MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Hybrid Wavelet-SVM Algorithm to Detect Broken Rotor Bars in Induction Motors

2021· article· en· W3210491452 on OpenAlexaff
Shermineh Ghasemi, Alireza Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)Support vector machineInduction motorComputer scienceWaveletAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induction motors are essential components in the modern manufacturing settings and can function continuously for hours without minor issues due to their reliability and construction. However, any fault in these types of machinery may result in extended downtime, costly maintenance, and safety issues. Consequently, advanced diagnostic methods that prevent possible failure by recognizing the early signs of deficiency can increase motors' reliability. In the past few years, researchers conducted many experiments to identify Broken Rotor Bars by integrating Motor Current Signal Analysis and Artificial Intelligence solutions. However, the motor may be subjected to load fluctuation, then oscillation related signatures exhibit similar behavior that of broken bar which leads misleading signatures. This overlapping frequencies, induced by Broken Rotor Bars and the Low-frequency Torque Oscillations (LTOs), can generate False Positive alarms and frustrates the diagnostic system. In this work, we propose a diagnostic algorithm to distinguish and disentangle the Broken Rotor Bar's frequencies from misleading LTOs, and detects Broken Rotor Bars by applying a Hybrid Wavelet-Support Vector Machines algorithm. The results verify the efficiency and reliability of our proposed algorithm compared to the existing methods.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207