Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41196920›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Machine learning based fault classification for improved induction motor performance.

Zawar Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Amir Raza, Muhammad I Masud, Touqeer Ahmed Jumani, Muhammad Faheem, Mohammed Aman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zawar Ahmed KhanDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology SZAB Campus Khairpur Mir's, Sindh, Pakistan.
Muhammad Amir RazaDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology SZAB Campus Khairpur Mir's, Sindh, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2765-0164
Muhammad I MasudDepartment of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Touqeer Ahmed JumaniDepartment of Electrical and Computer Science, College of Engineering, A' Sharqiyah University, Ibra, Oman.
Muhammad FaheemVTT-Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., Espoo, Finland.
Mohammed AmanDepartment of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explores the design of an effective fault classification algorithm for 3 phase induction motor, an integral unit in many industrial systems. It is found that traditional fault detection methods and deep learning approaches are both effective; however, current techniques can either be computationally exhaustive, or suffer from low accuracy, thus making them inapplicable in many real-world settings. To address these limitations, this study evaluates different machine learning algorithms for accurate and efficient fault detection using a dataset of triaxial vibrational data converted into current variables. A dataset of triaxial vibrational current data at 0.7 mm bearing and rotor faults at various loads (100W, 200W, and 300W) were considered. For the data preprocessing, we handled with the missing values by interpolation and handle data imbalance fault types with Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE). Through Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) techniques, the frequency domain information were extracted, which is key for current signals, adding to the feature set. In addition, dimensionality reduction with Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and feature selection was done with SelectKBest. Then, the different machine learning models such as Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) was trained to optimize the hyperparameters and make them perform to its best possible. The results shows the accuracy and performance of all models, DT and RF show good performance, with 99.95% accuracy, while KNN performs well, but at a higher computational cost in testing. Generally known for its capability to handle all the complex dataset, XGBoost wasn't able to perform in this scenario as it got an accuracy of 87.13%, indicating potentially more optimization is required for the model. This work serves as the groundwork for future work with a multiplicity of fault types, motor specifications, and the incorporation of additional feature-engineering techniques to develop a more robust and intelligent framework for fault detection.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAlgorithmsPrincipal Component Analysis

Identifiers

PMID41196920
PMCPMC12591418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.