MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293095330 · doi:10.1049/icp.2022.1081

Using principal component analysis and binary classification to detect static eccentricity faults in induction motors

2022· article· en· W4293095330 on OpenAlexaff
N. A. Krause, J. J. Malone, M. J. B. McPherson, F. K. van Wingerden, M. J. Z. Yong, Ilamparithi Thirumarai-Chelvan

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisHarmonicsInduction motorComputer scienceHarmonic analysisConfusion matrixControl theory (sociology)Binary numberMATLABArtificial intelligenceEccentricBinary classificationPattern recognition (psychology)VoltageEngineeringElectronic engineeringSupport vector machineMathematicsStructural engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Static eccentric faults can cause serious damage to induction motors if left undetected. Standard methods identify static eccentric faults by performing frequency or harmonic analysis of the motor currents and by monitoring for the principal slot harmonics. However, the principal slot harmonics arise only if the rotor bars and the pole-pair number of the motor conform to certain relationship. To overcome this limitation, this paper describes two machine learning methods to detect static eccentric faults using either voltage and/or current data. Principal Component Analysis, and a Binary Linear Classifier are used independently, to classify experimental data from both a healthy, and faulty motor. Both machine learning algorithms were written in MATLAB and their performance was evaluated using a standard confusion matrix.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207