MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376956400 · doi:10.3390/pr11051501

Modeling of Fault Recovery and Repair for Automated Manufacturing Cells with Load-Sharing Redundant Elements Using Petri Nets

2023· article· en· W4376956400 on OpenAlexaff
Ebrahim Ali Alzalab, Umar Suleiman Abubakar, E Hanyu, Zhiwu Li, Mohammed A. El-Meligy, Ahmed M. El‐Sherbeeny

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceShared resourceResource (disambiguation)Petri netProcess (computing)Distributed computingLoad sharingReliability engineeringShutdownReal-time computingOperating systemComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure of resource in automated manufacturing systems could cause a complete system shutdown. This paper addresses the issue of unreliable resource failure in manufacturing cells through the use of load-sharing redundant resources (LSRRs). The aim is to use more than one type of a failure-prone resource to share tasks between a failure-prone resource, called a target resource, and reliable ones called load-sharing redundant resources (LSRRs). Both an unreliable resource and its LSRR perform the same tasks, and there is normally a system that assigns tasks to them. If the target resource fails, all the tasks will be performed by the LSRRs. After the faulty target resource is fixed and restored, its assigned tasks are automatically returned to it. This way the system can continue to produce or process parts. Thus, a total system shutdown due to unreliable resource failures is eliminated. The proposed method is tested using real examples. The results, compared with those obtained by the studies in the literature, show that the proposed method has an outstanding performance and outperforms some of the existing studies.

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)0.001
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 score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicPetri Nets in System ModelingFrench-language works237,207