2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.11.029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fault monitoring using novel adaptive kernel principal component analysis integrating grey relational analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While the (TGK) formula worked out a cumulative contribution ratio of (0.86321) with a number of (4) compounds. As noted when (q = 8, 15, 20, 30) and (n = 50), the (MGK) formula was also the best in its contribution ratios cumulative as it accomplished (0.86020, 0.89926, 0.88143, 0.89096) and with higher component numbers also (8,9,10,14) respectively according to dimensions (q) and when (q = 15, 20, 30) and (n = 200) we note that (MGK) was also the best in its cumulative contribution ratios, as it achieved (0.89292, 0.89066, 0.89447) and with relatively close numbers of components (10,20,21), respectively, according to dimensions (q), but in the case of the matrix (š» 2 ), the results showed the formula (MGK) was not good, but there are cases in which results did not appear, as in the case of (q = 15, n = 20), (q = 30, n = 50), (q = 30, n = 100). From The above results, it can be considered that the formula (MGK) is good in the case of the matrix (š» 1 ) estimated by the ROT method, but it cannot be generalized to the rest of the methods.…”
Section: Analysis For Kpc By Rotmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…While the (TGK) formula worked out a cumulative contribution ratio of (0.86321) with a number of (4) compounds. As noted when (q = 8, 15, 20, 30) and (n = 50), the (MGK) formula was also the best in its contribution ratios cumulative as it accomplished (0.86020, 0.89926, 0.88143, 0.89096) and with higher component numbers also (8,9,10,14) respectively according to dimensions (q) and when (q = 15, 20, 30) and (n = 200) we note that (MGK) was also the best in its cumulative contribution ratios, as it achieved (0.89292, 0.89066, 0.89447) and with relatively close numbers of components (10,20,21), respectively, according to dimensions (q), but in the case of the matrix (š» 2 ), the results showed the formula (MGK) was not good, but there are cases in which results did not appear, as in the case of (q = 15, n = 20), (q = 30, n = 50), (q = 30, n = 100). From The above results, it can be considered that the formula (MGK) is good in the case of the matrix (š» 1 ) estimated by the ROT method, but it cannot be generalized to the rest of the methods.…”
Section: Analysis For Kpc By Rotmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Fault monitoring using novel adaptive kernel principal component analysis integrating grey relational analysis [33] Adaptive kernel principal component analysis integrating grey relational analysis (AKPCA-GRA)…”
Section: Iron Sulfide Oxidationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the evaluation problem of the collision responses of honeycomb structures, researchers have proposed some common assessment indexes, such as maximum collision depth Ī“ max and maximum absorption energy E max [12,14]. Grey relational analysis (GRA) is an attractive tool for addressing multi-index evaluation problems, successfully used in various engineering fields [37,38]. In this paper, GRA is used to evaluate the anti-impact performance of the honeycomb structure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%