| Literature DB >> 36093491 |
Shuai Wang1, Yabin Wang1, Xiaoyu Liu2, Jinguo Wang1, Zhuo Wang1.
Abstract
Equipment health state assessment is of great significance to improve the efficiency of industrial equipment maintenance support and realize accurate support. Using the method driven by the fusion of digital twin model and intelligent algorithm can make the equipment health state assessment more suitable for the "accuracy" requirement of equipment support. Taking the neural network algorithm as an example, this paper studies the method of unit level health state assessment of equipment driven by the fusion of digital twin model and intelligent algorithm. The principle and opportunity of equipment health state assessment based on digital twin model are analyzed, the equipment health state grade is redefined from the data-driven perspective, the selection principles of assessment parameters are established, and the unit level health state assessment model of equipment based on digital twin model and neural network algorithm is established. The proposed method is implemented by programming with Python, and the effectiveness of the method is verified by a case study. It provides support for further research of equipment-level health state assessment and the decision-making of equipment maintenance and provides reference for the study of the combination of digital twin model and other intelligent algorithms for health state assessment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36093491 PMCID: PMC9451990 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7324121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Degradation curve of equipment health state.
Figure 2Equipment support model based on digital twin.
Figure 3Typical neural network structure.
Figure 4Equipment health state grade.
Detailed table of equipment health state grade.
| Health state grade | Grade identification | State performance | Definition under digital drive | Maintenance measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 1 | Good performance, all indicators are in good condition, suitable for long-term operation. | All indicators are in good condition. | Carry out the daily maintenance. |
|
| ||||
| Subhealth | 2 | The performance degrades to a certain extent, but it does not affect the normal operation of the equipment. | The failure is almost impossible to occur in the next 30 days. | Carry out the daily maintenance and strengthen condition monitoring. |
|
| ||||
| Attention | 3 | The performance degradation is serious and can be clearly detected. | Failure may occur in the next 30 days. | Strengthen condition monitoring, prepare for repair, and allocate spare parts in time. |
|
| ||||
| Danger | 4 | The performance degradation is very serious, which has affected the operation quality of equipment. | Failure may occur in the next 7 days. | Repair at the right time. |
|
| ||||
| Failure | 5 | A failure has occurred and the function of the equipment has been affected. | Failure has occurred. | Shutdown for repair. |
Figure 5Schematic diagram of the data flow.
Figure 6Assessment process.
Grade data format.
| Health state grade | Grade identification | Grade data format |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 1 | [1,0,0,0,0] |
| Subhealth | 2 | [0,1,0,0,0] |
| Attention | 3 | [0,0,1,0,0] |
| Danger | 4 | [0,0,0,1,0] |
| Failure | 5 | [0,0,0,0,1] |
Figure 7Neural network design.
Health state assessment parameters.
| Parameter number | Parameter content |
|---|---|
| Parameter 1 | Pressure at the beginning of fuel injection |
| Parameter 2 | Maximum fuel pressure |
| Parameter 3 | Submaximum fuel pressure |
| Parameter 4 | Width of the rising phase of pressure waveform |
| Parameter 5 | Height difference between the highest point and the lowest point of pressure waveform |
| Parameter 6 | Area of pressure waveform in an injection cycle |
Part of the preprocessed data.
| Parameter 1 | Parameter 2 | Parameter 3 | Parameter 4 | Parameter 5 | Parameter 6 | Grade identification | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.28 | 0.80 | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.91 | 0.32 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.05 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.79 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.69 | 0.20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.53 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.57 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.28 | 0.84 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.11 | 0.90 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.22 | 0.61 | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0.52 | 0.97 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.80 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.17 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.32 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.03 | 0.54 | 0.87 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.79 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.76 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.10 | 0.67 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.92 | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 0.96 | 0.82 | 0.44 | 0.16 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.10 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.42 | 0.66 | 0.72 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.90 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.04 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.65 | 0.04 | 0.51 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.80 | 0.16 | 0.58 | 0.43 | 0.88 | 0.34 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.83 | 0.57 | 0.19 | 0.51 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 0.14 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.65 | 0.44 | 0.21 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.08 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.32 | 0.92 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.38 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 0.74 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.31 | 0.75 | 0.98 | 0.33 | 0.18 | 0.88 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.72 | 0.12 | 0.77 | 0.10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
Figure 8Training result of neural network. (a) Trend of neural network error. (b) Train confusion matrix. (c) Test confusion matrix. (d) All confusion matrix.
State data after preprocessing.
| Parameter 1 | Parameter 2 | Parameter 3 | Parameter 4 | Parameter 5 | Parameter 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.86 | 0.81 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.07 |
Figure 9Conduct health state assessment.