| Literature DB >> 29966374 |
Donghyun Park1, Seulgi Kim2, Yelin An3, Jae-Yoon Jung4.
Abstract
Monitoring the status of the facilities and detecting any faults are considered an important technology in a smart factory. Although the faults of machine can be analyzed in real time using collected data, it requires a large amount of computing resources to handle the massive data. A cloud server can be used to analyze the collected data, but it is more efficient to adopt the edge computing concept that employs edge devices located close to the facilities. Edge devices can improve data processing and analysis speed and reduce network costs. In this paper, an edge device capable of collecting, processing, storing and analyzing data is constructed by using a single-board computer and a sensor. And, a fault detection model for machine is developed based on the long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks. The proposed system called LiReD was implemented for an industrial robot manipulator and the LSTM-based fault detection model showed the best performance among six fault detection models.Entities:
Keywords: data-driven fault detection; edge computing; prognostics and heath management; real-time monitoring
Year: 2018 PMID: 29966374 PMCID: PMC6068676 DOI: 10.3390/s18072110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Architecture of the LiReD system.
Figure 2Target facility for fault detection: (a) grinding robot manipulator; (b) vacuum ejector.
Figure 3Architecture of the developed LSTM model.
Figure 4Dashboard of the fault monitor: (a) normal states; (b) fault states.
Figure 5Vibration sensor: (a) normal state; (b) fault state.
Time domain features.
| Feature | Equation | Feature | Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean |
| Kurtisus |
|
| Peak |
| Crest factor |
|
| Root mean square |
| Shape factor |
|
| Standard deviation |
| Impulse factor |
|
| Skewness |
| Margin factor |
|
Performance evaluation of six models.
| 1-NN + DTW | 3-NN + DTW | 5-NN + DTW | SVM | RF | LSTM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.939 | 0.939 | 0.909 | 0.818 | 0.818 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.933 | 0.882 | 0.833 | 0.764 | 0.800 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.933 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.866 | 0.800 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.933 | 0.937 | 0.909 | 0.812 | 0.800 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.933 | 0.974 | 0.961 | 0.843 | 0.800 | 1.000 |
Figure 6Performance comparison of six models. LSTM shows the best performance in terms of F1 and F2 scores.