| Literature DB >> 30781577 |
Yilai Zheng1, Tianzhen Wang2, Bin Xin3, Tao Xie4, Yide Wang5.
Abstract
The development and application of marine current energy are attracting more and more attention around the world. Due to the hardness of its working environment, it is important and difficult to study the fault diagnosis of a marine current generation system. In this paper, an underwater image is chosen as the fault-diagnosing signal, after different sensors are compared. This paper proposes a diagnosis method based on the sparse autoencoder (SA) and softmax regression (SR). The SA is used to extract the features and SR is used to classify them. Images are used to monitor whether the blade is attached by benthos and to determine its corresponding degree of attachment. Compared with other methods, the experiment results show that the proposed method can diagnose the blade attachment with higher accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: blade attachment; marine current turbine; softmax regression; sparse autoencoder
Year: 2019 PMID: 30781577 PMCID: PMC6412786 DOI: 10.3390/s19040826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The output voltage of the marine current turbine (MCT) under different conditions: (a) The output voltage under a health condition; (b) The output voltage with uniform attachment.
Figure 2Image under different environments. (a) Waterborne image [17]; (b) Underwater image.
Figure 3Frame of the proposed diagnosis method.
Figure 4SA neural network structure [31].
Figure 5Four configurations of blade data acquisition.
Diagnostic category label.
|
| (0,1] | (1,5] | (5,10] | (10,20] | (20,30] | 60 (two blades, with each 30 attachment) | 90 (three blades, with each 30 attachment) |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Detail of dataset.
| Dataset’s Name | Number |
|---|---|
| Unlabeled pre-training sample | 160 |
| Labeled training sample | 420 |
| Testing sample | 280 |
Figure 6Single blade with different degrees attachment.
Figure 7Experiment platform of the MCT [17].
Parameters of the MCT.
| PMSG | SAP 71 |
|---|---|
| Rated power | 230 W |
| Rated voltage | 37 V |
| Rated current | 21 A |
| Pole-pair number | 8 |
| Airfoil | Naca0018 |
| Chord length | 0.19 m–0.32 m |
| Blade diameter | 0.6 m |
The parameters of mentioned methods.
| Mentioned Methods | Parameters’ Name | Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| PCA | Cumulative percent variance | 95% or 99% |
| BP (classifier) | Number of layers | 2 |
| Loss function | Mean-square error | |
| CNN | Number of convolutional layers | 1 |
| Number of pooling layers | 1 | |
| Loss function | Cross entropy loss |
The parameters of the whole system.
| Parameters | Significance | Value |
|---|---|---|
|
| Whitening parameter | 0.1 |
|
| Number of training samples | 80,000 |
|
| Weight attenuation parameter for SA | 0.003 |
|
| Weight of the sparsity penalty term | 3 |
|
| Sparsity parameter | 0.1 |
|
| Weight attenuation parameter for softmax | 0.0001 |
| Hidden size | Number of neurons in the hidden layer | 400 |
| t | Proportionality coefficient | 1 |
Figure 8Training and testing flow chart.
Experimental results based on different methods.
| Diagnosis Method | Average | |
|---|---|---|
| PCA + BP | CPV = 95% | 89.286% |
| CPV = 99% | 83.214% | |
| PCA + softmax | CPV = 95% | 93.929% |
| CPV = 99% | 96.429% | |
| SA+BP | 97.345% | |
| SA+softmax | 98.214% | |
| CNN | 97.500% | |