4.7 Article

DCNN-Based Multi-Signal Induction Motor Fault Diagnosis

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIM.2019.2925247

关键词

Convolutional neural network (CNN); deep learning (DL); fault diagnosis; induction motor; multi-signal model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51575102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deep learning (DL) architecture, which exploits multiple hidden layers to learn hierarchical representations automatically from massive input data, presents a promising tool for characterizing fault conditions. This paper proposes a DL-based multi-signal fault diagnosis method that leverages the powerful feature learning ability of a convolutional neural network (CNN) in images. The proposed deep model is able to learn from multiple types of sensor signals simultaneously so that it can achieve robust performance and finally realize accurate induction motor fault recognition. First, the acquired sensor signals are converted to time-frequency distribution (TFD) by wavelet transform. Then, a deep CNN is applied to learning discriminative representations from the TFD images. Since then, a fully connected layer in deep architecture gives the prediction of induction motor condition based on learned features. In order to verify the effectiveness of the designed deep model, experiments are carried out on a machine fault simulator where both vibration and current signals are analyzed. Experimental results indicate that the proposed method outperforms traditional fault diagnosis methods, hence, demonstrating effectiveness in induction motor application. Compared with conventional methods that rely on delicate features extracted by experienced experts, the proposed deep model is able to automatically learn and select suitable features that contribute to accurate fault diagnosis. Compared with single-signal input, the multi-signal model has more accurate and stable performance and overcomes the overfitting problem to some degree.

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