Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ymssp

Condition monitoring of distributed systems using two-stage


Bayesian inference data fusion

Víctor H. Jaramilloa,1, James R. Ottewilla, , Rafał Dudekb, Dariusz Lepiarczykb,
Paweł Pawlikc
a
ABB Corporate Research Center, ul. Starowiślna 13A, 31-038 Kraków, Poland
b
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, Department of Machine Design and
Technology, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
c
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, Department of Mechanics and
Vibroacoustics, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O ABSTRACT

Keywords: In industrial practice, condition monitoring is typically applied to critical machinery. A


Data fusion particular piece of machinery may have its own condition monitoring system that allows the
Condition monitoring health condition of said piece of equipment to be assessed independently of any connected
Fault diagnosis assets. However, industrial machines are typically complex sets of components that continuously
Bayesian inference
interact with one another. In some cases, dynamics resulting from the inception and
development of a fault can propagate between individual components. For example, a fault in
one component may lead to an increased vibration level in both the faulty component, as well as
in connected healthy components. In such cases, a condition monitoring system focusing on a
specific element in a connected set of components may either incorrectly indicate a fault, or
conversely, a fault might be missed or masked due to the interaction of a piece of equipment with
neighboring machines. In such cases, a more holistic condition monitoring approach that can not
only account for such interactions, but utilize them to provide a more complete and definitive
diagnostic picture of the health of the machinery is highly desirable. In this paper, a Two-Stage
Bayesian Inference approach allowing data from separate condition monitoring systems to be
combined is presented. Data from distributed condition monitoring systems are combined in two
stages, the first data fusion occurring at a local, or component, level, and the second fusion
combining data at a global level. Data obtained from an experimental rig consisting of an electric
motor, two gearboxes, and a load, operating under a range of different fault conditions is used to
illustrate the efficacy of the method at pinpointing the root cause of a problem. The obtained
results suggest that the approach is adept at refining the diagnostic information obtained from
each of the different machine components monitored, therefore improving the reliability of the
health assessment of each individual element, as well as the entire piece of machinery.

1. Introduction

As Industrial Processes become more efficient, the machinery used in such processes is subject to increasingly demanding
operating conditions. As a result, condition monitoring systems which monitor the health status of the machinery during operation


Corresponding author.
E-mail address: james.ottewill@pl.abb.com (J.R. Ottewill).
1
Present address: Universidad EIA, Mechatronics Engineering Department, Km 2+200 Vía al Aeropuerto JMC, 055428 Envigado, Colombia.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.10.004
Received 28 June 2015; Received in revised form 20 August 2016; Accepted 1 October 2016
Available online xxxx
0888-3270/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jaramillo, V.H., Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.10.004
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

are growing in importance. Industrial machines are comprised of a number of connected components that continuously interact with
one another in a non-trivial manner. For example, a gas compression installation might be composed of a variable speed inverter
connected to a grid, an electric motor, a gearbox and a compressor, compressing the working fluid which is flowing through a
complex piping network. Each component in the installation may have its own condition monitoring system that aims to identify the
health condition of said component, independently of any connected assets. While considering each component in isolation may
appear to simplify the diagnostic analysis, this approach might neglect the additional level of complexity and uncertainty that the
interactions between components add. These interactions can lead to difficulty in distinguishing dynamic signatures excited by a
fault from those propagated from other healthy components in the system. This added uncertainty can reduce confidence in the
outputs of the condition monitoring systems, and can ultimately lead to false or missed alarms.
Traditional condition monitoring approaches attempt to mitigate external influences by only comparing results obtained under
similar operating conditions. For example, the ISO 10816-3:2009 standard [1] for the evaluation of machine vibrations states that
measurements should only be carried out when the rotating components have reached their normal, steady state operating
temperatures and with the machine running under specified conditions. In certain applications in which the load is non-stationary,
such conditions can be difficult to realize. Signal processing approaches, that deal with non-stationary operating conditions, have
also been developed. For example, Time Synchronous Averaging, or TSA [2], links measurements of vibration to a synchronously
recorded shaft angular position, averaging from rotation to rotation to reject components in the vibration signal unrelated to the
rotating element under consideration. Whilst these approaches can successfully extract specific fault signatures from measured
signals, in doing so they discard other measured data which may also potentially contain useful diagnostic information.
Recently, new condition monitoring approaches have been developed that embrace the interactions between the components. An
example of this is the use of electrical signals measured from a motor or inverter to monitor connected load components. The
coupling between the speed, torque and stator currents and voltages allows variable speed drives to control motors to a defined set-
point without the need for additional speed transducers [3,4]. Similarly, torsional oscillations from faulty components connected to a
motor or generator modulate stator currents and voltages, generating signal features that can be used to identify faults in the
connected components. Such an approach has been used to identify faults in gearboxes [5–9], compressors [10,11], pumps [12] and
fans [13]. Evidently, it is possible for fault signatures to propagate between components and be observed in measurements recorded
throughout the system. As a result, in the case of a condition monitoring system focused on a specific component, understanding the
source of a dynamic signature can represent a challenge. On the other hand, a more holistic condition monitoring system which has
the capability of combining information from multiple components in a system, offers the opportunity to provide a more complete
and reliable diagnostic assessment.
There are also further reasons why incorporating data from multiple sources into a condition monitoring system can improve the
reliability of analysis. It is well known that a number of different fault modes can excite similar fault signatures. For example, among
others, imbalances, eccentricities or misalignments can all result in increased vibration levels at the rotation speed of a piece of
rotating machinery. Comparing vibrations or fusing the data recorded at multiple locations along the shaft line can help inform on
which of these fault modes is the most likely to be present. Similar approaches have also been applied in Structural Health
Monitoring (SHM) applications where data recorded from multiple sensors of similar type but located at different positions across
the structure is fused in order to improve the assessment of the system. Vanik et al. [14] proposed a methodology based on Bayesian
Inference that makes use of modal parameters, previously identified via simulation, to identify potential health state changes by
analyzing the probability of a change in system stiffness parameters. Yuen et al. [15] used this approach in the development of a two-
stage health assessment approach for benchmark tests. Similarly, Wang et al. [16] proposed a two-stage based Bayesian inference
method that makes use of a network of sensors to identify structural problems in plates. SHM represents a vast field in which a
number of approaches have been utilized for fusing data from sensors distributed across a structure. For a greater overview of
structural health monitoring methods and associated applicable machine learning based techniques, readers are guided to the work
of Farrar and Worden [17].
While monitoring approaches based on combining data from identical (or similar) sensors positioned at various locations across
a system are well established for applications such as judging installation problems in rotating machinery or for identifying
anomalies in structures, even greater gains may potentially be achieved by combining data from even more diverse sources [18].
Specifically, including data from different sensor types, recording physical quantities such as temperature [19,20], oil quality [21], or
acoustic emissions [22] can also increase the reliability of a condition monitoring system, particularly as some approaches are more
reactive to certain fault modes than others. Various researchers have described methods of combining signals from different sensor
types in order to improve the reliability of condition monitoring analyses. For example, Yang and Kim fused electric currents and
vibrations in order to diagnose faults in electric motors [23]. Basir and Yuan [24] described the fusion of vibration, sound, pressure
and temperature in order to assess the condition of combustion engines whilst Salahshoor et al. [25] combined the same signals
when assessing the health of turbines. Various authors have fused the signals acquired from oil debris sensors with vibration signals
for the successful diagnostics of gearboxes [26,21,27]. Sadizadeh and Latifi [28] proposed combining data from an accelerometer
and a load cell to diagnose bearing defects, showing that the load cell was excellent in identifying a faulty bearing whilst the
accelerometer was useful to detect the location of the fault.
These multi-sensor data fusion approaches are based on Machine Learning techniques for combining data and providing a health
assessment of the system by conducting pattern recognition. Machine Learning techniques typically used in multi-sensor data fusion
range from Support Vector Machines (SVM) [29–31], Neural Networks (NN) [27,24,32], Fuzzy logic [33], Fuzzy measure and fuzzy
integral data fusion [34] or Decision Trees [35,36], to the combination of different Machine Learning techniques, such as NN with
Dempster–Shafer inference theory [23] or SVM with NN [25], among others.

2
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

In the cited examples, the proposed approaches are applied in order to improve the diagnostics of a machine component, rather
than the diagnostics of the whole machine itself. In this paper, a holistic approach for monitoring the condition of distributed
systems is proposed. The method aims to diagnose the system, or machine, as a whole, by conducting data fusion in two stages: the
first stage focuses on fusing the data belonging to each component comprising the machine and the second stage focuses on the data
obtained from the first stage, providing a global health assessment. As discussed, data fusion approaches composed of two or more
stages have previously been designed specifically for SHM applications, for example by Wang et al. [16]. To the best knowledge of the
authors, such approaches have not been applied more widely in the condition monitoring of machinery. In contrast to the
aforementioned SHM approaches, the novel two-stage approach described here is designed specifically for the purpose of diagnosing
the condition of machinery comprised of multiple, potentially distinct, connected components. In particular, whereas SHM
approaches typically fuse data from multiple sensors of a similar nature, the method proposed here is well-suited at combining
information from multiple sensors of varying type; an important consideration when addressing complex machinery. The proposed
method is based on Bayesian Inference theory which provides a transparent reasoning engine based on probability values.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 a brief introduction to Bayesian Inference based data fusion is provided. In
Section 3 the proposed two stages data fusion method is described. Details pertaining to the experimental validation of the approach,
such as the rig design and experimental methodology are described in Section 4. Section 5 describes the approach for preparing the
likelihood functions, prior to applying the newly proposed method. Results of applying the proposed method are shown in 6. Finally,
conclusions are given in Section 8.

2. Overview on Bayesian inference based data fusion

There are several different approaches for fusing data, which, in general, are based on Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning.
Neural Networks [32], Support Vector Machines [37], Decision Trees [35] or Fuzzy Logic [21] are all examples of Artificial
Intelligence techniques that could be used to perform data fusion for Condition Monitoring applications. In this paper, Bayesian
Inference, which is an Artificial Intelligence approach often used as a reasoning engine in Expert Systems [38–40], is the focus of
investigation. Bayesian inference has been used by other authors to develop condition monitoring solutions that can deal with
uncertainty of faults and fault symptoms, as shown in [41], and applications that range from human factors modeling on offshore
blowouts [42] or fault diagnosis systems for airplane engines [43] to Bayesian networks to represent the relationships among the
symptoms and crop diseases [44]. An interesting characteristic of Bayesian Inference could be said to be its realization of causality by
means of probabilities. In the case of Condition Monitoring, the Bayesian Algorithm allows the probability that a fault is present,
based on the known information and previous cases, to be determined.
In some ways, Bayesian Inference could be interpreted as being a formalization of human reasoning. When a person seeks the
answer to a question, they might look for evidence to support a hypothesis. A typical example of this often found in classical
Probability Theory literature would be the decision whether or not to take an umbrella when venturing outside. A weather forecast
might provide initial evidence supporting or undermining a hypothesis. If the weather forecast suggests s 50% probability of rain,
further information might be sought in order to come to a more informed decision. For example, a cloudy sky observed through a
window could be an example of additional evidence that would make a person more inclined to take the umbrella on their journey. In
the same way, Bayesian Inference may be applied in the diagnostics of Industrial Machinery. Consider the initial hypothesis that a
motor is misaligned. First, initial evidence that a motor coupling is operating at elevated temperatures might be acquired through
infrared thermography. Secondly, further evidence might be obtained by analyzing the amplitude of the vibration component at the
rotating speed, extracted from the frequency spectrum of a measured vibration signal. By acquiring evidence from different sources,
the initial hypothesis of the state of the motor health is either strengthened or weakened. Ultimately, when multiple hypotheses of
various faults being present are evaluated, the Bayesian Inference approach will indicate the most likely fault that is present in the
system.
Generalizing the Bayesian Inference approach, it could be stated that when the system presents a fault Fi, there should be at least
one feature (or indicator) yk value that will cross a threshold value, triggering a warning and indicating the potential presence of said
fault. Ideally, there would be K features whose values could cross their respective thresholds in the presence of a fault, each
triggering a warning. As such, the probability that the fault Fi is present when an indicator yk is triggered is defined as
P(yk |Fj )
P(Fj|yk ) = P(Fj ).
P(yk ) (1)
Considering that a set of K indicators or features Y = {y1, y2 , …, yK } trigger their respective warnings, the probability that the
fault Fi is present, is given as
P(Y|Fi )
P(Fi |Y) = N
P(Fi ),
∑ j =1 P(Y|Fj )P(Fj ) (2)
where F1, F2, …, FN represent all the possible faults present in the system and
K
P(Y|Fi ) = ∏ P(yk |Fi ).
k =1 (3)
For the purposes of the Data Fusion solution proposed in this paper, the Bayesian algorithm considers multiple types of fault and

3
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

several indicators as well. As a result, the calculations resemble Eq. (2). However, as will be shown in further sections of this
document, the Data Fusion is conducted in two stages rather than just one.

3. Overview of the two stage Bayesian inference approach for condition monitoring

3.1. General overview

The data fusion approach proposed in this paper is conducted in two stages. At the first, local data fusion stage, fault indicator
values relating to each individual machine component are fused in order to assess the health of said specific component. The results
of this local data fusion are given as inputs to the second, global data fusion stage, where the evidence acquired from the entire
system is combined, refining the probabilities and therefore assessing the health condition of the whole system with improved
reliability. Fig. 1 displays the scheme and the steps followed in order to conduct the Data Fusion Process.
The structure of the Data Fusion approach utilized at each stage generally follows the data fusion process model suggested by the
Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL) Data Fusion working group, as described in [45]. This model involves several stages for pre-
processing the data, refining the information and providing a final assessment. Further details of this process may be found in [46].
The steps conducted throughout the proposed data fusion algorithm comprise:

1. Signal Processing and Feature Extraction


2. Local Data Fusion
3. Global Data Fusion

The following sections explain each of the steps in detail.

3.2. Signal processing and feature extraction

Depending on the nature of the system being monitored, different signals and signal processing approaches can be utilized. When
monitoring industrial processes, typically process variables such as temperature, pressure, and mass flow will be monitored [47]. On
the other hand when diagnosing the health of a piece of rotating machinery vibrations [48–50] or electrical signals such as motor
current and voltage might be used [51]. In general, these signals are acquired as time waveforms. Once acquired, these time
waveforms might be filtered to remove noise components, before further signal processing approaches such as Fourier Transforms,

Fig. 1. Data fusion scheme.

4
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Enveloping, Time Synchronous Averaging or Time–Frequency Analysis [52] are applied.


Once the signals have been processed the following step consists of extracting the features or indicators that will help identify the
state of the machine under analysis. The selection of proper features is of particular interest, since certain features tend to be more
sensitive to specific faults, whilst some other features are less discriminatory, and will react in some way to many or all faults. This is
an important aspect as the success of a condition monitoring approach will often depend on how sensitive the selected features are.
Typical features extracted, depend mainly on the nature of the signal acquired. For time waveforms, typical features include Root
Mean Square (RMS), Standard Deviation, Crest Factor (CF), Skewness, Kurtosis and Signal Entropy. When considering frequency
spectra, in addition to extracting the amplitude of components at particular frequencies of interest, features such as the Frequency
Spectrum Area and Frequency Spectrum Area Centroid may also be calculated. Furthermore, features can be formed as
combinations of other extracted features, for example the amplitude ratio between two different peaks, or the ratio between a
peak value and the RMS value. As previously discussed, when selecting or designing features it is important to understand how a
specific fault can influence the behaviour of a system. Once the features have been extracted, it is important to define a threshold
level from which it is known that the signal is presenting an abnormal behaviour. For the case of velocity vibration RMS values, it is
possible to refer to the ISO standards [1], since they establish the suggested warning and alarm levels of vibration according to the
size (power) and foundation type of the machine. For practical purposes, a warning threshold can be considered as the maximum
feature level in which the machine operation is the just tolerable, on the other hand, an alarm threshold can be considered as the
maximum level after which the machine operation is not permissible.

3.3. Data fusion

Section 2 describes the basic approach that should be followed in order to conduct the Bayesian Inference algorithm. However,
for the case of the data fusion approach proposed in this paper, the data fusion process is split into two stages, the local data fusion
and the global data fusion. Firstly, consider a machine with a total of M components, each component has N possible fault conditions
and K health indicators. In this sense, considering that i = 1, 2, …, M , the ith component will have a total of Ni possible fault
conditions and Ki health indicators. The whole system will have a total of R possible faults, which comprise the faults of individual
components and their different combinations. Each indicator will be represented as yi, k , where it is read as the kth indicator of the ith
machine component and each fault condition will be represented as Fi, n , where it is read as the nth fault of the ith machine
component.

3.3.1. Local data fusion


For each ith machine component, there is a local data fusion process. Algorithm 1 (Local data fusion algorithm) describes the
local data fusion process for the ith machine component.

Algorithm 1. Local data fusion algorithm.

procedure LOCAL DATA FUSION yi,1, yi,2 , …, yi, K , p(Fi0)


i

p− (Fi) ← p(Fi0)
for k = 1, K do
If yi, k > warningi, k then
N
p(Fi|yi, k ) ← [p(yi, k |Fi) ⊗ p− (Fi)]/[∑n =1 p(yi, k |Fi, n )p− (Fi, n )]

p (Fi) ← p(Fi|yi, k )
k←k+1
else
k←k+1
p(Fi|Yi) ← p(Fi|yi, k )
return p(Fi|Yi)

In Algorithm 1, p(Fi0) is a probability mass function that contains the initial values of probability that determine how likely it is
for each fault condition of the machine component i to be present prior to the condition assessment. These initial probability values
can be defined arbitrarily in most cases, but could also be obtained from other sources. For example the initial probabilities might be
calculated from reliability information from a fleet of similar machines, or assessed by an expert who has access to the operational
history of the machine and/or experience with similar machines. p(Fi0) is a probability mass function, but can be represented as a
vector whose elements constitute the probability values for each fault. In this way

p(Fi0) = [p(Fi0,1) p(Fi0,2 ) ⋯ p(Fi0, Ni )]. (4)


Since the developed technique considers probability mass functions with discrete and defined values, in order to simplify the
visualization of the implementation of the method, these functions will be subsequently represented as vectors.
p− (Fi) is the a priori probability mass function for the machine component i (or the probability mass function before the data is
fused), p(Fi|yi, k ) is the a posteriori probability distribution for the machine component i (or the distribution of probabilities after

5
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

fusing the data), p(yi, k |Fi) is the likelihood function, which is a probability mass function that provides information about the
likelihood that a fault condition is present in the machine component i, given that an indicator value (in this case yi, k ) has crossed its
warning level. More details about the likelihood functions are provided in further sections. Finally, warning i, k is the predefined
warning level for the kth indicator of the ith machine component under analysis, and ⊗ is the element-wise product. Since there are
a total of M machine components, a total of M local data fusion processes are carried out, providing a set of M posterior fault
probability mass functions, which can be represented as
⎛ ⎞
p⎜F1 y1,1, y1,2 , ⋯ y1, K ⎟ = p(F1 Y1) = [p(F1,1) p(F1,2 ) … p(F1, N1)]
⎝ 1⎠ ⎛
⎛ ⎞ p⎜FM yM ,1, yM ,2 ,
p⎜F2 y2,1, y2,2 , ⋯ y2, K ⎟ = p(F2 Y2) = [p(F2,1) p(F2,2 ) … p(F2, N2 )] ⎝
⎝ 2⎠



⋯ yM , K ⎟ = p(FM YM ) = [p(FM ,1) p(FM ,2 ) … p(FM , NM )]
M⎠

If the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) of these posterior fault probability mass functions is calculated, the index of such MAP will
indicate the most likely fault to be present in each machine component. This process will be conducted later during the global data
fusion.
It is important to note that, depending on the machine component, a different number of possible faults may be possible, thus the
number of elements in the probability mass distributions could be different.

3.3.2. Global data fusion


Before the global data fusion may begin, a number of data sets are required, specifically the initial global fault probability (iGFP)
mass function and the posterior fault probability (PFP) mass functions (one per each machine component).
The iGFP mass function, p(C0), is defined as

p(C0) = [p(C10 ) p(C20 ) ⋯ p(CR0 )], (5)


where Cr, r = 1, 2, 3, …, R , represent the different fault conditions that can occur in the system and p(C10 ),
…, p(CR0 )p(C20 ),
represent the initial probability that any of these faults is present before the Global Fusion stage takes place. These initial probability
values can be obtained from the posterior fault probability mass functions (acquired after the local data fusion process), by
determining marginal or joint probabilities depending on the nature of the fault condition (simple or combined), or by simply
equally distributing the probability amongst all the global fault conditions. Conversely, the PFP mass functions are acquired after the
local data fusion process is finalized.
To begin the global fusion process, the index of the Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) probability values from each of the PFP mass
functions is extracted. This index is used in combination with the Global Likelihood Functions (GLF) of each component to conduct
the global fusion process. The GLF is a set of probability mass functions (associated with a machine component) that provide
information about the likelihood that a fault condition is present in the system (instead of specific machine components, see Section
3.4.2). The final result of the global fusion process indicates the probability of each specific fault condition being present in the
system. Algorithm 2 (Global Data Fusion Algorithm) shows the steps taken when conducting the global fusion process.

Algorithm 2. Global Data Fusion Algorithm.

procedure GLOBAL DATA FUSION p(F1|Y1), p(F2|Y2), …, p(FM |YM ), p(C0)


▹ Index function gives the index of the maximum argument
Idx1 ← Index (argmax(p(F1|Y1)))
Idx 2 ← Index (argmax(p(F2|Y2)))

IdxM ← Index (argmax(p(FM |YM )))
p− (C) ← p(C0)
for m = 1, M do
R
p(C|Fm) ← [GLFm(Idxm ) ⊗ p− (C)]/[∑r =1 GLFm(Idxm )r p− (Cr )]

p (C) ← p(C|Fm)
m←m+1
p(C|F) ← p(C|Fm)
return p(C|F)

In Algorithm 2, p− (C) represents the a priori global probability mass function, p(C|Fm) represents the a posteriori probability
mass function, GLF(.
i ) is the set of Global likelihood functions related to the ith component, Cr is the rth value of the vector that
represents the probability mass function C .

6
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

3.4. Construction of likelihood functions

The likelihood functions lie at the core of the Bayesian Inference algorithm. These functions contain the probabilistic information
that is used in combination with the evidence gathered. For the case of the Data Fusion approach presented in this paper, there are
two different types of likelihood functions: those which are associated with each of the machine components, known as the Local
Likelihood Functions, and those associated with the complete system, known as the Global Likelihood Functions.

3.4.1. Local likelihood functions


The local likelihood functions are associated with a specific machine component. These functions allow the different component
features to be fused. Each feature or indicator has a likelihood function associated with it. Broadly speaking, the likelihood function
is a probability mass distribution that describes the probability that a fault is present given that an indicator has crossed its threshold
value. The structure of each likelihood functions may be given as
p(yi, k |Fi) = [p(yi, k |Fi,1) p(yi, k |Fi,2 ) ⋯ p(yi, k |Fi, Ni )], (6)
where p(yi, k |Fi,1) represents the probability that the fault Fi,1 is present, given that the indicator yi, k has exceeded its threshold.
The probability values contained within the likelihood functions can be obtained through experimental tests in which the
component condition is known, or from historical condition monitoring and maintenance data from multiple similar machines.
Evidently, the more information that is gathered, the more reliable the final result will be.

3.4.2. Global likelihood functions


The Global Likelihood Functions (GLF) are associated with the whole system rather than its individual components. These Global
Likelihood Functions provide a refinement of the diagnostics, since the Bayesian algorithm fuses all of the information acquired from
each of the components, combining it in the second fusion stage. For some diagnostics situations, for example in the diagnostics of
bearing looseness or excessive misalignment, two different faults can result in similar indicator values, potentially leading to false
alarms or inaccurate diagnostics. The Global Data Fusion process is intended to reduce the influence of any potentially misleading or
ambiguous information, thus providing the end user with a more reliable assessment of the condition of the system. In a similar
fashion as when considering the Local Likelihood Functions, the GLF are constructed as a set of probability mass functions. However
in order to implement the technique they can be represented as a matrix with a structure
⎡ p(Fi,1|C1) p(Fi,1|C2 ) ⋯ p(Fi,1|CR ) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
GLFi = ⎢⎢
p(Fi,2|C1) p(Fi,2|C2 ) ⋯ p(Fi,2|CR ) ⎥
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥,
⎢ ⎥
⎣ p(Fi, Ni|C1) p(Fi, Ni|C2 ) ⋯ p(Fi, Ni|CR )⎦ (7)
where GLFi is the global likelihood function of the ith machine component, and p(Fi, n|Cr ), where r = 1, 2, …, R , represents the
probability that the local fusion process will indicate machine component fault Fi, n to be present, given that the system condition Cr is
present. For the global data fusion process, only one row of the GLF is used. More specifically, when GLFi(n) is called in Algorithm 2,
only the nth row vector is considered for the calculations.
From a technical and economical point of view, it is easier to obtain the Likelihood Functions of one system component than
from the whole system (composed of several components). In an ideal scenario the GLFs could be constructed using data obtained
through experiments conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, with data recorded for each of the different types and
combinations of faults. The costs of the tests required to obtain the Global Likelihood Functions and the improbability to be able to
obtain data from the whole system in every possible fault condition motivate the establishment of alternatives to build the GLF.
There are various alternative approaches for constructing the GLF that may be envisaged. A pragmatic approach that may be
quickly implemented is to build the functions on the basis of the opinion of an expert who understands the dynamic interactions
between the components in the specific system (similar approaches have been applied previously by other authors for example, by
Cai et al. [41]). Another potential approach for constructing GLFs may involve the use of models and numerical simulations of entire
systems in order to simulate the interactions between components. Finally, historical condition monitoring and maintenance data
from multiple similar systems may be used to generate the likelihood functions. In this case similar systems refers to systems
comprised of similar components in a similar configuration. Again it is evident that the reliability of a GLF constructed using such a
method will depend on the amount of comparable data that is available.

4. Experimental validation

In order to validate the technique proposed, a set of experiments were carried out. The experimental data sets served as a source
of information both for constructing the likelihood functions and for cross validation purposes.

4.1. Rig design

The experimental rig consisted of an electric motor connected to a brake via two gearboxes. Fig. 2 shows a schematic view of the
system. The electric motor (1) was a Tamel motor, reference SG-90S2 with 1.5 kW power, and rated speed of 2840 rpm . The speed of

7
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 2. Schematic drive train.

the motor was controlled by a frequency converter (2) Mitsubishi reference FR-S520SE-1.5K-EC. The electric motor (1) was
connected with a NORD gearbox (4) reference SK11EW (gear ratio 1: 1.35) by means of a flexible coupling (3) ROTEX 19. The NORD
gearbox was connected with a worm gear gearbox (6) reference 8CN20 (gear ratio 1:25) by a rigid coupling (5). Finally the worm
gear was connected to the brake load (7). Fig. 3 shows a photograph of the experimental rig.

4.2. Experimental methodology

During the experimental process various fault conditions were induced in the experimental system. The faults seeded into the
system were motor soft-foot, motor–gearbox misalignment, gearbox soft-foot, gearbox–worm-gear misalignment and worm-gear
soft-foot. These fault modes were selected due to the fact that they are controllable, non-destructive and reversible, allowing the
parameters of the system to be varied without the need of the need of any major reassembly or replacement of any components that
could significantly alter the experimental rig and adversely influence the results obtained. The faults themselves are also of interest
as they have similar fault signatures; in fact soft-foot can itself lead to misalignment in the system. Often both are diagnosed by
analysing low order, even harmonics of the frequency spectrum of measured vibration [52], although more advanced signal

Fig. 3. Real drive train.

8
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 1
List of experiments.

Soft-Foot cases

Alignment case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

No Mis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mis 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mis 2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Mis 3 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

processing methods for diagnosing either may also be applied [53].


The faults were induced both individually and in combinations, which, including measurements recorded in the nominally
healthy state with no induced faults, led to 32 different possible fault combinations. Experiments were conducted at each possible
fault combination. Table 1 summarizes the experiments conducted, where.

• Case 1: No soft-foot
• Case 2: Motor soft-foot
• Case 3: Gearbox soft-foot
• Case 4: Worm-gear soft-foot
• Case 5: Motor and Gearbox soft-foot
• Case 6: Motor and Worm-gear soft-foot
• Case 7: Gearbox and Worm-gear soft-foot
• Case 8: Motor, Gearbox and Worm-gear soft-foot
• No Mis: No component is misaligned
• Mis 1: Motor and Gearbox are misaligned
• Mis 2: Gearbox and Worm-gear are misaligned
• Mis 3: Motor, Gearbox and Worm-gear are misaligned

For example, in Table 1 experiment 22 corresponds to the experiment in which the gearbox and the worm-gear are misaligned
and the Motor and Worm-gear have soft-foot. This experiment corresponds to the system condition C22 . Each experiment was
repeated 5 times, in order to allow statistical outliers to be identified and eliminated.
Each of the machine components was instrumented with a set of sensors in order to acquire data for diagnostics purposes. The
list of acquired signals is listed in Table 2. The sampling rates were 15 kHz for acceleration, 10 kHz for currents and voltages and
2 Hz for temperatures.

4.3. Signal processing and feature extraction

Depending on the source of the signal and its nature, different features were extracted. Generally speaking, two different types of

Table 2
List of sensor signals.

Machine component

Signal type Motor Gearbox Worm-gear

Acceleration Non-drive side vertical Input horizontal Input horizontal


Casing horizontal Input vertical Input vertical
Drive side vertical Output horizontal Input axial
Drive side horizontal Output vertical Output horizontal
Drive side axial Output axial Output vertical
– Output foot Output axial

Current Phase A N/A N/A


Phase B
Phase C

Voltage Phase A N/A N/A


Phase B
Phase C

Temperature Drive side Input Input


– Output Output

9
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 3
List of time domain features.

Time domain features

Feature Equation

Root mean square (RMS) 1


∑iN=1
s x2
i
Ns

Maximum peak (MaxPk) argmax xi

Crest factor (CF) RMS


MaxPk

Peak to peak (Pk2Pk) argmaxxi + argminxi

Skewness (Sk) Ns
1 / Ns ∑i =1 (xi − x )3
⎡ 3/2
Ns 2⎤
⎢1 / (Ns − 1) ∑i =1(xi − x ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Kurtosis (Kurt) Ns
1 / Ns ∑i =1(xi − x )4
⎡ 2
Ns 2⎤
⎢1 / Ns ∑i =1(xi − x ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦

feature were extracted: those which were based on time domain waveforms and those which were based on values extracted from the
frequency domain. From the electric and temperature signals, only time domain features were extracted, whilst for acceleration
signals, both time domain and frequency domain features were obtained.

4.3.1. Time domain features


Time domain features are extracted from the time waveform of a signal of interest. These features are typically used in statistics
and could be considered as the most common indicators utilized in condition monitoring. Table 3 shows the time domain features
used. In Table 3, Ns represents the number of samples of the time waveform.

4.3.2. Frequency domain features


The frequency domain features are calculated by extracting information from the frequency spectrum which is calculated from
the time waveform. In general, frequency domain features are more discerning than time domain features, allowing specific faults to
be determined. Faults like misalignment, unbalance, eccentricity, looseness, cavitation and/or turbulence (in pumps and
compressors), gear wear, gear misalignment, amongst others, are potentially identified by analyzing the spectrum of a signal.
Table 4 shows the frequency domain features used, where X (fi ) is the spectrum amplitude at the frequency fi and fs is the
sampling frequency. The Frequency Spectrum Area (FSA) indicator provides the area under the frequency spectrum. Another
Frequency Domain indicator is the frequency center (FC), which corresponds to the area centroid of the spectrum. In addition there
is the Frequency Peak Value, which is the amplitude value of a specific frequency peak. Table 5 shows the frequency components of
interest obtained from the motor and the worm-gear acceleration signals for the latter indicator.
When considering signals obtained from the gearbox, instead of extracting Frequency Peak Values, the area under the spectrum
curve between specific frequency ranges, also known as the Frequency Energy Band (FEB), was obtained. It is common practice to
track the amplitude of the Gear Mesh Frequency (GMF) as well as the amplitude of the side bands of the GMF at the input and
output rotation speeds of the gear pair. As an alternative to tracking both the amplitudes of components at the GMF and its side-

Table 4
List of frequency domain features.

Frequency domain features

Feature Equation

Frequency spectrum area (FSA) fs


∑iN=1
s /2 X (f )
i Ns

Frequency center (FC) Ns /2


∑i =1 fi X (fi )
N /2
∑ f s=1 X (fi )

Frequency peak value X (fi )


Frequency energy band fs
∑ib= a X (fi ) given that fa < fb
Ns

10
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 5
Frequency components of interest depending on the machine component.

Machine component Frequency components

Motor 1X 1XGMF (26X)


2X 2XGMF (52X)
3X 3XGMF (78X)

Worm-gear Gearbox Output 0.7429X Worm-gear Output 0.0338X


Gearbox Output 1.4858X Worm-gear Output 0.0675X
Gearbox Output 2.2287X Worm-gear Output 0.1013X

bands, the FEB in a range that contained the GMF plus/minus the side-band frequencies was calculated. Tracking these FEBs is
useful in identifying faults in the gearbox, such as Gear Wear, Gear Misalignment, or broken / cracked teeth. For the experimental
system, the FEBs of interest were between 1XGMF−3X (23X) and 1XGMF+3X (29X), 2XGMF−3X (49X) and 2XGMF+3X (55X) and
3XGMF−3X (75X) and 3XGMF+3X (81X).
Table 6 lists the different indicators extracted from the signals acquired from the different drive-train components. Considering
all of the signals acquired from the system (as listed in the Table 2) the total number of indicators is 109 Indicators for the Motor,
120 for the Gearbox and 102 for the Worm-gear.

4.4. Threshold definition

The setting of the warning threshold levels is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks in the design of condition monitoring
systems, since an incorrectly defined value for a warning level can be the difference between having a successful diagnostic system or
a system which is prone to false or missed alarms. In this investigation a probabilistic approach to setting threshold levels was
adopted.
To calculate the feature thresholds, Probability Density Functions (PDFs) of the features, from which statistical limits can
established, have to be identified. These statistical limits help to distinguish between anomalous and typical behaviors. Often when
constructing PDFs of features, a Gaussian distribution is assumed, however this assumption is not generally valid. Instead the PDFs
can be directly estimated from the values of the features themselves through the use of a non-parametric approach [54]. In this
investigation, the Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) approach was selected [55]. For a feature variable x whose value is random with
a density function denoted by p(x), there exists a boundary b such that

b
P (x < b ) = ∫∞ p(x )dx. (8)

Given that p(x) is known, the value of b can be determined by using Eq. (8). To estimate the PDF of the feature variable x, or p(x)
the kernel function K(. ) is used, giving

Table 6
Extracted Indicators.

Motor Indicators Gearbox Indicators Worm-gear Indicators

Currents based indicators Vibrations based Indicators Vibration based indicators Vibration based indicators

RMS RMS RMS RMS


MaxPeak MaxPeak MaxPeak MaxPeak
PeaktoPeak PeaktoPeak PeaktoPeak PeaktoPeak
CrestFactor CrestFactor CrestFactor CrestFactor
Skewness Skewness Skewness Skewness
Kurtosis Kurtosis Kurtosis Kurtosis
SpectrumArea SpectrumArea SpectrumArea SpectrumArea
FrequencyCenter FrequencyCenter FrequencyCenter FrequencyCenter
Peak @ 1X Peak @ 1X Peak @ 0.7429X
Peak @ 2X Peak @ 2X Peak @ 1.4858X
Peak @ 3X Peak @ 3X Peak @ 2.2287X
Peak @ 0.7429X FEB1(23X−29X)
Peak @ 1.4858X FEB2(49X−55X)
Peak @ 2.2287X FEB2(75X−81X)
Ratio 2X/1X Ratio FEB2/FEB1
Ratio 3X/1X Ratio FEB3/FEB1
(1X+2X+3X)/RMS (FEB1+FEB2+FEB3)/RMS

11
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

1
M
⎛ x − xk ⎞
p (x ) = ∑ K ⎜⎝ ⎟,
Mh k =1
h ⎠ (9)
2
e−z /2
K (z ) = ,
2π (10)
where xk , k = 1, 2, 3, …, M , are the samples of x and h is the bandwidth which can be selected as described in [56]. Ultimately, the
value of b is arbitrarily selected, but a typical value ranges between 0.95 and 0.99, which means that either 95% or 99% of the
training values are considered to be under the threshold value, and anything above that value is considered as an anomaly. This
approach for determining limit values is typically used in uni-variate analysis [57].
While the KDE approach offers various benefits, in particular the fact that it does not assume a particular distribution of data
which may not be appropriate for a given system, it does come with an additional computational cost. In this investigation, because
the PDFs of the features were calculated offline and because the data sets were of a relatively modest size, the computational cost of
the KDE was not found to be excessive. However when larger, so-called ‘big’ data sets are considered, readers are advised that the
additional implicit computational burden of this method should be taken into account.

5. Preparation before applying the method

After conducting the experiments and extracting the features, a subset of the extracted features were used to build the Local and
Global Likelihood Functions, which are specifically required to conduct the machine diagnostics. This section describes in detail how
the local and global likelihood functions were obtained.

5.1. Likelihood function training

To train (build) the likelihood functions that lie at the core of the local data fusion algorithm it was necessary to analyze the data
acquired during the experiments. Each of the experiments given in Table 1 was conducted five times with 60 s of data being recorded
for each experiment. In order to refine the probabilistic distribution of the feature values extracted, each data set of 60 s was split
into 56 data samples of 5 s each, with 4 s overlap, giving a total of 8960 data sets, and 280 data sets for each experiments. 70% of the
data sets were used for the training of the likelihood functions, with the remaining 30% being used to conduct the cross validation,
aimed at determining the performance of the proposed data fusion approach.

5.1.1. Local likelihood function training


When considering local data fusion, there is a likelihood function per indicator, per machine component. To obtain the likelihood
functions of a machine component, a data set with a known condition is taken, then it is determined in how many of the data samples
each indicator crosses its respective threshold. Ultimately, this analysis allows the probability that the indicator k will cross its
respective threshold, when the machine fault condition j is present, to be defined. The threshold value for each indicator is obtained
by applying the method described in Section 4.4.
Table 7 shows how the likelihood functions for the motor indicators are structured. As in this study there are a total of 109 motor
indicators, it is not practical to give all of the probability values that comprise all of the likelihood functions in the table. Similar
tables were constructed for the Gearbox and Worm-gear. For the Gearbox the considered conditions are: Healthy, Gearbox Soft-foot,
Motor–Gearbox misalignment, Gearbox–Worm-gear misalignment, Gearbox Soft-foot and Motor–Gearbox misalignment,
Gearbox Soft-foot and Gearbox–Worm-gear misalignment, and Gearbox Soft-foot and Motor–Gearbox–Worm-gear misalign-
ment. For the Worm-gear the considered conditions are: Healthy, Worm-gear Soft-foot, Worm-gear–Gearbox misalignment and
Worm-gear Soft-foot and Worm-gear–Gearbox misalignment.

5.1.2. Global Likelihood Function construction


For the global data fusion, there is a Global Likelihood Function (GLF) per each component condition represented as a n × m
matrix. Where n represents the number of component conditions and m represents the total number of conditions that the system
can undergo. For the case of the motor, the GLF is a 4×32 matrix as in Table 8. The gearbox GLF is a 7×32 matrix and the worm-gear

Table 7
Local likelihood functions for the motor.

Motor indicators Motor conditions

Healthy Soft-foot Misalign Motor–Gearbox Soft-foot + Misalign Motor–Gearbox

y1,1 0.0785 0.03 0.02 0.05


y1,2 0.05 0.92 0.01 0.02
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
y1,109 0.06 0.01 0.61 0.32

12
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 8
Motor Global Likelihood Functions.

System real condition

Component in which condition is diagnosed Motor faults C1 C2 … C32

F1,1 p(F1,1|C1) p(F1,1|C2) … p(F1,1|C32)


Motor F1,2 p(F1,2|C1) p(F1,2|C2) … p(F1,2|C32)
F1,3 p(F1,3|C1) p(F1,3|C2) … p(F1,3|C32)
F1,4 p(F1,4|C1) p(F1,4|C2) … p(F1,4|C32)

GLF is also a 4×32 matrix.


Each value of the GLF represents the probability that the local fusion process will correctly indicate the machine fault Fi, j (with
the MAP approach), given that the system condition Cr is present. For illustrative purposes in this paper, the GLF values were
generated on the basis of statistics analysis of the experimental data. For each data set with known system condition, Cr, the ratio of
cases where the local fusion correctly indicated the true condition to be present, relative to the total number of cases was calculated.
This allowed the GLF to be constructed for each fault condition.
This data-driven approach to the generation of the GLF represents an ideal case, since there was availability of all the signals
incoming from the system and of data of the system working under all the possible conditions (and their combinations), something
that in practice might not be possible. In a real case scenario the probability values would be determined on the basis of expert
knowledge, historical data sets, or fault statistics from similar systems (but mainly involving the whole system rather than its
individual components), as discussed in Section 3.4.2.

6. Results

This section includes the results obtained using the proposed technique. In order to show the benefits of the proposed method for
condition assessment three case studies are analyzed. In each case a one stage data fusion Condition Monitoring approach takes
place, afterwards an additional data fusion stage is conducted (the Global Fusion). For each case, the results of the one stage data
fusion and the two stage data fusion are compared, highlighting the advantages of conducting this additional Data Fusion Stage.

6.1. Case study 1

The first data set taken for the case studies was the 350th data set. For this case study it is known that the only fault condition
present in the experimental system was Motor Soft-foot (C2 ). Fig. 4 shows frequency-order domain plots of the vibration signals
acquired from different locations in the drive train for the case of motor soft foot. For the purposes of comparison, equivalent spectra
acquired from the system in its nominally healthy state are also given. To ease this comparison, the frequencies are given in terms of
shaft orders, with one shaft order relating to frequency components which repeat once for every complete rotation of the motor shaft.
The frequency components of interest and frequency ranges of interest (FEB1, FEB2, FEB3 as given in Table 6) are highlighted along
with associated acceptable values, bounded by the calculated warning thresholds.
In total there are 331 indicators (109 Indicators for the Motor, 120 for the Gearbox and 102 for the Worm-gear). For this motor
soft foot case study, of these 331 indicators, 91 indicators exceeded their associated thresholds. After conducting the first stage data
fusion (local fusion), the fault indicators were combined to generate Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) values of the posterior fault
probability mass functions of each system component. These MAP values indicate which fault is most likely to be present in each
system component. Specifically, three MAP values were obtained, one for each component:

• MAPmotor → Motor Soft-foot


• MAPGearbox→ Gearbox Soft-foot
• MAPWorm − gear → Worm-gear–Gearbox misalignment

Concluding the data fusion process at this juncture would result in the incorrect diagnosis of system condition C21. However, by
applying the second, Global Fusion stage, the results are further refined. In this case study, after applying the Global Fusion step, the
method correctly indicated Motor Soft-foot (C2) as being the most likely fault in the system.

6.2. Case study 2

The second data set used as a case study was the 5000th data set. In this, more complicated case, the experimental system had
been set up with motor soft-foot and misalignment between the parallel shaft and worm gearboxes (Condition C18). Fig. 5 shows the
frequency-order domain plots of the vibration signals acquired from different locations in the drive train for this fault condition.
Again, for the purposes of comparison, frequency is given in terms of shaft orders, equivalent spectra acquired from the system in its
nominally healthy state are also given and components of interest are given alongside associated warning threshold levels.

13
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 4. Frequency-domain plots of vibration signals measured using an accelerometer, (a) mounted horizontally on the drive-side of the motor, (b) mounted
horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the worm gearbox, (c) mounted horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the helical
gearbox, (d) mounted horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the helical gearbox. Results are given both for the case with the system operating
under healthy conditions (Case C1) and with motor soft foot (Case C2).

Of the 331 indicators, 141 indicators exceeded their associated thresholds. After the first stage data fusion (local fusion), the
Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) values of the posterior fault probability mass functions of each system component were:

• MAPmotor → Motor–Gearbox misalignment


• MAPGearbox→ Gearbox Soft-Foot and Gearbox–Worm-gear misalignment
• MAPWorm − gear → Worm-gear–Gearbox misalignment

If the data fusion process was concluded at this point, these results would incorrectly indicate system condition C27. After
applying the second, Global Fusion stage, the method correctly indicates the condition C18 (motor soft-foot and misalignment
between the parallel shaft and worm gearboxes) to be the most likely fault in the system.
It should be noted that with such a large number of alarms/warnings being initiated, it would be difficult for a condition
monitoring engineer to ascertain the root cause of the problem, potentially leading to increased downtimes or inaccurate diagnostics.

6.3. Case study 3

The third data set used as a case study was the 2000th data set. In this case, also a complicated one, the experimental system had
been set up with Soft-Foot in every component (Motor, Parallel shaft gearbox and Worm-Gear gearbox) (Condition C8). Fig. 6 shows
the frequency-order domain plots of the vibration signals acquired from different locations in the drive train for this fault condition.

14
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 5. Frequency-domain plots of vibration signals measured using an accelerometer, (a) mounted horizontally on the drive-side of the motor, (b) mounted
horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the worm gearbox, (c) mounted horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the helical
gearbox, d) mounted horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the helical gearbox. Results are given both for the case with the system operating
under healthy conditions (Case C1) and with motor soft-foot and misalignment between the parallel shaft and worm gearboxes (Case C18).

As previously, for the purposes of comparison, frequency is given in terms of shaft orders, equivalent spectra acquired from the
system in its nominally healthy state are also given and components of interest are given alongside associated warning threshold
levels.
Of the 331 indicators, for Case Study 3 only 19 indicators exceeded their associated thresholds. After the first stage data fusion
(local fusion), the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) values of the posterior fault probability mass functions of each system component
were:

• MAPmotor → Motor Soft-Foot and Motor–Gearbox misalignment


• MAPGearbox→ Healthy Gearbox
• MAPWorm − gear → Worm-gear Soft-Foot

For this case, the local fusion indicates Condition C14. While the local fusion correctly indicates soft-foot problems in the motor
and worm-gear gearbox, it incorrectly indicates that the helical gearbox is healthy and that there is misalignment between the motor
and the helical gearbox. After applying the second, Global Fusion stage, the method indicates the condition C7 (Parallel shaft and
worm-gear gearboxes with Soft-Foot) to be the most likely fault in the system. While the global fusion has reduced the likelihood that
motor–gearbox misalignment is present in the system, the soft-foot condition in the electric motor remains undiagnosed. It is likely
that this inaccuracy is related to sensitivity of the fault indicators to the specific faults present in the system as will discussed further
in Section 7. Nevertheless, we may observe that the two-stage data fusion method has refined the multiple fault indicators that have

15
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 6. Frequency-domain plots of vibration signals measured using an accelerometer, (a) mounted horizontally on the drive-side of the motor, (b) mounted
horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the worm gearbox, (c) mounted horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the helical
gearbox, (d) mounted horizontally on the bearing on the input (high speed) shaft of the helical gearbox. Results are given both for the case with the system operating
under healthy conditions (Case C1) and with motor, parallel shaft gearbox, and worm-gear gearbox soft-foot (Case C8).

exceeded their respective thresholds into a correct diagnosis of two of the three components in the system, and in particular, the
inclusion of the second stage has further refined the diagnosis by reducing the likelihood of the motor–gearbox misalignment fault
mode incorrectly indicated at the local fusion stage.

6.4. Fault classification

Fig. 7 shows the classification accuracy of the method for all fault cases. The Vertical Axis corresponds to the diagnosed system
condition, and the horizontal axis corresponds to the actual system condition. The values contained in the classification table range
from 0 to 1, and each i , j value represents the probability that given that the system condition is Fj, the diagnostics system will
identify the condition Fi. In an ideal scenario the classification table will be like an identity matrix, meaning that the system is able to
identify with 100% accuracy the condition present in the system.
As Fig. 7 shows, for many of the conditions that comprised combined faults the proposed data fusion process is able to identify
the correct fault with a probability above 80% (e.g. for conditions C7, C9, C19, C22). In other cases, the probability to identify the
correct fault is strongly distributed between two or more faults (e.g. C3, C5, C13), this might be induced by a lack of sensitivity of the
indicators to identify different signatures between these combinations of fault, therefore the system spreads the probability of fault to
a few potential conditions. This will be discussed further in the next section.

16
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 7. Classification table.

7. Discussion

The two-stage Bayesian Inference approach proposed in this paper has been shown to perform very well, leading to a more
refined fault diagnosis than either considering each measured signal individually, or considering the results of fusing signals
recorded at each individual component. There are a number of advantages of using this two-stage data fusion approach. Firstly, as
may be observed in each case study, considering each signal individually results in a large number of warnings being triggered. In
particular, this may be observed in Figs. 4 and 5 where the amplitude values of the spectrum frequency components exceed their
respective thresholds. These results confirm the underlying assumption of this paper; that connected components interact with one
another, and in particular, fault signatures may manifest themselves in signals recorded throughout the system. It should be noted
that with such a large number of alarms/warnings being triggered, it would be difficult for a condition monitoring engineer to
ascertain the root cause of the problem, potentially leading to increased downtime. To some extent, the local fusion can refine the
assessment of the machine condition, however, as observed, these assessments can produce misleading results. The results obtained
through the use of the only the local data fusion may be considered analogous to the results one would obtain in industrial practice
where each component has its own individual condition monitoring system. Each system will provide its own individual assessment
of the condition, but ultimately the real root cause of the problem will remain unclear. The addition of the second global fusion stage
acts to refine the results even further, allowing focused maintenance actions to be planned.
Three case studies were presented. While Case studies 1–2 were shown to be accurate, Case Study 3 represented a case where the
proposed two-stage Bayesian inference approach was least successful. It may be noted that, of the three case studies, the fewest
number of fault indicators were triggered for Case Study 3; only 19 indicators exceeded their thresholds for Case Study 3, whereas 91
indicators exceeded their threshold for Case Study 1 and 141 indicators exceeded their threshold for Case Study 2. With fewer
indicators being triggered, there is less evidence available for the data-fusion algorithm to distinguish between fault conditions,
hence leading to reduced accuracy in final diagnosis. Potentially, improved results could be obtained by reducing the threshold limits
on the indicators; however such actions, which increase the sensitivity of the system to anomalies in the data, would also need to be
balanced against the increased likelihood of false alarms. Further improvements might be made by incorporating features which
offer greater sensitivity to particular faults and are more robust against noise; here developments relating to advanced signal
processing and improved sensing technologies would be relevant.
Similar inaccuracies can also occur when using other, standard pattern recognition systems, particularly when the analyzed data
is not sufficiently rich enough in features. Nevertheless, the diagnostic system could provide the end user with a list of more likely
faults, from which the user will decide and take action. It could also be argued that, whilst the two-stage Bayesian inference approach
proposed here did not ultimately diagnose the correct fault condition for this case, it did refine the diagnostic assessment, reducing
the likelihood of motor–gearbox misalignment whilst correctly indicating soft-foot in the two gearboxes. This again highlights the
value of the second, global fusion stage. Furthermore, in practice it is more likely that the proposed approach will be used as a tool

17
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

for supporting operations and maintenance activities. Here, we have evaluated the success of the algorithm on the basis of the
Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) probabilities, or in other words, which fault condition the system deems most likely. In practice, a list
of potential fault conditions with associated probabilities would be output from the system. This list could be used as part of a
targeted maintenance strategy; first service personnel could check if the fault condition with the highest MAP probability is present,
and if this is deemed to be incorrect, the service personnel could proceed to investigate the fault condition with the highest second
highest probability, and so on until the system is corrected.
A further advantage of the data fusion approach is that it acts to reduce the influence of naturally occurring measurement noise.
Even for a data set for which a single component fault is present, sometimes statistical outliers can appear after conducting the
feature extraction. This can lead the local data fusion to indicate a fault condition that is different from the actual fault condition. By
using an extra data fusion stage (the Global Data Fusion), the influence of the noise is reduced, leading to a more satisfactory health
assessment.
It should be noted that by performing the analysis in two stages, there is a loss of information at the local fusion stage, which can
reduce the accuracy of the approach relative to the more typical single stage approach. However, there are a number of reasons why a
single stage approach is not practical in industrial applications. Primarily, a single stage approach would require a single likelihood
function describing how all possible faults can propagate through the system. In practice, it would be extremely difficult to generate
such a function. In general, systems are somewhat heterogeneous in nature, comprised of different components in various
configurations. It is unlikely that full scale experimental tests simulating all possible fault mode combinations would be feasible, and
simply relying on faults occurring in practical application is unlikely to yield statistically significant fault probabilities. It is much
more reasonable to generate (local) likelihood functions for individual components which may be observed many multiple times in
the field as part of a fleet of devices. It is also more feasible to create global likelihood functions describing how combinations of
components typically interact, without specifying what the exact individual components may be (e.g. describing how fault signatures
might propagate between a motor and a connected gearbox). Thus, by considering a two-stage approach, the problem is reduced into
smaller, more tractable elements.
The inaccuracies observed when conducting only a local diagnostics are not exclusive of mechanical systems such as the drive-
train analyzed in the experimental results. This kind of behaviour might appear in Industrial Processes as well, where the links
between the dynamics of process variables and health indicators are not exclusively of electromechanical nature but also chemical or
thermal. In this sense, it comes useful to use a more robust diagnostics technique like the two stage data fusion. Since this technique
allows for refined accuracy by means of considering the system as a whole, while allowing for ease of implementation and
development, it represents an excellent tool for an accurate comprehensive diagnostics.
In this paper, a data driven approach was used in order to calculate the likelihood functions that are key to the successful fusing
of the acquired data. This ideal case, was possible as data was recorded from the system working under all the possible conditions
(and their combinations). In practice, the probability values could also be determined on the basis of expert knowledge, historical
data sets, or fault statistics from similar systems. However, it should be noted that utilizing other such methods to generate
likelihood functions does not necessarily lead to an inaccurate diagnostics system. For example, Cai et al. [41] described a fault
diagnosis approach for a ground-source heat pump based on two Bayesian Networks; one constructed using sensor data, and the
second based on human observations. It was shown that the accuracy of the fault diagnosis model was increased by combining both
data from sensors and human observations. Ultimately, the configuration of a diagnostic system for a given application will always
benefit if the engineer setting up the system has a good level of understanding of the system under consideration, be it through the
selection of optimal sensors and features, or the creation of likelihood functions.

8. Conclusions

An approach for conducting data fusion in two stages based on Bayesian inference for condition monitoring has been proposed.
The technique works by initially conducting a local data fusion step that combines the information acquired from different
indicators, indicating specific component conditions, and then conducting the global fusion step, in which the specific component
diagnostics results are fused to provide an overall health assessment. The performance of the technique was validated through
experimental testing with a drive train which was seeded with various fault combinations.
Despite the simple nature of the features extracted from the signals and subsequently used as inputs to the data fusion algorithm,
the proposed method performed well in the case of combined faults, as shown by the experimental validation. It should be noted that
the features extracted from the sensors are not limited those used in the implementation described here, and that a better
performance of the diagnostics engine might be achieved through the use of features that better discriminate between specific faults.
The technique could be used as a decision support system to solve diagnostic problems when there is doubt about the most likely
source of a problem in a system. Even though the technique was validated by diagnosing a drive train comprised of rotating
machines, the technique could be used to diagnose other kind of industrial equipment (e.g. pipelines, pressure vessels, boilers,
among others).
In comparison to recent pattern recognition trends, the proposed technique offers an approach in which data coming from
different types of sensors and information gathered from human experts could be used. However, considering the expertise and
criteria of the person providing the information, the performance of the diagnostics engine could be affected. Unlike techniques
based on SVM or NN which are generally black boxes, the Bayesian inference approach utilized here offers a transparent method in
which a final probability value can quite easily be traced back through prior calculations, offering a more intuitive way of
understanding the reasoning behind a particular decision proposed by the system. Such a method is particularly useful for condition

18
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

monitoring applications where the penalties associated with incorrect operations and maintenance decisions can be high.
Further research will investigate the performance of the technique when only historical data sets with undamaged data is
available, or when data sets acquired from sensors is combined with other more disparate sources of data, for example information
observed by service engineers tending to equipment.

Acknowledgements

Víctor Jaramillo and James R. Ottewill gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Marie Curie FP7-ITN project
“Energy savings from smart operation of electrical, process and mechanical equipment ENERGY-SMARTOPS”, Contract no. PITN-
GA-2010-264940. The authors would also like to thank Agnieszka Tkaczyk and Paweł Rzeszuciński for support in developing the
experimental methodology.

References

[1] ISO 10816-3:2009, Mechanical Vibration—Evaluation of Machine Vibration by Measurements on Non-rotating Parts—Part 3: Industrial Machines with
Nominal Power Above 15 kW and Nominal Speeds Between 120 r/min and 15000 r/min when Measured In Situ. Standard; International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
[2] S. Braun, The synchronous (time domain) average revisited, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25 (4) (2011) 1087–1102.
[3] P. Vas, Sensorless Vector and Direct Torque Control, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1998.
[4] J. Holtz, Sensorless control of induction motor drives, Proc. IEEE 90 (8) (2002) 1359–1394.
[5] R. Kryter, H. Haynes, Condition Monitoring of Machinery Using Motor Current Signature Analysis, Technical Report, Oak Ridge National Lab., TN, USA, 1989.
[6] C. Kar, A. Mohanty, Monitoring gear vibrations through motor current signature analysis and wavelet transform, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 20 (1) (2006)
158–187.
[7] N. Feki, G. Clerc, P. Velex, Gear and motor fault modeling and detection based on motor current analysis, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 95 (2013) 28–37.
[8] S. Kia, H. Henao, G. Capolino, Torsional vibration effects on induction machine current and torque signatures in gearbox-based electromechanical system, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron. 56 (11) (2009) 4689–4699.
[9] J. Ottewill, M. Orkisz, Condition monitoring of gearboxes using synchronously averaged electric motor signals, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 38 (2) (2013)
482–498.
[10] S. Castleberry, K. In: Smith, Machine monitoring via motor-current demodulation techniques, in: Mechanical Failures Prevention Group,Proceedings of the
44th Meeting, vol. 1, 1990, pp. 87–96.
[11] F. Gu, Y. Shao, N. Hu, A. Naid, A. Ball, Electrical motor current signal analysis using a modified bispectrum for fault diagnosis of downstream mechanical
equipment, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25 (1) (2011) 360–372.
[12] T. Ahonen, R. Tiainen, J. Viholainen, J. Ahola, J. Kestila, Pump operation monitoring applying frequency converter, in: Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion, 2008, SPEEDAM 2008, International Symposium on, 2008, pp. 184–189.
[13] M. Orkisz, M. Wnek, K. Kryczka, P. Joerg, Variable frequency drive as a source of condition monitoring data, in: International Symposium on Power Electronics,
Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, 2008, SPEEDAM 2008, 2008, pp. 179–183.
[14] M.W. Vanik, J. Beck, S. Au, Bayesian probabilistic approach to structural health monitoring, J. Eng. Mech. 126 (7) (2000) 738–745.
[15] K.V. Yuen, S.K. Au, J.L. Beck, Two-stage structural health monitoring approach for phase i benchmark studies, J. Eng. Mech. 130 (1) (2004) 16–33.
[16] X. Wang, G. Foliente, Z. Su, L. Ye, Multilevel decision fusion in a distributed active sensor network for structural damage detection, Struct. Health Monit. 5 (1)
(2006) 45–58.
[17] C.R. Farrar, K. Worden, Structural Health Monitoring: A Machine Learning Perspective, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey (USA), 2012.
[18] M. Martinez-Luengo, A. Kolios, L. Wang, Structural health monitoring of offshore wind turbines: a review through the statistical pattern recognition paradigm,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64 (2016) 91–105.
[19] S. Bagavathiappan, B. Lahiri, T. Saravanan, J. Philip, T. Jayakumar, Infrared thermography for condition monitoring—a review, Infrared Phys. Technol. 60
(2013) 35–55.
[20] L. Krstulovic-Opara, B. Klarin, P. Neves, Z. Domazet, Thermal imaging and thermoelastic stress analysis of impact damage of composite materials, Eng. Fail.
Anal. 18 (2) (2011) 713–719.
[21] P.J. Dempsey, A.A. Afjeh, Integrating oil debris and vibration gear damage detection technologies using fuzzy logic, in: Proceedings of the International 58th
Annual Forum and Technology Display, 2002.
[22] P. Joosse, M. Blanch, A. Dutton, D. Kouroussis, T. Philippidis, P. Vionis, Acoustic emission monitoring of small wind turbine blades, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124 (4)
(2002) 446–454.
[23] B.S. Yang, K.J. Kim, Application of Dempster–Shafer theory in fault diagnosis of induction motors using vibration and current signals, Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 20 (2) (2006) 403–420.
[24] O. Basir, X. Yuan, Engine fault diagnosis based on multi-sensor information fusion using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory, Inf. Fusion 8 (4) (2007) 379–386.
[25] K. Salahshoor, M. Kordestani, M.S. Khoshro, Fault detection and diagnosis of an industrial steam turbine using fusion of {SVM} (support vector machine) and
{ANFIS} (adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system) classifiers, Energy 35 (12) (2010) 5472–5482.
[26] T. Loutas, D. Roulias, E. Pauly, V. Kostopoulos, The combined use of vibration, acoustic emission and oil debris on-line monitoring towards a more effective
condition monitoring of rotating machinery, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25 (4) (2011) 1339–1352.
[27] C.S. Byington, A.K. Garga, Data Fusion for Developing Predictive Diagnostics for Electromechanical Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida (USA), 2008.
[28] M. Safizadeh, S. Latifi, Using multi-sensor data fusion for vibration fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings by accelerometer and load cell, Inf. Fusion 18
(2014) 1–8.
[29] A. Widodo, B.S. Yang, Support vector machine in machine condition monitoring and fault diagnosis, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 21 (6) (2007) 2560–2574.
[30] M. Ge, R. Du, G. Zhang, Y. Xu, Fault diagnosis using support vector machine with an application in sheet metal stamping operations, Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
18 (1) (2004) 143–159.
[31] T.P. Banerjee, S. Das, Multi-sensor data fusion using support vector machine for motor fault detection, Inf. Sci. 217 (2012) 96–107.
[32] B. Yang, T. Han, J. An, Art-kohonen neural network for fault diagnosis of rotating machinery, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 18 (3) (2004) 645–657.
[33] E. Pazouki, S. Choi, Fault diagnosis and condition monitoring of bearing using multisensory approach based fuzzy-logic clustering, in: 2015 IEEE International
Electric Machines Drives Conference (IEMDC), 2015, pp. 1412–1418.
[34] X. Liu, L. Ma, J. Mathew, Machinery fault diagnosis based on fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral data fusion techniques, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 23 (3) (2009)
690–700.
[35] W. Sun, J. Chen, J. Li, Decision tree and pca-based fault diagnosis of rotating machinery, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 21 (3) (2007) 1300–1317.
[36] Y. Chen, R. Du, L. Qu, Fault features of large rotating machinery and diagnosis using sensor fusion, J. Sound Vib. 188 (2) (1995) 227–242.
[37] H.E. Kim, A.C. Tan, J. Mathew, E.Y. Kim, B.K. In: Choi, Integrated diagnosis and prognosis model for high pressure lng pump, in: Proceedings of the 13th Asia
Pacific Vibration Conference, 2009
[38] B.S. Yang, D.S. Lim, A.C.C. Tan, Vibex: an expert system for vibration fault diagnosis of rotating machinery using decision tree and decision table, Expert Syst.

19
V.H. Jaramillo et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Appl. 28 (2005) 735–742.


[39] T. Han, B. Li, L. Xu, A universal fault diagnostic expert system based on Bayesian network, in: 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and
Software Engineering, vol. 1, 2008, pp. 260–263.
[40] D. Bley, Encoding expert knowledge: a Bayesian diagnostic system for diesel generators, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 63 (1991) 443–444.
[41] B. Cai, Y. Liu, Q. Fan, Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, S. Yu, R. Ji, Multi-source information fusion based fault diagnosis of ground-source heat pump using bayesian network,
Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 1–9.
[42] B. Cai, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Q. Fan, Z. Liu, X. Tian, A dynamic bayesian networks modeling of human factors on offshore blowouts, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 (4)
(2013) 639–649.
[43] F. Sahin, M. Çetin Yavuz, Z. Arnavut, Ønder Uluyol, Fault diagnosis for airplane engines using Bayesian networks and distributed particle swarm optimization,
Parallel Comput. 33 (2) (2007) 124–143.
[44] Y. Zhu, D. Liu, G. Chen, H. Jia, H. Yu, Mathematical modeling for active and dynamic diagnosis of crop diseases based on Bayesian networks and incremental
learning, Math. Comput. Model. 58 (34) (2013) 514–523.
[45] O. Kessler, K. Askin, N. Beck, J. Lynch, F. White, D. Buede, D. Hall, J. Llinas, Functional Description of the Data Fusion Process, Technical Report 16, Office of
Naval Technology, Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, PA, 1992.
[46] D. Hall, J. Llinas, An introduction to multisensor data fusion, Proc. IEEE 85 (1) (1997) 6–23.
[47] I. Cecilio, J. Ottewill, H. Fretheim, N. Thornhill, Multivariate detection of transient disturbances for uni- and multirate systems, IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol. (2014) 99.
[48] S.W. Doebling, C.R. Farrar, M.B. Prime, D.W. Shevitz, Damage Identification and Health Monitoring of Structural and Mechanical Systems from Changes in
their Vibration Characteristics: A Literature Review, Technical Report, Los Alamos National Lab., NM, United States, 1996.
[49] S.W. Doebling, C.R. Farrar, M.B. Prime, et al., A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods, Shock Vib. Dig. 30 (2) (1998) 91–105.
[50] R.B. Randall, State of the art in monitoring rotating machinery—Part 1, Sound Vib. 38 (3) (2004) 14–21.
[51] P. Tavner, Review of condition monitoring of rotating electrical machines, IET Electr. Power Appl. 2 (4) (2008) 215–247.
[52] R.B. Randall, Vibration-Based Condition Monitoring: Industrial, Aerospace and Automotive Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey (USA),
2011.
[53] F. Elasha, C. Ruiz-Carcel, D. Mba, V. Jaramillo, J. Ottewill, Detection of machine soft foot with vibration analysis, Insight-Non-Destr. Test. Cond. Monit. 56 (11)
(2014) 622–626.
[54] E.B. Martin, A.J. Morris, Non-parametric confidence bounds for process performance monitoring charts, J. Process Control 6 (6) (1996) 349–358.
[55] Q. Chen, P. Goulding, D. Sandoz, R. Wyne, Application of kernel density estimates to condition monitoring for process industries, in: Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, vol. 6, 1998, pp. 3312–3316.
[56] P.E.P. Odiowei, Y. Cao, Nonlinear dynamic process monitoring using canonical variate analysis and kernel density estimations, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 6 (1)
(2010) 36–45.
[57] A.W. Bowman, A. Azzalini, Applied Smoothing Techniques for Data Analysis, The Kernel Approach with S-Plu Illustrations, Clarendon Press, Oxford (UK),
1997.

20

Вам также может понравиться