| Literature DB >> 35378815 |
Abstract
Aiming at the problems of the traditional industrial robot fault diagnosis model, such as low accuracy, low efficiency, poor stability, and real-time performance in multi-fault state diagnosis, a fault diagnosis method based on DBN joint information fusion technology is proposed. By studying the information processing method and the deep learning theory, this paper takes the fault of the joint bearing of the industrial robot as the research object. It adopts the technique of combining the deep belief network (DBN) and wavelet energy entropy, and the fault diagnosis of industrial robot is studied. The wavelet transform is used to denoise, decompose, and reconstruct the vibration signal of the joint bearing of the industrial robot. The normalized eigenvector of the reconstructed energy entropy is established, and the normalized eigenvector is used as the input of the DBN. The improved D-S evidence theory is used to solve the problem of fusion of high conflict evidence to improve the fault model's recognition accuracy. Finally, the feasibility of the model is verified by collecting the fault sample data and creating the category sample label. The experiment shows that the fault diagnosis method designed can complete the fault diagnosis of industrial robot well, and the accuracy of the test set is 97.96%. Compared with the traditional fault diagnosis model, the method is improved obviously, and the stability of the model is good; the utility model has the advantages of short time and high diagnosis efficiency and is suitable for the diagnosis work under the condition of coexisting multiple faults. The reliability of this method in the fault diagnosis of the joint bearing of industrial robot is verified.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35378815 PMCID: PMC8976599 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4340817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Feature layer fusion.
Figure 2DBN structure.
Figure 3DBN training process.
Figure 4Wavelet transform flow and decomposition process.
Figure 5Industrial robot fault diagnosis model.
Joint bearing data and category labels.
| Fault location | Degree of failure | Depth of failure (inch) | Training set samples | Training set samples | Failure tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fault-free | No | 0 | 84 | 36 | 0 |
|
| |||||
| Outer ring | Minor | 0.004 | 84 | 36 | 1 |
| Moderate | 0.008 | 84 | 36 | 2 | |
| Severe | 0.012 | 84 | 36 | 3 | |
|
| |||||
| Inner ring | Minor | 0.004 | 84 | 36 | 4 |
| Moderate | 0.008 | 84 | 36 | 5 | |
| Severe | 0.012 | 84 | 36 | 6 | |
Figure 6Accuracy variation curves of different sample sets.
Figure 7Comparison of predicted results and actual categories.
Diagnostic accuracy of different faults.
| Failure tags | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Accuracy (%) | Average accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 35 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 97.22 | 98.01 |
| 1 | 0 | 34 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94.44 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 97.22 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 100 | |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 35 | 0 | 97.22 | |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 100 |
Figure 8Accuracy of the experiment.
Performance comparison of different fault diagnosis models.
| Diagnostic models | Training set accuracy (%) | Test set accuracy (%) | Running time (s) | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBN | 87.34 | 81.66 | 61.63 | 0.0703 |
| VMD + BP | 92.72 | 86.58 | 39.17 | 0.0418 |
| VMD + SVM | — | 92.08 | 20.07 | 0.0658 |
| EMD + DBN | 90.21 | 86.17 | 48.55 | 0.0277 |
| EMD + SVM | — | 94.25 | 17.43 | 0.0491 |
| The proposed method | 99.12 | 97.96 | 23.46 | 0.0074 |