4.7 Article

Multi-fault diagnosis of rotating machinery based on deep convolution neural network and support vector machine

期刊

MEASUREMENT
卷 156, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107571

关键词

Rolling bearing; Multi-fault; Fault diagnosis; Deep convolutional neural network

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2019XKQYMS43]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because multi-fault vibration signals in rotating machinery are often more complicated than single faults, human-designed fault feature sets are not yet able to respond adequately to the complex task of fault diagnosis. To address this, a fault diagnosis method, based on deep convolution neural network (DCNN) and support vector machine (SVM), is proposed. The DCNN, a data-driven deep-learning model, is applied to extract the fault features automatically. The fault-feature information can be extracted adaptively according to the minute differences in local fault signals. First, the envelope spectrum obtained by Hilbert transform was fed into the DCNN to extract the fault features, and then combined with SVM (the classifier) to diagnose multi faults of bearings and rotors. Then, 16 frequency-domain features were extracted by the DCNN, and the average accuracy was found to be 90.29%, which showed that machine wisdom alone was insufficient for this task. Therefore, two additional time-domain features extracted by human experts were adopted together with the machine-designed features to create the method that we call the semi-DCNN method. The theoretical mechanism of the proposed method was clear: it utilized both machine wisdom and human experience in designing the fault features. The effectiveness of the new method was proved by the fact that average diagnostic accuracy increased to 98.71% during diagnosis of composite faults in N205 bearing and rotor. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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