Bearing Fault Feature Extraction Method Based on Enhanced Differential Product Weighted Morphological Filtering
<p>The flow chart of the proposed method for bearing fault feature extraction.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Bearing fault simulation signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Analysis results obtained by the proposed method for simulation signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Qualitative analysis results obtained by the proposed method with six levels of noise: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Quantitative analysis results obtained by the proposed method with increasing levels of noise: (<b>a</b>) FFR curve; (<b>b</b>) kurtosis curve.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Analysis results obtained by AVG method for simulation signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Analysis results obtained by STH method for simulation signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Analysis results obtained by EMDF method for simulation signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Analysis results obtained by the Butterworth filter for simulation signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Filtering properties of two methods: (<b>a</b>) Proposed EDPWO; (<b>b</b>) the Butterworth filter.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>(<b>a</b>) Experimental platform; (<b>b</b>) the faulty bearing.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Bearing outer race fault signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Analysis results obtained by the proposed method for bearing outer race fault signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>Bearing inner race fault signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 15
<p>Analysis results obtained by the proposed method for bearing inner race fault signal: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) amplitude spectrum; (<b>c</b>) envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 16
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods: (<b>a</b>) the results of AVG for outer race fault signal; (<b>b</b>) the results of AVG for inner race fault signal; (<b>c</b>) the results of STH for outer race fault signal; (<b>d</b>) the results of STH for inner race fault signal; (<b>e</b>) the results of EMDF for outer race fault signal; (<b>f</b>) the results of EMDF for inner race fault signal.</p> "> Figure 16 Cont.
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods: (<b>a</b>) the results of AVG for outer race fault signal; (<b>b</b>) the results of AVG for inner race fault signal; (<b>c</b>) the results of STH for outer race fault signal; (<b>d</b>) the results of STH for inner race fault signal; (<b>e</b>) the results of EMDF for outer race fault signal; (<b>f</b>) the results of EMDF for inner race fault signal.</p> "> Figure 17
<p>(<b>a</b>) The experimental system; (<b>b</b>) its structure schematic drawing.</p> "> Figure 18
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods for dataset 130 in case 2: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) its corresponding envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 19
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods for dataset 170 in case 2: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) its corresponding envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 20
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods for dataset 3001 in case 2: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) its corresponding envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 21
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods for dataset 3003 in case 2: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) its corresponding envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 22
<p>(<b>a</b>) The experimental platform; (<b>b</b>) its structure schematic drawing.</p> "> Figure 23
<p>(<b>a</b>) Outer race fault bearing; (<b>b</b>) inner race fault bearing.</p> "> Figure 24
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods for outer race fault signal in case 3: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) its corresponding envelope spectrum.</p> "> Figure 25
<p>Analysis results obtained by different methods for inner race fault signal in case 3: (<b>a</b>) Time domain waveform; (<b>b</b>) its corresponding envelope spectrum.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory Background
3. The Proposed Method
3.1. Construction of EDPWO
3.2. Adaptive Parameter Selection of EDPWO
3.3. The Proposed Method
4. Simulation Analysis
4.1. Simulation Signal Model
4.2. The Analysis Results of The Proposed Method
4.3. Comparisons among Different Methods
5. Experimental Verification
5.1. Case 1: Bearing Data from Laboratory
5.1.1. Experimental Platform and Data Acquisition
5.1.2. Bearing Outer Race Fault Signal Analysis
5.1.3. Bearing Inner Race Fault Signal Analysis
5.1.4. Comparison with Several Traditional Morphological Filtering Methods
5.2. Case 2: Benchmark Data from CWRU
5.2.1. Experimental System Introduction
5.2.2. Statistical Evaluation on All Available Signals
5.3. Case 3: Experimental Data from Laboratory
5.3.1. Experimental Platform and Data Acquisition
5.3.2. Outer Race Fault Signal Analysis and Comparative Study
5.3.3. Inner Race Fault Signal Analysis and Comparative Study
5.4. Discussion and Future Prospects
- (1)
- Due to the performance of the proposed method will be significantly affected by the lower SNR, especially below the SNR of −6 dB. Therefore, in future work, in order to satisfy bearing fault feature extraction with lower SNR, we will combine the proposed method with other advanced filtering methods (e.g., blind deconvolution [34], adaptive signal decomposition [35] and sparse representation) for further enhancing bearing fault feature extraction.
- (2)
- Considering that some prior knowledge of bearing fault characteristic frequency is required in the calculation process of FFR of our proposed method, this tends to hinder the application of the proposed method in real engineering. That is, this prior requirement is regarded as the disadvantage of our proposed method. Therefore, in our future work, to satisfy the actual requirements, we will explore some effective indexes (e.g., sparsity measure based on autocorrelation function) without prior knowledge instead of FFR to select the optimal combination parameters of the proposed EDPWO. Specifically, to improve the fault feature extraction ability of our proposed method and avoid the dependence on prior knowledge of bearing fault frequencies, we will work on a new indicator named integrated measure of sparsity-impact (IMSI) to replace FFR to select the optimal SE length of our proposed method. Moreover, the effectiveness and superiority of this IMSI index in bearing fault feature extraction will be launched and promoted steadily in the follow-up work.
- (3)
- In this paper, the proposed method is used for analyzing bearing single faults, but its performance is unknown for multiple fault detection. Hence, in order to meet the requirements of the proposed method for synchronous intelligent online diagnosis of multi-bearing faults, the proposed EDPWO will be fused with deep learning models (e.g., deep variational auto-encoder [36], bidirectional long short-term memory [37] and deep graph convolutional network [38,39]) to automatically achieve health condition identification of different bearing fault patterns.
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- An enhanced differential product weighted morphological operator (EDPWO) is presented by integrating the differential product operation and weighted operation into four basic combinations of morphological operators.
- (2)
- To avoid the problem that EDPWO selects parameters according to artificial experience, the fault feature ratio (FFR) index is adopted to automatically determine the optimal combination of parameters (i.e., the flat SE length and the weighting correlation factors) of EDPWO.
- (3)
- Through the analysis of simulation signals and two experimental cases, the effectiveness of the proposed method in bearing fault feature extraction is verified. In addition, compared with the traditional morphological filtering method (i.e., AVG, STH and EMDF), the proposed method can obtain the larger FFR values, which is more conducive to the extraction of bearing fault feature information.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Civera, M.; Surace, C. Non-destructive techniques for the condition and structural health monitoring of wind turbines: A literature review of the last 20 years. Sensors 2022, 22, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hou, Z.; Zhuang, S. Effects of wind conditions on wind turbine temperature monitoring and solution based on wind condition clustering and IGA-ELM. Sensors 2022, 22, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Wang, J.; Du, W.; Wang, J.; Han, X.; He, G. A novel fault diagnosis method of gearbox based on maximum kurtosis spectral entropy deconvolution. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 29520–29532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, L.; Gao, L.; Li, X.; Zeng, B. Convolutional neural network with automatic learning rate scheduler for fault classification. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021, 70, 3509912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, H.; Shao, H.; Zhong, X.; Deng, Q.; Yang, X.; Xuan, J. Unsupervised domain-share CNN for machine fault transfer diagnosis from steady speeds to time-varying speeds. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 62, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, M.J.; Islam, M.M.M.; Kim, J.-M. Bearing fault diagnosis using multidomain fusion-based vibration imaging and multitask learning. Sensors 2022, 22, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Zhong, X.; Shao, H.; Cai, B.; Yang, X. Multi-mode data augmentation and fault diagnosis of rotating machinery using modified ACGAN designed with new framework. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022, 52, 101552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Shao, H.; Jiang, H.; Xiang, J. Modified Gaussian convolutional deep belief network and infrared thermal imaging for intelligent fault diagnosis of rotor-bearing system under time-varying speeds. Struct. Health Monit. 2022, 21, 339–353. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.-L. The Application of machine learning ICA-VMD in an intelligent diagnosis system in a low SNR environment. Sensors 2021, 21, 8344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Y.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, S.; Jin, X.; Wei, Y. Rolling bearing fault diagnosis based on successive variational mode decomposition and the EP Index. Sensors 2022, 22, 3889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, D.; Ma, J.; Zhong, Y.; Yao, J. Global smoothing of short line segment toolpaths by control-point-assigning-based geometric smoothing and fir filtering-based motion smoothing. Mech. Syst. Signal Proc. 2021, 160, 107908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; She, D.; Xu, Y.; Jia, M. Application of generalized composite multiscale Lempel–Ziv complexity in identifying wind turbine gearbox faults. Entropy 2021, 23, 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tang, Y.; Wang, X.; Xing, X.; Li, Z.; Zhao, M. Prediction and evaluation method of TVB-N values distribution in pork by hyperspectral imaging. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2021, 14, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Lyu, M.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Gao, X. A local-nonlocal mathematical morphology. Neurocomputing 2022, 495, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.Q.; Zhu, Z.K.; Kong, F.R.; Huang, W.G. An improved morphological filtering method and its application in bearing fault feature extraction. Chin. J. Vib. Eng. 2012, 25, 468–473. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, R.; Chu, F. Morphological undecimated wavelet decomposition for fault diagnostics of rolling element bearings. J. Sound Vib. 2009, 320, 1164–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Zhang, P.; Wang, Z.; Mi, S.; Liu, D. A weighted multi-scale morphological gradient filter for rolling element bearing fault detection. ISA Trans. 2011, 50, 599–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Y.; Liao, M.; Zhang, X.; Wang, F. Faults diagnosis of rolling element bearings based on modified morphological method. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2011, 25, 1276–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Jia, M. Parameter optimized combination morphological filter-hat transform and its application in fault diagnosis of wind turbine. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2016, 52, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raj, A.S.; Murali, N. Early classification of bearing faults using morphological operators and fuzzy inference. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Xu, J.; Yang, H.; Yang, D.; Wang, D. Multiscale morphology analysis and its application to fault diagnosis. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2008, 22, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Liang, M. Continuous-scale mathematical morphology-based optimal scale band demodulation of impulsive feature for bearing defect diagnosis. J. Sound Vib. 2012, 331, 5864–5879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osman, S.; Wang, W. A morphological hilbert-huang transform technique for bearing fault detection for bearing fault detection. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2016, 65, 2646–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, L.; Wang, J.; Ma, J. Early fault detection method for rolling bearing based on multiscale morphological filtering of information-entropy threshold. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2019, 33, 1513–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhao, S.; Kong, X.; Wang, Z. Rolling bearing diagnosis based on adaptive probabilistic PCA and the enhanced morphological filter. Shock Vib. 2020, 2020, 8828517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.; Wang, C.; Zhu, J.; Liu, X.; Kong, F. Bearing fault diagnosis based on an improved morphological filter. Measurement 2016, 80, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Song, D.; Zhang, W.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, Z. A performance enhanced time-varying morphological filtering method for bearing fault diagnosis. Measurement 2021, 176, 109163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, M.; Liao, Y.; He, D.; Duan, R.; Zhang, X. Rolling bearing diagnosis based on an unbiased-autocorrelation morphological filter method. Measurement 2022, 189, 110617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Jia, M.; Zhang, W.; Zhu, L. Fault diagnosis of rolling element bearing using a new optimal scale morphology analysis method. ISA Trans. 2018, 73, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Liu, Y.; Jia, M. Research on an enhanced scale morphological-hat product filtering in incipient fault detection of rolling element bearings. Measurement 2019, 147, 106856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.; Chen, C.; Kang, S.; Zhang, P. Fault diagnosis of rolling element bearing using an adaptive multiscale enhanced combination gradient morphological filter. Shock Vib. 2019, 2019, 2059631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, A.; Sun, J.; Xiang, L. Analysis of morphological filter’s frequency response characteristics in vibration signal processing. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2012, 48, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Si, S.; Huang, S. Entropy based fault classification using the case western reserve university data: A benchmark study. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 2020, 69, 754–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, R.; Liao, Y.; Yang, L.; Xue, J.; Tang, M. Minimum entropy morphological deconvolution and its application in bearing fault diagnosis. Measurement 2021, 182, 109649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Jia, M. Application of CSA-VMD and optimal scale morphological slice bispectrum in enhancing outer race fault detection of rolling element bearings. Mech. Syst. Signal Proc. 2019, 122, 56–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; She, D.; Xu, Y.; Jia, M. Deep regularized variational autoencoder for intelligent fault diagnosis of rotor-bearing system within entire life-cycle process. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 226, 107142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, F.; Zhang, H.; Sang, S.; Li, X.; He, W.; Liu, X. Bearing fault diagnosis based on combined multi-scale weighted entropy morphological filtering and bi-LSTM. Appl. Intell. 2021, 51, 6647–6664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, H.; Zhuang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Defect classification of green plums based on deep learning. Sensors 2020, 20, 6993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, L.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, W.; Tang, J. A comparative review of graph convolutional networks for human skeleton-based action recognition. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 55, 4275–4305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bearing Type | Ball Diameter | Pitch Diameter | Number of Ball | Contact Angle |
---|---|---|---|---|
N205 | 7.5 mm | 38.5 mm | 12 | 0° |
Rotating Frequency fr | Inner Race Fault Frequency fi | Outer Race Fault Frequency fo | Ball Fault Frequency fb | Cage Fault Frequency fc |
---|---|---|---|---|
24 Hz | 172.05 Hz | 115.94 Hz | 59.26 Hz | 9.67 Hz |
Bearing Type | Ball Diameter | Pitch Diameter | Number of Ball | Contact Angle |
---|---|---|---|---|
SKF6205-2RS | 7.94 mm | 39.04 mm | 9 | 0° |
Motor Load (Hp) | Motor Speed (rpm) | Rotating Frequency | Inner Race Fault | Outer Race Fault | Ball Fault |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1797 | = 29.95 Hz | = 162.19 Hz | = 107.36 Hz | = 141.09 Hz |
1 | 1772 | = 29.53 Hz | = 159.93 Hz | = 105.87 Hz | = 139.21 Hz |
2 | 1750 | = 29.17 Hz | = 157.94 Hz | = 104.56 Hz | = 137.48 Hz |
3 | 1730 | = 28.83 Hz | = 156.14 Hz | = 103.36 Hz | = 135.92 Hz |
Fault Diameter (inches) | Motor Load (Hp) | Motor Speed (rpm) | Inner Race Fault Data | Various Methods Work or Not | |||
EDPWO | AVG | STH | EMDF | ||||
0.007 | 0 | 1797 | 105 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 106 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 107 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 108 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.014 | 0 | 1797 | 169 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 170 | √ | ✕ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 171 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 172 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.021 | 0 | 1797 | 209 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 210 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 211 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 212 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.028 | 0 | 1797 | 3001 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
1 | 1772 | 3002 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
2 | 1750 | 3003 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
3 | 1730 | 3004 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
Continued 1 | |||||||
Fault Diameter (inches) | Motor Load (Hp) | Motor Speed (rpm) | Ball Fault Data | Various Methods Work or Not | |||
EDPWO | AVG | STH | EMDF | ||||
0.007 | 0 | 1797 | 118 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
1 | 1772 | 119 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
2 | 1750 | 120 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
3 | 1730 | 121 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
0.014 | 0 | 1797 | 185 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
1 | 1772 | 186 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
2 | 1750 | 187 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
3 | 1730 | 188 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
0.021 | 0 | 1797 | 222 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
1 | 1772 | 223 | √ | ✕ | √ | ✕ | |
2 | 1750 | 224 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
3 | 1730 | 225 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
0.028 | 0 | 1797 | 3005 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 3006 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 3007 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 3008 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Continued 2 | |||||||
Fault Diameter (inches) | Motor Load (Hp) | Motor Speed (rpm) | Outer Race Fault Data at 6 O’clock | Various Methods Work or Not | |||
EDPWO | AVG | STH | EMDF | ||||
0.007 | 0 | 1797 | 130 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 131 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 132 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 133 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.014 | 0 | 1797 | 197 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
1 | 1772 | 198 | √ | ✕ | √ | ✕ | |
2 | 1750 | 199 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
3 | 1730 | 200 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
0.021 | 0 | 1797 | 234 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 235 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 236 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 237 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.028 | 0 | 1797 | * | * | * | * | * |
1 | 1772 | * | * | * | * | * | |
2 | 1750 | * | * | * | * | * | |
3 | 1730 | * | * | * | * | * | |
Continued 3 | |||||||
Fault Diameter (inches) | Motor Load (Hp) | Motor Speed (rpm) | Outer Race Fault Data at 3 O’clock | Various Methods Work or Not | |||
EDPWO | AVG | STH | EMDF | ||||
0.007 | 0 | 1797 | 144 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 145 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 146 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 147 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.014 | 0 | 1797 | * | * | * | * | * |
1 | 1772 | * | * | * | * | * | |
2 | 1750 | * | * | * | * | * | |
3 | 1730 | * | * | * | * | * | |
0.021 | 0 | 1797 | 246 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 247 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 248 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 249 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.028 | 0 | 1797 | * | * | * | * | * |
1 | 1772 | * | * | * | * | * | |
2 | 1750 | * | * | * | * | * | |
3 | 1730 | * | * | * | * | * | |
Continued 4 | |||||||
Fault Diameter (inches) | Motor Load (Hp) | Motor Speed (rpm) | Outer Race Fault Data at 12 O’clock | Various Methods Work or Not | |||
EDPWO | AVG | STH | EMDF | ||||
0.007 | 0 | 1797 | 156 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 158 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 159 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 160 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.014 | 0 | 1797 | * | * | * | * | * |
1 | 1772 | * | * | * | * | * | |
2 | 1750 | * | * | * | * | * | |
3 | 1730 | * | * | * | * | * | |
0.021 | 0 | 1797 | 258 | √ | √ | √ | √ |
1 | 1772 | 259 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
2 | 1750 | 260 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
3 | 1730 | 261 | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
0.028 | 0 | 1797 | * | * | * | * | * |
1 | 1772 | * | * | * | * | * | |
2 | 1750 | * | * | * | * | * | |
3 | 1730 | * | * | * | * | * |
Bearing Type | Ball Diameter | Pitch Diameter | Number of Ball | Contact Angle |
---|---|---|---|---|
HRB6205 | 7.94 mm | 39.04 mm | 9 | 0° |
Different Methods | Simulation Signal | Case 1: Outer Race Fault Signal | Case 1: Inner Race Fault Signal |
---|---|---|---|
Raw signal | 0.036 | 2.906 | 2.399 |
EDPWO | 0.149 | 291.788 | 117.588 |
AVG | 0.044 | 11.142 | 5.521 |
STH | 0.102 | 20.294 | 11.690 |
EMDF | 0.062 | 14.676 | 5.834 |
Different Methods | Simulation Signal | Case 1: Outer Race Fault Signal | Case 1: Inner Race Fault Signal | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kurtosis | CPU Time (s) | Kurtosis | CPU Time (s) | Kurtosis | CPU Time (s) | |
Raw signal | 2.844 | 0.019 | 1.600 | 0.018 | 1.498 | 0.019 |
EDPWO | 9.497 | 52.601 | 52.907 | 180.088 | 176.813 | 182.229 |
AVG | 2.357 | 14.664 | 1.565 | 56.343 | 1.481 | 55.899 |
STH | 4.908 | 12.721 | 19.716 | 45.333 | 13.669 | 46.500 |
EMDF | 3.143 | 59.977 | 2.477 | 215.084 | 4.862 | 220.197 |
Different Methods | Case 2: 12 kHz Drive End Bearing Outer Race Fault Data at 6 O’clock | Case 2: 12 kHz Drive End Bearing Inner Race Fault Data | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dataset 130 | Dataset 198 | Dataset 236 | Dataset 237 | Dataset 105 | Dataset 170 | Dataset 211 | Dataset 3004 | |
Raw signal | 0.466 | 0.002 | 0.216 | 0.253 | 0.052 | 0.023 | 0.263 | 0.029 |
EDPWO | 0.635 | 0.006 | 0.344 | 0.405 | 0.135 | 0.054 | 0.353 | 0.049 |
AVG | 0.049 | 0.002 | 0.051 | 0.072 | 0.034 | 0.007 | 0.042 | 0.012 |
STH | 0.316 | 0.006 | 0.328 | 0.397 | 0.063 | 0.033 | 0.269 | 0.031 |
EMDF | 0.443 | 0.004 | 0.278 | 0.322 | 0.061 | 0.039 | 0.304 | 0.031 |
Different Methods | Case 2: 12 kHz Drive End Bearing Outer Race Fault Data at 6 O’clock | Case 2: 12 kHz Drive End Bearing Inner Race Fault Data | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dataset 130 | Dataset 198 | Dataset 236 | Dataset 237 | Dataset 105 | Dataset 170 | Dataset 211 | Dataset 3004 | |
Raw signal | 7.703 | 2.943 | 19.656 | 21.855 | 5.459 | 28.778 | 6.961 | 3.364 |
EDPWO | 15.967 | 7.739 | 57.222 | 88.180 | 34.414 | 199.842 | 31.638 | 27.836 |
AVG | 9.753 | 3.364 | 19.537 | 20.599 | 6.462 | 25.934 | 5.764 | 4.478 |
STH | 15.617 | 4.816 | 47.430 | 41.569 | 11.447 | 72.077 | 13.899 | 9.052 |
EMDF | 4.851 | 3.076 | 13.250 | 14.836 | 5.232 | 34.072 | 4.749 | 3.617 |
Different Methods | Case 2: 12 kHz Drive End Bearing Outer Race Fault Data at 6 O’clock | Case 2: 12 kHz Drive End Bearing Inner Race Fault Data | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dataset 130 | Dataset 198 | Dataset 236 | Dataset 237 | Dataset 105 | Dataset 170 | Dataset 211 | Dataset 3004 | |
Raw signal | 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
EDPWO | 90.285 | 93.653 | 94.349 | 92.141 | 92.314 | 88.780 | 92.245 | 92.868 |
AVG | 30.056 | 30.272 | 30.646 | 30.094 | 30.371 | 29.964 | 30.258 | 30704 |
STH | 23.568 | 23.221 | 23.283 | 23.358 | 23.584 | 23.262 | 23.305 | 23.130 |
EMDF | 112.093 | 111.243 | 113.147 | 112.354 | 114.024 | 111.223 | 111.477 | 111.379 |
Different Methods | Case 3: Outer Race Fault Signal | Case 3: Inner Race Fault Signal | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FFR | Kurtosis | CPU Time (s) | FFR | Kurtosis | CPU Time (s) | |
Raw signal | 0.005 | 3.029 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 4.714 | 0.018 |
EDPWO | 0.066 | 10.256 | 146.097 | 0.037 | 101.890 | 153.317 |
AVG | 0.001 | 2.991 | 52.121 | 0.002 | 3.606 | 49.005 |
STH | 0.003 | 4.964 | 41.115 | 0.018 | 14.085 | 39.615 |
EMDF | 0.006 | 3.387 | 190.205 | 0.007 | 5.426 | 177.441 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yan, X.; Liu, T.; Fu, M.; Ye, M.; Jia, M. Bearing Fault Feature Extraction Method Based on Enhanced Differential Product Weighted Morphological Filtering. Sensors 2022, 22, 6184. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166184
Yan X, Liu T, Fu M, Ye M, Jia M. Bearing Fault Feature Extraction Method Based on Enhanced Differential Product Weighted Morphological Filtering. Sensors. 2022; 22(16):6184. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166184
Chicago/Turabian StyleYan, Xiaoan, Tao Liu, Mengyuan Fu, Maoyou Ye, and Minping Jia. 2022. "Bearing Fault Feature Extraction Method Based on Enhanced Differential Product Weighted Morphological Filtering" Sensors 22, no. 16: 6184. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166184
APA StyleYan, X., Liu, T., Fu, M., Ye, M., & Jia, M. (2022). Bearing Fault Feature Extraction Method Based on Enhanced Differential Product Weighted Morphological Filtering. Sensors, 22(16), 6184. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166184