4.7 Article

Fault diagnosis in spur gears based on genetic algorithm and random forest

期刊

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING
卷 70-71, 期 -, 页码 87-103

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.08.030

关键词

Gearbox; Fault diagnosis; Genetic algorithms; Random forest; Feature selection; Wavelet packets

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation (SENESCYT) of the Republic of Ecuador
  2. Prometeo Project
  3. GIDTEC research group of the Universidad Politecnica Salesiana in Cuenca-Ecuador
  4. Vibrational research group of the Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia in Madrid-Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are growing demands for condition-based monitoring of gearboxes, and therefore new methods to improve the reliability, effectiveness, accuracy of the gear fault detection ought to be evaluated. Feature selection is still an important aspect in machine learning-based diagnosis in order to reach good performance of the diagnostic models. On the other hand, random forest classifiers are suitable models in industrial environments where large data-samples are not usually available for training such diagnostic models. The main aim of this research is to build up a robust system for the multi-class fault diagnosis in spur gears, by selecting the best set of condition parameters on time, frequency and time-frequency domains, which are extracted from vibration signals. The diagnostic system is performed by using genetic algorithms and a classifier based on random forest, in a supervised environment. The original set of condition parameters is reduced around 66% regarding the initial size by using genetic algorithms, and still get an acceptable classification precision over 97%. The approach is tested on real vibration signals by considering several fault classes, one of them being an incipient fault, under different running conditions of load and velocity. (C) 2015 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