MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393411238 · doi:10.1115/1.4065227

A Physics-Based Model-Data-Driven Method for Spindle Health Diagnosis—Part III: Model Training and Fault Detection

2024· article· en· W4393411238 on OpenAlexafffund
Chung-Yu Tai, Yusuf Altıntaş

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Fault (geology)Computer scienceFault detection and isolationArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The primary goal of the paper is to monitor the health of the spindle in machine tools to ensure optimal performance and reduce costly downtimes. Spindle health monitoring is essential to detect wear and cracks in spindle bearings, which can be challenging due to their gradual development and hidden locations. The proposed approach combines physics-based modeling and data-driven techniques to monitor spindle health effectively. In Part I and Part II of the paper, mathematical models of bearing faults and spindle imbalance are integrated into the digital model of the spindle. This allows for simulating the operation of the spindle both with and without faults. The integration of fault models enables the generation of vibrations at sensor locations along the spindle shaft. The generated vibration data from the physics-based model are used to train a recurrent neural network-based (RNN) fault detection algorithm. The RNN learns from the labeled vibration spectra to identify different fault conditions. Bayesian optimization is used to automatically tune the hyperparameters governing the accuracy and efficiency of the learning models during the training process. The RNN classifiers are further fine-tuned using a small set of experimentally collected data for the generalization of the model on real-world data. Once the RNN classifier is trained, it can distinguish between different types of damage and identify their specific locations on the spindle assembly. The proposed algorithms achieved an accuracy of 98.43% on experimental data sets that were not used in training the network.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207