| Literature DB >> 34203372 |
Udeme Inyang1, Ivan Petrunin2, Ian Jennions1.
Abstract
Bearings are critical components found in most rotating machinery; their health condition is of immense importance to many industries. The varied conditions and environments in which bearings operate make them prone to single and multiple faults. Widespread interest in the improvements of single fault diagnosis meant limited attention was spent on multiple fault diagnosis. However, multiple fault diagnosis poses extra challenges due to the submergence of the weak fault by the strong fault, presence of non-Gaussian noise, coupling of the frequency components, etc. A number of existing convolutional neural network models operate on a distinct feature that is not enough to assure reliable results in the presence of these challenges. In this paper, extended feature sets in three homogenous deep learning models are used for multiple fault diagnosis. This ensures a measure of diversity is introduced to the health management dataset to obtain complementary solutions from the models. The outputs of the models are fused through blending ensemble learning. Experiments using vibration datasets based on bearing multiple faults show an accuracy of 98.54%, with an improvement of 2.74% in the overall effectiveness over the single models. Compared with other technologies, the results show that this approach provides an improved generalized diagnostic capability.Entities:
Keywords: complementary; deep learning; diagnostics; health management; multiple faults
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34203372 PMCID: PMC8271386 DOI: 10.3390/s21134424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Proposed architecture for multiple faults of bearings.
Figure 2Universidad Politécnica Salesiana test rig [52].
Fault classes for the bearing.
| S/No. | Fault Class | Bearing 1 | Bearing 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NorM | Normal | Normal |
| 2 | InrF | Inner race fault | Normal |
| 3 | OurF | Outer race fault | Normal |
| 4 | BalF | Ball fault | Normal |
| 5 | IrOr | Inner race fault | Outer race fault |
| 6 | BaIn | Inner race fault | Ball fault |
| 7 | OrBa | Outer race fault | Ball fault |
Composition of the training, validation, and test set.
| Model | CNN-1 | CNN-2 | CNN-3 | Run ** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training * | 342 | 342 | 342 | 1 and 2 |
| Validation | 108 | 108 | 108 | 1 and 2 |
| Testing | 108 | 108 | 108 | 3 |
* Data augmentation was used, ** run of the machine.
Structure of the tier-zero models.
| Layer | Description | CNN-1 | CNN-2 | CNN-3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Input | 224 × 224 × 3 | 224 × 224 × 3 | 224 × 224 × 3 |
| 2 | conv_1 | 8 × 3 × 3 × 3 | 8 × 5 × 5 × 3 | 16 × 5 × 5 × 3 |
| 3 | maxpool_1 | 3 × 3 | 3 × 3 | 3 × 3 |
| 4 | conv_2 | 16 × 3 × 3 × 8 | 16 × 5 × 5 × 8 | 16 × 5 × 5 × 16 |
| 5 | maxpool_2 | 3 × 3 | 3 × 3 | 3 × 3 |
| 6 | conv_3 | 32 × 3 × 3 × 16 | 32 × 5 × 5 × 16 | 32 × 5 × 5 × 16 |
| 7 | maxpool_3 | 3 × 3 | 3 × 3 | 3 × 3 |
| 8 | conv_4 | 64 × 3 × 3 × 32 | 64 × 5 × 5 × 32 | 64 × 5 × 5 × 32 |
| 9 | dropout | 10% | 30% | 10% |
| 10 | fully Connected | fully Connected | fully Connected | fully Connected |
| 11 | SoftMax | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | class output | 7 | 7 | 7 |
Figure 3Confusion matrixes of: (a) CNN-1 model; (b) CNN-2 model.
Performance of the models.
| Model | Test Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN-1 | 94.60 | 94.74 | 94.58 | 0.9466 |
| CNN-2 | 95.80 | 95.92 | 95.77 | 0.9584 |
| CNN-3 | 92.33 | 92.57 | 92.33 | 0.9245 |
| Averaging | 98.02 | 98.10 | 98.02 | 0.9806 |
| ECNN-DT | 97.50 | 97.54 | 97.49 | 0.9751 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4Confusion matrixes of CNN-3 model.
Figure 5Confusion matrix for: (a) ECNN-DT; (b) proposed model (ECNN-SVM).
Performance comparison with other deep learning approaches.
| Authors | Approach | Rotating Components Used | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Han et al. [ | Multi-level wavelet packet fusion in dynamic CNN | Bearings and Gear | 96.48 (Case 1) |
| Lu et al. [ | Hierarchical CNN | Bearing | 92.60 |
| Ma et al. [ | Ensemble deep-learning | Rotor and Bearing faults | 98.09 |
| Yu et al. [ | Autoencoders | Gear and Bearings | 95.50 (Avg.) |
| Li et al. [ | EWV + thresholds + BAS | Bearings | 96.92 |
| Shao et al. [ | Deep autoencoder feature learning | Bearing and Gear | 87.80 |
| Sri et al. [ | Multiple Classifiers and Data Fusion/CWT/CNN | Mixed gearbox fault | 98.0 |
|
|
|
|
|