MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415650282 · doi:10.3390/s25216571

An Enhanced TK Technology for Bearing Fault Detection Using Vibration Measurement

2025· article· en· W4415650282 on OpenAlexaff
Megha Malusare, Manzar Mahmud, Wilson Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBearing (navigation)Hilbert–Huang transformFault detection and isolationVibrationFault (geology)Rolling-element bearingSIGNAL (programming language)Condition monitoringFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rolling element bearings are commonly used in rotating machines. Bearing fault detection and diagnosis play a critical role in machine operations to recognize bearing faults at their early stage and prevent machine performance degradation, improve operation quality, and reduce maintenance costs. Although many fault detection techniques are proposed in the literature for bearing condition monitoring, reliable bearing fault detection remains a challenging task in this research and development field. This study proposes an enhanced Teager-Kaiser (eTK) technique for bearing fault detection and diagnosis. Vibration signals are used for analysis. The eTK technique is novel in two aspects: Firstly, an empirical mode decomposition analysis is suggested to recognize representative intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) with different frequency components. Secondly, an eTK denoising filter is proposed to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the selected IMF features. The analytical signal spectrum analysis is conducted to identify representative features for bearing fault detection. The effectiveness of the proposed eTK technique is verified by experimental tests corresponding to different bearing conditions.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207