4.7 Article

Bearing fault diagnosis base on multi-scale CNN and LSTM model

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 971-987

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10845-020-01600-2

关键词

Bearing fault diagnosis; Convolutional neural network; Recurrent neural network; Deep learning; Feature fusion

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of China [61703026, 61873022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces an automatic feature learning neural network based on raw vibration signals, which utilizes convolutional neural networks and long short-term memory to extract signal characteristics, achieving an accuracy of 98.46%.
Intelligent fault diagnosis methods based on signal analysis have been widely used for bearing fault diagnosis. These methods use a pre-determined transformation (such as empirical mode decomposition, fast Fourier transform, discrete wavelet transform) to convert time-series signals into frequency domain signals, the performance of dignostic system is significantly rely on the extracted features. However, extracting signal characteristic is fairly time consuming and depends on specialized signal processing knowledge. Although some studies have developed highly accurate algorithms, the diagnostic results rely heavily on large data sets and unreliable human analysis. This study proposes an automatic feature learning neural network that utilizes raw vibration signals as inputs, and uses two convolutional neural networks with different kernel sizes to automatically extract different frequency signal characteristics from raw data. Then long short-term memory was used to identify the fault type according to learned features. The data is down-sampled before inputting into the network, greatly reducing the number of parameters. The experiment shows that the proposed method can not only achieve 98.46% average accuracy, exceeding some state-of-the-art intelligent algorithms based on prior knowledge and having better performance in noisy environments.

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