MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fault Detection of Wind Turbine System Based on Deep Learning and System Identification

2022· article· en· W4296910326 on OpenAlexaff
Saman Dehghanabandaki, Qing Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)TurbineFault (geology)Identification (biology)PruningFalse alarmFault detection and isolationProcess (computing)ALARMConstant false alarm rateWind powerReliability engineeringReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early fault diagnosis in the Wind Turbine System (WTS) can reduce the maintenance cost and increase system reliability. However, due to its complexity, analysing WTS is a challenging task. Furthermore, impacts of component faults may be negligible and difficult to detect depending on their types and severity. This paper presents an integrated framework using the Long Short-term Memory and Mixture Density Network (LSTM-MDN) with real-time system identification to diagnose incipient and subtle faults which tend to modify the measurement or dynamics of the system. At first, the LSTM-MDN is constructed to estimate the blade and pitch sub-system outputs with the corresponding variance. Then system identification based on the Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average with eXogenous input (ARIMAX) is implemented to generate meta-data which can reveal any changes in system dynamics. In order to reduce the false alarm rate in the presence of uncertainties, we introduce an adaptive threshold using the MDN parameters and a pruning process for detecting different operation modes. Finally, a comprehensive comparison is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207