Fault diagnosis based on TOPSIS method with Manhattan distance

Abstract

Fault diagnosis is important for the maintenance of machinery equipment. Due to the randomness and fuzziness of fault, the relationship between fault types and their characteristics are complicated. Therefore, the determination of fault type is a challenging part of machinery fault diagnosis with the traditional method. To tackle this problem, a fault diagnosis approach based on the technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution with Manhattan distance is presented in this article. First, the similarity measure between the fault model and the detection sample is constructed based on the Manhattan distance. Then, the similarity is transformed into intuitionistic fuzzy set and the generated intuitionistic fuzzy set is fused by the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging operator. On this basis, the technique for order performance by similarity to the ideal solution approach is utilized to obtain the final rank to ascertain the fault type. The proposed method can handle an intricate relationship between multiple fault types and their various fault characteristics and better express uncertain information. Finally, a fault diagnosis example of the machine rotor and comparative study are conducted to illustrate the application and the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords

Fault diagnosis Manhattan distance intuitionistic fuzzy set intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution

Introduction

With the development of modern large-scale production, the complexity of machinery equipment is increasing. Machinery equipment fault diagnosis technology is one of the basic measures to ensure the safe operation of equipment, which can take early warning of the development of equipment fault, make judgment on the causes of fault, propose countermeasures and suggestions, and avoid or reduce the occurrence of accidents. Therefore, the fault diagnosis technology has received great attention, and it has become one of the highlight research directions in the self-control community, such as expert system, neural network, and fuzzy logic–based system.¹ Fault can be understood as at least one important characteristic or variable in the system deviates from the normal range. Broadly speaking, fault can be considered as any abnormal phenomenon of the system, which causes the system to show undesirable characteristics.² In the process of fault diagnosis, due to the randomness and fuzziness of fault, the relationship between fault and its characteristic is complicated. One fault often can show various characteristics, and the same characteristic can be caused by different faults. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively use various characteristics to determine the fault type.

In general, the fault diagnosis approach can be classified into three categories: signal processing–based,³ analytical model–based,⁴ and knowledge-based⁵ approaches. In the signal processing–based approach, signal models such as correlation function, spectrum, autoregressive moving average, and wavelet transform are used to directly analyze measurable signal and extract features such as variance, amplitude, and frequency, and therefore the fault type is determined.⁶ The analytical model–based approach uses the certain mathematical method to process the measured information based on the clear mathematical model of diagnosis.⁶ Usually, difficulty occurs in building the accurate mathematical model of the object, which greatly limits the scope of using the analytical model–based method. Moreover, knowledge-based approach requires a large amount of historical data, comparing with the mathematical model or signal pattern.⁷

The knowledge-based fault diagnosis approach is also called the data-driven fault diagnosis approach.⁸ Knowledge information can be obtained based on qualitative or quantitative characteristic. Therefore, knowledge-based fault diagnosis method can be classified into the qualitative and quantitative methods.⁷ The qualitative method includes the expert system–based method.^9,10 The quantitative method can be roughly divided into statistical analysis–based and non-statistical analysis–based methods.¹¹ The former is mainly composed of principal component analysis (PCA),^12,13 partial least squares (PLS),^14,15 independent component analysis (ICA),^16,17 analytic hierarchy process, statistical pattern classifiers,¹⁸ reliability analysis,¹⁹ and the most recently developed support vector machine (SVM),^20–22 whereas the latter includes complex network,^23–26 fuzzy logic,^27–37 information fusion,^38,39 evidential reasoning,^40–44 and multiple decision making.^45–49

The notion of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) can be viewed as a natural generalization of usual fuzzy set. In general, available information is not sufficient for the definition of an imprecise concept by means of an ordinary fuzzy set.⁵⁰ IFS characteristics are simultaneously concerned with the degree of membership, the degree of non-membership, and the hesitancy degree, while an ordinary fuzzy set is characterized by only the degree of membership. Therefore, IFS is a more effective way to deal with vagueness than an ordinary fuzzy set. Recently, IFS is studied and utilized in the domain of fault diagnosis, which is typically a data-driven approach. Hung et al.⁵¹ handled the turbine fault diagnosis problem with improving cross-entropy measure under the intuitionistic fuzzy circumstance. This method can overcome the situation in which the value of the amplitude ratio of the turbine vibration signal is uncertain. Miao and Wang⁵² demonstrated that the intuitionistic fuzzy fault tree analysis to solve the problem that accurate data concerning the likelihood of failure of a given component are unavailable and the estimation of experts are usually linguistic and uncertainty. Kumar and Yadav⁵³ proposed weakest t-norm based on intuitionistic fuzzy fault tree analysis to calculate the fault interval of system component by integrating expert’s knowledge and experience. The approach is proposed to find the most critical system component that affects the system operation. In order to handle the uncertainty situation and vague information, Chu et al.⁵⁴ extended the concept of fuzzy set by the idea of Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy set (AIFS) and then utilized the similarity measure by which the rank of fault diagnosis can be obtained. Liu et al.⁵⁵ combined IFS and ordered weighted averaging operator to put forward a new type of fuzzy petri net (FPN) model for the problem of fault diagnosis in an aircraft generator. The model enhanced the knowledge representation and reasoning capability, and overcame the deficiencies of the former FPN model. Sun et al.⁵⁶ introduced rough set and IFS, based on which an intuitionistic uncertainty-rough set was presented and the reduction algorithm was improved to enhance the accuracy and rapidity of fault diagnosis. Darong et al.⁵⁷ analyzed hidden Markov model (HMM) algorithm and improved the algorithm for fault diagnosis of motor equipment of urban rail transit. The authors had designed an online fault classification system with an adaptive model and achieved a good rate recognition in motor equipment.

From the above analysis, the existing methods established the corresponding fuzzy model through different algorithms for fault diagnosis. There is difficulty in establishing a fuzzy model when dealing with the complex relationship between multiple fault types and their various fault characteristics, so the aforementioned methods cannot reflect the uncertainty of the fault information well, and the calculation process is troublesome. In order to solve those problems, the aim of this article is to develop a fault diagnosis method based on the technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) with Manhattan distance under the IFS. The proposed method is able to deal with the complex relationship between multiple fault types and their various fault characteristics in a more flexible and effective manner. A concept of IFS developed by Atanassov⁵⁸ is introduced in this article to handle the uncertainty, imprecision, and incompletion of information. The degree of membership and the degree of non-membership of the IFS are fuzzy values rather than exact numbers. In the case of considering the intuitionistic fuzzy value, the IFS is generated according to the similarity measure. The similarity measure between the fault model and the detection sample is constructed based on the Manhattan distance. Then, the generated IFS is fused by the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IFWA) operator. Afterwards, the fault type can be determined by the application of the TOPSIS method. The proposed method takes into account the similarity measure and converts similarity into intuitionistic fuzzy information, which can not only handle an intricate relationship between multiple fault types and their various fault characteristics, but also better express uncertain information to improve the reliability of fault diagnosis.

The remainder of this article is set out as follows. In section “The proposed method,” the proposed method is presented and the procedures are illustrated in detail. In section “Diagnostic experiment,” practical application for machine rotor and comparison analysis are given to illustrate the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed methodology. Some summary remarks are given in section “Conclusion.” The concept of IFS, the TOPSIS method, the IFWA operator, and Manhattan distance are introduced (see Appendix 1).

The proposed method

In this section, a method is proposed to determine the fault type of the detection sample. The flowchart of the proposed method is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The flowchart of the proposed method.

Then, the detailed steps for the proposed method are explained as follows:

1. Let $T_{i}^{k}$ be the fault model and $F_{j}$ be the detection sample $(j = 1, 2, 3, \dots, N)$ . $T_{i}^{k}$ represents the $k$ data sets collected under the ith fault type $(i = 1, 2, 3, \dots, M)$ . According to equation (28), the Manhattan distance between $T_{i}^{k}$ and $F_{j}$ is

d_{ij} (T_{i}^{k}, F_{j}) = \sum_{r = 1}^{s} | T_{i}^{kr} - F_{j}^{r} |

(1)

where $r$ represents the rth collected data. From equation (1), it can be seen that the distance $d_{ij}$ indicates the similarity between the fault model $T_{i}^{k}$ and the detection sample $F_{j}$ . The smaller the $d_{ij}$ is, the greater similarity between the fault model $T_{i}^{k}$ and the detection sample $F_{j}$ is, and vice versa.

The distance matrix $D_{k}$ between the fault model $T_{i}^{k}$ and the detection sample $F_{j}$ can be obtained based on equation (1)

D_{k} = \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} F_{1} & F_{2} & \dots & F_{N} \end{matrix} \\ \begin{matrix} T_{1}^{k} \\ T_{2}^{k} \\ ⋮ \\ T_{M}^{k} \end{matrix} & [\begin{matrix} d_{11}^{k} & d_{12}^{k} & \dots & d_{1 N}^{k} \\ d_{21}^{k} & d_{22}^{k} & \dots & d_{2 N}^{k} \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ d_{M 1}^{k} & d_{M 2}^{k} & \dots & d_{MN}^{k} \end{matrix}] \end{matrix}

(2)

2. Determination of the degree of non-membership of IFS is a key step for the proposed method. The degree of non-membership is generally determined by practical experience and fuzzy statistic. Manhattan distance $d_{ij}$ is an arbitrary number that is greater than or equal to 0, that is, $d_{ij} \geq 0$ . The smaller the $d_{ij}$ value is, the larger the similarity between the fault model and the detection sample is. Based on the characteristics of Manhattan distance and IFS, equation (3) is proposed to obtain the degree of non-membership of IFS as follows

γ_{ij} = \frac{d_{ij}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{M} \sum_{j = 1}^{N} d_{ij}}

(3)

Then the degree of membership $μ_{ij}$ of IFS can be obtained by equation (16). Therefore, the distance matrix $D_{k}$ can be converted into the intuitionistic fuzzy matrix $P_{k}$

P_{k} = \begin{matrix} \begin{array}{l} F_{1} & F_{2} & \dots & F_{N} \end{array} \\ \begin{matrix} T_{1}^{k} \\ T_{2}^{k} \\ ⋮ \\ T_{M}^{k} \end{matrix} & [\begin{matrix} (μ_{11}^{k}, γ_{11}^{k}) & (μ_{12}^{k}, γ_{12}^{k}) & \dots & (μ_{1 N}^{k}, γ_{1 N}^{k}) \\ (μ_{21}^{k}, γ_{21}^{k}) & (μ_{22}^{k}, γ_{22}^{k}) & \dots & (μ_{2 N}^{k}, γ_{2 N}^{k}) \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ (μ_{M 1}^{k}, γ_{M 1}^{k}) & (μ_{M 2}^{k}, γ_{M 2}^{k}) & \dots & (μ_{M N}^{k}, γ_{M N}^{k}) \end{matrix}] \end{matrix}

(4)

3. In the actual work, the fault type analysis is insufficient, and the law of fault occurrence is not found. Therefore, the weight of each fault type is not counted. In this case, the statistical mean method is usually used to determine the weight of each fault type, that is, the weight of each fault type is proportionate. This method embodies the random ambiguity of weight, which is simple and easy to use, and is more commonly used in practice. In this article, without loss of generality, the weight of each data set of fault type is denoted as $q = (q_{1}, q_{2}, \dots, q_{k}) = (1 / k, 1 / k, \dots, 1 / k)$ . Then the $k$ intuitionistic fuzzy matrices $(P_{1}, P_{2}, P_{3}, . . ., P_{k})$ can be fused to obtain one intuitionistic fuzzy matrix $P$ via the IFWA operator, shown as follows

\begin{array}{l} \begin{matrix} F_{1} & F_{2} & \dots & F_{N} \end{matrix} \\ P = \begin{matrix} T_{1} \\ T_{2} \\ ⋮ \\ T_{3} \end{matrix} [\begin{matrix} (μ_{11}, γ_{11}) & (μ_{12}, γ_{12}) & \dots & (μ_{1 N}, γ_{1 N}) \\ (μ_{21}, γ_{21}) & (μ_{22}, γ_{22}) & \dots & (μ_{2 N}, γ_{2 N}) \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ (μ_{M 1}, γ_{M 1}) & (μ_{M 2}, γ_{M 2}) & \dots & (μ_{M N}, γ_{M N}) \end{matrix}] \end{array}

(5)

4. Calculate the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighted Euclidean distance from $A_{ij} = (μ_{ij}, γ_{ij})$ to positive ideal solution $(D^{+})$ and negative ideal solution $(D^{-})$ . From step 2, the weights of $j$ detection samples are denoted as $w = (w_{1}, w_{2}, w_{3}, \dots, w_{j})$ . Then, $D^{+}$ and $D^{-}$ can be obtained based on equations (19) and (24)

\begin{matrix} D_{i}^{+} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{N} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{ir}, Q^{+}))}} \\ D_{i}^{-} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{N} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{ir}, Q^{-}))}} \end{matrix}

(6)

where $Q^{+} = (max (A_{ij}), min (A_{ij}))$ and $Q^{-} = (min (A_{ij}), max (A_{ij}))$ are the intuitionistic fuzzy positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution, respectively. $Q^{+}$ and $Q^{-}$ can be obtained by equation (23). And $max (A_{ij})$ and $min (A_{ij})$ can be obtained by equation (18).

5. Calculate the relative closeness coefficient between the fault model and the detection sample by equation (25). The relative closeness coefficient indicates proximity between the fault model and the detection sample. It is obvious that the greater value of $R C^{+}$ shows that the detection sample belongs to the corresponding fault type. Therefore, according to the value of $R C^{+}$ , the ranking order can be obtained to determine the fault type.

Diagnostic experiment

Experimental settings

This section verifies the effectiveness of the proposed method using the example of ZHS-2 machine rotor fault diagnosis. The experimental equipment is a ZHS-2 multi-functional flexible rotor test bench. The vibration displacement and acceleration sensors are, respectively, placed in the horizontal and vertical directions of the rotor support. The measurement of the rotor vibration signals is transmitted to the upper computer through an HG-8902 collection box. The fault characteristic can be extracted from these signals by HG-8902 data analysis software under LabVIEW environment. The vibration acceleration frequency of the rotor and the average amplitude of vibration displacement were used as the fault characteristics.⁵⁹

Three typical fault types of the machine rotor system are considered: rotor imbalance $(X_{i}^{k})$ , rotor misalignment $(Y_{i}^{k})$ , and pedestal loosening $(Z_{i}^{k})$ , where i = 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively, represent four characteristics under each fault type: the amplitude of fundamental vibration acceleration frequency $(1 X)$ , the amplitude of double vibration acceleration frequency $(2 X)$ , the amplitude of triple vibration acceleration frequency $(3 X)$ , and the average amplitude of vibration displacement. In addition, $k$ represents five data sets collected of each characteristic $(k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)$ , and the data set collected is composed of consecutively acquired 40 observations in 16 s. All the total data sets collected of $X_{i}^{k}$ , $Y_{i}^{k}$ , $Y_{i}^{k}$ are generated as the experimental data for the fault models. There are 12 sets of the detection sample, for which the fault type is unknown, denoted as $F_{uv}$ , where $u = 3$ represents the number of fault types and $v = 4$ represents the number of characteristics under each fault type.

The diagnostic process and results

The procedure for the determination of fault type contains the following steps:

1. Calculate the Manhattan distance of the same characteristic between the fault model and the detection sample by equation (1). For example, assuming that $F_{11}$ is selected as the detection sample, the distance between the fault models $X_{1}^{k}$ , $Y_{1}^{k}$ , $Z_{1}^{k}$ (k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the detection sample $F_{11}$ is shown in Table 1; part of the calculation process is as follows

\begin{matrix} d_{11}^{1} (X_{1}^{1}, F_{11}) = \sum_{r = 1}^{40} | X_{1}^{1} - F_{11} | = 0.9212 \\ d_{21}^{1} (Y_{1}^{1}, F_{11}) = \sum_{r = 1}^{40} | Y_{1}^{1} - F_{11} | = 1.0788 \\ d_{31}^{1} (Z_{1}^{1}, F_{11}) = \sum_{r = 1}^{40} | Z_{1}^{1} - F_{11} | = 7.8406 \end{matrix}

(7)

2. Transform the Manhattan distance into the degree of non-membership of IFS by equation (3), and then the degree of membership of IFS can be calculated via equation (16). Taking the distances in Table 1 as an example, the obtained IFSs are listed in Table 2 and some calculation procedures are as follows

\begin{matrix} γ_{11}^{1} = \frac{d_{11}^{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{3} \sum_{k = 1}^{5} d_{i 1}^{k}} = 0.0188, μ_{11}^{1} = 1 - γ_{11}^{1} = 0.9812 \\ γ_{21}^{1} = \frac{d_{21}^{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{3} \sum_{k = 1}^{5} d_{i 1}^{k}} = 0.0220, μ_{21}^{1} = 1 - γ_{21}^{1} = 0.9780 \\ γ_{31}^{1} = \frac{d_{31}^{1}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{3} \sum_{k = 1}^{5} d_{i 1}^{k}} = 0.1597, μ_{31}^{1} = 1 - γ_{31}^{1} = 0.8403 \end{matrix}

(8)

3. The weight of the five data sets of each characteristic are denoted as $q = (q_{1}, q_{2}, q_{3}, q_{4}, q_{5}) = (0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2)$ . Then, the fusion results of $IFSs$ of the five data sets can be calculated by equation (27). For instance, the $IFS$ fusion results between the fault models $X_{1}^{k}$ , $Y_{1}^{k}$ , $Z_{1}^{k}$ (k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the detection sample $F_{11}$ , respectively, are as follows

\begin{array}{l} A_{11} = I F W A (A_{11}^{1}, A_{11}^{2}, A_{11}^{3}, A_{11}^{4}, A_{11}^{5}) \\ = I F W A ((0.9812, 0.0188), (0.9862, 0.0138), \\ (0.9823, 0.0177), (0.9845, 0.0155), (0.8494, 0.1506)) \end{array}

\begin{matrix} = (1 - Π_{k = 1}^{5} {(1 - μ_{k})}^{ω_{k}}, Π_{k = 1}^{5} {γ_{k}}^{ω_{k}}) \\ = (0.9842, 0.0158) \end{matrix}

(9)

\begin{matrix} A_{21} = IFWA (A_{21}^{1}, A_{21}^{2}, A_{21}^{3}, A_{21}^{4}, A_{21}^{5}) \\ = IFWA ((0.9780, 0.0220), (0.9743, 0.0257), \\ ((0.9589, 0.0411)), \\ (0.9602, 0.0398), (0.9692, 0.0308)) \\ = (1 - Π_{k = 1}^{5} {(1 - μ_{k})}^{ω_{k}}, Π_{k = 1}^{5} {γ_{k}}^{ω_{k}}) \\ = (0.9690, 0.0310) \end{matrix}

(10)

\begin{matrix} A_{31} = I F W A (A_{31}^{1}, A_{31}^{2}, A_{31}^{3}, A_{31}^{4}, A_{31}^{5}) \\ = I F W A ((0.8403, 0.1597), (0.8477, 0.1523), (0.8517, 0.1483), \\ (0.8502, 0.1498), (0.8494, 0.1506)) \\ = (1 - \prod_{k = 1}^{5} {(1 - μ_{k})}^{ω_{k}}, \prod_{k = 1}^{5} {γ_{k}}^{ω_{k}}) \\ = (0.8479, 0.1521) \end{matrix}

(11)

Table 1.

The distance calculation result.

Fault model	$X_{1}^{1}$	$X_{1}^{2}$	$X_{1}^{3}$	$X_{1}^{4}$	$X_{1}^{5}$
Detection sample $(F_{11})$	0.9212	0.6792	0.8705	0.7600	0.6842
Fault model	$Y_{1}^{1}$	$Y_{1}^{2}$	$Y_{1}^{3}$	$Y_{1}^{4}$	$Y_{1}^{5}$
Detection sample $(F_{11})$	1.0788	1.2636	2.0200	1.9564	1.5106
Fault model	$Z_{1}^{1}$	$Z_{1}^{2}$	$Z_{1}^{3}$	$Z_{1}^{4}$	$Z_{1}^{5}$
Detection sample $(F_{11})$	7.8406	7.4775	7.2831	7.3543	7.3946

Table 2.

The IFS calculation result.

Detection sample	Fault model	IFS
$F_{11}$	$X_{1}^{1}$	(0.9812, 0.0188)
	$X_{1}^{2}$	(0.9862, 0.0138)
	$X_{1}^{3}$	(0.9823, 0.0177)
	$X_{1}^{4}$	(0.9845, 0.0155)
	$X_{1}^{5}$	(0.9861, 0.0139)
$F_{11}$	$Y_{1}^{1}$	(0.9780, 0.0220)
	$Y_{1}^{2}$	(0.9743, 0.0257)
	$Y_{1}^{3}$	(0.9589, 0.0411)
	$Y_{1}^{4}$	(0.9602, 0.0398)
	$Y_{1}^{5}$	(0.9692, 0.0308)
$F_{11}$	$Z_{1}^{1}$	(0.8403, 0.1597)
	$Z_{1}^{2}$	(0.8477, 0.1523)
	$Z_{1}^{3}$	(0.8517, 0.1483)
	$Z_{1}^{4}$	(0.8502, 0.1498)
	$Z_{1}^{5}$	(0.8494, 0.1506)

In the same way, other fusion results between the fault models and the detection samples are obtained, as shown in Table 3. From Table 3, taking $F_{1 v}$ as the detection sample, a fuzzy intuitionistic matrix $P_{1}$ can be obtained as follows

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} F_{11} & F_{12} & F_{13} & F_{14} \end{matrix} \\ P_{1} = \begin{matrix} X \\ Y \\ Z \end{matrix} [\begin{matrix} (0.9842, 0.0158) & (0.9701, 0.0299) & (0.9698, 0.0302) & (0.9920, 0.0080) \\ (0.9690, 0.0310) & (0.8529, 0.1471) & (0.8477, 0.1523) & (0.9825, 0.0175) \\ (0.8479, 0.1521) & (0.9776, 0.0224) & (0.9893, 0.0107) & (0.8270, 0.1730) \end{matrix}] \end{matrix}

(12)

4. Calculate the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighted Euclidean distance from $A_{ij} = (μ_{ij}, γ_{ij})$ to positive ideal solution $(D^{+})$ and negative ideal solution $(D^{-})$ . The weights of the four characteristics are denoted as $w = (w_{1}, w_{2}, w_{3}, w_{4}) = (0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25)$ . The results of distance calculations are given in Table 4. For example, in the fuzzy intuitionistic matrix $P_{1}$ , the positive ideal solution $Q^{+} = (0.9842, 0.0158)$ and the negative ideal solution $Q^{-} = (0.8479, 0.1521)$ are calculated by equation (18). Then the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighted Euclidean distance can be obtained by equation (6) as follows

\begin{matrix} D_{1}^{+} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{4} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{1 r}, Q^{+}))}} = 0.0104 \\ D_{1}^{-} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{4} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{1 r}, Q^{-}))}} = 0.1365 \\ D_{2}^{+} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{4} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{2 r}, Q^{+}))}} = 0.0948 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} D_{2}^{-} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{4} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{2 r}, Q^{-}))}} = 0.0986 \\ D_{3}^{+} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{4} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{3 r}, Q^{+}))}} = 0.1070 \\ D_{3}^{-} = \sqrt{\sum_{r = 1}^{4} w_{r} \times \overset{2}{(d (A_{3 r}, Q^{-}))}} = 0.0944 \end{matrix}

(13)

5. Calculate the relative closeness coefficient by equation (25). The relative closeness coefficient $R C^{+}$ is calculated as shown in Table 5, and then three fault types for each detection sample are ranked according to the descending order of $R C^{+}$ . For instance, the relative closeness coefficient is calculated in the fuzzy intuitionistic matrix $P_{1}$ as follows

\begin{matrix} {RC}_{1}^{+} = \frac{D_{1}^{-}}{D_{1}^{+} + D_{1}^{-}} = \frac{0.1365}{0.0104 + 0.1365} = 0.9291 \\ {RC}_{2}^{+} = \frac{D_{2}^{-}}{D_{2}^{+} + D_{2}^{-}} = \frac{0.0986}{0.0948 + 0.0986} = 0.5098 \\ {RC}_{3}^{+} = \frac{D_{3}^{-}}{D_{3}^{+} + D_{3}^{-}} = \frac{0.0944}{0.1070 + 0.0944} = 0.4685 \end{matrix}

(14)

Table 3.

The fusion result of $IFS$ between the fault models and the detection samples.

Detectionsample	X	Y	Z
$F_{11}$	(0.9842, 0.0158)	(0.9690, 0.0310)	(0.8479, 0.1521)
$F_{12}$	(0.9701, 0.0299)	(0.8529, 0.1471)	(0.9776, 0.0224)
$F_{13}$	(0.9698, 0.0302)	(0.8477, 0.1523)	(0.9893, 0.0107)
$F_{14}$	(0.9920, 0.0080)	(0.9825, 0.0175)	(0.8270, 0.1730)
$F_{21}$	(0.9900, 0.0100)	(0.9830, 0.0170)	(0.8295, 0.1705)
$F_{22}$	(0.9123, 0.0877)	(0.9832, 0.0168)	(0.9051, 0.0949)
$F_{23}$	(0.9288, 0.0712)	(0.9216, 0.0784)	(0.9567, 0.0433)
$F_{24}$	(0.9940, 0.0060)	(0.9887, 0.0113)	(0.8188, 0.1812)
$F_{31}$	(0.9011, 0.0989)	(0.9117, 0.0883)	(0.9875, 0.0125)
$F_{32}$	(0.9121, 0.0879)	(0.9809, 0.0191)	(0.9071, 0.0929)
$F_{33}$	(0.9316, 0.0684)	(0.9149, 0.0851)	(0.9603, 0.0397)
$F_{34}$	(0.8995, 0.1005)	(0.9063, 0.0937)	(0.9944, 0.0056)

Table 4.

Calculation results of $D^{+}$ and $D^{-}$ .

Fault type	X		Y		Z
Detection sample	$D^{+}$	$D^{-}$	$D^{+}$	$D^{-}$	$D^{+}$	$D^{-}$
$F_{1 v}$	0.0104	0.1365	0.0948	0.0986	0.1070	0.0944
$F_{2 v}$	0.0381	0.1189	0.0181	0.1210	0.1250	0.0175
$F_{3 v}$	0.0742	0.0088	0.0624	0.0374	0.0369	0.0681

Table 5.

The relative closeness coefficient and rank by the proposed method.

Fault type	X		Y		Z
Detection sample	$R C^{+}$	Rank	$R C^{+}$	Rank	$R C^{+}$	Rank
$F_{1 v}$	0.9291	1	0.5098	2	0.4685	3
$F_{2 v}$	0.7575	2	0.8700	1	0.1230	3
$F_{3 v}$	0.1056	3	0.3749	2	0.6485	1

Analysis and comparison

From Table 5, it can be seen that the diagnostic results of detection samples are correct, that is, these detection samples belong to the corresponding fault types. The relative closeness coefficient $R C^{+}$ between the detection sample $F_{1 v}$ and the three fault types $X, Y, Z$ are calculated as follows: ${RC}_{1}^{+} = 0.9291$ , ${RC}_{2}^{+} = 0.5098$ , ${RC}_{3}^{+} = 0.4685$ . Therefore, the ranking order of fault types is $X \to Y \to Z$ . The fault type of the detection sample $F_{1 v}$ is rotor imbalance (X) and the diagnostic result is proper. The relative closeness coefficient $R C^{+}$ between the detection sample $F_{2 v}$ and the three fault types $X, Y, Z$ is calculated as follows: ${RC}_{1}^{+} = 0.7575$ , ${RC}_{2}^{+} = 0.8700$ , ${RC}_{3}^{+} = 0.1230$ . Therefore, the ranking order of fault types is $Y \to X \to Z$ . The fault type of the detection sample $F_{2 v}$ is rotor misalignment (Y) and the diagnostic result is correct. The relative closeness coefficient $R C^{+}$ between the detection sample $F_{3 v}$ and the three fault types $X, Y, Z$ is calculated as follows: ${RC}_{1}^{+} = 0.1056$ , ${RC}_{2}^{+} = 0.3749$ , ${RC}_{3}^{+} = 0.6485$ . Therefore, the ranking order of fault types is $Z \to Y \to X$ . The fault type of detection sample $F_{3 v}$ is pedestal loosening (Z) and the diagnostic result is proper. Hence, it can be concluded that the proposed method yields reliable results and it is competent for solving the fault diagnosis problem effectively.

To further illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method and compared it with that of the other existing method. Taking the motor rotor fault diagnosis as an example, the diagnostic results of the proposed method and the existing method are shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

A comparison between the existing method and the proposed method.

Detection sample	Method	Diagnostic result	Correct rate (%)
$F_{1 v}$	The proposed method	X	100
$F_{1 v}$	Xu et al.’s⁶⁰ method	X	100
$F_{2 v}$	The proposed method	Y	100
$F_{2 v}$	Xu et al.’s⁶⁰ method	Y	100
$F_{3 v}$	The proposed method	Z	100
$F_{3 v}$	Xu et al.’s⁶⁰ method	Z	100

From the results shown in Table 6, it can be seen that the diagnostic results of the proposed method are consistent with those of Xu et al.’s⁶⁰ method. The detection samples $F_{1 v}, F_{2 v}, F_{3 v}$ , respectively, belong to the fault types $X, Y, Z$ and the correct rate of result is 100%. Xu et al.’s method determines the Gaussian membership function by dividing n typical historical raw data into five groups taking their minimum and maximum average values. It can only divide the raw data into five groups, which is not suitable for dividing the data into multiple groups. The Gaussian membership function demarcation point is determined by the maximum and minimum values, and in the actual environment these values usually fluctuate within a certain range, which will affect the result of fault diagnosis. Xu et al.’s method is not suitable for dealing with the uncertainty of multiple sets of sample data. However, the proposed method can process multiple sets of data through the similarity measure. IFS is characterized by the degree of both membership and non-membership, which is a more flexible way to capture the uncertainty. And the generated IFS is fused using the IFWA operator, which can express the uncertainty more accurately and improve the accuracy of fault diagnosis. In addition, the proposed method provides the same results obtained using Xu et al.’s⁶⁰ method with less computational burden. Hence, the proposed method provides a robust framework that can be used to handle uncertainty of multiple sets of sample data and produce accurate and reliable results.

Conclusion

The determination of fault type is the key issue in machinery fault diagnosis. In this article, a method based on TOPSIS with Manhattan distance for fault diagnosis is presented. First, Manhattan distance is used to calculate the similarity between the fault model and the detection sample. Then, the IFS is determined based on the distance and the IFWA operator is used to fuse the generated IFS. Finally, the ranking order can be obtained by TOPSIS to determine the fault type. This study has contributed by presenting the Manhattan distance and the existing TOPSIS method to adopt to the complex relationship between multiple fault types and their various fault characteristics based on the IFS. And the intuitionistic fuzzy numbers under the same fault characteristic can be obtained by Manhattan distance, in which not only the original information can be fully utilized, but also the uncertainty of multiple sets of sample data can be processed. Using the IFWA operator to fuse different data under the same fault characteristic, the uncertainty of fault information is more accurate and the accuracy of fault diagnosis is improved. Furthermore, the ranking order can not only reveal the most possible type of fault occurred, but also point out the rank of fault diagnosis. The machine rotor fault diagnosis example is carried out to verify the proposed method in this article, and the results illustrate that the proposed method can effectively diagnose the fault type of an unknown detection sample. And this methodology is computationally simple and its basic concept is reasonable and comprehensible, and thus the application of the proposed methodology to more complicated case studies is also suggested to further demonstrate and verify the method proposed in this article.

Further research will mostly focus on the following directions. First, the attribute weight coefficient can be obtained by arranging, calculating, and analyzing the existing objective information. Second, in the actual work, the effect of weighted average fusion is not optimal. Therefore, more efficient fusion algorithms combined with the proposed method need to be developed.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Handling Editor: Vesna Spasojević Brkić

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Program Nos 61671384 and 61703338) and the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (Program No. 2018JQ6085).

ORCID iD

Wen Jiang

References

Nandi

Toliyat

. Condition monitoring and fault diagnosis of electrical motors—a review. IEEE T Energy Conver 2005; 20: 719–729.

Isermann

Balle

. Trends in the application of model-based fault detection and diagnosis of technical processes. Control Eng Pract 1997; 5: 709–719.

Venkatsubramanian

Rengaswamy

Yin

et al . A review of process fault detection and diagnosis part I: quantitative model-based methods. Comput Chem Eng 2003; 27: 293–311.

Ding

. Data-driven design of monitoring and diagnosis systems for dynamic processes: a review of subspace technique based schemes and some recent results. J Process Contr 2014; 24: 431–449.

Gao

Cecati

Ding

. A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part I: fault diagnosis with model-based and signal-based approaches. IEEE T Ind Electron 2015; 62: 3757–3767.

Gao

Cecati

Ding

. A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part II: fault diagnosis with knowledge-based and hybrid/active approaches. IEEE T Ind Electron 2015; 62: 3768–3774.

Wen

Gao

et al . A new convolutional neural network based data-driven fault diagnosis method. IEEE T Ind Electron 2018; 65: 5990–5998.

Hussain

Lee

Choi

et al . An expert system for acoustic diagnosis of power circuit breakers and on-load tap changers. Expert Syst Appl 2015; 42: 9426–9433.

Deng

Jiang

. Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis using an evidential network approach extended by belief rules and uncertainty measures. Ann Nuc Energ 2018; 117: 183–193.

10.

Jiang

Deng

et al . A modified Physarum-inspired model for the user equilibrium traffic assignment problem. Appl Math Model 2018; 55: 340–353.

11.

Mnassri

El Adel

Ouladsine

. Reconstruction-based contribution approaches for improved fault diagnosis using principal component analysis. J Process Contr 2015; 33: 60–76.

12.

Sharifi

Langari

. Nonlinear sensor fault diagnosis using mixture of probabilistic PCA models. Mech Syst Sig Process 2017; 85: 638–650.

13.

Wang

Yin

. Quality-related fault detection approach based on orthogonal signal correction and modified PLS. IEEE T Ind Inform 2015; 11: 398–405.

14.

Xie

Sun

Cheung

. An advanced PLS approach for key performance indicator-related prediction and diagnosis in case of outliers. IEEE T Ind Electron 2016; 63: 2587–2594.

15.

Ajami

Daneshvar

. Data driven approach for fault detection and diagnosis of turbine in thermal power plant using independent component analysis (ICA). Int J Electr Power Energ Syst 2012; 43: 728–735.

16.

Fan

Wang

. Fault detection and diagnosis of non-linear non-Gaussian dynamic processes using kernel dynamic independent component analysis. Inform Sci 2014; 259: 369–379.

17.

Qing-chao

Xue-feng

. Fault diagnosis and process monitoring using a statistical pattern framework based on a self-organizing map. J Centr South Univ 2015; 22: 601–609.

18.

Zhang

Mahadevan

. Aircraft re-routing optimization and performance assessment under uncertainty. Decis Support Syst 2017; 96: 67–82.

19.

Sanchez

Zurita

et al . Multimodal deep support vector classification with homologous features and its application to gearbox fault diagnosis. Neurocomputing 2015; 168: 119–127.

20.

Yang

Hou

. Fed-batch fermentation penicillin process fault diagnosis and detection based on support vector machine. Neurocomputing 2016; 190: 117–123.

21.

Kari

Wang

et al . Power transformer fault diagnosis using support vector machine and particle swarm optimization. In: International symposium on computational intelligence and design, Hangzhou, China, 9–10 December 2017, pp.511–515. New York: IEEE.

22.

Jia

Lei

Lin

et al . Deep neural networks: a promising tool for fault characteristic mining and intelligent diagnosis of rotating machinery with massive data. Mech Syst Signal Process 2016; 72–73: 303–315.

23.

Chine

Mellit

Lughi

et al . A novel fault diagnosis technique for photovoltaic systems based on artificial neural networks. Renew Energ 2016; 90: 501–512.

24.

Huang

Yang

Jiang

. Uncertainty measurement with belief entropy on the interference effect in the quantum-like Bayesian networks. Appl Math Comput 2019; 347: 417–428.

25.

Yang

Deng

Jones

. Network division method based on cellular growth and Physarum-inspired network adaptation. Int J Unconv Comput 2018; 13: 477–491.

26.

Huang

. Fuzzy logic applications to power transformer fault diagnosis using dissolved gas analysis. Int Conf Adv Sci Contem Eng 2012; 50: 195–200.

27.

Peng

Wang

Perez-Jimenez

et al . Fuzzy reasoning spiking neural P system for fault diagnosis. Inform Sci 2013; 235: 106–116.

28.

Liu

Lin

. Fuzzy failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning and belief rule-based methodology. IEEE T Reliab 2013; 62: 23–36.

29.

Zhang

Qin

et al . Towards a fuzzy Bayesian network based approach for safety risk analysis of tunnel-induced pipeline damage. Risk Analysis 2016; 36: 278–301.

30.

Xiao

. An intelligent complex event processing with D numbers under fuzzy environment. Math Prob Eng 2016; 2016: 3713518.

31.

Liu

Pan

Dezert

et al . Credal classification rule for uncertain data based on belief functions. Pattern Recogn 2014; 47: 2532–2541.

32.

Jiang

. A correlation coefficient for belief functions. Int J Approx Reason 2018; 103: 94–106.

33.

Jiang

. An improved soft likelihood function for Dempster-Shafer belief structures. Int J Intell Syst 2018; 33: 1264–1282.

34.

Deng

Jiang

Wang

. Zero-sum polymatrix games with link uncertainty: a Dempster-Shafer theory solution. Appl Math Comput 2019; 340: 101–112.

35.

Deng

. Analyzing the monotonicity of belief interval based uncertainty measures in belief function theory. Int J Intell Syst 2018; 33: 1869–1879.

36.

Pan

Deng

. A new belief entropy to measure uncertainty of basic probability assignments based on belief function and plausibility function. Entropy 2018; 20: 842.

37.

Zhang

Zhu

et al . Perceiving safety risk of buildings adjacent to tunneling excavation: an information fusion approach. Automat Constr 2017; 73: 88–101.

38.

Deng

. Generalized ordered propositions fusion based on belief entropy. Int J Comp Commun Contr 2018; 13: 792–807.

39.

Yang

Liu

Wang

et al . Belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach—RIMER. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A 2006; 36: 266–285.

40.

Liu

Bian

et al . Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Syst Appl 2011; 38: 4403–4415.

41.

Zhang

Deng

. Engine fault diagnosis based on sensor data fusion considering information quality and evidence theory. Adv Mech Eng. Epub ahead of print 12 November 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1687814018809184

42.

Deng

. A new MADA methodology based on D numbers. Int J Fuzy Syst 2018; 20: 2458–2469.

43.

Zhang

Deng

. Combining conflicting evidence using the DEMATEL method. Soft Comput. Epub ahead of print 14 August 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00500-018-3455-8

44.

Deng

Han

Dezert

et al . Evidence combination from an evolutionary game theory perspective. IEEE T Cybernetics 2016; 46: 2070–2082.

45.

Xiao

Aritsugi

Wang

et al . Efficient processing of multiple nested event pattern queries over multi-dimensional event streams based on a triaxial hierarchical model. Artif Intell Med 2016; 72: 56–71.

46.

Yang

. Distributed preference relations for multiple attribute decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc 2016; 67: 457–473.

47.

Han

Deng

. A hybrid intelligent model for assessment of critical success factors in high risk emergency system. J Amb Intel Hum Comp 2018; 9: 1933–1953.

48.

Jiang

. An evidential dynamical model to predict the interference effect of categorization on decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 2018; 150: 139–149.

49.

Jiang

. An evidential Markov decision making model. Inform Sci 2018; 467: 357–372.

50.

Kumar

Yadav

. A novel approach for analyzing fuzzy system reliability using different types of intuitionistic fuzzy failure rates of components. ISA Trans 2012; 51: 288–297.

51.

Hung

Lin

Weng

. Fault diagnosis of turbine using an improved intuitionistic fuzzy cross entropy approach. In IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (Fuzzy 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, 27–30 June 2011, pp.590–594. New York: IEEE.

52.

Miao

Wang

. Fault-tree analysis on computer security system using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In: Proceedings of 2009 4th international conference on computer science & education (ICCSSE 2009), Nanning, China, 25–28 July 2009, pp.459–463. New York: IEEE.

53.

Kumar

Yadav

. The weakest t-norm based intuitionistic fuzzy fault-tree analysis to evaluate system reliability. ISA Trans 2012; 51: 531–538.

54.

Chu

Hung

Julian

. A complete pattern recognition approach under Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Knowl-based Syst 2014; 66: 36–45.

55.

Liu

You

et al . Fuzzy petri nets using intuitionistic fuzzy sets and ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE T Cybernetics 2016; 46: 1839–1850.

56.

Sun

Zhou

et al . Fault diagnosis for smart grid with uncertainty information based on data. In: Liu

Zhang

Polycarpou

et al . (eds) Advances in neural networks—ISNN 2011, Part II, Vol. 6676. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp.66–75.

57.

Darong

Lanyan

Xiaoyan

et al . Fault diagnosis for the motor drive system of urban transit based on improved hidden Markov model. Microelectron Reliab 2018; 82: 179–189.

58.

Atanassov

. More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 1989; 33: 37–45.

59.

Xu Xiaobing

. Theory and application of multi-source and uncertain information fusion. Beijing, China: Science Press, 2012.

60.

Zhou

Wen

. Data fusion algorithm of fault diagnosis considering sensor measurement uncertainty. Int J Smart Sens Intell Syst 2013; 6: 171–190.

61.

Chen

Tan

. Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set-theory. Fuzzy Set Syst 1994; 67: 163–172.

62.

Hong

Choi

. Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Set Syst 2000; 114: 103–113.

63.

. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 2007; 15: 1179–1187.

64.

Yager

. Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Int J Approx Reason 2008; 48: 246–262.

65.

Hwang

Yoon

. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp.1–531.

66.

Ertugrul

Karakasoglu

. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 2009; 36: 702–715.

67.

Wang

. Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in Taiwan. Expert Syst Appl 2008; 34: 1837–1845.

68.

Dagdeviren

Yavuz

Kilinc

. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 2009; 36: 8143–8151.

69.

. Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Inf Sci 2007; 177: 2363–2379.

70.

Sneath

. Estimating uncertainty in evolutionary trees from Manhattan-distance triads. Syst Zool 1986; 35: 470–488.