| Literature DB >> 33266650 |
Keheng Zhu1, Liang Chen2, Xiong Hu1.
Abstract
A new fault feature extraction method for rolling element bearing is put forward in this paper based on the adaptive local iterative filtering (ALIF) algorithm and the modified fuzzy entropy. Due to the bearing vibration signals' non-stationary and nonlinear characteristics, the ALIF method, which is a new approach for the analysis of the non-stationary signals, is used to decompose the original vibration signals into a series of mode components. Fuzzy entropy (FuzzyEn) is a nonlinear dynamic parameter for measuring the signals' complexity. However, it only emphasizes the signals' local characteristics while neglecting its global fluctuation. Considering the global fluctuation of bearing vibration signals will change with the bearing working condition varying, we modified the FuzzyEn. The modified FuzzyEn (MFuzzyEn) of the first few modes obtained by the ALIF is utilized to form the fault feature vectors. Subsequently, the corresponding feature vectors are input into the multi-class SVM classifier to accomplish the bearing fault identification automatically. The experimental analysis demonstrates that the presented ALIF-MFuzzyEn-SVM approach can effectively recognize the different fault categories and different levels of bearing fault severity.Entities:
Keywords: SVM; adaptive local iterative filtering; fault diagnosis; modified fuzzy entropy; rolling element bearing
Year: 2018 PMID: 33266650 PMCID: PMC7512513 DOI: 10.3390/e20120926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Flow chart of the proposed fault diagnosis method.
Figure 2Picture of the experimental setup.
Description of experimental data.
| Bearing State | Fault Diameter (mm) | Label of Classification | Bearing State | Fault Diameter (mm) | Label of Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 0 | 1 | ORF I | 0.1778 | 6 |
| IRF I | 0.1778 | 2 | ORF II | 0.3556 | 7 |
| IRF II | 0.3556 | 3 | ORF III | 0.5334 | 8 |
| IRF III | 0.5334 | 4 | BF I | 0.1778 | 9 |
| IRF IV | 0.7112 | 5 | BF II | 0.7112 | 10 |
Figure 3Vibration signals of ten bearing conditions.
Figure 4MFuzzyEn of the first six modes under ten bearing states.
Figure 5The first three features obtained by ALIF-MFuzzyEn.
Figure 6The first three features obtained by ALIF-FuzzyEn.
Figure 7The first three features obtained by EMD-MFuzzyEn.
Classification results of testing data based on the features extracted by FuzzyEn and MFuzzyEn with different number of features.
| Used Features | ALIF + MFuzzyEn + SVM | ALIF + FuzzyEn + SVM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Number of Misclassified Data | Accuracy (%) | The Number of Misclassified Data | Accuracy (%) | |
| First 1 | 33 | 78 | 17 | 88.67 |
| First 2 | 0 | 100 | 10 | 93.33 |
| First 3 | 5 | 96.67 | 12 | 92 |
| First 4 | 5 | 96.67 | 8 | 94.67 |
| First 5 | 1 | 99.33 | 7 | 95.33 |
| First 6 | 5 | 96.67 | 9 | 94 |
Figure 8Classification accuracy comparison of MFuzzyEn and FuzzyEn with different number of features.
Figure 9Classification accuracy comparison of ALIF and EMD with different number of features.