| Literature DB >> 23213323 |
G S Vijay1, H S Kumar, P Srinivasa Pai, N S Sriram, Raj B K N Rao.
Abstract
The wavelet based denoising has proven its ability to denoise the bearing vibration signals by improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and reducing the root-mean-square error (RMSE). In this paper seven wavelet based denoising schemes have been evaluated based on the performance of the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and the Support Vector Machine (SVM), for the bearing condition classification. The work consists of two parts, the first part in which a synthetic signal simulating the defective bearing vibration signal with Gaussian noise was subjected to these denoising schemes. The best scheme based on the SNR and the RMSE was identified. In the second part, the vibration signals collected from a customized Rolling Element Bearing (REB) test rig for four bearing conditions were subjected to these denoising schemes. Several time and frequency domain features were extracted from the denoised signals, out of which a few sensitive features were selected using the Fisher's Criterion (FC). Extracted features were used to train and test the ANN and the SVM. The best denoising scheme identified, based on the classification performances of the ANN and the SVM, was found to be the same as the one obtained using the synthetic signal.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23213323 PMCID: PMC3505639 DOI: 10.1155/2012/582453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Denoising schemes and bearing diagnostic procedure employed in the study.
List of thresholding schemes.
| Thresholding scheme | Researcher/s | |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional thresholding schemes |
| Donoho [ |
|
| Donoho [ | |
|
| ||
| Modified or improved thresholding schemes |
| Huaigang et al. [ |
|
| Fang and Huang [ | |
|
| Lin and Cai [ | |
|
| Zhang et al. [ | |
|
| Cai-lian et al. [ | |
Figure 2(a) Plot of a synthetic signal simulating a defective bearing vibration signal free of noise. (b) Plot of a signal corrupted with zero-mean Gaussian white noise.
Figure 3Discrete wavelet decomposition of bearing vibration signal.
Figure 4Plots of noise free synthetic signal and denoised signals by different schemes.
Energy, SNR, and RMSE of synthetic signal, corrupted signal, and denoised signals.
| Signal type | Energy | SNR | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Synthetic signal | 41.895919 | — | — |
| Corrupted signal | 510.773031 | 0.793049 | 0.264839 |
| Signal denoised by | 40.005523 | 0.824919 | 0.264418 |
| Signal denoised by | 40.005523 | 0.824919 | 0.264418 |
| Signal denoised by | 48.305217 | 1.539327 | 0.255139 |
| Signal denoised by | 40.005523 | 0.824919 | 0.264418 |
| Signal denoised by | 44.967623 | 0.930983 | 0.263019 |
| Signal denoised by | 44.136735 | 0.930165 | 0.263030 |
| Signal denoised by | 75.604166 | 4.712617 | 0.217706 |
Figure 5Schematic diagram of the test rig.
Figure 6(a) Raw vibration signal from bearing with OR defect. (b) Denoised vibration signal from bearing with OR defect using s7.
Time and frequency domain features extracted for the study.
| Sl. number | Feature |
|---|---|
| (1) |
|
| (2) |
|
| (3) |
|
| (4) |
|
| (5) |
|
| (6) |
|
| (7) |
|
| (8) |
|
| (9) |
|
| (10) |
|
| (11) |
|
| (12) |
|
| (13) |
|
| (14) |
|
| (15) |
|
| (16) |
|
| (17) |
|
| where | |
| (18) |
|
| (19) |
|
| (20) |
|
| (21) |
|
| (22) |
|
| (23) |
|
| (24) |
|
| (25) |
|
| (26) |
|
| (27) |
|
| (28) |
|
| (29) |
|
| (30) |
|
*Features 1 to 17 (T 1 to T 17) are statistical features extracted from data in time domain and 18 to 30 (F 1 to F 13) are features extracted from data in the frequency domain. n is the number of data points in the time domain signal, x is the acceleration amplitude of ith data point in the time domain signal, N is the number of lines in the frequency spectrum, S(k) is the amplitude of the kth line in the frequency spectrum, f is the frequency value of the kth line in the frequency spectrum [18, 19].
FDP and selected features by FC.
| FDPs arranged in a descending order for signals denoised by seven schemes | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| # |
| # |
| # |
| # |
| # |
| # |
| # |
|
| 1 | 419.43 | 1 | 419.43 | 1 | 419.43 | 1 | 419.43 | 1 | 419.43 | 1 | 419.43 | 1 | 419.43 |
| 17 | 11.13 | 17 | 11.13 | 17 | 11.17 | 17 | 11.13 | 17 | 11.12 | 17 | 11.12 | 17 | 11.12 |
| 21 | 7.36 | 21 | 7.36 | 21 | 7.38 | 21 | 7.36 | 21 | 7.36 | 21 | 7.37 | 26 | 8.56 |
| 5 | 7.21 | 5 | 7.21 | 5 | 7.25 | 5 | 7.21 | 5 | 7.22 | 5 | 7.22 | 24 | 8.15 |
| 20 | 7.11 | 20 | 7.11 | 20 | 7.21 | 20 | 7.11 | 21 | 7.31 | ||||
| 6 | 6.33 | 6 | 6.31 | 5 | 7.16 | ||||||||
| 20 | 7.04 | ||||||||||||
| 22 | 6.94 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | 6.29 | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| 452.24 | 452.24 | 458.77 | 458.55 | 445.13 | 445.14 | 482 | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| 533.87 | 533.87 | 531.85 | 533.87 | 519.46 | 520.73 | 565.51 | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.85 | ||||||
Figure 7Structure of the MLPNN architecture.
Performance of the MLPNN classifier.
| Scheme | Number of neurons in hidden layer | All the 30 features as input | Features selected by FC as inputs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epochs | Training accuracy | Test accuracy | Epochs | Training accuracy | Test accuracy | ||
|
| 5 | 30 | 100 | 95.67 | 82 | 100.00 | 88.75 |
| 10 | 35 | 100 | 92.67 | 78 | 100.00 | 89.75 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 36 | 100 | 93.67 | 200 | 98.83 | 92.25 |
| 10 | 47 | 100 | 94.67 | 63 | 100.00 | 89.25 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 41 | 100 | 94.33 | 38 | 100.00 | 95.25 |
| 10 | 61 | 100 | 90.33 | 163 | 100.00 | 90.50 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 15 | 100 | 96.00 | 153 | 99.92 | 91.75 |
| 10 | 42 | 100 | 94.00 | 102 | 100.00 | 86.50 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 61 | 100 | 93.67 | 157 | 99.92 | 92.50 |
| 10 | 182 | 100 | 86.00 | 92 | 100.00 | 88.00 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 207 | 99.11 | 90.00 | 152 | 99.92 | 92.25 |
| 10 | 80 | 100 | 87.33 | 143 | 100.00 | 89.25 | |
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Performance of SVM classifier.
| Scheme | All the 30 features as input | Features selected by FC as inputs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Training accuracy | Test accuracy |
|
| Training accuracy | Test accuracy | |
|
| 6 | 3.5 | 68.67 | 58.00 | 6 | 3 | 68.67 | 57.00 |
|
| 6 | 3.5 | 68.67 | 58.00 | 6 | 3 | 68.67 | 57.00 |
|
| 6 | 3.75 | 78.33 | 67.00 | 6 | 3 | 75.00 | 63.00 |
|
| 6 | 3.5 | 68.67 | 58.00 | 6 | 3 | 68.67 | 57.00 |
|
| 6 | 3.0 | 67.67 | 57.00 | 9 | 3 | 71.67 | 64.00 |
|
| 6 | 3.0 | 67.67 | 57.00 | 10 | 3 | 71.67 | 64.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effectiveness of the denoising scheme s7 using the ANN and the SVM.
| All feature set | Reduced feature set | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training accuracy | Test accuracy | Training accuracy | Test accuracy | |
| ANN | 100.00 | 97.67 | 100.00 | 95.50 |
| SVM | 86.00 | 80.00 | 85.33 | 84.00 |