MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026711441 · doi:10.1109/tmech.2020.2995757

Prognostics of Health Measures for Machines With Aging and Dynamic Cumulative Damage

2020· article· en· W3026711441 on OpenAlexaff
Chaoqun Duan, Chao Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPrognosticsReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)ResidualComputer scienceProcess (computing)Condition-based maintenanceCondition monitoringEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern engineering components generally work under aging and dynamic cumulative damage processes. To prevent failures of such components, the proportional hazards model (PHM) was proposed to integrate both processes for health prognostics. However, the existing PHMs use constant damage rate within monitoring intervals for machine health estimation and still lack consideration of dynamic operational conditions, which fails to model the practical degradation situations. This article presents a prognostic model using a new PHM to consider aging and environment-varying cumulative damage for engineering machines. A dynamic multistate process with practical transition mechanisms under varying operational conditions is presented to model the cumulative damage progress. To address the difficulties in prognostics with PHMs, a matrix-based approximation method with low computational load is developed to compute important health measures such as conditional reliability, mean residual life (MRL) and residual life distribution. A prognostic scheme featuring online prediction and dynamic updating is presented. The particularity of the proposed model is that it considers dynamic environments and can be applied to a large number of deteriorating states. The proposed approach is illustrated using a case of pump under different operating environments, and comparison with other advanced PHM is given to validate the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ASME Transactions on MechatronicsSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207