MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395674749 · doi:10.3390/math12091307

Monitoring the Wear Trends in Wind Turbines by Tracking Fourier Vibration Spectra and Density Based Support Vector Machines

2024· article· en· W4395674749 on OpenAlexaff
Claudiu Bîșu, Adrian Olaru, Serban Olaru, Adrian Alexei, Niculae Mihai, Haleema Ushaq

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbineWind powerDowntimeCondition monitoringVibrationReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceDrivetrainSupport vector machineSpectral densityControl theory (sociology)Automotive engineeringMarine engineeringPower (physics)Environmental scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringAerospace engineeringAcousticsTorquePhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To make wind power more competitive, it is necessary to reduce turbine downtime and reduce costs associated with wind turbine operation and maintenance (O&M). Incorporating machine learning in the development of condition-based predictive maintenance methodologies for wind turbines can enhance their efficiency and reliability. This paper presents a monitoring method that utilizes Density Based Support Vector Machines (DBSVM) and the evolutionary Fourier spectra of vibrations. This method allows for the smart monitoring of the function evolution of the turbine. A complex optimal function (FO) for 5-degree order has been developed that will be the boundary function of the DBSVM to be timely determined from the Fourier spectrum through the magnitude–frequency and place of the failure occurring in the wind turbine drivetrains. The trend of the failure was constructed with the maximal values of the optimal frequency function for both yesthe cases of the upwind and downwind parts of the gearbox.

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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207