4.7 Article

Weighted Cyclic Harmonic-to-Noise Ratio for Rolling Element Bearing Fault Diagnosis

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIM.2019.2903615

关键词

Cyclostationary analysis; envelope analysis; fault diagnosis and prognosis; health index; weighted cyclic harmonic-to-noise ratio (WCHNR)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51675355]
  2. Open Research Fund of Key Laboratory of Space Utilization, Chinese Academy of Sciences [LSU-KFJJ-2018-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel index termed weighted cyclic harmonic-to-noise ratio (WCHNR) is proposed to directly evaluate the quality and quantity of harmonics of bearing characteristic frequency (BCF) in the squared envelope spectrum (SES). There are four steps to construct the proposed index. First, cyclic harmonic-to-noise ratio (CHNR) is defined to evaluate the prominence of harmonic, which is inspired by harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR) and ratio of cyclic content (RCC). Interestingly, it is showed in this paper that a special case of CHNR is a local $L\infty /L1$ norm, which bridges the proposed index with other indexes such as spectral Gini index and spectral kurtosis. Second, a local 0-dB threshold and a global threshold derived from a statistical hypothesis test are utilized to decide the detection of prominent harmonic. Third, if two consecutive harmonics are not prominent, the following higher order harmonics would not be considered, which helps avoid large gap between prominent harmonics and reduce the influence of random cyclic frequency noise. Finally, the sum of each type of CHNR is weighted based on the number of detected harmonics. The proposed index is compared with the spectral Gini index and spectral kurtosis in three case studies, which indicates that the proposed index is less sensitive to outliers and more effective in bearing fault diagnosis. It is also found that the number of detected harmonics can be potentially used in bearing fault classification easily and practically.

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

4.7
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