| Literature DB >> 35957238 |
Linlin Kou1,2, Jiaxian Chen3, Yong Qin1, Wentao Mao3.
Abstract
Aiming at the online detection problem of rolling bearings, the limited amount of target bearing data leads to insufficient model in training and feature representation. It is difficult for the online detection model to construct an accurate decision boundary. To solve the problem, a multi-scale robust anomaly detection method based on data enhancement technology is proposed in this paper. Firstly, the training data are transformed into multiple subspaces through the data enhancement technology. Then, a prototype clustering method is introduced to enhance the robustness of features representation under the framework of the robust deep auto-encoding algorithm. Finally, the robust multi-scale Deep-SVDD hyper sphere model is constructed to achieve online detection of abnormal state data. Experiments are conducted on the IEEE PHM Challenge 2012 bearing data set and XJTU-TU data set. The proposed method shows much greater susceptibility to incipient faults, and it has fewer false alarms. The robust multi-scale Deep-SVDD hyper sphere model significantly improves the performance of incipient fault detection for rolling bearings.Entities:
Keywords: anomaly detection; incipient fault detection; reinforcement learning; robustness
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957238 PMCID: PMC9371097 DOI: 10.3390/s22155681
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Flowchart of the Robust Multi-scale Deep-SVDD Model.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the horizontal scaling of the vibration signal with (a) the original signal and (b) two transformed channel signals.
Figure 3Test platforms of (a) PRONOSTIA [32] and (b) XJTU-SY [33].
Experiment dataset.
| Dataset | Sample | Number of Sample | Training Sample | Testing Sample | The Real Sample Point of Incipient Fault | Number of Early Fault Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IEEE PHM | Condition 1 | 871 | The first 100 samples | The rest 771 samples | - | 479 |
| Condition 1 | 2375 | The first 100 samples | The rest 2275 samples | 1348th | 1027 | |
| XJTU-SY dataset | Condition 1 | 1476 | The first 100 samples | The rest 1376 samples | 634th | 839 |
| Condition 2 | 1932 | The first 100 samples | The rest 1832 samples | - | 942 |
Figure 4Result comparison of abnormal score and the RMS value with (a) PHM1_2 and (b) PHM1_3.
Figure 5The comparison results of abnormal score and the RMS value with (a) XJTU1_1 and (b) XJTU 2_2.
Figure 6Spectrum of bearing fault at different sample points (a) PHM1_3 (b) XJTU1_1.
Comparison of anomaly detection results.
| Comparison Methods | PHM1_3 | XJTU1_1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Detected Sample Point | Deviation Rate of Incipient Fault Detection | The Detected Sample Point | Deviation Rate of Incipient Fault Detection | |
| 1. BEMD-AMMA | 1600 | 55.79% | 1320 | 57.33% |
| 2. LOF | 1236 | 20.35% | 944 | 12.51% |
| 3. iFOREST | 1341 | 30.57% | 1041 | 24.08% |
| 4. SDFM | 1156 | 12.56% | 1137 | 35.52% |
| 5. SRD | 1160 | 12.95% | 1013 | 20.74% |
| 6. The proposed method | 997 | 2.9% | 826 | 1.55% |