MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning Based Dynamic Failure Criteria for Reliability Analysis of Bearings

2019· article· en· W2997776632 on OpenAlexaff
Sajad Saraygord Afshari, Xihui Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)EstimatorComputer scienceReliability engineeringKrigingMechanical systemMachine learningEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate estimation of the reliability for different mechanical components plays an important role in the design and maintenance of mechanical systems. In this regard, a new method is proposed for increasing the accuracy of reliability prediction of bearings by introducing a new approach to determine dynamic failure criteria. To be specific, a Bayesian network classifier is applied to establish a machine learning approach for the determination of failure criteria at each time step with varying working and physical condition. The resulted failure criteria at each time are utilized together with a Kriging estimator to express an updated limit state function. Consequently, the second order reliability method is used for the calculation of time-varying reliability. Finally, the presented method is applied for reliability analysis of rolling element bearings and the resulted reliability curve for both accelerated and normal working conditions are presented. The outcome of this work can result in a pertinent approach for further calculation of the reliability of complex mechanical systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207