4.7 Article

Amplitudes of characteristic frequencies for fault diagnosis of planetary gearbox

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION
卷 432, 期 -, 页码 119-132

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2018.06.011

关键词

Planetary gearbox; Fault diagnosis; Amplitudes of characteristic frequencies; Signal model; Sideband energy ratio (SER)

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the central Universities [ZYGX2016J111]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB1200401, 2017YFC0108401]
  3. Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2015-04897]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Frequency contents have been widely investigated to understand the vibration behaviors of planetary gearboxes. Appearances of certain sideband peaks in the frequency spectrum may indicate the occurrence of gear fault. However, analyzing too many sidebands will create problems and uncertainty of fault diagnoses. To this end, it is of vital importance to focus on those sidebands, as well as their amplitudes, which are directly induced by the gear faults. The Sideband Energy Ratio (SER) method, which synthesize the amplitudes of characteristic frequencies and meshing frequency, has shown its effectiveness in fault diagnosis of fixed-shaft gearboxes. However, for planetary gearboxes, the effectiveness and theoretical explanation behind this method still needs to be explored. In this paper, we first explored the amplitudes of characteristic frequencies based on a phenomenological model. Our investigation demonstrated that monitoring the amplitude of a single frequency component is inadequate for fault diagnosis of planetary gearbox. Second, the theoretical explanation of SER for a planetary gearbox is explored. Finally, a modified SER, namely the Modified Sideband Energy Ratio, is proposed to deal with the problem of rotating speed fluctuation. Experimental studies are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. (C) 2018 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