MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of Faults in Electro-Hydrostatic Actuators Using Feature Extraction Methods and an Artificial Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4285101290 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Ghanbari, Witold Kinsner, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsActuatorLeakage (economics)Fault detection and isolationFeature extractionArtificial neural networkComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Fault (geology)Sensitivity (control systems)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) are a type of hydraulic actuators which use pumps rather than valves to control the motion. As a result, they are more efficient than the valve-operated actuators. This paper presents an AI-based internal leakage detection algorithm for a single-rod EHA. Actuator internal leakage has been chosen to demonstrate the efficacy of the algorithm. Based on the sensitivity of various measures to varying levels of internal leakage, indicators are derived from the easy to obtain pressure measurements and a fault decision algorithm for quantifying the level of internal leakage in the actuator is established. This paper presents a new architecture of an artificial neural network (ANN) for detecting the existence of an internal leakage fault as labelled data. First, a sensitivity analysis is used to select a measure candidate for further research. Second, the measure chosen is analyzed using feature extraction methods. This step aims to extract hidden features to maximize the internal leakage fault detection. Finally, the fault detection algorithm classification efficiency is assessed by studying the detection rate of the proposed architecture. The experimental results show that the developed algorithm can detect internal leakage faults with 99.46% accuracy.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT)Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207