4.6 Article

A New Method of Wind Turbine Bearing Fault Diagnosis Based on Multi-Masking Empirical Mode Decomposition and Fuzzy C-Means Clustering

期刊

出版社

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1186/s10033-019-0356-4

关键词

Wind turbine bearing faults diagnosis; Multi-masking empirical mode decomposition (MMEMD); Fuzzy c-mean (FCM) clustering

资金

  1. National Key RD Projects [2018YFB0905500]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51875498]
  3. Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [E2018203439, E2018203339, F2016203496]
  4. Key Scientific Research Projects Plan of Henan Higher Education Institutions [19B460001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on Multi-Masking Empirical Mode Decomposition (MMEMD) and fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering, a new method of wind turbine bearing fault diagnosis FCM-MMEMD is proposed, which can determine the fault accurately and timely. First, FCM clustering is employed to classify the data into different clusters, which helps to estimate whether there is a fault and how many fault types there are. If fault signals exist, the fault vibration signals are then demodulated and decomposed into different frequency bands by MMEMD in order to be analyzed further. In order to overcome the mode mixing defect of empirical mode decomposition (EMD), a novel method called MMEMD is proposed. It is an improvement to masking empirical mode decomposition (MEMD). By adding multi-masking signals to the signals to be decomposed in different levels, it can restrain low-frequency components from mixing in high-frequency components effectively in the sifting process and then suppress the mode mixing. It has the advantages of easy implementation and strong ability of suppressing modal mixing. The fault type is determined by Hilbert envelope finally. The results of simulation signal decomposition showed the high performance of MMEMD. Experiments of bearing fault diagnosis in wind turbine bearing fault diagnosis proved the validity and high accuracy of the new method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据