,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QIRUPDWLRQDQG&RPSXWHU7HFKQRORJLHV
Fault Class Prediction in Unsupervised Learning Using Model-Based Clustering
Approach
Nagdev Amruthnath, Tarun Gupta
Industrial and Entrepreneurial Engineering, Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA
e-mail: nagdev.amruthnath@wmich.edu, nagdev.amruthnath@wmich.edu
Abstract—Manufacturing industries have been on a steady path
considering for new methods to achieve near-zero downtime to
have flexibility in the manufacturing process and being
economical. In the last decade with the availability of industrial
internet of things (IIoT) devices, this has made it possible to
monitor the machine continuously using wireless sensors, assess
the degradation and predict the failures of time.
Condition-based predictive maintenance has made a significant
influence in monitoring the asset and predicting the failure of
time. This has minimized the impact on production, quality, and
maintenance cost. Numerous approaches have been in proposed
over the years and implemented in supervised learning. In this
paper, challenges of supervised learning such as need for
historical data and incapable of classifying new faults accurately
will be overcome with a new methodology using unsupervised
learning for rapid implementation of predictive maintenance
activity which includes fault prediction and fault class detection
for known and unknown faults using density estimation via
Gaussian Mixture Model Clustering and K-means algorithm
and compare their results with a real case vibration data.
Keywords-unsupervised learning; fault class detection;
predictive maintenance; gaussian mixture model; clustering;
just-in-time; TPM
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, numerous machine maintenance
methodologies have been proposed. But, the goal of
maintenance methodologies has not changed. The major aim
of maintenance methodology is to increase the productivity
along with quality while reducing the unplanned downtime.
Machine maintenance can be mainly classified as unplanned
or unscheduled maintenance and planned or scheduled
maintenance. Unplanned maintenance or run to failure
maintenance is performed only when the machine breaks
down. The major disadvantage of this type of maintenance is
high downtime which includes investigation, component part
replacement, and verification of repaired condition. This leads
to high maintenance cost. Every year, it is estimated that U.S.
industry spends $200 billion on maintenance of plant
equipment and facilities and the result of ineffective
maintenance leads to a loss of more than $60 billion [1].
During the evolution of Toyota Production System era, a
concept of Total Preventive Maintenance (TPM) was
introduced. TPM is also known as planned maintenance or
time-based maintenance (TBM). In this type of maintenance,
978-1-5386-5384-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 5
the machine failure rate, and component failure rates are
identified [2]. This data is used to inspect the machine and its
components periodically and replaced if necessary.
Implementing TPM have shown a significant improvement in
productivity and quality, and decrease in maintenance cost.
This type of maintenance is widely used in industry today.
Although with many advantages with this approach, it is still
difficult to monitor critical component degradation such as
ball bearings, motor shaft, pneumatic components and many
as such. By replacing these critical components based on
reliability data, the remaining useful life is lost and hence
increasing the cost of maintenance [2].
Predictive maintenance is the second type of planned
maintenance. This type of maintenance is also called as the
complement or opposite of planned maintenance. In this
process, machine data is collected for a certain period, and
then this data is modeled in different learning algorithms such
as regression, classification, neural networks, fuzzy logic and
many as such. There is a number of architectures proposed
over the years but, the main components of predictive
maintenance such as data collection, data cleaning (process of
removing incomplete, duplicate and missing values), feature
extraction and selection (feature is synonymous of an attribute
or input variable) [3], fault prediction, fault class prediction
and time to failure (TTF) prediction have remained same. The
data collected for predictive maintenance can be physics based
data such as vibration, temperature, pressure, voltage, light
dispersion, humidity [4] and process data such as process
deviations, raw material quality, control settings, machine
specification and as such. The implementation predictive
maintenance can be performed using different learning
methods such as supervised learning, unsupervised learning,
deep learning and reinforcement learning. Learning methods
can be mainly classified into four types; supervised learning,
unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning and
reinforcement learning. Supervised and unsupervised learning
methods are the most commonly used methods in predictive
maintenance. Supervised learning is where the target variable
or response variable is known. In unsupervised learning, the
target variable or response variable is not known.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In today’s competitive market, attaining Just-in-Time (JIT)
had become one of the biggest goals especially in
manufacturing. There are many advantages to achieving JIT
such as reduction in cost, increase in quality and shorter lead
time. Over the years, it has become challenging to achieve this
due to performance issues and equipment failures [5], control
on inventory, line stoppages, poor process synchronization,
and low volume operations [6]. To overcome poor process
synchronization, an enhanced method was proposed using
modified rank order clustering using manufacturing data [7].
Condition-based maintenance (CBM) is a process of
monitoring the system or a machine based on physical
parameters or process parameters or both continuously to
predict the health of the machine, predict faults, predict the
type of faults and predict the time to failure of the machine.
Initially termed as predictive maintenance, the concept of
CBM was first introduced by the Rio Grande Railway
Company in the late 1940s [8]. The process of CBM involves
various domains such as data mining, artificial intelligence,
and statistics. CBM has been used in various applications such
as automotive, manufacturing, aviation, defense and other
industries [8]. CBM is majorly implemented using supervised
learning algorithms such as regression and classification.
CBM systems can be applied when there is the availability of
historical data as well as when no historical data is not
available using machine learning. Unsupervised learning
approach requires building a reference model identifying
normal and abnormal situations. Supervised learning and
reinforcement learning approach could be applied to make the
CBM algorithms more accurate [21]. One of the key
advantages of CBM is the ability to observe the machine
component degradation before failing.
One the most common learning approaches used today for
fault diagnosis is supervised learning. This is exclusively
based on the predictor variable and response variable. One of
the challenges in this method is the time required to collect the
data and train the model. To overcome this problem,
unsupervised learning can be used where the class structure
can be detected without any previous knowledge of the data.
These methods can be classified into two techniques (i)
subspace structure of data and its (ii) clustering characteristics
[27]. To summarize the first approach, objects use a smaller
number of features than the total population, and in clustering
approach, the data set uses a lower number of objects than the
original number [27].
With the need for flexibility and cost-effectiveness, in a
CBM system fault classification has an important role. Fault
classification or fault diagnosis is a process of identifying the
current state of the system or the machine. This process can be
achieved by the data-driven approach, qualitative model
approach or quantitative model approach [18]. Due to the need
for precise mathematical models and a significant amount of
expert knowledge, the data-driven method has been widely
used in the last two decades [15]. Some of the common
algorithms used in fault classification is support vector
machine (SVM) [15], artificial neural network [15], Kohonen
Feature Mapping [10], fuzzy logic [9], self-organizing map
[17], k- means [24], fuzzy c-means, hierarchical clustering
[27].
Among different learning methods, supervised learning is
widely used mainly because of its high prediction accuracy
[21]. This also comes with a disadvantage of longer
implementation time which involves capturing all the machine
6
states. In this paper, we have proposed an unsupervised
learning methodology for rapid implementation of predictive
maintenance activity. This implementation involves the major
components of predictive maintenance such as collection of
physics-based data, predicting faults and predicting the type of
fault using different machine learning algorithms such as
principal component analysis (PCA) for dimensionality
reduction, Hotelling T2 statistic for fault detection, density
estimation via Gaussian Mixture Model Clustering Algorithm
[14] and K-means clustering for fault class prediction [11].
All the above algorithms are implemented using R-
programming, open-source statistical software and are
visualized in real time using a BI tool called SISENSE.
Density estimation via Gaussian Mixture Model Clustering
Algorithm is implemented using mclust package [29] [30],
silhouette optimal cluster identification is implemented using
NbClust package [31].
III. UNSUPERVISED FAULT CLASS DETECTION
A. Model Building
A model using Gaussian Mixture Model and K-Means
approach was developed next for detecting the faults while
using minimal/no historical data which would serve as a
metric to separate normal operating condition from abnormal,
and no class labels. Following important assumptions applied
to the model development process.
Assumption 1: It is assumed that the model is working in
ideal condition where, voltage, current, temperature of the
machine, ambient temperature are not significant
Assumption 2: It is assumed that vibration of the machine
is the only significant attribute of the machine
Assumption 3: the probabilistic model used here assumes
that all vibration data obtained is generated obtained from a
mixture of finite number of Gaussian distributions of unknown
parameters
An unsupervised fault prediction model is conceptualized
and developed. Later on, we demonstrate how this model
works while using minimal historical data accurately predicts
known and unknown faults.
Figure 1. Model for fault detection and fault type prediction.
Limitations: this model is developed, evaluated and
validated only for rotating machinery such as cooling fan
where vibration is the significant attribute. Hence, at this point
of time in research, this model cannot be validated for
machines where other physics-based data such as pressure and
temperature are significant.
B. Understanding the Current System
A furnace fan was used as a test subject for performing this
predictive maintenance activity as shown in Figure 2. This fan
operates in a non-fluctuating environment, and due to moving
parts and no process data availability, vibration data was
chosen to monitor. Also, due to the sensitivity of the vibration
spectrum of equipment failures, the vibration signal is
commonly used as the data source [15]. It can also be noted
that about 99% of mechanical faults have some noticeable
vibration and acoustic signals.
C. Data Collection
Vibration monitors were mounted both on x-axis and
y-axis. Vibration data was collected in the time domain at
2048 Hz and for 0.8 seconds every 5 minutes. This raw data is
used for feature extraction, feature selection, fault prediction
and fault class prediction. The methodology for this research
study is as shown in Table 1.
D. Feature Extraction
Every instance of raw data collected consists of
approximately 1600 data point in the time domain. It is
important to capture different features both in the time domain
and frequency domain [11]. Here, the time domain features
such as min, max, median, mean, standard deviation, kurtosis,
skewness, range, and RMS [25] for both x-axis and y-axis are
collected. The raw data in time domain was later transformed
to frequency domain using Fourier transforms [16] to capture
the same features in x-axis and y-axis at 25 Hz to minimize the
noise at a higher frequency.
E. Feature Selection
Eigenvalues. The Eigenvalues and components are plotted in a
scree plot as shown in Figure 3.
F. Fault Prediction
Fault prediction is a process of detecting an abnormal
behavior of the system. Some of the most commonly used
algorithms are Hotelling T2 statistic [28] [20], Q statistic [28]
[20], K-means algorithm, and hierarchical clustering analysis
[32] in unsupervised learning. In this research study, Hotelling
T2 statistic, a multivariate statistic is used for the analysis. Test
data or calibration data is captured during a healthy state of the
machine and T2 statistics, and prediction limits are obtained at
99.99% confidence interval using the formula 1 and 2. Here,
the significant components obtained using PCA are used for
calculating the statistic [19].
T2 statistic
= ∑ (1)
Upper confidence limit
( )
, ,∝ = , ,∝ (2)
Figure 4 is the fault detection system for monitoring the
state of the fan. This system was calibrated for July 31 and
August 1. The obtained statistics were used for monitoring the
system. Upper limit obtained was 15.83. It can be noticed that
on August 26 there was a sharp trend in the graph which
indicated that there was a fault detected. Upon investigation, it
was found that the fan housing had displaced by 2 inches and
the fan was replaced. Upon replacement of the fan, we were
able to confirm that the model had to be recalibrated for the
new fan. But, our research goal was to detect these changes in
our new fault class detection model. Hence, the fan was not
recalibrated and was left to continue to use the same statistics
as the previous fan. This behavior can be observed in Figure 4.
TABLE I. UNSUPERVISED PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE
METHODOLOGY FOR FAULT CLASS PREDICTION

Physical Fault Fault class

Data type Features
Parameter prediction Prediction
Time Hotelling
Vibration Domain Min T2 Statistic GMM
Frequency
Domain Max K-Means
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Kurtosis
Figure 2. Furnace fan and sensors mounted on x-axis and y-axis. RMS
Skewness
In the feature extraction process, a total of 36 features were Range
extracted both in the time domain and frequency domain. To Median
avoid the curse of dimensionality, dimensionality reduction
algorithm called PCA [28] is used. In this algorithm, the data The primary objective of this research was to predict fault
is linearly mapped into lower dimension space to maximize class in unsupervised learning enabling the architecture for
the variance of the data. Here, the covariance matrix for the rapid implementation. To achieve this, two unsupervised
data is constructed, and Eigenvalues are computed. Optimal clustering algorithms, density estimation via Gaussian
components are computed by using a scree plot for

7
Mixture model clustering and K-means algorithm were used. identified. Hence, it was concluded to use non-parametric
The main objective of these to detect the following density estimation.
1. Healthy state of the machine
2. Faulty state of the machine
3. New fan replacement

G. Density Estimation via Gaussian Mixture Model

GMM algorithm is used in various applications such as
image classification [12], speaker verification [26], speech
recognition, medicine, etc. Density estimation is a process of
fitting a distribution. Data distributions are usually identified
by plotting density plots. If a set of random numbers are
generated based on a known distribution such as normal,
uniform or binomial, then it is known as parametric way of
density estimation. If a set of random numbers are fitted to a
known distribution such as Gaussian Mixture model then, it is
known as a non-parametric method of density estimation. In
our research, when the feature data was plotted onto density
plot to identify the distribution, multimodal distributions were Figure 3. PCA scree plot to identify the optimal number of components.

Fan 1: PCA-T2-Health

T2-Health
T2-Limit
70
60
50
T2-Health

40
30
20
10

Aug 01 Aug 15 Sep 01 Sep 15

Date

Figure 4. Hotelling T2 statistic for fault detection.

( )=∑ () ( |) (3)
H. Fault Class Prediction
In this section, we will recall the density functions, where P(j) is the mixture proportion and is non-negative. Its
log-likelihood function and E and M steps for Gaussian sum must be equal to one. The Gaussian centers can be
Mixture Modeling [13]. Here, we have considered a defined by their centers cj and their covariance matrix ∑j.
D-dimensional continuous random vector X Rd. From the [13]
reference (equation 3 to 9), the probability density function for
a mixture model which is a linear combination of M Gaussian
component densities is defined as ( | ) = (2 ) |∑ |
) ∑ ( − )
. exp − ( −
[13]
(4)

8
 Based on our above mixture model (equation 4), we can
define the log-likelihood function as (equation 5) ∑ ( )( ( )
)(
( )
)
[13] ∑( )
= ( )( | (8)
∑ )

( ) = log ∏ ( ) (5) ( )
()= ∑ ( )
(| ) (9)
where, is the model parameter of P(j), cj and ∑j . Using
Expectation and Maximization approach the maximum Raw PCA
likelihood estimate of can be obtained iteratively. GMM
Features Analysis
Expectation or E-step involves computing the expected value
of some unobserved data using current parameter estimates
and observed data. Maximization or M-step involves using the
expected values from E-step to compute the maximum
likelihood estimates. Upon achieving this model parameters Classification
are updated. At a given iteration step t, Data

Figure 5. Approach used in fault diagnosis using unsupervised learning.

E-step: [13]
( )
( )( | ) ( )( ) The process of implementation is as shown in Figure 5.
(| )= (6)
( )(
) The raw data features are loaded onto PCA function to obtain
M-step: [13] the optimal number of principal components. These
components are loaded to densityMclust [29], [30] function
( ) ∑ ( )( | ) from Mclust package to obtain the classification data.
= ∑ ( )( | ) (7)

Figure 6. Fault type detection using density estimation via GMM.

Figure 6 represents the Gaussian Mixture Model
Clustering fitted by Expectation-maximization (GMM-EM
model) results grouped by dates on the x-axis and cluster
number on the y-axis. The clusters are color-coded, and size of
the cluster represents some data points clustered to a certain
cluster on that day. Bigger the size of the cluster, the certain
state was majorly observed and smaller the size fewer times
that state was observed. In our model, we found a total of 6
states. Without any previous knowledge of the data, it is
difficult to interpret the results. But, when we compare
1. From July 7 to August 25, cluster 4, 3 and 2 had major
state occurrence. From T2 statistic we can hypothesize
that this could be normal state
2. From August 26 to August 30, cluster 1 has a major state
occurrence. We can observe the deviation from the
normal state. Since in unsupervised learning, we do not
have class labels from historical data we can only
hypothesize this as a failed state. Upon investigation we
by the maintenance crew, it was found that it was a shaft
housing had displaced by two inches
3. From August 31 to September 19, cluster 5 had
significant occurrence. As mentioned in the above
section, this was the period when the old fan was
replaced with a new fan. We can confirm this change
here.
4. Quite interestingly, there was yet another cluster formed.
Cluster 6 occurred majorly on September 3 and
September 10. The machine was completely shut down
on September 3 and for a shift on September 10. These
states could represent the machine shutdown state.

9
I. K-means Algorithm
K-Means Algorithm is one of the most commonly used in
fault detection and fault class prediction in unsupervised
learning. This algorithm uses Euclidian distance to form the
clusters, and the number of clusters is determined using
silhouette method. K-means clustering is an unsupervised
learning procedure; the method can be directly implemented to
measured vibration data, and thus the need for training process
for identification for the faulty process is eliminated [11].

Figure 7. K-Means clustering results grouped based on date.

Figure 7 is the final result obtained from the raw features

extracted using K-means algorithm. There were two ideal TABLE III. MACHINE STATE DETECTION COMPARISON BETWEEN
ALGORITHMS
clusters based on silhouette method. In the results, we can
positively identify the faulty state as cluster 1 in purple. But, Number of States
this algorithm fails to detect the replaced fan. State
GMM-EM K-Means
Healthy or Normal 3 1
IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Shaft Housing Fault 1 1
Hotelling T2 statistic was used for detecting the faults. In New fan replacement 1 0
this phase, we were able to detect the normal or healthy Machine shutdown 1 0
condition as well as abnormal condition based on the test
statistic and statistical limit at 99.9% confidence interval.
We were able to use our expert judgment to identify and
Based on the results the following test statistic was found to be
name each cluster and create a confusion matrix as shown in
82.96% accurate in predicting the faults accurately. The
Table 4 to predict the accuracy of density estimation via GMM.
accuracy was calculated based on the information in Table 2.
From the results, we were able to estimate the accuracy of
Based on the results of fault detection phase we were able
about 90.01% in predicting the states accurately using
to detect three states in the data. The states are a healthy state,
confusion matrix from table 2 and Equation 11.
faulty state, and reset state (new fan state). To predict the
classes accurately, two unsupervised algorithms were used;
+
K-means clustering and Gaussian Mixture Model Clustering. Accuracy of T =
The results of both the algorithms are as shown in Table 3. +
+ +
Based the results, we can analyze that GMM method was able 1215 + 9041
= = 82.96%
to predict all the states within the data along with redundant 1215 + 993 + 1113 + 9041
three healthy states. On the other hand, K-means algorithm (10)
was able to detect healthy and faulty state, but, it failed to
identify new fan state and machine turned off state.
TABLE IV. CONFUSION MATRIX FOR FAULT TYPE PREDICTION USING
DENSITY ESTIMATION VIA GMM

TABLE II. CONFUSION MATRIX FOR FAULT DETECTION USING Predicted

HOTELLING T2 STATISTIC Actual Positive Negative
Predicted True 934 142
Actual Positive Negative False 1051 10340
Positive A=1215 B=993

Negative C=1113 D=9041

10
 + [10] B. H. Chowdhury and K. Wang, "Fault Classification Using Kohonen
Accuracy of T =
+ + + Intelligent Systems Applications to Power Systems, 1996.
934 + 10340
= = 90.01%
934 + 142 + 1051 + 10340
(11)
V. CONCLUSION
In the recent years, the wide availability of secure wireless
sensor has made it more viable option to monitor the machine
regularly and continuously [33]. The core objective of this
paper was to propose, develop and implement the predictive
maintenance methodology rapidly using unsupervised
learning for a furnace fan as a case. With the following
implementation, we were able to predict the faults with 82.96%
accuracy and determine the different states of the machine
based on domain knowledge. In order predict the state of the
machine, GMM, and K-means algorithms were used. Based
on the analysis and results we found that GMM methodology
works better in predicting the states of the fault accurately
compared to K-means algorithm. In conclusion, in this
research, we were able to rapidly implement a predictive
maintenance activity using unsupervised learning
methodology with no historical data for fault class prediction
algorithms and minimal historical data for fault detection
algorithms.
VI. FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK
The current work possibly will be extended to different
physics-based data such as temperature, pressure, humidity,
acoustics, voltage, and current across different domains. This
would also help in determining the correlation between the
need for dimensionality reduction algorithms such as PCA and
the accuracy of clustering algorithms.
REFERENCES
[1] R. K. Mobley, An Introduction to predictive maintenance, 2 ed., 2002.
[2] I. Guyon, "Design of experiments of the NIPS 2003 variable selection
benchmark," 2003
[3] Y. Peng, M. Dong, and M. J. Zuo, "Current status of machine
prognostics in condition-based maintenance: a review," The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 50,
no. 1-4, pp. 297-313, 2010.
[4] K. Javed, R. Gouriveau, N. Zerhouni and P. Nectoux, "Enabling
Health Monitoring Approach Based on Vibration Data for Accurate
Prognostics," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no.
1, pp. 647-656, 2015.
[5] E. Gundogar, A. Yilmaz and B. Erkayman, "A solution approach to a
synchronization problem in a JIT production system," Production
Planning and Control. , vol. 25, 2014.
[6] R. C. Walleigh, "What’s Your Excuse for Not Using JIT?”," Harvard
Business Review, 1983.
[7] N. Amruthnath and T. Gupta, "Modified Rank Order Clustering
Algorithm Approach by Including Manufacturing Data," in 4th IFAC
International Conference on Intelligent Control and Automation
Sciences, Reims, 2016.
[8] A. Prajapati, J. Bechtel, and S. Ganesan, "Condition based
maintenance: a survey," Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 384-400, 2012.
[9] B. Das and J. Reddy, "Fuzzy-logic-based fault classification scheme
for digital distance protection," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol. 20, no. 2, 2005
11
Feature Mapping," in Proceedings of the International Conference on
[11] C. T. Yiakopoulos, K. C. Gryllias, and I. A. Antoniadis, "Rolling
element bearing fault detection in industrial environments based on a
K-means clustering approach," Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
38, no. 3, pp. 2888-2911, 2011.
[12] Ç. Ari and S. Aksoy, "Unsupervised classification of remotely sensed
images using Gaussian mixture models and particle swarm
optimization," in Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
(IGARSS), 2010.
[13] C. Archambeau and M. Verleysen, "Fully Nonparametric Probability
Density Function Estimation with Finite Gaussian Mixture Models,"
in ICAPR'2003 proceedings - 5th International Conference on
Advances in Pattern Recognition, Calcutta, 2003.
[14] C. Biernacki, G. Celeux, and Gérard Govaert, "Choosing starting
values for the EM algorithm for getting the highest likelihood in
multivariate Gaussian mixture models," Computational Statistics &
Data Analysis, vol. 41, no. 3-4, pp. 561-575, 2003
[15] F. Zhou, Y. Gao and C. Wen, "A Novel Multimode Fault
Classification Method Based on Deep Learning," Journal of Control
Science and Engineering, vol. 2017, 2017
[16] G. G. Yen and K.-C. Lin, "Wavelet packet feature extraction for
vibration monitoring," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 650-667, 2000.
[17] H. Benitez-Perez, F. Garcia-Nocetti, and H. Thompson, "Fault
classification SOM and PCA for inertial sensor drift," in IEEE
International Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, 2005.
[18] H. Li and D. Y. Xiao, "Survey on data-driven fault classification
methods," Control and Decision, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2011.
[19] H. Hotelling, "Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into
principal components," Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 24,
pp. 417-441, 1933.
[20] J.-H. Cho, J.-M. Lee, S. Wook, D.-w. Choi and I.-B. L. Lee, "Fault
identification for process monitoring using kernel principal
component analysis," Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 60, no. 1, pp.
279-288, 2005.
[21] J.-H. Shin and H.-B. Jun, "On condition based maintenance policy,"
Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.
119-127, 2015.
[22] M. Fujimoto and Y. Riki, "Robust speech recognition in additive and
channel noise environments using GMM and EM algorithm," in IEEE
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing,
2004.
[23] D. Reynolds, "Gaussian Mixture Models," In Encyclopedia of
Biometrics, pp. 659-663, 2009.
[24] S. M. Zhang, F. L. Wang, S. Tan and S. Wang, "A fully automatic
online mode identification method for multi-mode processes”," Acta
Automatica Sinica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 60-80, 2016.
[25] S. Wegerich, A. Wilks, and R. Pipke, "Nonparametric modeling of
vibration signal feature for equipment health monitoring," in
Aerospace Conference, 2003.
[26] S. Memon, M. Lech, and N. Maddage, "Speaker Verification Based on
Different Vector Quantization Techniques with Gaussian Mixture
Models," in Third International Conference on Network and System
Security, 2009.
[27] S. M, C. P. and B. T., "Supervised and unsupervised learning process
in damage classification of rolling element bearings," Diagnostyka,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 71-80, 2016.
[28] W. Ku, R. H. Storer, and C. Georgakis, "Disturbance detection and
isolation by dynamic principal component analysis," Chemometrics
and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 179-196, 1995.
[29] C. Fraley and A. E. Raftery, "Model-based Clustering, Discriminant
Analysis and Density Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical
Association, vol. 97, pp. 611-631, 2002.
[30] C. Fraley, A. E. Raftery, T. B. Murphy, and L. Scrucca, "mclust
Version 4 for R: Normal Mixture Modeling for Model-Based
Clustering," Classification, and Density Estimation Technical Report
No. 597, Department of Statistics, University of Washington, 2012.
[31] M. Charrad, N. Ghazzali, V. Boiteau and A. Niknafs, "NbClust: An R
Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a
DataSet.," Journal of Statistical Software, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1-36,
2014.
[32] N. Amruthnath and T. Gupta, "A Research Study on Unsupervised
Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Fault Detection in Predictive
12
Maintenance," in 5th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Applications, Singapore, 2018.
[33] N. Amruthnath and P. M. Prathibhavani, "Data Security in Wireless
Sensor Network using Multipath Randomized Dispersive Routes.,"
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, vol. 5, no.
1, 2014.