MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuel Cell Ageing Prediction and Remaining Useful Life Forecasting

2022· article· en· W4313563309 on OpenAlexaff
Karem BenChikha, Mohsen Kandidayeni, Ali Amamou, Sousso Kélouwani, Kodjo Agbossou, Afef Bennani-Ben Abdelghani

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Long short term memoryComputer scienceGeneralizationMean squared errorEstimationTerm (time)Reliability engineeringDegradation (telecommunications)Artificial neural networkMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStatisticsRecurrent neural networkMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuel cell (FC) lifetime prediction is becoming an integral part of any energy management strategy (EMS) in electrified vehicles since it is one of the key barriers in the commercialization of FCs. Remaining useful life (RuL) estimation is one of the most effective predictive maintenance tools used to develop EMSs. Prognostic health management (PHM) techniques can track the degradation of a FC and predict its RuL. Hence, in this paper, a data-based PHM method based on Long Short-Term Memory Network (LSTM) is proposed to predict the RuL of FC. This manuscript presents a benchmark to compare the prediction of the FC voltage degradation with other works that have used the same dataset. The results indicate an accuracy of 88.13% with RMSE of 0.0079, and RuL is forecasted for 135 hours of operation with an accuracy of 92.5%. Furthermore, LSTM is used to predict ageing trend of FC by considering a different current profile that the network has been trained with. This generalization has an accuracy of 79.99%. with an RMSE of 0.0351.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC)Same topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207