MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inverter Open Switch Fault Detection Using BiLSTM Neural Network in Induction Motor Drive

2025· article· en· W4413559139 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Zamani Khaneghah, Mohamad Alzayed, Hicham Chaoui, Seyedmohammad Hasheminasab, Armin Lotfy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction motorInverterArtificial neural networkComputer scienceFault detection and isolationFault (geology)Control engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageActuatorBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inverter open switch fault is one of the faults that mostly occurs in electric motor drives. If this type of fault is not detected and tolerated in time, it can lead to performance degradation, high repair costs and even accidents. This paper presents a fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) method to capture single and double open switch/switches faults in a three-phase, two-level inverter fed V/F controlled induction motor. Three deep neural networks (DNNs) classifiers, namely bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) network, convolutional neural network (CNN), and fully connected neural network (FCN), were trained and tested using three-phase voltage and current rms and angle. The BiLSTM model performed the best with an overall accuracy of <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{9 9. 1 5 \%}$</tex> due to its ability to capture temporal dependencies over time. The proposed FDD method can detect faults and exact faulty switches in less than one fundamental period at different speed levels and during varying speed conditions. The results confirm the performance of the proposed FDD method, making it highly reliable for real-time applications.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207