4.6 Article

A Comprehensive Diagnosis Method of Rolling Bearing Fault Based on CEEMDAN-DFA-Improved Wavelet Threshold Function and QPSO-MPE-SVM

期刊

ENTROPY
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e23091142

关键词

rolling bearing fault; CEEMDAN; DFA; improved wavelet threshold; QPSO; MPE; SVM

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China Program [62073198]
  2. Major Research Development Program of Shandong Province of China [2016GSF117009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive fault diagnosis method based on CEEMDAN-DFA-improved wavelet threshold function was proposed to reduce noise interference and achieve fault identification. By optimizing MPE parameters to overcome overlapping MPE values, the fault identification accuracy was significantly improved.
A comprehensive fault diagnosis method of rolling bearing about noise interference, fault feature extraction, and identification was proposed. Based on complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise (CEEMDAN), detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), and improved wavelet thresholding, a denoising method of CEEMDAN-DFA-improved wavelet threshold function was presented to reduce the distortion of the noised signal. Based on quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO), multiscale permutation entropy (MPE), and support vector machine (SVM), the QPSO-MPE-SVM method was presented to construct the fault-features sets and realize fault identification. Simulation and experimental platform verification showed that the proposed comprehensive diagnosis method not only can better remove the noise interference and maintain the original characteristics of the signal by CEEMDAN-DFA-improved wavelet threshold function, but also overcome overlapping MPE values by the QPSO-optimizing MPE parameters to separate the features of different fault types. The experimental results showed that the fault identification accuracy of the fault diagnosis can reach 95%, which is a great improvement compared with the existing methods.

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