| Literature DB >> 35844451 |
Abstract
A substantial amount of maintenance and fault data is not properly utilized in the daily maintenance of pantographs in urban metro cars. Pantograph fault analysis can begin with three factors: the external environment, internal flaws, and joint behavior. Based on the analysis of pantograph fault types, corresponding measures are proposed in terms of pantograph fault handling and maintenance strategies, in order to provide safety guarantee for the safe and effective realization of rail transit vehicle speed-up and also provide reference for the maintenance and overhaul of pantographs. For the problem of planned maintenance no longer meeting current pantograph maintenance requirements, a defect diagnosis system based on a combination of faster R-CNN neural networks is presented. The pantograph image features are extracted by introducing an alternative to the original feature extraction module that can extract deep-level image features and achieve feature reuse, and the data transformation operations such as image rotation and enhancement are used to expand the sample set in the experiment to enhance the detection effect. The simulation results demonstrate that the diagnosis procedure is quick and accurate.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35844451 PMCID: PMC9286926 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1400658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Subway fault diagnosis system.
Figure 2Subway fault handling process.
Figure 3Pantograph schematic.
Figure 4Model architecture.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of densely connected network.
Data information.
| Sample | Datasets | zcdx | xbdx | dkdx |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset 1 | Total number | 856 | 206 | 223 |
| Training set | 599 | 144 | 156 | |
| Test set | 257 | 62 | 67 | |
|
| ||||
| Dataset 2 | Total number | 5992 | 1442 | 1561 |
| Training set | 4194 | 1099 | 1093 | |
| Test set | 1798 | 433 | 468 | |
Figure 6Schematic diagram of loss reduction during training.
Figure 7Training process performance improvement schematic.
Classification information.
| Real situation | Predicted results | |
|---|---|---|
| Positive example | Counterexamples | |
| Positive example | TP (true example) | FN (false counter example) |
| Counter example | FP (false positive example) | TN (true counterexample) |
Performance comparison.
| Model | xbdx | dkdx | zcdx | Time | mAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faster + VGG16 | 91.30 | 86.30 | 88.40 | 0.23 | 88.67 |
| Faster + ResNet101 | 95.30 | 90.50 | 94.30 | 0.33 | 93.37 |
| Faster + DenseNet121 | 96. 10 | 92.90 | 96.30 | 0.20 | 95.10 |