MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322736142 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.2c03564

Statistical Test-Based Practical Methods for Detection and Quantification of Stiction in Control Valves

2023· article· en· W4322736142 on OpenAlexafffund
Seshu Kumar Damarla, Xi Sun, Fangwei Xu, Ashish Shah, Biao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStictionComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Test methodTest (biology)Reliability engineeringControl valvesControl (management)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsControl engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Control valve, affected by stiction, causes closed-loop signals to experience oscillations, which ultimately leads to a decrease in product quality, reduced plant throughput, and increased environmental footprint. Therefore, it is indispensable to detect and quantify stiction in control valves. To accomplish this objective, in the present work, four noninvasive practical and simple methods are developed with the help of statistical tests such as F -test, t -test (Student’s t -test), modified Hotelling T 2 -test, and reverse arrangement test (RAT). The developed methods are applied to benchmark control loops espoused from chemical, paper, and mining industries. The results of the proposed methods are compared with that of existing methods found in the literature. It is found that the t -test-based method, the modified Hotelling T 2 -test-based method, and the RAT-based method demonstrate equally good or better performance than the existing methods, while the F -test-based method outperforms some of the existing methods. In addition to detecting stiction, the proposed methods can quantify stiction to timely notify panel operators of stiction severity and assist plant maintenance engineers to arrange plant shutdowns well ahead in time. The proposed methods are applicable to all types of control loops except level loops.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207