| Literature DB >> 22438750 |
Yaguo Lei1, Jing Lin, Zhengjia He, Detong Kong.
Abstract
Studies on fault detection and diagnosis of planetary gearboxes are quite limited compared with those of fixed-axis gearboxes. Different from fixed-axis gearboxes, planetary gearboxes exhibit unique behaviors, which invalidate fault diagnosis methods that work well for fixed-axis gearboxes. It is a fact that for systems as complex as planetary gearboxes, multiple sensors mounted on different locations provide complementary information on the health condition of the systems. On this basis, a fault detection method based on multi-sensor data fusion is introduced in this paper. In this method, two features developed for planetary gearboxes are used to characterize the gear health conditions, and an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) is utilized to fuse all features from different sensors. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, experiments are carried out on a planetary gearbox test rig, on which multiple accelerometers are mounted for data collection. The comparisons between the proposed method and the methods based on individual sensors show that the former achieves much higher accuracies in detecting planetary gearbox faults.Entities:
Keywords: data fusion; fault detection; multiple sensors; planetary gearboxes; sun gear
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22438750 PMCID: PMC3304152 DOI: 10.3390/s120202005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Flow chart of the proposed method.
Figure 2.Architecture of the ANFIS.
Figure 3.Schematic model of a two-stage planetary gearbox test rig.
Figure 4.Damaged sun gears: (a) having a cracked tooth; (b) having a pitted tooth; (c) having a chipped tooth; and (d) having a missing tooth.
Gear parameters in the two-stage planetary gearbox.
| Gear | sun | planet | ring | number of planets | sun | planet | ring | number of planets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of teeth | 20 | 40 | 100 | 3 | 28 | 36 | 100 | 4 |
Figure 5.(a) Experimental system and (b) locations of the two accelerometers.
Figure 6.Accuracy comparison between Methods 1∼3 and the proposed method for Case 1.
Detection accuracies of Methods 1∼3 and the proposed method.
| 1 | 100 | 99.17 | 100 | 100 | 88.61 | 90 | 96.20 | 96.39 | 100 | 100 |
| 2 | 91.94 | 90.55 | 84.44 | 79.72 | 94.72 | 93.88 | 90.37 | 88.05 | 100 | 100 |
| 3 | 82.5 | 78.67 | 84 | 85.5 | 74 | 70.83 | 80.17 | 78.33 | 99.33 | 98.33 |
Figure 7.Classification errors of Method 2 and the proposed method.
Figure 8.Accuracy comparison between Methods 1∼3 and the proposed method for Case 2.
Figure 9.Accuracy comparison between Methods 1∼3 and the proposed method for Case 3.