MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312429181 · doi:10.1115/detc2022-88223

Combining Feature Learning and Transfer Learning in Balancing Anomaly Detection for Gas Turbine Engine Vibration Analysis

2022· article· en· W4312429181 on OpenAlexaff
Jiarui Xie, Katherine G. Schmidt, Nausica Budeanu, Vincent Letendre, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)McGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderAnomaly detectionComputer scienceTransfer of learningLeverage (statistics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rotor imbalance is a vital measure that indicates the health state of a gas turbine (GT). Abnormal balancing patterns will lead to excessive vibration and gradually compromise structural integrity. This paper presents the construction of anomaly detection (AD) models that recognize abnormal balancing patterns for two aeroderivative GTs, AGT-A and AGT-B, from Siemens Energy. Such a diagnostic tool can predict at an early stage whether a high vibration would occur during the vibration test and avoid engine reject for re-balance. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been extensively utilized to conduct GT design space exploration and condition monitoring. However, ML has not been implemented to improve the efficiency of GT manufacturing processes, mainly due to data scarcity. The authors propose a combined feature learning and transfer learning technique to leverage the data resources of GT manufacturing processes. The physical and operational similarities between GTs belonging to the same series imply the transferability of features between models. The normal balancing patterns of the data-rich AGT-A were first learned by a sparse autoencoder to detect balancing anomalies. Then, the learned features were used to initialize the balancing AD model for the data-poor AGT-B. The test accuracy of the AGT-B AD model was increased from 75% to 92% with transfer learning. The presented methodology can facilitate and enable various data-driven analysis tasks for the manufacturing processes of original equipment manufacturers.

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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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