MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401510550 · doi:10.3390/s24165186

A Modified EMD Technique for Broken Rotor Bar Fault Detection in Induction Machines

2024· article· en· W4401510550 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Shamsul Arifin, Wilson Wang, M. Nasir Uddin

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformFault (geology)Rotor (electric)Fault detection and isolationSignature (topology)Computer scienceNoise (video)Induction motorData acquisitionBar (unit)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl engineeringPattern recognition (psychology)White noiseVoltageElectrical engineeringActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induction machines (IMs) are commonly used in various industrial sectors. It is essential to recognize IM defects at their earliest stage so as to prevent machine performance degradation and improve production quality and safety. This work will focus on IM broken rotor bar (BRB) fault detection, as BRB fault could generate extra heating, vibration, acoustic noise, or even sparks in IMs. In this paper, a modified empirical mode decomposition (EMD) technique, or MEMD, is proposed for BRB fault detection using motor current signature analysis. A smart sensor-based data acquisition (DAQ) system is developed by our research team and is used to collect current signals wirelessly. The MEMD takes several processing steps. Firstly, correlation-based EMD analysis is undertaken to select the most representative intrinsic mode function (IMF). Secondly, an adaptive window function is suggested for spectral operation and analysis to detect the BRB fault. Thirdly, a new reference function is proposed to generate the fault index for fault severity diagnosis analytically. The effectiveness of the proposed MEMD technique is verified experimentally.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207