| Literature DB >> 33266668 |
Nannan Zhang1,2,3,4, Lifeng Wu1,2,3,4, Zhonghua Wang1,2,3,4, Yong Guan1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Bearing plays an important role in mechanical equipment, and its remaining useful life (RUL) prediction is an important research topic of mechanical equipment. To accurately predict the RUL of bearing, this paper proposes a data-driven RUL prediction method. First, the statistical method is used to extract the features of the signal, and the root mean square (RMS) is regarded as the main performance degradation index. Second, the correlation coefficient is used to select the statistical characteristics that have high correlation with the RMS. Then, In order to avoid the fluctuation of the statistical feature, the improved Weibull distributions (WD) algorithm is used to fit the fluctuation feature of bearing at different recession stages, which is used as input of Naive Bayes (NB) training stage. During the testing stage, the true fluctuation feature of the bearings are used as the input of NB. After the NB testing, five classes are obtained: health states and four states for bearing degradation. Finally, the exponential smoothing algorithm is used to smooth the five classes, and to predict the RUL of bearing. The experimental results show that the proposed method is effective for RUL prediction of bearing.Entities:
Keywords: Naive Bayes; remaining useful life; root mean square
Year: 2018 PMID: 33266668 PMCID: PMC7512544 DOI: 10.3390/e20120944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Weibull distribution.
| Two-Parameter Weibull | Three-Parameter Weibull |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Figure 1Bearing remaining useful life (RUL) prediction model framework.
Figure 2The bearing experimental device and sensor placement illustration [39].
Description of bearing run-to-failure data set.
| Bearing Data | Speed (rpm) | Number of Samples | Type of Fault |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set No. 2 Bearing 1 | 2000 | 944 | Out race |
| Set No. 1 Bearing 3 | 2000 | 2156 | Inner race |
| Set No. 1 Bearing 4 | 2000 | 2156 | Roller |
Figure 3Bearing run-to-failure data. (a) Bearing 1 of Set No. 2 is vibration signals ending with an outer race failure; (b) Bearing 3 of Set No. 1 is vibration signals ending with an inner race defect; (c) Bearing 4 of Set No. 1 is vibration signals ending with roller element defect.
Time domain analysis of bearing run-to-failure data.
| Number | Characteristic Equation | Number | Characteristic Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
| 16 |
|
Figure 4The 16 time-domain features of bearing 1.
Figure 5The 16 time-domain features of bearing 3.
Figure 6The 16 time-domain features of bearing 4.
Figure 7Based on root mean square (RMS) feature selection flow chart.
Correlation coefficient between bearing features and RMS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Set No. 2 Bearing 1 | 1 | 0.9989 | 0.9910 | 0.9973 | 0.9910 | 1 |
| Set No. 1 Bearing 3 | 1 | 0.9985 | 0.9892 | 0.9962 | 0.9937 | 0.9992 |
| Set No. 1 Bearing 4 | 1 | 0.9983 | 0.9987 | 0.9962 | 0.9955 | 0.9959 |
Universal Failure Rate Function (UFRF) parameters of bearing 1 in different degradation stages.
| Feature | Stage |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal stage | 310.0209 | 12.2517 | 0.0782 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 310.0209 | 10.1917 | 0.1555 |
|
| Final failure stage | 289.0209 | 11.2017 | −0.8362 |
| |
| Normal stage | 310.0209 | 12.2517 | 0.0782 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 310.0209 | 10.1917 | 0.1555 |
|
| Final failure stage | 289.0209 | 11.2017 | −0.8362 |
| |
| Normal stage | 297.0209 | 11.5217 | 0.0616 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 310.0209 | 9.8917 | 0.0663 |
|
| Final failure stage | 270.0209 | 10.8017 | −0.4843 |
| |
| Normal stage | 310.0209 | 10.9817 | 0.0517 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 295.0209 | 9.3017 | 0.2335 |
|
| Final failure stage | 296.0209 | 10.8517 | −0.3988 |
| |
| Normal stage | 310.0209 | 10.06 | 0.0061 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 295.0209 | 10.3017 | 0.0075 |
|
| Final failure stage | 291.0209 | 11.1317 | −0.8164 |
| |
| Normal stage | 310.0209 | 12.2517 | 0.0782 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 295.0209 | 10.5517 | 0.00755 |
|
| Final failure stage | 288.0209 | 11.1617 | −0.7486 |
|
UFRF parameters of bearing 3 in different degradation stages.
| Feature | Stage |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal stage | 78 | 3.4 | 0.023 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 97 | 3.7917 | 0.0426 |
|
| Final failure stage | 100 | 4.7017 | 4.9300 |
| |
| Normal stage | 78 | 3.4 | 0.018 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 97 | 3.6417 | 0.0196 |
|
| Final failure stage | 95 | 4.7017 | 6.2923 |
| |
| Normal stage | 78 | 3.4 | 0.018 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 97 | 0.0196 | 0.0196 |
|
| Final failure stage | 100 | 4.7017 | 6.2923 |
| |
| Normal stage | 78 | 3.33 | 0.018 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 100 | 3.5417 | 0.0148 |
|
| Final failure stage | 78 | 4.6017 | 3.9144 |
| |
| Normal stage | 78 | 3.17 | 0.009 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 100 | 3.5217 | 0.0148 |
|
| Final failure stage | 78 | 4.6017 | 0.1864 |
| |
| Normal stage | 78 | 3.03 | 0.004 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 97 | 3.5417 | 0.0196 |
|
| Final failure stage | 95 | 4.7017 | 6.2923 |
|
UFRF parameters of bearing 4 in different degradation stages.
| Feature | Stage |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal stage | 96 | 3.6 | 0.2138 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 91 | 3.417 | 0.2218 |
|
| Final failure stage | 97 | 3.6317 | 0.169 |
| |
| Normal stage | 96 | 3.5 | 0.0449 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 92 | 3.537 | 0.0425 |
|
| Final failure stage | 95 | 3.5317 | 0.0073 |
| |
| Normal stage | 96 | 3.5 | 0.0449 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 92 | 3.537 | 0.0425 |
|
| Final failure stage | 95 | 3.5317 | 0.0073 |
| |
| Normal stage | 96 | 3.73 | 0.2098 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 93 | 3.5417 | 0.213 |
|
| Final failure stage | 95 | 3.7317 | 0.1352 |
| |
| Normal stage | 94 | 3.53 | 0.1423 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 93 | 3.747 | 0.133 |
|
| Final failure stage | 95 | 3.5317 | 0.1109 |
| |
| Normal stage | 95 | 3 | 0.0494 |
| |
|
| Continuous recession stage | 91 | 3.317 | 0.0469 |
|
| Final failure stage | 92 | 3.3817 | 0.0192 |
|
Figure 8Fitted feature of bearing 1.
Figure 9Fitted feature of bearing 3.
Figure 10Fitted feature of bearing 4.
Figure 11Classification of degradation data for bearing. (a) The class label for bearing 1; (b) The class label for bearing 3; (c) The class label for bearing 4.
Description of bearing 1 data set.
| Data Type | The Number of Training | The Number of Testing | Lable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 585 | 585 | 1 |
| 25% of failure | 100 | 100 | 2 |
| 50% of failure | 100 | 100 | 3 |
| 90% of failure | 164 | 164 | 4 |
| 100% of failure | 35 | 35 | 5 |
| Total | 984 | 984 | 5 |
Description of bearing 3 data set.
| Data Type | The Number of Training | The Number of Testing | Lable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 1808 | 1808 | 1 |
| 30% of failure | 104 | 104 | 2 |
| 60% of failure | 105 | 105 | 3 |
| 90% of failure | 102 | 102 | 4 |
| 100% of failure | 37 | 37 | 5 |
| Total | 2156 | 2156 | 5 |
Description of bearing 4 data set.
| Data Type | The Number of Training | The Number of Testing | Lable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 1077 | 1077 | 1 |
| 40% of failure | 172 | 172 | 2 |
| 80% of failure | 192 | 192 | 3 |
| 95% of failure | 46 | 46 | 4 |
| 100% of failure | 668 | 668 | 5 |
| Total | 2156 | 2156 | 5 |
Class classification accuracy of bearing 1.
| Class | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of class | 585 | 100 | 100 | 164 | 35 | 984 |
| Well number of class | 531 | 100 | 20 | 117 | 28 | 796 |
| Accuracy | 91.1% | 100% | 20% | 71.3% | 80% | 80.9% |
Class classification accuracy of bearing 3.
| Class | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of class | 1808 | 104 | 105 | 102 | 37 | 2156 |
| Well number of class | 1753 | 84 | 17 | 52 | 37 | 1943 |
| Accuracy | 97% | 80.8% | 16.2% | 51% | 100% | 90.2% |
Class classification accuracy of bearing 4.
| Class | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of class | 1077 | 172 | 192 | 46 | 668 | 2156 |
| Well number of class | 669 | 47 | 71 | 0 | 570 | 1357 |
| Accuracy | 62.2% | 2.32% | 36.98% | 0% | 85.33% | 62.94% |
Comparison of bearing test results.
| Set No. 2—Bearing 1 | Accurancy |
|---|---|
| NB | 80.9% |
| Reference [ | 74.2% |
Figure 12Fitted feature of bearing 3.
Comparison of prediction error by different methods.
| Data | Algorithm |
|
|---|---|---|
| Set No. 2—Bearing 1 | NB+UFRF | 0.1173 |
| Referfece [ | 4.61 | |
| Set No. 2—Bearing 3 | NB+UFRF | 0.0402 |
| Reference [ | 0.98 | |
| Set No. 2—Bearing 4 | NB+UFRF | 0.6345 |