MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synthetic Fouling Image Data Generation for Heat Exchanger Predictive Maintenance

2025· article· en· W4413679939 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Strzelczyk, Santiago Gomez-Rosero, Amanda O. Timotheo, Leonardo de Mello Honório, Miriam A. M. Capretz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoulingHeat exchangerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProcess engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regular maintenance of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems is vital for building sustainability and energy efficiency, as neglect can lead to performance degradation, increased energy consumption, and reduced equipment lifespan. Fouling, the accumulation of unwanted material on surfaces, is a significant issue in HVAC heat exchangers, leading to efficiency losses and increased operational costs. While preventive maintenance is commonly employed, predictive maintenance offers a more effective approach, particularly when detecting fouling that requires visual data. However, the rarity of anomalies in such data complicates the training of deep learning models. This paper introduces an approach for synthetic fouling data generation for predictive maintenance designed to simulate fouling on a heat exchanger in a cooling tower. A synthetic image dataset is generated with two distinct types: continuous growth scenarios for training purposes and scheduled maintenance scenarios for evaluating model performance. Resulting in a collection of 4,260 images over a 60-day period. The effectiveness of the dataset is validated through experiments where a U-Net model is trained for semantic segmentation in fouling detection, achieving an average F1 score of 0.8595 across the test scenarios. These results confirm that the synthetic dataset is effective for training convolutional neural networks for fouling detection, laying the groundwork for integrating such models into a broader predictive maintenance strategy for cooling towers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicEngineering Diagnostics and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207