MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245452257 · doi:10.1109/ias.1988.25060

The detection of broken bars in the cage rotor of an induction machine

2003· article· en· W4245452257 on OpenAlexaff
N.M. Elkasabgy, A.R. Eastham, G.E. Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueConference Record of the 1988 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilStatorHarmonicsVibrationTorqueAcousticsSquirrel-cage rotorRotor (electric)Harmonic analysisEngineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringInduction motorPhysicsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Techniques are described for the detection of broken bars in the cage rotor of an induction machine. A 30 hp, four pole induction machine with deep bar cage rotor was procured. A stator yoke, tooth tip, and external search coils and thermocouples were installed for test purposes. A shaft torque transducer was installed in line with a DC load machine. The cross section of the machine was modeled with finite elements, and the field distribution and mechanical performance were computed using a nonlinear, complex, steady-state technique. Broken bars were shown to produce high localized airgap fields and to degrade mechanical performance. The field perturbation associated with broken bars, deliberately disconnected from the endrings by machining, produces low-frequency components and harmonics in the search-coil-induced voltages, and gives rise to an oscillatory torque which produces noise and mechanical vibration. Experimental results show that analysis of the voltage induced in an external search coil is adequate to detect the presence of broken bars.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference Record of the 1988 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual MeetingSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207