CEEMD-assisted bearing degradation assessment using tight clustering

  • Yanfei LuEmail author
  • Rui Xie
  • Steven Y. Liang


Rolling element bearing is a critical component of various rotating machineries. As the demand of reliability of machinery gradually increases, the accurate diagnosis of bearing degradation becomes increasingly important to ensure safe production and reduce operation cost. With more knowledge and data of the bearing degradation accumulated, vibration data of bearings with different fault patterns and indicators are obtained. A diagnosis model with self-learning capability helps the model to understand various features in different degradation stages of bearings. Hence, the model provides more accurate diagnosis information of the current conditions of bearings. In this paper, a tight Gaussian mixture clustering unsupervised learning algorithm is implemented with the assistance of an optimized complementary ensemble empirical mode decomposition (CEEMD) to diagnose the damage severity of rolling element bearings. The obtained information is used for characterizing the severity of damage existed within the machine and facilitating the decision-making of machinery maintenance. The experimental vibrational signals of rolling element bearings are decomposed using the improved CEEMD. After obtaining the critical intrinsic mode function from the CEEMD, the features are calculated, and a tight clustering algorithm is implemented to categorize the bearing degradation stage. The tight clustering algorithm overcomes the incapability of traditional clustering algorithm in distinguish scattered features. A more stable categorization is generated by using the proposed algorithm. Less quantity and more accurate training data are used to improve training efficiency. The proposed model can be implemented in expert systems to distinguish different degradation stages with a self-learning capability.


Ball bearing Empirical mode decomposition Fault diagnosis Unsupervised learning 


Author contributions

Y. L. and R. X. created the model and analyzed the data. S. Y. L. provided feedback of the concept. Y. L. and R. X. wrote the paper.


  1. 1.
    Ayhan B, Kwan C, and Liang SY (2018) Adaptive remaining useful life prediction algorithm for bearings. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lu Y, Xie R, and Liang SY (2018) Adaptive online dictionary learning for bearing fault diagnosis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, p. 1–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang Y, Kurfess T, Liang S, Danyluk S (1999) Application of a specialized capacitance probe in bearing diagnosis. Wear 225:1215–1221Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ali JB, Fnaiech N, Saidi L, Chebel-Morello B, Fnaiech F (2015) Application of empirical mode decomposition and artificial neural network for automatic bearing fault diagnosis based on vibration signals. Appl Acoust 89:16–27Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith WA, Randall RB (2015) Rolling element bearing diagnostics using the Case Western Reserve University data: a benchmark study. Mech Syst Signal Process 64:100–131Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abboud D, Elbadaoui M, Smith W, Randall R (2019) Advanced bearing diagnostics: a comparative study of two powerful approaches. Mech Syst Signal Process 114:604–627Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu Y, Xie R, Liang SY (2018) Detection of weak fault using sparse empirical wavelet transform for cyclic fault. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99(5–8):1195–1201Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Widodo A, Yang B-S (2007) Support vector machine in machine condition monitoring and fault diagnosis. Mech Syst Signal Process 21(6):2560–2574Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim H-E, Tan AC, Mathew J, Choi B-K (2012) Bearing fault prognosis based on health state probability estimation. Expert Syst Appl 39(5):5200–5213Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jardine AK, Lin D, Banjevic D (2006) A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mech Syst Signal Process 20(7):1483–1510Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peng Y, Dong M, Zuo MJ (2010) Current status of machine prognostics in condition-based maintenance: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50(1–4):297–313Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Randall RB (2011) Vibration-based condition monitoring: industrial, aerospace and automotive applications. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoen RR, Habetler TG, Kamran F, Bartfield R (1995) Motor bearing damage detection using stator current monitoring. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 31(6):1274–1279Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Ghamd AM, Mba D (2006) A comparative experimental study on the use of acoustic emission and vibration analysis for bearing defect identification and estimation of defect size. Mech Syst Signal Process 20(7):1537–1571Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shiroishi J, Li Y, Liang S, Kurfess T, Danyluk S (1997) Bearing condition diagnostics via vibration and acoustic emission measurements. Mech Syst Signal Process 11(5):693–705Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou W, Habetler TG, and Harley RG (2007) Bearing condition monitoring methods for electric machines: a general review. In Diagnostics for electric machines, power electronics and drives, 2007. SDEMPED 2007. IEEE International Symposium on. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loutas T, Roulias D, Pauly E, Kostopoulos V (2011) 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):1339–1352Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Randall RB, Antoni J (2011) Rolling element bearing diagnostics—a tutorial. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(2):485–520Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baillie D, Mathew J (1996) A comparison of autoregressive modeling techniques for fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings. Mech Syst Signal Process 10(1):1–17Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurfess TR, Billington S, and Liang SY (2006) Advanced diagnostic and prognostic techniques for rolling element bearings, in Condition monitoring and control for intelligent manufacturing, Springer. p. 137–165Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang X, Xu R, Kwan C, Liang SY, Xie Q, and Haynes L (2005) An integrated approach to bearing fault diagnostics and prognostics. in American Control Conference, 2005. Proceedings of the 2005. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Combet F, Gelman L (2007) An automated methodology for performing time synchronous averaging of a gearbox signal without speed sensor. Mech Syst Signal Process 21(6):2590–2606Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mishra C, Samantaray A, Chakraborty G (2016) Rolling element bearing defect diagnosis under variable speed operation through angle synchronous averaging of wavelet de-noised estimate. Mech Syst Signal Process 72:206–222Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bossley K, Mckendrick R, Harris C, Mercer C (1999) Hybrid computed order tracking. Mech Syst Signal Process 13(4):627–641Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao M, Lin J, Wang X, Lei Y, Cao J (2013) A tacho-less order tracking technique for large speed variations. Mech Syst Signal Process 40(1):76–90Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yazici B, Kliman GB (1999) An adaptive statistical time-frequency method for detection of broken bars and bearing faults in motors using stator current. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 35(2):442–452Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antoni J (2007) Fast computation of the kurtogram for the detection of transient faults. Mech Syst Signal Process 21(1):108–124Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antoni J (2016) The infogram: entropic evidence of the signature of repetitive transients. Mech Syst Signal Process 74:73–94Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang NE, Shen Z, Long SR, Wu MC, Shih HH, Zheng Q, Yen N.-C, Tung CC, and Liu HH (1998) The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, 454(1971): p. 903–995Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeh J-R, Shieh J-S, Huang NE (2010) Complementary ensemble empirical mode decomposition: a novel noise enhanced data analysis method. Adv Adapt Data Anal 2(02):135–156MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 31(3):264–323Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yiakopoulos C, Gryllias KC, Antoniadis IA (2011) Rolling element bearing fault detection in industrial environments based on a K-means clustering approach. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):2888–2911Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yuwono M, Qin Y, Zhou J, Guo Y, Celler BG, Su SW (2016) Automatic bearing fault diagnosis using particle swarm clustering and Hidden Markov Model. Eng Appl Artif Intell 47:88–100Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lei Y, He Z, Zi Y, Chen X (2008) New clustering algorithm-based fault diagnosis using compensation distance evaluation technique. Mech Syst Signal Process 22(2):419–435Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wentao S, Changhou L, and Dan Z (2008) Bearing fault diagnosis based on feature weighted FCM cluster analysis. In Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2008 International Conference on. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soualhi A, Clerc G, Razik H (2013) Detection and diagnosis of faults in induction motor using an improved artificial ant clustering technique. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 60(9):4053–4062Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tseng GC, Wong WH (2005) Tight clustering: a resampling-based approach for identifying stable and tight patterns in data. Biometrics 61(1):10–16MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Allison DB, Cui X, Page GP, Sabripour M (2006) Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus. Nat Rev Genet 7(1):55–65Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maitra R, Melnykov V (2010) Simulating data to study performance of finite mixture modeling and clustering algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat 19(2):354–376MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maitra R and Melnykov V (2009) Supplement to “Assessing significance in finite mixture models”. Some theoretical contributions to the evaluation and assessment of finite mixture models with applications p. 109Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fraley C, Raftery AE (1998) How many clusters? Which clustering method? Answers via model-based cluster analysis. Comput J 41(8):578–588zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Torres ME, Colominas MA, Schlotthauer G, and Flandrin P (2011) A complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise. In 2011 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wu Z, Huang NE (2009) Ensemble empirical mode decomposition: a noise-assisted data analysis method. Adv Adapt Data Anal 1(01):1–41Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jiang L, Xuan J, Shi T (2013) Feature extraction based on semi-supervised kernel Marginal Fisher analysis and its application in bearing fault diagnosis. Mech Syst Signal Process 41(1–2):113–126Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chen Z, Deng S, Chen X, Li C, Sanchez R-V, Qin H (2017) Deep neural networks-based rolling bearing fault diagnosis. Microelectron Reliab 75:327–333Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    McFadden P, Smith J (1984) Vibration monitoring of rolling element bearings by the high-frequency resonance technique—a review. Tribol Int 17(1):3–10Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tibshirani R, Walther G (2005) Cluster validation by prediction strength. J Comput Graph Stat 14(3):511–528MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Qiu H, Lee J, Lin J, Yu G (2006) Wavelet filter-based weak signature detection method and its application on rolling element bearing prognostics. J Sound Vib 289(4–5):1066–1090Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Statistics and Data ScienceUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.College of Mechanical EngineeringDonghua UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations