this relationship in parallel operating machinery the fault detection process can be improved. The study looked at several different types of feature vector and found that, in this case, features based on envelope analysis or autoregressive model work the best, whereas basic statistical features did not work as well. Originality/value The proposed method can be a computationally efficient and simple solution to monitoring non-stationary machinery where there is hardware redundancy present. This method is shown to have some advantages over non-parallel approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quality in Maintenance EngineeringSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207