| Literature DB >> 33265715 |
Wenlong Fu1,2, Jiawen Tan1,2, Chaoshun Li3, Zubing Zou4, Qiankun Li1,2, Tie Chen1,2.
Abstract
As crucial equipment during industrial manufacture, the health status of rotating machinery affects the production efficiency and device safety. Hence, it is of great significance to diagnose rotating machinery faults, which can contribute to guarantee the running stability and plan for maintenance, thus promoting production efficiency and economic benefits. For this purpose, a hybrid fault diagnosis model with entropy-based feature extraction and SVM optimized by a chaos quantum sine cosine algorithm (CQSCA) is developed in this research. Firstly, the state-of-the-art variational mode decomposition (VMD) is utilized to decompose the vibration signals into sets of components, during which process the preset parameter K is confirmed with the central frequency observation method. Subsequently, the permutation entropy values of all components are computed to constitute the feature vectors corresponding to different kind of signals. Later, the newly developed sine cosine algorithm (SCA) is employed and improved with chaotic initialization by a Duffing system and quantum technique to optimize the support vector machine (SVM) model, with which the fault pattern is recognized. Additionally, the availability of the optimized SVM with CQSCA was revealed in pattern recognition experiments. Finally, the proposed hybrid fault diagnosis approach was employed for engineering applications as well as contrastive analysis. The comparative results show that the proposed method achieved the best training accuracy 99.5% and best testing accuracy 97.89%. Furthermore, it can be concluded from the boxplots of different diagnosis methods that the stability and precision of the proposed method is superior to those of others.Entities:
Keywords: Duffing system; chaos quantum sine cosine algorithm; fault diagnosis; permutation entropy; variational mode decomposition
Year: 2018 PMID: 33265715 PMCID: PMC7513146 DOI: 10.3390/e20090626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1The flowchart of SVM optimized by CQSCA.
The basic information of the datasets.
| Dataset | Number of Attributes | Number of Classes | Number of Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wine | 13 | 3 | 178 |
| Iris | 4 | 3 | 150 |
| Heart | 13 | 2 | 303 |
Pattern recognition results with different methods.
| Methods | Dataset |
|
| Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-Validation | Classification | ||||
| PSO-SVM | Wine | 0.6629 | 2.9830 | 98.88, [0, 0] | 99.27, [−0.39, 0.75] |
| Iris | 426.2439 | 0.0010 | 97.28, [0, 0] | 97.28, [0, 0] | |
| Heart | 66.8865 | 0.0010 | 83.83, [0, 0] | 85.54, [−0.40, 0.22] | |
| SCA-SVM | Wine | 603.7267 | 4.9808 | 98.88, [0, 0] | 99.21, [−0.34, 0.75] |
| Iris | 490.5731 | 0.0010 | 97.28, [0, 0] | 96.33, [−1.09, 0.84] | |
| Heart | 78.8959 | 0.0013 | 83.83, [0, 0] | 84.65, [−0.50, 0.48] | |
| CQSCA-SVM | Wine | 508.2523 | 5.3278 | 98.88, [0, 0] | 99.89, [−1.01, 0.12] |
| Iris | 600.7378 | 31.3525 | 97.28, [0, 0] | 99.59, [−3.67, 0.45] | |
| Heart | 0.6663 | 0.1195 | 84.06, [−0.23, 0.41] | 84.82, [−0.33, 0.63] | |
Figure 2Boxplots of recognition results with different recognition methods.
Figure 3Flowchart of the proposed hybrid fault diagnosis approach.
Figure 4Experiment device in bearing data center.
Description of the experimental data.
| Position of Fault | Defect Size (Inches) | Label of Classes | Number of Samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | - | L0 | 59 |
| Inner race | 0.007 | L1 | 59 |
| Ball | 0.007 | L2 | 59 |
| Outer race | 0.007 | L3 | 59 |
| Inner race | 0.021 | L4 | 59 |
| Ball | 0.021 | L5 | 59 |
| Outer race | 0.021 | L6 | 59 |
Normalized center frequencies with different K value.
| Number of Modes | Normalized Center Frequencies | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.2221 | 0.0860 | |||||
| 3 | 0.2981 | 0.2253 | 0.0952 | ||||
| 4 | 0.2982 | 0.2260 | 0.1121 | 0.0400 | |||
| 5 | 0.3041 | 0.2772 | 0.2238 | 0.1140 | 0.0494 | ||
| 6 | 0.3047 | 0.2813 | 0.2358 | 0.2100 | 0.1099 | 0.0490 | |
| 7 | 0.3152 | 0.2992 | 0.2780 | 0.2357 | 0.2102 | 0.1096 | 0.0490 |
Figure 5The VMD decomposition results of signals from different working states: (a) fault-inner race (0.007 inches); (b) fault-ball (0.007 inches); (c) fault-outer race (0.007 inches); (d) fault-inner race (0.021 inches); (e) fault-ball (0.021 inches); (f) fault-outer race (0.021 inches); (g) normal state.
Permutation entropy of different fault samples.
| Fault Label | Sample Number | Permutation Entropy for Different Imf | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMF1 | IMF2 | IMF3 | IMF4 | ||
| L0 | 1 | 0.9629 | 0.8838 | 0.7110 | 0.5392 |
| 2 | 0.9713 | 0.8836 | 0.7111 | 0.5282 | |
| 3 | 0.9589 | 0.8833 | 0.7132 | 0.5395 | |
| 4 | 0.9468 | 0.8830 | 0.7146 | 0.5351 | |
| 5 | 0.8836 | 0.7146 | 0.6281 | 0.5304 | |
| L1 | 1 | 0.9931 | 0.9472 | 0.7797 | 0.6424 |
| 2 | 0.9941 | 0.9465 | 0.7839 | 0.6668 | |
| 3 | 0.9947 | 0.9476 | 0.7791 | 0.6485 | |
| 4 | 0.9947 | 0.9425 | 0.7843 | 0.6350 | |
| 5 | 0.9941 | 0.9486 | 0.7835 | 0.6539 | |
| L2 | 1 | 0.9853 | 0.9592 | 0.6593 | 0.7678 |
| 2 | 0.9850 | 0.9518 | 0.6720 | 0.7502 | |
| 3 | 0.9871 | 0.9576 | 0.6678 | 0.7311 | |
| 4 | 0.9854 | 0.9557 | 0.6921 | 0.7546 | |
| 5 | 0.9859 | 0.9510 | 0.6773 | 0.7315 | |
| L3 | 1 | 0.9925 | 0.9877 | 0.9598 | 0.7015 |
| 2 | 0.9928 | 0.9877 | 0.9599 | 0.7092 | |
| 3 | 0.9930 | 0.9871 | 0.9598 | 0.7515 | |
| 4 | 0.9926 | 0.9869 | 0.9578 | 0.7079 | |
| 5 | 0.9930 | 0.9879 | 0.9595 | 0.7437 | |
| L4 | 1 | 0.9926 | 0.9501 | 0.7869 | 0.6663 |
| 2 | 0.9913 | 0.9508 | 0.7945 | 0.6815 | |
| 3 | 0.9942 | 0.9521 | 0.6892 | 0.7902 | |
| 4 | 0.9934 | 0.9510 | 0.7955 | 0.6602 | |
| 5 | 0.9938 | 0.9501 | 0.7859 | 0.7211 | |
| L5 | 1 | 0.9811 | 0.9475 | 0.7869 | 0.6203 |
| 2 | 0.9828 | 0.9465 | 0.7884 | 0.6141 | |
| 3 | 0.9801 | 0.9448 | 0.7990 | 0.6117 | |
| 4 | 0.9819 | 0.9507 | 0.7875 | 0.6456 | |
| 5 | 0.9818 | 0.9523 | 0.7887 | 0.6382 | |
| L6 | 1 | 0.9965 | 0.9866 | 0.7094 | 0.7709 |
| 2 | 0.9980 | 0.9888 | 0.7340 | 0.7959 | |
| 3 | 0.9970 | 0.9877 | 0.7130 | 0.7883 | |
| 4 | 0.9985 | 0.9880 | 0.7927 | 0.6727 | |
| 5 | 0.9984 | 0.9881 | 0.7983 | 0.6564 | |
Fault diagnosis results with different methods.
| Methods |
|
| Diagnosis Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Phase | Testing Phase | |||
| EMD-PE-PSO-SVM | 438.1992 | 2.5166 | 80.46, [−4.40, 8.81] | 71.80, [−6.39, 7.78] |
| EMD-PE-SCA-SVM | 864.9884 | 1.5184 | 77.57, [−2.57, 3.78] | 74.21, [−2.78, 3.40] |
| EMD-PE-CQSCA-SVM | 769.6280 | 0.2422 | 76.86, [−2.22, 2.74] | 75.19, [−5.27, 3.76] |
| EEMD-PE-PSO-SVM | 192.4239 | 0.5464 | 89.46, [−2.67, 2.45] | 81.88, [−5.94, 2.71] |
| EEMD-PE-SCA-SVM | 316.7508 | 0.1267 | 89.07, [−1.93, 1.20] | 82.41, [−3.46, 3.87] |
| EEMD-PE-CQSCA-SVM | 1023.7402 | 0.0912 | 88.57, [−3.57, 3.22] | 83.01, [−3.31, 2.83] |
| VMD-PE-PSO-SVM | 265.3060 | 5.5333 | 99.45, [−0.57, 0.16] | 97.37, [−2.63, 1.84] |
| VMD-PE-SCA-SVM | 1024.0000 | 7.5830 | 99.50, [−0.93, 0.48] | 96.32, [−3.84, 3.15] |
| VMD-PE-CQSCA-SVM | 90.9980 | 7.2720 | 99.50, [−0.57, 0.16] | 97.89, [−1.65, 1.42] |
Figure 6Comparison of all experimental results with different methods.
Figure 7Boxplots of diagnosis results with different methods, the x-axis tick labels correspond to: 1: EMD-PE-PSO-SVM; 2: EMD-PE-SCA-SVM; 3: EMD-PE-CQSCA-SVM; 4: EEMD-PE-PSO-SVM; 5: EEMD-PE-SCA-SVM; 6 EEMD-PE-CQSCA-SVM; 7: VMD-PE-PSO-SVM; 8: VMD-PE-SCA-SVM; 9: VMD-PE-CQSCA-SVM.