Figure 2.
Flowchart of the proposed condition monitoring framework.
Figure 2.
Flowchart of the proposed condition monitoring framework.
Figure 3.
An overview of the test bench.
Figure 3.
An overview of the test bench.
Figure 4.
Raw vibration signals used in this paper. (a) Bearing 1_1, (b) Bearing 1_2, (c) Bearing 1_3, (d) Bearing 1_4, (e) Bearing 1_5.
Figure 4.
Raw vibration signals used in this paper. (a) Bearing 1_1, (b) Bearing 1_2, (c) Bearing 1_3, (d) Bearing 1_4, (e) Bearing 1_5.
Figure 5.
Waterfall plots of sub-band features and corresponding MCHs for signals. (a) Sub-band features of Bearing 1_1, (b) MCHs of Bearing 1_1, (c) sub-band features of Bearing 1_2, (d) MCHs of Bearing 1_2, (e) sub-band features of Bearing 1_3, (f) MCHs of Bearing 1_3, (g) sub-band features of Bearing 1_4, (h) MCHs of Bearing 1_4, (i) sub-band features of Bearing 1_5, (j) MCHs of Bearing 1_5.
Figure 5.
Waterfall plots of sub-band features and corresponding MCHs for signals. (a) Sub-band features of Bearing 1_1, (b) MCHs of Bearing 1_1, (c) sub-band features of Bearing 1_2, (d) MCHs of Bearing 1_2, (e) sub-band features of Bearing 1_3, (f) MCHs of Bearing 1_3, (g) sub-band features of Bearing 1_4, (h) MCHs of Bearing 1_4, (i) sub-band features of Bearing 1_5, (j) MCHs of Bearing 1_5.
Figure 6.
Changing rates of RMS. (a) Bearing 1_1, (b) Bearing 1_2, (c) Bearing 1_3, (d) Bearing 1_4, (e) Bearing 1_5.
Figure 6.
Changing rates of RMS. (a) Bearing 1_1, (b) Bearing 1_2, (c) Bearing 1_3, (d) Bearing 1_4, (e) Bearing 1_5.
Figure 7.
Distance curves based on the first sample: (a) Bearing 1_1, (c) Bearing 1_2, (e) Bearing 1_3, (g) Bearing 1_4, (i) Bearing 1_5; distance curves based on the OHS sample: (b) Bearing 1_1, (d) Bearing 1_2, (f) Bearing 1_3, (h) Bearing 1_4, (j) Bearing 1_5.
Figure 7.
Distance curves based on the first sample: (a) Bearing 1_1, (c) Bearing 1_2, (e) Bearing 1_3, (g) Bearing 1_4, (i) Bearing 1_5; distance curves based on the OHS sample: (b) Bearing 1_1, (d) Bearing 1_2, (f) Bearing 1_3, (h) Bearing 1_4, (j) Bearing 1_5.
Figure 8.
The standard deviation of distance curves in the healthy stage based on various baselines.
Figure 8.
The standard deviation of distance curves in the healthy stage based on various baselines.
Figure 9.
Results of early degradation detection using other healthy indexes: (a) Bearing 1_1, (b) Bearing 1_2, (c) Bearing 1_3, (d) Bearing 1_4, (e) Bearing 1_5. Four commonly used features are utilized to be compared with the proposed method. Methods of RMS and peak-to-peak value can achieve similar effectiveness on degradation trend, but it is not sensitive enough to weak degradation. Methods of crest factor and kurtosis are very easily influenced by fluctuation and are even unable to capture the correct degradation trend.
Figure 9.
Results of early degradation detection using other healthy indexes: (a) Bearing 1_1, (b) Bearing 1_2, (c) Bearing 1_3, (d) Bearing 1_4, (e) Bearing 1_5. Four commonly used features are utilized to be compared with the proposed method. Methods of RMS and peak-to-peak value can achieve similar effectiveness on degradation trend, but it is not sensitive enough to weak degradation. Methods of crest factor and kurtosis are very easily influenced by fluctuation and are even unable to capture the correct degradation trend.
Figure 10.
Illustration of training and testing results of SOM.
Figure 10.
Illustration of training and testing results of SOM.
Figure 11.
Experiment setup: (a) experiment equipment, (b) detailed schematic diagram of the test bench.
Figure 11.
Experiment setup: (a) experiment equipment, (b) detailed schematic diagram of the test bench.
Figure 12.
Illustration of the raw vibration signal. (a) Dataset 1, (b) Dataset 2.
Figure 12.
Illustration of the raw vibration signal. (a) Dataset 1, (b) Dataset 2.
Figure 13.
Fault type in Dataset 1: (a) outer race fault, (b) inner race fault, (c) ball fault; fault type in Dataset 2: (d) gear pitting.
Figure 13.
Fault type in Dataset 1: (a) outer race fault, (b) inner race fault, (c) ball fault; fault type in Dataset 2: (d) gear pitting.
Figure 14.
Waterfall plots of sub-band features and corresponding MCHs for signals: (a) sub-band features of Dataset 1, (b) MCHs of Dataset 1, (c) sub-band features of Dataset 2, (d) MCHs of Dataset 2.
Figure 14.
Waterfall plots of sub-band features and corresponding MCHs for signals: (a) sub-band features of Dataset 1, (b) MCHs of Dataset 1, (c) sub-band features of Dataset 2, (d) MCHs of Dataset 2.
Figure 15.
Changing rates of RMS: (a) Dataset 1, (b) Dataset 2.
Figure 15.
Changing rates of RMS: (a) Dataset 1, (b) Dataset 2.
Figure 16.
Distance curves calculated based on the first MCH: (a) Dataset 1, (c) Dataset 2; distance curves calculated based on the OHS: (b) Dataset 1, (d) Dataset 2.
Figure 16.
Distance curves calculated based on the first MCH: (a) Dataset 1, (c) Dataset 2; distance curves calculated based on the OHS: (b) Dataset 1, (d) Dataset 2.
Figure 17.
Comparison among feature maps and distance curves based on different baselines: (a) Dataset 1, (b) Dataset 2.
Figure 17.
Comparison among feature maps and distance curves based on different baselines: (a) Dataset 1, (b) Dataset 2.
Figure 18.
Illustration of training and testing results of SOM.
Figure 18.
Illustration of training and testing results of SOM.
Table 1.
An illustration of the look-up table for dist() function.
Table 1.
An illustration of the look-up table for dist() function.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|
1 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 1.34 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 |
3 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4 | 1.34 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 |
Table 2.
Description of the XJTU-SY dataset.
Table 2.
Description of the XJTU-SY dataset.
Bearing Type | Working Condition | Dataset | File Count | Fault Type | Practical Life |
---|
LDK UER204 | Radial force: 12 kN Rotating speed: 2100 r/min | Bearing 1_1 | 123 | Outer race fault | 2 h 3 min |
Bearing 1_2 | 161 | 2 h 41 min |
Bearing 1_3 | 158 | 2 h 38 min |
Bearing 1_4 | 122 | Cage fault | 2 h 2 min |
Bearing 1_5 | 52 | Mixed fault | 52 min |
Table 3.
Results of OHS selection.
Table 3.
Results of OHS selection.
Dataset | Total Quantity of Samples | Quantity of Samples Put into the SOM Network (NO.) | Sample Located in the Clustering Center of SOM Network |
---|
Bearing 1_1 | 393 | 130 | 59th |
Bearing 1_2 | 515 | 70 | 30th |
Bearing 1_3 | 505 | 30 | 18th |
Bearing 1_4 | 390 | 50 | 22nd |
Bearing 1_5 | 166 | 40 | 17th |
Table 4.
Quantitative comparison of early degradation detection.
Table 4.
Quantitative comparison of early degradation detection.
Dataset | Early Degradation Detection |
---|
Distance Based on OHS | Distance Based on the First Sample | RMS | Pk-Pk | Crest Factor | Kurtosis |
---|
Bearing 1_1 | 227 | 227 | 227 | 232 | Null | Null |
Bearing 1_2 | 100 | 101 | 116 | 141 | Null | Null |
Bearing 1_3 | 187 | 187 | 187 | 187 | 199 | 193 |
Bearing 1_4 | 257 | 288 | 268 | 267 | 255 | 257 |
Bearing 1_5 | 110 | 110 | 104 | 107 | Null | 124 |
Table 5.
Fault types and the sample size for training and testing data.
Table 5.
Fault types and the sample size for training and testing data.
Dataset | Fault Type | Quantity of Samples Exceeding the Preset Threshold (No.) | Sample Size (No.) |
---|
Training Data | Testing Data |
---|
Bearing 1_3 | Normal | 200 | 160 | 40 |
Bearing 1_1 | Outer race fault | 165 | 132 | 33 |
Bearing 1_2 | Outer race fault | 415 | 332 | 83 |
Bearing 1_3 | Outer race fault | 315 | 252 | 63 |
Bearing 1_4 | Cage fault | 130 | 104 | 26 |
Bearing 1_5 | Mix fault | 55 | 44 | 11 |
Table 6.
Diagnosis accuracy of the proposed method under five-fold cross-validation.
Table 6.
Diagnosis accuracy of the proposed method under five-fold cross-validation.
Fault Type | Test 1 (%) | Test 2 (%) | Test 3 (%) | Test 4 (%) | Test 5 (%) |
---|
Normal | 97.50 | 90.00 | 92.50 | 95.00 | 85.00 |
Outer race fault_1 (Bearing 1_1) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 93.94 | 93.94 | 96.97 |
Outer race fault_2 (Bearing 1_2) | 97.59 | 96.39 | 97.59 | 93.98 | 98.80 |
Outer race fault_3 (Bearing 1_3) | 84.13 | 93.65 | 96.83 | 95.24 | 93.65 |
Cage fault (Bearing 1_4) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 96.15 | 100 |
Mixed fault (Bearing 1_5) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100 | 90.91 |
Table 7.
Data description of the rotary torsional fatigue test.
Table 7.
Data description of the rotary torsional fatigue test.
Dataset | Working Condition | Fault Type |
---|
Rotating Speed (rpm) | Working Load (Nm) |
---|
Dataset 1 | 1480 | 400 | Mixed bearing fault |
Dataset 2 | 1480 | 420 | Gear pitting |
Table 8.
Results of OHS selection.
Table 8.
Results of OHS selection.
Dataset | Total Quantity of Samples | Quantity of Samples Put into the SOM Network | Sample Located in the Clustering Center of SOM Network |
---|
Dataset 1 | 10,473 | 1000 | 703rd |
Dataset 2 | 5843 | 3200 | 2557th |
Table 9.
Quantitative comparison of early degradation detection results.
Table 9.
Quantitative comparison of early degradation detection results.
Dataset | Early Degradation Detection |
---|
Distance Curve Based on the First Sample | Distance Curve Based on the OHS |
---|
Dataset 1 | 8543 | 7884 |
Dataset 2 | 5088 | 5088 |
Table 10.
Fault types and sample size for training and testing SOM on rotary torsional fatigue test.
Table 10.
Fault types and sample size for training and testing SOM on rotary torsional fatigue test.
Fault Type | Samples in Total | Training Samples | Testing Samples |
---|
Healthy state | 300 | 240 | 60 |
Mixed bearing fault | 300 | 240 | 60 |
Gear pitting | 300 | 240 | 60 |
Table 11.
Diagnosis accuracy of the proposed method on the rotary torsional fatigue test.
Table 11.
Diagnosis accuracy of the proposed method on the rotary torsional fatigue test.
Fault type | Test 1 (%) | Test 2 (%) | Test 3 (%) | Test 4 (%) | Test 5 (%) |
---|
Normal | 100.00 | 96.67 | 96.67 | 93.33 | 100.00 |
Mixed fault | 98.33 | 95.00 | 100.00 | 98.33 | 96.67 |
Gear pitting | 95.00 | 91.67 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |