| Literature DB >> 31052577 |
Kai-Bo Zhou1, Jian-Yu Zhang2, Yahui Shan3, Ming-Feng Ge4, Zi-Yue Ge5, Guan-Nan Cao6.
Abstract
The hydropower generator unit (HGU) is a vital piece of equipment for frequency and peaking modulation in the power grid. Its vibration signal contains a wealth of information and status characteristics. Therefore, it is important to predict the vibration tendency of HGUs using collected real-time data, and achieve predictive maintenance as well. In previous studies, most prediction methods have only focused on enhancing the stability or accuracy. However, it is insufficient to consider only one criterion (stability or accuracy) in vibration tendency prediction. In this paper, an intelligence vibration tendency prediction method is proposed to simultaneously achieve strong stability and high accuracy, where vibration signal preprocessing, feature selection and prediction methods are integrated in a multi-objective optimization framework. Firstly, raw sensor signals are decomposed into several modes by empirical wavelet transform (EWT). Subsequently, the refactored modes can be obtained by the sample entropy-based reconstruction strategy. Then, important input features are selected using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonal (GSO) process. Later, the refactored modes are predicted through kernel extreme learning machine (KELM). Finally, the parameters of GSO and KELM are synchronously optimized by the multi-objective salp swarm algorithm. A case study and analysis of the mixed-flow HGU data in China was conducted, and the results show that the proposed model performs better in terms of predicting stability and accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: Gram–Schmidt orthogonal; aggregated empirical wavelet transform; hydropower generator unit; kernel extreme learning machine; multi-objective salp swarm algorithm; vibration tendency prediction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31052577 PMCID: PMC6539349 DOI: 10.3390/s19092055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Summary of literature on vibration tendency prediction.
| Forecasting Models | Methods | Data Set | Authors | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistical models | Autoregressive moving average (ARMA) method | The low methane compressor | Pham et al. | [ |
| Grey prediction method | Rolling bearing vibration | Xia et al. | [ | |
| Artificial intelligence (AI) models | Artificial neural network (ANN) | The gear transmission vibration of pellet mills | Milovancevic et al. | [ |
| Support Vector Regression | The vibration trend of hydro-turbine generating unit | Fu et al. | [ | |
| Extreme learning machines | The vibration data of cutting tools and bearing | Javed et al. | [ | |
| Long short-term memory recurrent neural networks | The vibration of turbine engine | El Said et al. | [ | |
| Hybrid models | LS-SVR and chaotic sine cosine algorithm optimization | Vibration trend of hydropower generator | Fu et al. | [ |
| Empirical mode decomposition and relevance vector machine | The vibration signal of bearings | Fei S.-W. | [ |
Figure 1The framework of the proposed model.
Figure 2Encoding strategy in the location vector in the multi-objective salp swarm algorithm (MOSSA).
Figure 3The structure of the hydropower generator unit (HGU) and the location of the sensors.
Detailed description of the monitoring data.
| Sensor | Time | Time Interval | The Number of Samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| BENTLY3300 | 24–27 July 2011 | 10 min | 300 |
Figure 4The swing data of lower guide in X-direction.
Figure 5Modes of the vibration data with empirical wavelet transform (EWT).
The SE values of modes decomposed with EWT.
| Indicator | Mode 1 | Mode 2 | Mode 3 | Mode 4 | Mode 5 | Mode 6 | Mode 7 | Mode 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE | 0.0085 | 0.0381 | 0.0869 | 0.129 | 0.113 | 0.168 | 0.212 | 0.233 |
Reconstructed RM derived by EWT according to SE.
| RMs | Modes Contained |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mode 1 | [0, 0.0085] |
| 2 | Mode 2, Mode 3, | [0.0308,0.0869] |
| 3 | Mode 4, Mode 5, Mode 6 | [0.112, 0.168] |
| 4 | Mode 7, Mode 8 | [0.177, 0.233] |
Figure 6RM obtained from EWT and SE-based reconstruction.
Figure 7The best solution selection from Pareto-optimal sets of MOSSA.
Figure 8Comparisons of vibration data and prediction results with different methods: (a) EEMD-KELM model, (b) EWT-KELM model, (c) AEWT-KELM model, (d) AEWT-PCA-KELM model, (e) AEWT-GSO-SVR model, (f) AEWT-GSO-SSA-KELM model, (g) AEWT-GSO-MOPSO-KELM model, and (h) AEWT-GSO-MOSSA-KELM model.
Figure 9The box plots of error distribution with different models.
The performance of different models.
| Model | Precision of Model Prediction | Computing Time | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE (μm) | MAE (μm) | MAPE (%) | R | Time (s) | |
| EEMD-KELM | 1.236 | 1.031 | 1.093 | 0.827 | 106.730 |
| EWT-KELM | 1.207 | 0.997 | 1.053 | 0.874 | 105.138 |
| AEWT-KELM | 1.105 | 1.027 | 1.157 | 0.879 | 98.876 |
| AEWT-PCA-KELM | 0.919 | 0.798 | 0.846 | 0.902 | 100.263 |
| AEWT-GSO-MOSSA-SVR | 0.857 | 0.641 | 0.681 | 0.885 | 109.114 |
| AEWT-GSO-SSA-KELM | 0.939 | 0.743 | 0.791 | 0.906 | 95.716 |
| AEWT-GSO-MOPSO-KELM | 0.841 | 0.704 | 0.747 | 0.911 | 109.987 |
| AEWT-GSO-MOSSA-KELM | 0.823 | 0.650 | 0.682 | 0.913 | 102.920 |