MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Method to Detect and Isolate Brake Rotor Thickness Variation and Corrosion

2023· article· en· W4317039080 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Kazemi, Xinyu Du, H. Mohseni Sadjadi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Prognostics and Health Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBrake Systems and Friction Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeneral Motors (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrakeAutomotive engineeringDisc brakeTime domainFault detection and isolationEngineeringChassisRobustness (evolution)Frequency domainState of healthComputer scienceStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brake rotors are essential parts of the disc brake systems. Brake rotor thickness variation (RTV) and corrosion are among top failure modes for brake rotors, which may lead to brake judder and pulsation, steering wheel oscillations and chassis vibration. To improve customer satisfaction, vehicle serviceability and availability, it is necessary to develop an onboard fault detection and isolation solution. This study presents a methodology to monitor the state-of-health of brake rotor system to reduce costs associated with scheduled inspection for autonomous fleet or corrective maintenance. We converted the vehicle signals from time-domain to angle-domain and determined health indicators to estimate the RTV level of the rotors. Variance, envelope and order analysis of the brake circuit pressure, longitudinal acceleration and wheel speed sensor signals in angle-domain were promising health indicators to differentiate healthy and faulty rotors. A classification model was developed to fuse the health indicators and estimate the state-of-health of the rotors to report the most degraded rotor with corner isolation. Results showed that using this concept we were able to detect failure levels of 20 microns and larger and meet the customer requirement. Robustness analysis showed that the concept is robust to the noise factors of tire type, tire pressure and vehicle weight. The sensitivity analysis showed that the algorithm is sensitive to two of the calibration parameters (i.e., brake pedal position gradient (BPPG) threshold and the filter order used to derive BPPG) used to determine the brake event and enable the algorithm.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Prognostics and Health ManagementSame topicBrake Systems and Friction AnalysisFrench-language works237,207