| Literature DB >> 30832449 |
Gaowei Xu1, Min Liu2, Zhuofu Jiang3, Dirk Söffker4, Weiming Shen5,6.
Abstract
Recently, research on data-driven bearing fault diagnosis methods has attracted increasing attention due to the availability of massive condition monitoring data. However, most existing methods still have difficulties in learning representative features from the raw data. In addition, they assume that the feature distribution of training data in source domain is the same as that of testing data in target domain, which is invalid in many real-world bearing fault diagnosis problems. Since deep learning has the automatic feature extraction ability and ensemble learning can improve the accuracy and generalization performance of classifiers, this paper proposes a novel bearing fault diagnosis method based on deep convolutional neural network (CNN) and random forest (RF) ensemble learning. Firstly, time domain vibration signals are converted into two dimensional (2D) gray-scale images containing abundant fault information by continuous wavelet transform (CWT). Secondly, a CNN model based on LeNet-5 is built to automatically extract multi-level features that are sensitive to the detection of faults from the images. Finally, the multi-level features containing both local and global information are utilized to diagnose bearing faults by the ensemble of multiple RF classifiers. In particular, low-level features containing local characteristics and accurate details in the hidden layers are combined to improve the diagnostic performance. The effectiveness of the proposed method is validated by two sets of bearing data collected from reliance electric motor and rolling mill, respectively. The experimental results indicate that the proposed method achieves high accuracy in bearing fault diagnosis under complex operational conditions and is superior to traditional methods and standard deep learning methods.Entities:
Keywords: bearing fault diagnosis; continuous wavelet transform (CWT); convolutional neural network (CNN); ensemble learning; random forest (RF)
Year: 2019 PMID: 30832449 PMCID: PMC6427562 DOI: 10.3390/s19051088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The architecture of ensemble learning.
Figure 2The flowchart of the proposed method.
Figure 3The specific process of signal-to-image conversion method.
Figure 4Architecture of the proposed CNN.
Figure 5The ensemble of multiple classifiers.
The details of the two bearing datasets.
| Health Condition Type | Class Label | Dataset I Number of Training (Loads: 0–3)/Testing (Loads: 0–3) Samples | Dataset II Number of Training (Loads: 0–2)/Testing (Loads:3) samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO | 1 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| IF-0.18 | 2 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| BF-0.18 | 3 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| OF-0.18 | 4 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| IF-0.36 | 5 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| BF-0.36 | 6 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| OF-0.36 | 7 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| IF-0.54 | 8 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| BF-0.54 | 9 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
| OF-0.54 | 10 | 200/200 | 150/50 |
The detailed structure of the CNN model.
| Layer Name | Configuration | Kernel/Pooling Size |
|---|---|---|
| Input | 32 × 32 | |
| C1 | 6@28 × 28 | 6@5 × 5 |
| S2 | 6@14 × 14 | 2 × 2 |
| C3 | 12@12 × 12 | 12@3 × 3 |
| S4 | 12@6 × 6 | 2 × 2 |
| FC5 | 240 | |
| Output | 10 |
Figure 6The raw vibration signal waveform and conversion results: (a) normal condition; (b) inner race fault condition; (c) ball fault condition; (d) outer race fault condition.
Figure 7The training accuracy curves of the proposed CNN model: (a) Dataset I; (b) Dataset II.
Figure 8Visualization of multi-level features via t-SNE: (a) FC5 (Load: 0); (b) FC5 (Load: 1); (c) FC5 (Load: 2); (d) FC5 (Load: 3); (e) FC5 (Loads: 0–3); (f) S2 (Loads: 0–3); (g) S4 (Loads: 0–3).
Figure 9The training error curves of 3 RF classifiers: (a) Dataset I; (b) Dataset II.
The mean and standard deviation of accuracy results.
| Methods | Accuracy for Dataset I (%) | Standard Deviation (%) | Accuracy for Dataset II (%) | Standard Deviation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN + Softmax | 99.66 | 0.101 | 97.04 | 0.45 |
| CNN + RF1 | 99.46 | 0.243 | 98.26 | 0.542 |
| CNN + RF2 | 99.73 | 0.109 | 99.08 | 0.379 |
| CNN + RF3 | 99.66 | 0.128 | 95.02 | 0.447 |
| Proposed method | 99.73 | 0.109 | 99.08 | 0.379 |
The comparison results with other methods.
| Methods | Accuracy for Dataset I (%) | Computation Time for Dataset I (s) | Accuracy for Dataset II (%) | Computation Time for Dataset II (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BPNN | 85.1 | 18.57 | 69.8 | 13.56 |
| SVM | 87.45 | 12.91 | 74.5 | 9.12 |
| DBN | 89.46 | 146.94 | 86.55 | 109.42 |
| DAE | 93.1 | 139.03 | 89.4 | 103.89 |
| CNN | 99.66 | 144.75 | 97.04 | 107.58 |
| Proposed method | 99.73 | 152.71 | 99.08 | 114.57 |
The detailed structure of the CNN model.
| Layer Name | Configuration | Kernel/Pooling Size |
|---|---|---|
| Input | 16 × 16 | |
| C1 | 32@16 × 16 | 32@3 × 3 |
| S2 | 32@8 × 8 | 2 × 2 |
| C3 | 64@8 × 8 | 64@3 × 3 |
| S4 | 64@4 × 4 | 2 × 2 |
| FC5 | 128 | |
| Output | 4 |
Figure 10The raw vibration signal waveform and conversion results: (a) Normal condition; (b) Rolling ball defect condition; (c) Inner race defect condition; (d) Outer race defect condition.
The mean and standard deviation of accuracy results.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) | Standard Deviation (%) |
|---|---|---|
| CNN + Softmax | 96.67 | 0.122 |
| CNN + RF1 | 96.32 | 0.28 |
| CNN + RF2 | 96.12 | 0.193 |
| CNN + RF3 | 97.38 | 0.131 |
| Proposed method | 97.38 | 0.131 |
The comparison results with other methods.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) | Computation Time (s) |
|---|---|---|
| BPNN | 83.1 | 20.66 |
| SVM | 86.22 | 14.95 |
| DBN | 87.91 | 151.23 |
| DAE | 90.01 | 142.77 |
| CNN | 96.67 | 150.12 |
| Proposed method | 97.38 | 161.43 |