| Literature DB >> 33267100 |
Lin Lin1, Bin Wang2, Jiajin Qi3, Da Wang4, Nantian Huang5.
Abstract
To improve the accuracy of the recognition of complicated mechanical faults in bearings, a large number of features containing fault information need to be extracted. In most studies regarding bearing fault diagnosis, the influence of the limitation of fault training samples has not been considered. Furthermore, commonly used multi-classifiers could misidentify the type or severity of faults without using normal samples as training samples. Therefore, a novel bearing fault diagnosis method based on the one-class classification concept and random forest is proposed for reducing the impact of the limitations of the fault training sample. First, the bearing vibration signals are decomposed into numerous intrinsic mode functions using empirical wavelet transform. Then, 284 features including multiple entropy are extracted from the original signal and intrinsic mode functions to construct the initial feature set. Lastly, a hybrid classifier based on one-class support vector machine trained by normal samples and a random forest trained by imbalanced fault data without some specific severities is set up to accurately identify the mechanical state and specific fault type of the bearings. The experimental results show that the proposed method can significantly improve the classification accuracy compared with traditional methods in different diagnostic target.Entities:
Keywords: bearing fault diagnosis; empirical wavelet transform; imbalanced training data; one-class support vector machine; random forest
Year: 2019 PMID: 33267100 PMCID: PMC7514870 DOI: 10.3390/e21040386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1The flowchart of the proposed method.
Figure 2CWRU bearing test rig.
Figure 3(a) Time domain waveform of the normal signal. (b) Time domain waveform of the ball fault signal at 0.007 mils. (c) Time domain waveform of the inner race fault signal at 0.007 mils. (d) Time domain waveform of the outer race fault signal at 0.007 mils.
Figure 4(a) The segmentation of the frequency spectrum of the normal signal. (b) The segmentation of the frequency spectrum of the ball fault signal at 0.007 mils. (c) The segmentation of the frequency spectrum of the inner race fault signal at 0.007 mils. (d) The segmentation of the frequency spectrum of the outer race fault signal at 0.007 mils.
Figure 5The EWT results of four types of signals at 0.007 mils and 0.021 mils. The fault severity of the signals in red is 0.007 mils. The fault severity of the signals in black is 0.021 mils. (a) EWT results of the normal signal. (b) EWT results of the ball fault signal. (c) EWT results of the inner race fault signal. (d) EWT results of the outer race fault signal.
Figure 6Distribution of features.
Figure 7GI of all features under different diagnostic targets. (a) GI of all features under diagnostic target 1. (b) GI of all features under diagnostic target 2. (c) GI of all features under diagnostic target 3.
Figure 8The feature value distribution of the first 4 features with the highest GI and the last 4 features with the lowest GI.
Figure 9Classification accuracy of RF for various subsets. (a) Classification accuracy of RF for various subsets under target 1. (b) Classification accuracy of RF for various subsets under target 2. (c) Classification accuracy of RF for various subsets under target 3.
Classification results of different diagnosis targets.
| Diagnostic Target | Classifier |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| target 1 | OCSVM-RF | 1 | 100 | 100 |
| RF | 1 | 100 | 100 | |
| SVM | 0.9800 | 97.50 | 97.750 | |
| target 2 | OCSVM-RF | 1 | 100 | 100 |
| RF | 1 | 100 | 100 | |
| SVM | 0.9667 | 97 | 96.835 | |
| target 3 | OCSVM-RF | 1 | 100 | 100 |
| RF | 1 | 100 | 100 | |
| SVM | 0.9508 | 95.75 | 95.415 |
Classification results of various classifiers for samples with unknown fault severity.
| Classifier | Test Fault Type | Test (Missing) Fault Level | Diagnosis Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAF | Other Fault Type | Normal State | |||
| SVM | DE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 79 | 17 | 4 |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 86 | 8 | 6 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 82 | 18 | 0 | ||
| FE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 85 | 10 | 5 | |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 86 | 11 | 3 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 87 | 13 | 0 | ||
| BPNN | DE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 79 | 10 | 11 |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 76 | 13 | 11 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 80 | 20 | 0 | ||
| FE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 81 | 7 | 12 | |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 80 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 78 | 22 | 0 | ||
| RF | DE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 93 | 3 | 4 |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 98 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 100 | 0 | 0 | ||
| FE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 94 | 2 | 4 | |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 98 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 100 | 0 | 0 | ||
| OCSVM-RF | DE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 97 | 3 | 0 |
| 0.007, 0.021 | 100 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 100 | 0 | 0 | ||
| FE-BAF | 0.007, 0.014 | 98 | 2 | 0 | |
| 0.007, 0.012 | 100 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.014, 0.021 | 100 | 0 | 0 | ||
Diagnostic results comparison of the literature and the new approach.
| Ref. | No. of Classes | ACC/% | No. of Diagnostic Targets | Imbalance of Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 19 | 98.13 | 1 | not considering |
| [ | 4 | 94.73 | 1 | not considering |
| [ | 4 | 96.90 | 1 | not considering |
| [ | 10 | 99.92 | 1 | not considering |
| [ | 6 | 97.04 | 1 | not considering |
| [ | 10 | 98.80 | 1 | not considering |
| Proposed method | 4 | 100 | 3 | considering |
| 7 | 100 | |||
| 19 | 100 |