SORN SIMATRANG Fault Detection For Rolling Element Bearings Using Model-Based Technique

FAULT DETECTION FOR ROLLING ELEMENT BEARINGS
USING MODEL-BASED TECHNIQUE
by
SORN SIMATRANG
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Science
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Kenneth A. Loparo
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
AUGUST, 2015
CASE WESTRN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We hereby approve the thesis of
Sorn Simatrang
Candidate for the degree of Master of Science*
Committee Chair
Professor Kenneth A. Loparo, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Professor Vira Chankong, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Professor Richard Kolacinski, Ph.D.
Date of Defense
26 JUNE 2015
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained
for any proprietary material contained therein.

Copyright © 2015 by Sorn Simatrang
All rights reserved
Dedication
For my parents and all friends who have always supported me

Table of content
Table of content v
List of Figures ix
List of Symbols xvii
Acknowledgements xxii
Abstract xxiv
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Thesis Outline 2
1.3 Literature Review 3
1.3.1 General Concept of Fault detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration 3
(FDIR)
1.3.2 Approaches for FDI 7
1.3.3 Fault Detection, Isolation on Bearing of Rotational Machine Applications 14
Chapter 2: Modeling, Fault Types, Fault frequencies, and System 18
Identification
2.1 Mathematical Model 21
v
2.1.1 Bearing Elements Energy 22
2.1.1.1 Kinetic Energy of Bearing Elements 24
2.1.1.2 Potential Energy of Bearing Elements 25
2.1.1.3 Total Dissipation Term of Bearing Elements 28
2.1.2 Housing Energy 29
2.1.2.1 Housing Kinetic Energy 29
2.1.2.2 Housing Potential Energy and Dissipation Energy 30
2.1.3 Rotor Energy 30
2.1.3.1 Kinetic Energy of Rotor 31
2.1.3.2 Potential Energy of Rotor 32
2.1.3.3 Dissipation Energy of Rotor 32
2.2 Fault Frequencies 40
2.3 Fault Types 41
2.3.1 Outer Race Fault 42
2.3.2 Ball Fault 43
2.3.3 Inner Race Fault 45
2.4 Hammerstein – Wiener Model 47
vi
2.4.1 Outer Race (OR) Identification Result 54
2.4.2 Inner Race (IR) Identification Result 55
Chapter 3: Observer Design and Fault Detection 57
3.1 Observer Design 57
3.2 Results and Diagnosis 60
3.2.1 OR – IR Case 69
3.2.2 IR – OR Case 73
3.2.3 OR – NORMAL Case 76
3.2.4 NORMAL –OR Case 80
3.2.5 IR – NORMAL Case 83
3.2.6 NORMAR – IR Case 86
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Future Work 89
4.1 Conclusion 89
4.2 Future Work 91
Appendix A 94
Program for Simulation the Bearing Element Fault 94
Main Program 94
vii
The Program for Parameters 99
Program for the System Model 102
Appendix B 107
Program for Finding Average Inner Race (IR) Fault 107
Appendix C 111
Program for Performing System Identification 111
Appendix D 113
Program for Reduced System Simulation and Determining the Cross- 113
Correlation
Appendix E 121
Program for Piecewise Linear Interpolation 121
Program for Inverse Piecewise Linear Interpolation 121
Bibliography 122
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 : The concept of using analytical redundancy and hardware redundancy. 4
Figure 1.2 : Fault detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration (FDIR) scheme in 5
general.
Figure 1.3 : Classification of FDIR. 14
Figure 2.1 : The system geometry, the measurement location, and the configuration 18
of the system.
Figure 2.2 : Defining distance vectors relative to bearing raceway. 23
Figure 2.3 : Bearing parameters. 40
Figure 2.4 : Periodic vibration signal for outer race fault, in this case the period is 43
𝑇𝑇 = 0.0093 seconds at a shaft speed of 1800 rpm.
Figure 2.5 : Periodic vibration signal for an inner race case, in this case the period 47
𝑇𝑇 = 0.0062 seconds with a shaft speed of 1800 rpm.
Figure 2.6 : The block diagram shows the structure of Hammerstein – Wiener 48
model.
Figure 2.7 : Showing the inner race fault vibration signal has three lobes within one 50
period (one period-like element).
Figure 2.8 : Averaging 38 period-like elements to obtain the average data used as 51
the representative for all 38 period-like elements.
ix
Figure 2.9 : Averaged period-like elements empirically adjusted until all average 52
signals align in the same phase. This figure shows the result of
averaging 38 period-like elements.
Figure 2.10 : Truncating an Outer race (OR) signal to perform Hammerstein – 53
Wiener identification.
Figure 2.11 : The input nonlinearity for the OR case and the break points. 54
Figure 2.12 : The step response of the linear model OR case. 54
Figure 2.13 : The output nonlinearity for the OR case and the break points. 55
Figure 2.14 : The input nonlinearity for the IR case and the break points. 55
Figure 2.15 : The response of the linear IR model. 56
Figure 2.16 : The output nonlinearity for the IR case and break points. 56
Figure 3.1 : The reduced system. 57
Figure 3.2 : Mass unbalance excitation (𝑢𝑢) applied to the system. 58
Figure 3.3 : The plot of the error between output of the OR observer model and the 61
output of the rotating machine when the OR fault occurs (in blue)
compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in green).
x
Figure 3.4 : The plot of the error between output of the IR observer and the output of 61
the rotating machine when the OR fault occurs (in blue) compared with
the IR frequency impulse train (in green).
Figure 3.5 : The plot of the error between output of the OR observer model and the 62
output of the rotating machine when the IR fault occurs (in blue)
Figure 3.6 : The plot of the error between output of the IR observer model and the 62
output of the rotating machine when IR fault occurs (in blue) compared
with the IR frequency impulse train (in green).
Figure 3.7 : Plot of the autocorrelation of 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 (OR impulse train). 64
Figure 3.8 : Plot of the autocorrelation of 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (IR impulse train). 64
Figure 3.9 : The plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the OR 65
observer model and the OR impulse train when the OR fault occurs.
Figure 3.10 : The plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the IR 65
observer model and the IR impulse train when the OR fault occurs.
Figure 3.11 : Plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the IR observer 67
and the IR impulse train when IR fault occurs in the system.
Figure 3.12 : Plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the OR observer 67
and the OR impulse train when IR fault occurs in the system.
xi
Figure 3.13 : The system output (the acceleration in 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at the drive end of the 69
rotating machine). The OR fault is from 0.000985 to 0.2 seconds and
the IR fault is from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
Figure 3.14 : Plot of OR observer residual for the OR - IR case (in blue) compared 70
with the OR impulse train (in green). The impulses are scaled for
plotting.
Figure 3.15 : Plot of the IR observer residuals for the OR - IR case (in blue) 70
compared to the IR impulse train (in green). The impulses are scaled for
f plotting.
Figure 3.16 : Plot of the cross-correlation between the OR observer residuals and the 71
OR impulse train when the OR fault occurs from 0.000985 to 0.2
seconds and IR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
Figure 3.17 : Plot of the cross-correlation between the IR observer residuals and the 71
IR impulse train when the OR fault occurs from 0.000985 to 0.2 seconds
and the IR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
rotational machine). The IR fault starts from 0.001000 to 0.2 seconds
and the OR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
Figure 3.19 : Plot of the error between the output from the OR observer and the 74
output of the rotating machine in the IR - OR case (in blue) compared
with the OR impulse train (in green).
xii
Figure 3.20 : Plot of the error between the output from the IR observer and the output 74
of the rotating machine in the IR - OR case (in blue) compared with the
IR impulse train (in green).
and the OR impulse train when the IR fault occurs from 0.001 to 0.2
seconds and the OR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
and the IR impulse train when the IR fault occurs from 0.001 to 0.2
seconds and the OR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
rotational machine). The OR fault occurs from 0.003 to 0.2 seconds
then the system runs normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
Figure 3.24 : Plot of the error between the output from the OR observer model and 77
the output of the rotating machine in the OR – Normal case (in blue)
of the rotating machine in the OR - Normal case (in blue) compared
with the IR frequency impulse train (in green).
and the OR impulse train when the OR fault starts from 0.003 to 0.2
seconds and the system operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
xiii
and the IR impulse train when the OR fault starts from 0.003 to 0.2
seconds and the system operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
rotational machine). The system runs normally from the beginning to
0.2 seconds and the OR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
Figure 3.29 : Plot of the error between output from the OR observer and the output of 81
the rotating machine in the Normal – OR case (in blue) compared with
the OR frequency impulse train (in green).
Figure 3.30 : Plot of the error between output from the IR observer and the output of 81
the rotating machine in the Normal – OR case (in blue) compared with
and the OR impulse train when the system operates normally from the
beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the OR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
and the IR impulse train when the system operates normally from the
beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the OR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
xiv
rotating machine). The system runs with the IR fault from 0.001 to 0.2
seconds and operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
the output of the rotating machine in the IR – NORMAL case (in blue)
Figure 3.35 : Plot of the error between output from the IR observer and the output of 84
the rotating machine in the IR - NORMAL case (in blue) compared with
and the OR frequency impulse train when the IR fault occurs from 0.001
until 0.2 seconds and then the system operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
and the IR frequency impulse train when the IR fault occurs from the
0.001 until 0.2 seconds and then the system operates normally from 0.2
to 0.4 seconds.
rotating machine). The system runs normally from the beginning to 0.2
seconds and the IR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
xv
the output of the rotating machine in the Normal – IR case (in blue)
of the rotating machine in the Normal – IR case (in blue) compared with
and the OR impulse train when the system operates normally from the
beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the IR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
and the IR impulse train when the system operates normally from the
beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the IR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
xvi
List of Symbols
𝑪𝑪 damping matrix terms
𝑐𝑐 damping coefficient
𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 damping coefficient between the disk and the inertial reference frame
𝑐𝑐ℎ damping coefficient between the housing and the inertial reference frame
𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 damping coefficient between a bearing rolling element and a raceway
𝐸𝐸 modulus of elasticity
𝑒𝑒 eccentricity of the rotor mass unbalance
𝐹𝐹(𝛿𝛿) Hertzian spring force
𝐹𝐹𝑗𝑗 First order system equations
𝐼𝐼 cross sectional moment of inertia of shaft
𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝐼𝐼 transverse moment of inertia of the disk (motor rotor windings)
𝐼𝐼ℎ𝑡𝑡 transverse moment of inertia for the housing
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 moment of inertia of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element about its own center of mass
𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖′ moment of inertia of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element about the center of inner
raceway
𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝 polar moment of inertia of the disk (motor rotor windings)
𝐾𝐾 stiffness matrix terms
𝑘𝑘 Hertzian stiffness coefficient, stiffness coefficient
𝑘𝑘ℎ stiffness coefficient between the housing and the inertial reference frame
𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 Hertzian stiffness coefficient for the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element
𝑘𝑘𝑙𝑙 Hertzian stiffness coefficient between the rolling element and the inner raceway
xvii
𝑘𝑘𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 Hertzian stiffness coefficient for the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element between the
element and the inner raceway
𝑘𝑘2 Hertzian stiffness coefficient between the rolling element and the outer raceway
𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 Hertzian stiffness coefficient of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element between the
element and the outer raceway
𝐿𝐿 half the length of the rotor
𝑀𝑀 mass matrix terms
𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 mass of the disk (motor rotor windings)
𝑚𝑚ℎ mass of the motor housing
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 mass of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element
𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 half the mass of the shaft
𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑢 mass of the rotor unbalance
𝑁𝑁 nonlinear terms
𝑛𝑛𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 number of degrees of freedom
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 generalized forces
𝑄𝑄𝑟𝑟 generalized forces acting on the rotor
𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖 generalized coordinates
𝑅𝑅 Rayleigh dissipation term for damping, radius of outer raceway
𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 radius of the outer raceway for the drive end bearing
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒 Rayleigh dissipation term for the bearing rolling elements
𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 radius of the outer raceway for the fan end bearing
𝑅𝑅ℎ Rayleigh dissipation term for the housing
𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟 Rayleigh dissipation term for the rotor
xviii
𝑟𝑟 radius of inner raceway
𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 radius of the inner raceway for the drive end bearing
𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑ℎ position of the outer raceway (housing) for the drive end bearing
𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 position of the inner raceway (shaft) for the drive end bearing
𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓 radius of the inner raceway for the fan end bearing
𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓ℎ position of the outer raceway (housing) for the fan end bearing
𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 position of the inner raceway (shaft) for the fan end bearing
𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 radius of the drive end bearing rolling elements
𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 radius of the fan end bearing rolling elements
𝑟𝑟ℎ position of the outer raceway (and housing) geometrical center
𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠 position of the inner raceway geometrical center
𝑇𝑇 kinetic energy
𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 kinetic energy of all of the bearing rolling elements
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 kinetic energy of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element
𝑇𝑇ℎ kinetic energy of the motor housing
𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟 kinetic energy of the rotor
𝑉𝑉 potential energy
𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒 potential energy of all of the bearing rolling elements
𝑉𝑉ℎ potential energy of the housing
𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟 potential energy of the rotor
𝑡𝑡 time
𝑋𝑋 x-axis of the inertial reference frame
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ position of the housing at the drive end of the housing in the x-direction
xix
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 position of the disk (motor rotor windings) in the x-direction
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 position of the shaft at the drive end of the rotor in the x-direction
𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ position of the housing at the fan end of the housing in the x-direction
𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 position of the shaft at the fan end of the rotor in the x-direction
𝑥𝑥ℎ position of the outer raceway (housing) in the x-direction
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 position of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element relative to the outer raceway’s
geometrical center
𝑥𝑥𝑠𝑠 position of the geometrical center of the shaft in the x-direction
𝑌𝑌 y-axis of the inertial reference frame
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ position of the housing at the drive end of the housing in y-direction
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 position of the disk (motor rotor windings) in the y-direction
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 position of the shaft at the drive end of the rotor in the y-direction
𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ position of the housing at the fan end of the housing in the y-direction
𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 position of the shaft at the fan end of the rotor in the y-direction
𝑦𝑦ℎ position of the outer raceway (housing) in the y-direction
𝑦𝑦𝑠𝑠 position of the geometrical center of the shaft in the y-direction
𝑍𝑍 z-axis of the inertial reference frame
2𝐾𝐾
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
table look up parameter for determining the Hertzian stiffness coefficient
𝛿𝛿 Hertzian spring compression
𝛿𝛿1𝑖𝑖 Hertzian spring compression between the bearing rolling element and the inner
raceway
𝛿𝛿2𝑖𝑖 Hertzian spring compression between the bearing rolling element and the outer
raceway
xx
𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 angular position of the disk relative to the X axis
𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑌𝑌 angular position of the disk relative to the Y axis
𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 angular position of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element relative to the inner raceway
𝜃𝜃𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 angular position of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element relative to the outer raceway
𝜈𝜈 Poisson’s ratio
𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 position of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing rolling element relative to the inner raceway’s
geometrical center, inverse of the radius of curvature for the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing surface
𝜙𝜙 phase angle
𝜙𝜙𝑖𝑖 angular position of the rolling element relative to its own center of mass
𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 angular velocity of the rotor and disk
xxi
Acknowledgements
Studying for a Master’s degree might be easy for some but, it was a real challenge
for me. It was not because the research topic was hard to solve but it is because of the
unexpected factors beyond my control while I studied for my Master’s degree.
In 2011, my family lost our house due to the severe floods in Thailand and we
still have not yet recovered financially. Also, my mother has been hospitalized for major
health issues. All of these issues are contributing factors to my financial difficulties.
Fortunately, there were many friends who helped me. Without their kindness, I could not
have passed over these struggles. For me, it is not only the Master’s degree that I earned
but also precious life experiences were obtained.
I would like to thank my research advisor, Professor Kenneth A. Loparo who is
always kind and patient with me. His guidance and support helped me to improve my
skills in my career path.
I am grateful to Professor Vira Chankong for introducing me to CWRU and for
accepting to be on my thesis defense committee.
I also would like to thank my many friends who supported me while I was
studying for my Master’s degree, especially to Dr. Arsit Boonyaprapasorn of
Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy for not only his support but also for being a
mentor. He has also financially supported me for the last semester. Additionally, I am
very grateful to Dr. Adirak Kanchanaharuthai of Rangsit University who is my mentor in
both academic life as well as personal life. I very much appreciate his patience and his
kindness. Moreover, I would like to thank Dr. Thanyaseth Sethaput of Sirindhorn
International Institute of Technology for his friendship and help and Dr. Wanchat
xxii
Theeranaew who was always willing to discuss my research problems and share his
experiences. I would also like to give thanks to Dr Nattakarn Sripratak of Vibhavadi
Hospital who financially supported me and who has been my good friend for the past 16
years, since we were a Triam Udom Suksa high school student in Thailand.
I would like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Karen and Mr. Christopher Thornton
for their kindness in providing a home for me for the past two years. Their endless
benevolence has taught me how to treat and give to other people with “no strings
attached”. They also helped me to improve my English skills. Not only are they my
benevolent supporters but also my mentors when I am really in need.
I am grateful to Ms. Robin Cornelious, my supervisor at the Kevin Smith Library
who always understands me and helps me as much as she can. Her support is very much
appreciated.
I would like to thank my girlfriend, Dr. Sawarin Eowchye who understands me
and was in my corner over the past few years. Her cheerful encouragement is always
inspiring.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Associate professor Sone and Mrs.
Viyaluck Simatrang for their endless love and care. Thank you for being a great example
to me of how to raise an imperfect boy to become a better man.
xxiii
Fault Detection for Rolling Element Bearings Using Model-Based Technique
Abstract
by
SORN SIMATRANG
In this research, we focus on fault detection of rolling element bearings by using a
model-based technique. Vibration data are obtained from the mathematical model
developed by Michael Louis Adams in [1]. The model is a time-varying nonlinear model
with 29 degrees of freedom (DOF), derived by determining the energy terms of the
Lagrange equations.
Fault frequencies and fault types include outer race (OR), Ball and Inner race
(IR). In order to determine the model for performing fault detection, we use the
Hammerstein – Wiener model for observer design. The results of system identification
for each of the fault types are provided.
The Hammerstein – Wiener models were used for observer design and
implementation, and we exploited the cross-correlation between observer residuals and
temporal features of OR and IR faults for detection and diagnosis.
xxiv
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Motivation
Rotating machines are one of the most important actuators not only in the
industrial applications but also in every day applications. Furthermore, among the
mechanical elements of the rotating machinery, bearing plays an essential role by
reducing friction between moving parts or constraining movement in a desired direction
for both linear and rotational motion.
There are various types of bearings as described here. First, the plain bearing is
the simplest and consists of a bearing surface without any rolling elements. In addition,
the jewel bearing is a plain bearing with a jewel-line pivot hole. Usually, it is used for
high accuracy and long lasting life applications like watches. Additionally, the fluid
bearing uses a thin layer of gas or liquid to support the loads, and is often used for heavy
load and high precision applications that require low vibration like a computer hard drive
motor. A magnetic bearing exploits magnetic force to levitate its loads. Because there is
no contact between the physical surfaces, they are able to operate at the highest speed of
all types of bearings. The flexure bearing is a type of bearing that allows motion by
exploiting bending properties of materials. These types of bearing are inexpensive,
simple, lightweight and low-friction. Finally, a rolling-element bearing contains rolling
elements between bearing races. The rolling-element bearing is widely used in many
applications since it optimizes between weight, friction, cost, lifespan, and accuracy in
various kinds of application while other types of bearings may provide some better
1
features for some specific applications but perform worse in some other applications. Due
to its versatility and various applications, research for this type of bearing will have a
considerable benefit to industry.
One of the key issues about bearings is their lifespan and reliability. Usually, a
manufacturer provides the estimated lifespan determined by statistical studies and testing
[2]. However, unexpected damage before the estimated lifespan could happen due to
various factors such as improper installation, incorrect handling, contaminants, material
wear, a lack of lubrication and tough operating environments [3]. Hence, researches and
studies about fault detection and diagnosis are necessary in order to identify problems
before complete failure to reduce costs due to long downtime and damaged machinery.
Data from an operating machine can be obtained from direct and indirect
measurements. Direct measurements are achieved by collecting signal data relating to the
dynamics of the machine such as vibration data. By analyzing the data, we expect to
detect abnormalities occurring in the machine. Indirect measurements are obtained by
measuring a signal relating to the bearing indirectly such as current and electromagnetic
flux signals. This research will use direct measurements such as vibration from a
simulating using the mathematical model from [1].
1.2 Thesis Outline
The first chapter will be the introduction about the general concepts of Fault
Detection and Reconfiguration (FDIR) and the FDIR on rolling elements bearing of a
rotational machine. In the second chapter, we introduce the mathematical model used for
2
generating raw data in this thesis. The mathematical model, based on Michael Louis
Adams‘s work [1], is a time-varying nonlinear model with 29 degrees of freedom. The
model is derived using the Lagrangian formulation consisting of bearing element energy,
housing energy and rotor energy.
We also described fault frequencies and fault types which consists of outer race
fault (OR), Ball fault and Inner race fault (IR). In order to determine the model for
performing fault detection later, we introduced Hammerstein – Wiener model to
determine the simpler nonlinear model form combining nonlinearity and linear systems in
the model scheme and implement it into our observer design. The results of system
identification for each fault types are also provided as well.
In the third chapter, the observer will be discussed and implemented by the
Hammerstein – Wiener model introduced before. The proof of convergence for the
observer is also provided. Furthermore, we exploited cross-correlation between residuals
from the observers and its own corresponding impulse train input. The results of residuals
and cross-correlations for various cases are also shown. In the last chapter, the future
work is provided.
1.3 Literature Review
1.3.1 General Concept of Fault Detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration (FDIR)
Fault detection, isolation, and reconfiguration (FDIR) have been a crucial research
issue for multidisciplinary areas such as automotive systems, aerospace engineering,
3
process control in chemical engineering and power plant industry. In our work, we will
only focus on Fault Detection and Isolation (FDI).
In our work, a fault is an undesired deviation of a characteristic property of a
system from the usual condition. In general, a fault could occur in every part of the
system including the plant, sensors and actuators. The purpose of FDI is to determine
whether the system is still fine or not, or even identify the location and type of fault.
Generally, FDI methods are based on the concept of redundancy that can be either
hardware redundancy or analytical redundancy [4]. The diagram from [4] of both
concepts is provided in figure 1.1.
Hardware Redundancy
Extra set of
sensors
Input A set of Output Diagnostic Alarm

Process
sensors Logic
Diagnostic Alarm
FDI Algorithm
Logic
Analytical Redundancy
Figure 1.1: The concept of using analytical redundancy and hardware redundancy.
Hardware redundancy compares a signal from various sources using several sets
of sensors. However, hardware redundancy is more costly since it requires more
hardware to be installed. Whereas, analytical redundancy provides an approach to
4
possibility reduce implementation cost since it exploits mathematical modeling and
estimation techniques instead of using additional hardware. However, the analytical
redundancy approach requires robustness to the system uncertainties and disturbances.
The analytical redundancy approach could be categorized into two main methods:
quantitative model-based methods and qualitative model-based method. To illustrate, the
quantitative model-based methods require an explicit mathematical model to generate
residuals to detect faults. An example of this method is the observer-based approach.
Whereas, the qualitative model-based methods utilize Artificial Intelligent (AI)
techniques like pattern recognition, machine learning to detect anomalies in the system.
y
Controller Plant
Residual Residual 1
Reconfiguration
Generation 1

Residual Residual n
Decision on FDI Generation n
Figure 1.2: Fault detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration (FDIR) scheme in general.
Figure 1.2 from [4] describes the general idea of analytical redundancy, i.e. the
model-based method. In general, analytical redundancy methods consist of three main
5
processes. The first one is to generate residuals by at least one residual filter. The
residuals are supposed to be zero when there is no anomaly in the system. Moreover, they
should be sensitive to the faults and robust to system uncertainties, noises and
disturbances. The additional residual filters are to perform fault isolation. Each filter is
sensitive to a specific fault. The second procedure is to interpret the residuals and then
make a decision on whether a fault occurred and what type of fault occurred. Usually, we
use a statistical tool to perform decision making i.e. detecting distinguishing features of
the residuals. The last procedure is to reconfigure the controllers in order to mitigate the
undesirable response from the faults.
The residuals in the analytic redundancy approach are generated via a
mathematical model of the system that could be derived from basic physical principles
such as Newton’s law of motion or from observations using system identification
techniques. However, the mathematical model usually cannot capture all the real
characteristics of the system perfectly because of uncertainties, noises, and disturbances.
Specifically, for bearings in rotational machine applications, the energy relating to the
fault signature is usually spread over a wide frequency range and it is always corrupted
by the noise, often at within the same frequency range.
System uncertainties, noise, and disturbances could lead to an incorrect alarm
since the residual is not “zero” for the healthy condition. Generally, there are two main
approaches to tackle these kind of problems. The first approach is called Robust Residual
Generation [4]. This method designs robust residual generators or filters that are not
sensitive to system uncertainties, noise, and disturbances. There are various methods in
this approach such as the observer-based methods [5 - 6], parity relation methods [7 - 10],
6
fault detection filters [11 - 15], parameter estimation methods [16-17], and Kalman filter-
based methods [18]. Another approach, called Robust Residual Evaluation [4], is based
on designing a robust hypothesis-testing algorithm to evaluate the residuals. A possible
decision-making rule for this method is to set up constant or adaptive thresholds to
determine whether a fault occurs or not. The decision-making rule could also be based on
statistical decision theory methods such as the sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) [19
- 21], and the generalized likelihood ratio (GLR) [22].
1.3.2 Approaches for FDI
This section, we will introduce some of the well-known approaches for FDI
which are categorized based on a residual generation methods and the domain. The
approaches we choose are observer-based approaches, parity space approaches,
optimization-based approaches, system identification approaches, Kalman filter
approaches, stochastic approaches, unknown input observer approaches, nonlinear system
approaches, discrete event systems/hybrid systems approaches, time domain approaches,
frequency domain approaches and time-frequency domain approaches. Furthermore, we
also review on the signal processing techniques and the mathematical transform which
have been used for FDI problem.
For observer design approaches, these methods use a full order or reduced order
state observer to estimate the outputs from all or a subset of the measurements and then
the error between estimated outputs and the real outputs will be weighted to determine
the residual for FDI. For the design of linear observers in this scheme, eigenstructure
7
assignment [9], [23] and fault detection filters [11 - 15] and [24] are the two common
methods. There also are several schemes based on the Dedicated Observer Scheme
(DOS) [25 - 27] and the Hierarchical Observer Scheme (HOS) [28].
The parity relations approach relies on generating residuals from the model output
and the actual output which is defined as the primary residual. By definition, a primary
residual reflects the effects of faults, noise, and disturbances. Then, the enhanced residual
is defined by a linear transformation that is chosen to enhance the primary residual to be
sensitive to the faults but robust with respect to noise and disturbances. Normally, there
are two main approaches to deal with the fault response of enhanced residuals that are
called the directional approach and the structural approach. In the directional approach,
the enhanced residual is set to be independent and specific in term of directional
responses corresponding to each fault. In the structural residual approach, the residual is
chosen for a subset of the faults. Moreover, the parity relations approach can also be
achieved using state space models [29] and called the parity space approach, see [29 -
31].
The optimization-based approach has the ultimate goal of minimizing the
sensitivity of the residuals to noises, uncertainties, and disturbances while maximizing its
sensitivity to faults in the system, see [32- 39].
System identification or parameter estimation are other model-based approaches
based on the assumption that faults are related with some specific parameters of the
mathematical model. The system identification approach relies on the principle that the
fault signature will share some traits to changes in the system parameters while the
observer-based approach relies on the assumption that the fault signature will be reflected
8
via the outputs, the measurements, and the states. In the system identification approach,
the systems will be modeled for the healthy condition as the reference and will define a
residual-like quantity that relates to the system parameters and then compare the
reference value to the value of the residual-like quantity to determine the occurrence of a
fault. Linear system identification subspace-based methods are introduced in [44 - 46],
and a survey of these approaches is given [17], [47] and the book that focuses on system
identification techniques for FDI [48].
The Kalman filter approach was first introduced in [18], and exploits the fact that
the Kalman filter is the least mean-square error filter. The difference between the
measurements and the estimates is defined as the innovation vector (or residual) and for
the “optimal” filter is a zero mean white noise process. Fault diagnosis will be
accomplished by statistical testing on the whiteness, mean and covariance of the
residuals. Common statistical tools used are Maximum Likelihood Generalized
Likelihood Ratio (GLR) methods.
One of the common Kalman filter-based approaches is multiple model adaptive
estimation (MMAE) approach that uses a stochastic linear model with uncertain
parameters. The uncertain parameters represent the faults and a bank of Kalman filters
comprise is designed for the system dynamics corresponding to each parameter set
associated with a given fault mode. One of the earliest mentions of this method was in
1965 [49], and further details are provided in [50 -51].
Due to the assumption of a finite number of fault modes in the Kalman filter-
based approach, it allows us to design a control law for each fault mode. In general, when
a system component or subsystem fails, the entire system also changes, and suboptimal
9
solutions that address this problem are the Interacting Multiple-Model (IMM) methods.
The approach is to model the occurrence and recovery of fault as a finite-state Markov
chain with known transition probabilities, see [52] for additional details.
The stochastic approach to FDI of stochastic systems models the output of linear
stochastic systems using probability density functions (PDFs) instead of input-output
transfer functions or state space models. In [53 - 55], a B-spline expansion technique is
used to estimate the PDFs.
Moreover, when uncertainties and disturbances are included in the system model,
a robust control techniques such as 𝐻𝐻∞ and 𝐿𝐿1 can be used for robust residual generation
as shown in [56] and [57] which use 𝐻𝐻∞ and 𝐿𝐿1 techniques, respectively.
The Unknown Input Observer (UIO) approach relies on generating state
estimation errors that are decoupled from unknown input disturbances and noise. The
approach was proposed in [40] and improved by Frank and Wünnenberg in [6] and [58].
For design, Chen et al. provided a proof for necessary and the sufficient conditions for
the existence of a full-order unknown input observer and also showed a procedure for
designing the observer in [59].
For the nonlinear system, Lipschitz nonlinear systems have been studied for FDI
by exploiting the unknown input observer method (UIO) [60]. The approach is to group
faults into distinct combinations and then design the UIO for each fault combination for
the purpose of fault isolation. The convergence of the estimation error from the designed
observer will be verified by the Lyapunov approach. Furthermore, another way to ensure
the convergence of the estimation error can be derived via the LMI approach as well.
10
Besides for Lipschitz nonlinear systems, other classes of nonlinear systems have
been investigated as well. A special class of affine nonlinear systems has been studied for
FDI using the differential geometric approach in [61], and nonlinear systems with
uncertainty were studied in [62].
For discrete event systems and hybrid systems, instead of coping with a
continuous state model, the approach is to model the system as a discrete state model or
mixed with both continuous and discrete states, i.e. a hybrid system model. For example,
FDI for a discrete-time linear Markovian jump system with unknown input is investigated
in [63]. The FDI scheme is an observer-based residual generation scheme. In [64 - 65], a
hybrid system model is studied, the approach is to model the faulty modes of a plant as
the discrete states of a hybrid system. Then, the FDI problem is to choose a proper filter
to estimate the state of the hybrid system. To illustrate, the MMAE and the IMM
approaches could be used to estimate the linear continuous states in each discrete state,
whereas, the particle filter method could be used to estimate the nonlinear continuous
state in each discrete state as well.
Besides for the quantitative model-based methods mentioned before, qualitative
model-based methods can also be used for FDI. Although, the aim of the qualitative
model-based methods are also to detect the anomaly via the measurements, observations,
and the responses determined by the model as in the quantitative model-based approach,
qualitative model-based methods use other methods, such as pattern recognition [66]. A
framework linking the quantitative model-based and qualitative model-based approaches
was purposed in [67 - 71]
11
We can also categorize the methods for bearing diagnostics that deal with signals
using time, frequency, and time-frequency domain techniques. Time domain approaches
are based on utilizing a statistical tool to distinguish between healthy and faultty modes,
examples of these are pulse counting [73], Root Mean Square (RMS) [74], peak value
[75], crest factor and kurtosis [76].
For the frequency domain approach, the methods usually rely on the fact that a
defect will cause periodic signals containing some characteristic of the specific fault type.
The difference in those data will be used to perform fault isolation. Examples for this
type of approach are signal averaging method [77], bicoherence analysis [78], cepstrum
analysis, and High-Frequency Response Technique (HFRT).
For the time-frequency domain, most of the studies use wavelet-based approaches
such as shown in [79 - 81]. The concept is to determine the time-frequency distribution
via wavelet transformation for examination and observation of the contribution of each
frequency component over a considered spectrum and time scale.
Signal processing techniques such as speech recognition can be used for fault
recognition as well. A survey of conventional speech recognition is given in [82].
Research about speech signal transformation also has been studied, examples of the
transformation used in these studies are Karhunen-Loève Tranform (KLT) [83], Discrete
Fourier Transform (DFT) [84], Wavelet Transform [85], Linear Prediction Coefficients
[82], and Cepstrum [82], [84]. There have been studies of diagnostic logic approaches
such as neural networks [86], stochastic matching [87], radial basis function (RBF)
networks [88], lateral inhibitory networks, and Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) [82].
12
For fault detection, pattern recognition techniques such as Gaussian mixture
model networks [89 - 90], Bayesian classifiers [91], vector correlation [92], RBF
networks [93], and neural networks have also been used [66].
Mathematical transformations between time and frequency domains have also
been exploited as a tool to perform fault detection. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT),
Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) [66]. Wavelet time-scale decomposition [66],
[94], and cumulant spectrum [92] are all examples of this approach.
Besides fault detection, another challenging problem is prognostics, i.e. predicting
the rate of deterioration in the system. Prognostic studies will help to plan the
maintenance and replacement schedules at the proper time since some systems, like
power generators, cannot be forced to shut down immediately. Economically, shutting
down some systems like power generators abruptly without any planning will cause a
huge loss of time, productivity, and cost. However, maintenance and replacement
planning is not simple task due to the highly stochastic nature of the defect growth. For
example, the propagation of rolling contact fatigue spall is a highly random process [95].
In [96], a deterministic propagation model of the defect and an adaptive algorithm is used
to predict the rate of defect growth in real-time.
For several decades, FDI has been increasingly studied due to the increased
demand and stringent requirements of various applications. Several surveys have been
published within recent decades such as [19] which provides the fundamental concept of
analytical redundancy for model-based FDI, [17] which provides some basic fault
detection methods via monitoring parameter changes, [8 - 10] which provides a survey
for parity relation methods for FDI, [6] which provides a comprehensive survey for
13
observer-based methods. The survey, [4], covers recent FDIR developments since 2000.
Recently, there have been several books that explain concepts and applications for the
model-based FDI methods such as [21], [97 - 101]. For convenience, we also summarize
the classification from [4] of FDIR as depicted in figure 1.3
Fault Detection and

Identification (FDI)
Decision Making
Residual Generation Tools (Statistical Reconfiguraton
Test)
• Full-State Observer
based methods
• Unknown input
observer • Sequential Probability
• Parity relations Ratio Test
• Optimization based • Multiple model
• Cumulative Sum
• Kalman Filler based approaches
Algorithm
• Stochastic approach • Adaptive control
• Generalized Likelihood
• System identification approaches
Ratio Test
• Nonlinear systems • Local Approach
• Discrete event system
or hybrid systems
• AI techniques
Figure 1.3: Classification of FDIR
Due to time limitation, our work will focus only on the case that system does not
experience system uncertainties, noise, and disturbances.
1.3.3 Fault Detection, Isolation on Bearing of Rotational Machine Applications
As we mentioned in the previous section, the core concept of model-base fault
detection methods is the assumption that each fault is associated with some certain sets of
parameters in the model [17]. Thus, when a fault occurs in the system, a change in
14
parameters represents a different dynamical model characterizing each fault type. To
exploit this fact, multiple observers will be designed to distinguish the difference between
each of the fault models. Generally, we assume that a fault occurs randomly and so do the
parameter changes in the system. One of the examples of a problem in this class is when
a system fault is governed by a random jump process with known prior distribution [102].
Particularly, in order to detect abnormalities in rotating machines, we collect
information categorized into direct and indirect measurements. Direct methods could
include vibration signals from rolling element bearings and for the indirect
measurements, this could be data from a motor such current and electromagnetic flux. An
example for using stator current for motor bearing diagnostics is given in [103].
Usually, the data obtained from both methods contain frequency content that can
be used to monitor bearing condition using methods as statistical analysis, spectrum
analysis, neural networks, wavelets, and model-base methods.
In the past 25 years, there are several notable papers using FDI techniques applied
to rotating machine applications. Some of these are discussed next.
In [104], the work focuses on the rub impact phenomena. The author proposed a
multiple model nonlinear filtering algorithm for fault detection and applied a statistical
tool for diagnostics. The research models the system as a linear system when no rub
impact occurs and models the system as a nonlinear stochastic system when rub impact
occurs. In order to cope with the FDI problem efficiently, the Kalman filter is used in the
linear regime and a nonlinear stochastic filter is used when the rub-impact phenomena
occurs. The Lyapunov approach is used to derive a constant observer gain and to
guarantee the convergence of the observer error for the nonlinear stochastic observer. The
15
fault event is modeled as a random jump process. In order to isolate fault modes, a group
of models has to be constructed for each possible fault mode. Then, the model outputs are
the joint conditional probability distribution of the jump parameter process and the state,
and the conditional probability of the mode process is used to determine the actual
operating mode.
In [3], two approaches were proposed for FDI of rolling element of bearings. The
first model is a one-dimensional and multi degree-of-freedom vibration model. The
method uses inner and outer ring acceleration for fault detection and isolation. In order to
cope with noise, the sliding mode detector is derived. Also, the sliding mode detector can
isolate inner and outer race faults in the residual space. For the second model, they
exploit the fact that each mechanical path of the vibration signals corresponds to specific
fault type. The fault detection and isolation will be achieved by using a multiple-model
approach and a Bayesian-based hypothesis testing methodology, respectively. By using
experimental data of defective and healthy bearings, the FDI result is validated.
In [72], two approaches to perform FDI for rolling element bearing are proposed.
The first approach is a model-based method. The LTI model was derived by half power
bandwidth method, and the fault detection filter is designed using the eigenstructure
assignment approach. Then, phase shift of the observer output is determined by using
sinusoidal input. For the second approach, the model is based on Digital Wavelet
Transform (DWT). Data of three different fault types are normalized to fit standard (0,1)
normal distribution in order to compare to each other. Then, a vector distance method is
derived in the decision-making stage.
16
Our work will focus on quantitative methods, and the main concept of this work is
to formulate a fault detection and diagnosis problem into a simple nonlinear model-based
framework that utilizes the mathematical model derived from system identification to
generate the residuals. System identification using data for each of the fault cases is used
as the basis for observer designing, and cross-correlation analysis is used in the diagnosis
stage.
17
Chapter 2: Modeling, Fault Types, Fault Frequencies, and System Identification
Motor Hou sin g
Bearing Element
Mesurement Location
Fan End
Roter
x
Drive End
z
Figure 2.1: The system geometry, the measurement location, and the configuration of the system. It is
noting that there are two set of damper and linear spring for each bearing rolling element. Each set is for
inner race and outer race.
The data used in this research is obtained from the mathematical model developed
by Michael Louis Adams in his thesis “Analysis of Rolling Element Bearing Faults in
Rotating Machinery: Experiments Modeling, Fault Detection and Diagnosis [1]. For
convenience, we will summarize how the mathematical model was derived and discuss
some of its features. Complete details are contained in [1].
18
The basis for the mathematical model is the Reliance Electric IQ Pre-alert 2-
horsepower, three-phase induction motor that is comprised of a motor housing, drive and
fan end bearings, and the rotor. The measured output is the motor housing vibration at the
drive end in the Y-direction that is marked as “measurement location” in given figure 2.1
[1]. The original bearings of the motor were seeded with various types of bearing faults.
During the experiment, the sensors for detecting vibration were placed at the drive end of
the motor housing at the 12 o’clock position, and above the drive end bearing directly.
The schematic of the induction motor rotor, the detail of the experiment, geometry
of the bearings, characteristic defect frequencies, the schematic of the seeded faults on
sections of the raceways are provided in [1]. According to [1], each test bearing was
seeded with a single defect, on either the inner or outer raceway with defect diameter of
0.07, 0.014, and 0.021 inches.
In this research, we assume the motor housing is rigid and has four degrees of
freedom i.e. the translation in the 𝑋𝑋 − 𝑌𝑌 direction and the rotational velocities about its
own center of mass center in the 𝑋𝑋 − 𝑌𝑌 direction as shown in figure 2.1. We model the
arrangement of the bolted connection between the motor housing and the base plate by
assuming that the motor housing is attached to the reference frame with four sets of linear
springs and dampers. Two sets of them are in the 𝑋𝑋-direction and the rest of them are in
the 𝑌𝑌-direction placed at the drive end and fan end of the motor housing.
Each of the rolling elements in both drive end and fan end bearing is also modeled
as a mass element connected to both the motor housing and rotor by a set of springs and
damper as depicted in figure 2.1. It is important to note that drive end and fan end
bearings are different in terms of size and number of rolling elements. The drive end
19
bearing has nine elements while the fan end bearing has eight elements and in the model,
we use the subscript 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {1,2,3 … , 9} for the drive end elements and 𝑖𝑖 ∈
{10, 11 , 12 … , 17 } for the fan end elements. In the model we assume that each mass
element has only one degree-of-freedom moving radially relative to the geometrical
center of the rotor at the bearing stations with constant angular velocity. We also assume
that each element is equally and constantly spaced angularly about the shaft and are
constrained by a bearing cage. Throughout the experiment, the stiffness between a
spherical bearing element and the curvature bearing raceway are modeled as nonlinear
Hertzian springs. The model for damping effect is a linear model describing the damping
effects of the bearing grease film effect during squeezing by the bearing elements and the
hysteresis of the material from cyclic Hertzian compression. In order to simplify the
mathematical model, we also assumed that there is no slip between the bearing element
and the raceways i.e. constant angular velocity for each bearing element during rotation.
Furthermore, the bearing element experience only elastic, Hertzian contact. Finally, we
assume that the conditions during the experiment are isothermal.
For the rotor, it is comprised of a shaft and the rotor windings located at the mid
length of the shaft. The rotor has eight degrees of freedom. The stiffness of the shaft is
modeled by considering it as a beam element. Shaft mass has two degrees of freedom i.e.
one degree of freedom for each 𝑋𝑋 − and 𝑌𝑌 − direction. The motor rotor windings are
considered as a disk mass with one degree-of-freedom in each 𝑋𝑋 − and 𝑌𝑌 − direction.
The disk mass is also allowed to rotate about 𝑋𝑋 − and 𝑌𝑌 − directions which causes
gyroscopic inertial effects.
20
2.1 Mathematical Model
In [1], the model is represented as a 29 degree of freedom nonlinear and time-
varying system. The equations of motion were developed using Lagrange’s equations.
The Lagrange equations consist of kinetic energy, potential energy and
generalized force terms as follows:
𝑑𝑑 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝑉𝑉

� �− + = 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 , 𝑖𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 , … , 𝑛𝑛𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (2.1)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝚤𝚤̇ 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖
Where
𝑇𝑇 is the kinetic energy.
𝑉𝑉 is the potential energy.
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 is the generalized forces.
𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖 is the generalized coordinates.
𝑛𝑛𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 is the number of freedom.
Each generalized coordinate corresponds to a degree-of freedom of the system
and the generalized forces act along a corresponding generalized coordinate.
The terms corresponding to energy and generalized forces can be derived
separately for each part of the system. The subscript ‘𝑒𝑒’ denotes the bearing, the subscript
‘ℎ’ the housing, and the subscript ‘𝑟𝑟’ the rotor. The total kinetic energy can be described
as 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 + 𝑇𝑇ℎ + 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟 .
21
2.1.1 Bearing Elements Energy
The outline of the derivation of bearing element equation is defined by the kinetic
energy (𝑇𝑇), potential energy (𝑉𝑉) and generalized force terms (𝑄𝑄), and by assumption that
each bearing element has just one-degree-of-freedom corresponding to the generalized
coordinate. In fact, the generalized coordinate for this case is defined as the radial length
between the bearing element and geometrical center of the rotor on the same plane with
the bearing. Since the drive end and fan end bearing are different in terms of number of
elements and size, we should note here that the precession rate, the Hertzian stiffness
parameters, etc. are different for each bearing as well.
For the bearing elements, we will modify equation 2.1 by separating the
dissipative term from the generalized forces (𝑄𝑄) and moving the dissipative term to the
left hand side. The dissipative term is described as the Rayleigh dissipation function.
Hence, the modified Lagrangian equation is given by the following:
𝑑𝑑 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

� �− + + = 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 , 𝑖𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 , … , 𝑛𝑛𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (2.2)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝚤𝚤̇ 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞𝚤𝚤̇
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 1
Where, 𝜕𝜕𝑞𝑞̇ is a Rayleigh dissipation function and 𝑅𝑅 = 2
𝑐𝑐𝑞𝑞̇ 𝑖𝑖2 , 𝑐𝑐 is the linear damping
𝚤𝚤
coefficient.
For convenience, we use position vectors to locate the position of the bearing
elements relative to the inner and outer raceways as depicted in figure 2.2 [1].
22
y
k2 θ xi θi
R
k1
mi
xi
ρi
rh r r
rs sh
x
outer raceway center

inner raceway center
Figure 2.2: Defining distance vectors relative to bearing raceway
Without loss of generality, the parameters in the figure 2.2 can be used for either
drive end or fan end bearings. From the figure, 𝒓𝒓𝒔𝒔 is the position vector indicating the
distance between the geometrical centers of the inner raceway related to the inertial
reference frame. 𝒓𝒓𝒉𝒉 is the position vector indicating the distance between the geometrical
center of the outer raceway related to the inertial reference frame. 𝒙𝒙𝒊𝒊 is the position vector
of 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing element indicating the distance between that element and the outer
raceway. While 𝝆𝝆𝒊𝒊 is the position vector of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing element indicating the distance
between that element and the inner raceway. 𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒊 is the mass of 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing element 𝑖𝑖 ∈
{1,2,3 … , 9} for the drive end and 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {10, 11 , 12 … , 17 } for the fan end. 𝑟𝑟 is the
23
radius of the inner raceway for either the drive end or fan end bearings. 𝑅𝑅 is the radius of
the outer raceway for either the drive end or fan end bearings. 𝑘𝑘1 is the Hertzian stiffness
between the bearing element and the inner raceway. 𝑘𝑘2 is the Hertzian stiffness between
the bearing element and the outer raceway. Moreover, 𝑘𝑘1 , 𝑘𝑘2 are not identical for drive
end and fan end bearings. 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 is the angular position of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing element related to
the 𝑋𝑋 − axis of inner raceway. 𝜃𝜃𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 is the angular position of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing element
related to the 𝑋𝑋 − axis of outer raceway. 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 is the damping element acting along the same
direction and location as the Hertzian stiffness element.
2.1.1.1 Kinetic Energy of Bearing Elements
The total kinetic energy of all bearing elements, 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 , is the sum of kinetic energy
for each bearing element with mass 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 , 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {1,2,3 … , 9} for the drive end elements and
𝑖𝑖 ∈ {10, 11 , 12 … , 17 } for fan end elements. 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 is given by:
17
1 , … , 9 𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 9 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 = � 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖 = � �
10 , … , 17 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 8 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑖𝑖= 1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 is the kinetic energy for each bearing element and is given by:
1 1 1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 = 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 (𝜌𝜌̅̇𝑖𝑖 + 𝑟𝑟̅𝑠𝑠̇ ) ∙ (𝜌𝜌̅̇𝑖𝑖 + 𝑟𝑟̅𝑠𝑠̇ ) + 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 Φ̇𝑖𝑖2 + 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖′ 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖2 (2.3)
2 2 2
The first two terms are from the rotational energy of individual bearing elements
with respect to the inertial reference frame and the last two terms are the energy from
spinning and rotating around the rotor. Where 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 and 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖′ are the moments of inertia of the
𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ bearing element about its own center of mass and center of the inner raceway,
respectively. The last two terms will vanish by taking the derivative of 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 with respect to
24
any of the generalized coordinates. For simplicity, the change in energy from the spin
angular velocity is negligible compared to the changes in energy caused by the stiffness
and damping.
From equation 2.2, we can substitute the position vectors in the right hand side
(RHS) in terms of generalized coordinates as follows:
𝜌𝜌̅𝑖𝑖 = (𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )𝑖𝑖 + (𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )𝑗𝑗
𝜌𝜌̅̇𝑖𝑖 = �𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �𝑖𝑖 + �𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �𝑗𝑗
(2.4)
𝑟𝑟̅𝑠𝑠 = 𝑥𝑥𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦𝑠𝑠 𝑗𝑗
𝑟𝑟̅𝑠𝑠̇ = 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̇𝑠𝑠 𝑗𝑗
Where 𝑟𝑟𝑠𝑠 is expressed in the Cartesian components of the inertial reference frame 𝑥𝑥𝑠𝑠 and
𝑦𝑦𝑠𝑠 . By substituting equation 2.4 into equation 2.3, we obtain:
𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖2 + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖2 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖2 + 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑠𝑠2 + 2𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑠𝑠 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖
1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 = 2 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 � −2𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑠𝑠 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̇𝑠𝑠2 � (2.5)
+2𝑦𝑦̇𝑠𝑠 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 2𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 𝑦𝑦̇𝑠𝑠 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖
Where 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {1,2,3 … , 9} for the drive end elements and 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {10, 11 , 12 … , 17 } for the
fan end elements.
2.1.1.2 Potential Energy of Bearing Elements
We assume the potential energy of the bearing elements is caused by the Hertzian
contact between the raceway surface and the bearing element surface. The potential
energy is described by the nonlinear elastic potential energy. The total potential energy
due to the nonlinear elastic potential energy is given by the following:
25
17 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 17 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖 17
1
𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒 = � � 𝐹𝐹(𝛿𝛿)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = � � 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝛿𝛿 1.5 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = � 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖2.5 (2.6)
2.5
𝑖𝑖=1 0 𝑖𝑖=1 0 𝑖𝑖=1
Where according to [3], [40 - 41], the term 𝐹𝐹(𝛿𝛿) = 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 𝛿𝛿 1.5 is the nonlinear Hertzian
compressive force between the ball type object i.e. bearing element and the curved
surface of the bearing raceway, where 𝛿𝛿 is the total compression between the spherical
type object and the curvature of the bearing raceway surfaces. The value of 𝛿𝛿 has to be
found separately between each bearing element and the surface of the inner and outer
raceways. From equation (2.6), the stiffness coefficient 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 is given by:
𝐸𝐸 3
𝑘𝑘 =
1 − 𝑣𝑣 2 � 2𝐾𝐾 3 (2.7)
�1.5 𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 � ∑4𝑖𝑖=1 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖
From the above expression, 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 is the inverse of the radius of curvature of the
bearing elements and raceway surfaces. 2𝐾𝐾 ⁄𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 is obtained from the lookup table in [42]
and depends on each 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 . 𝐸𝐸 is the modulus of elasticity of the bearing material, and 𝑣𝑣 is
Poisson’s ratio. Because of the difference in the radius of curvature between the inner and
outer raceways, 𝑘𝑘 depends on which contact point we are considering. Furthermore, they
are not identical for each bearing i.e. fan end and drive end. Because there are two radius
of curvature, i.e. inner and outer raceway and two contact points for each bearing
element, it is required to determine four parameters for 𝑘𝑘. More in-depth detail on
curvature, calculating the term 2𝐾𝐾 ⁄𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 and determining 𝑘𝑘 is provided in Appendix A of
[1].
As mentioned above, 𝑘𝑘 has to be determined for four cases as follows. 𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ∈
{1,2,3 … , 9} are for the stiffness between the drive end bearing elements and the drive
end inner raceway. 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {1,2,3 … , 9} are for the stiffness between the drive end
26
bearing elements and the drive end outer raceway. 𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {10, 11 , 12 … , 17 } are for
the stiffness between the fan end bearing elements and the fan end inner raceway. 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ∈
{10, 11 , 12 … , 17 } are for the stiffness between the fan end bearing elements and the
fan end outer raceway. The values of these parameters are listed in Appendix A.
By applying all the coefficients 𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 and 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, 3, … , 17 } above, equation
(2.6) will be expressed in the following form:

17
1 1 (2.8)
2.5 2.5
𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒 = � � 𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 𝛿𝛿1𝑖𝑖 + 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 𝛿𝛿2𝑖𝑖 �
2.5 2.5
𝑖𝑖= 1
Where 𝛿𝛿1𝑖𝑖 , 𝛿𝛿2𝑖𝑖 are defined by
𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ; 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 < 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

𝛿𝛿1𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖=1,…,9 = �
0 ; 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 > 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − �𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 − 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � ; 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 > 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 − 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

𝛿𝛿2𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖=1,…,9 = �
0 ; 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 < 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 − 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
(2.9)
𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ; 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 < 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝛿𝛿1𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖=10,…,17 = �
0 ; 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 > 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − �𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 − 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � ; 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 > 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 − 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

𝛿𝛿2𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖=10,…,17 = �
0 ; 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 < 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 − 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
Noting that the zero value is for no compression, and 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 can be described in terms of
generalized coordinates as:

1�
(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 2
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖=1,…,9 = � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 �
+(𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2
(2.10)
1�
2 2
�𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖=10,…,17 = � 2 �
+�𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �
Where subscripts ‘𝑑𝑑’ and ‘𝑓𝑓’ are for drive end and fan end respectively.
27
2.1.1.3 Total Dissipation Term of Bearing Elements
The damping is assumed to be from linear damping that acts along the same
direction as and at the same point as the Hertzian compressive force for each contact
point between the raceway surface and spherical bearing element. As mentioned in
1
equation (2.2), 𝑅𝑅 = 2
𝑐𝑐𝑞𝑞̇ 𝑖𝑖2 where 𝑐𝑐 is the linear damping coefficient. Using the
parameterization given in figure 2.2, the dissipation term will be described by:
17
1 1
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒 = � � 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖2 + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑖𝑖2 � (2.11)
2 2
𝑖𝑖= 1
17 1 1 2
𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖2 + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 �𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑2 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑠𝑠 + 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓,ℎ �
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒 = � ⎛2 2 ⎞ (2.12)
1 2
𝑖𝑖= 1
⎝ + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 �𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑2 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑠𝑠 + 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓,ℎ � ⎠
2
Where 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓 ,ℎ = 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝑓𝑓 ,ℎ 𝒊𝒊 + 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓 ,ℎ 𝒋𝒋 and 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓 ,𝑠𝑠 = 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓 ,𝑠𝑠 𝒊𝒊 + 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓 ,𝑠𝑠 𝒋𝒋 and the
subscript can be either ‘𝑑𝑑’ or ‘𝑓𝑓’; it cannot be both.
The generalized coordinates we use for the model are the following: 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 for 𝑖𝑖 =
1,2,3, … , 17 are the distance of each bearing element from the center of the adjoining
inner raceway; 𝑥𝑥𝑠𝑠 , 𝑦𝑦𝑠𝑠 are the positions in Cartesian coordinates of the inner raceway for
either the drive end or fan end, relative to the inertial reference frame; 𝑥𝑥ℎ , 𝑦𝑦ℎ are the
positions in Cartesian coordinates of the outer raceway (and also for the motor housing),
relative to the inertial reference frame for either drive end or fan end.
28
2.1.2 Housing Energy
For the motor housing, we use Cartesian coordinates as the generalized
coordinates. Due to the four degrees of freedom of the motor housing, four generalized
coordinates are used to describe the motor housing energy. It is worth noting here that we
use the subscript ‘ℎ’ for the housing parameters, ‘𝑑𝑑’ for the drive end parameters and ‘𝑓𝑓’
for the fan end parameters. Hence, the four generalized coordinates are (𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ , 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ ) for the
drive end coordinates of the housing and �𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ , 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ � for the fan end coordinates of the
housing.
2.1.2.1 Housing Kinetic Energy
The housing kinetic energy is expressed by:
1 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓ℎ 2 1 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓ℎ 2

⎛2 ℎ𝑚𝑚 � � + 𝑚𝑚 � � ⎞
2 2 ℎ 2
𝑇𝑇ℎ = ⎜ ⎟ (2.13)
1 2 1 2
+ 2 𝐼𝐼ℎ𝑡𝑡 �𝜃𝜃̇ℎ,𝑋𝑋
2
� + 2 𝐼𝐼ℎ𝑡𝑡 �𝜃𝜃̇ℎ,𝑌𝑌
2
�
⎝ ⎠
Where
𝑚𝑚ℎ is the mass of housing.
𝐼𝐼ℎ𝑡𝑡 is the transverse moment of inertia of housing around 𝑋𝑋 and 𝑌𝑌 coordinates.
The generalized coordinates 𝜃𝜃̇ℎ,𝑋𝑋 and 𝜃𝜃̇ℎ,𝑌𝑌 are expressed as:
𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ − 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓ℎ

𝜃𝜃̇ℎ,𝑋𝑋 =
2𝐿𝐿
𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓ℎ − 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ
𝜃𝜃̇ℎ,𝑌𝑌 =
2𝐿𝐿
29
Where 2𝐿𝐿 is the length of the housing and is also the length of the shaft from end to end.
Since the generalized coordinates for the motor housing are the Cartesian coordinates, the
expression of the potential energy and dissipation are very straightforward.
2.1.2.2 Housing Potential Energy and Dissipation Energy
The potential energy equation is given by:
1 2 2 2 2
𝑉𝑉ℎ = 𝑘𝑘ℎ �𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ � (2.14)
2
And the dissipation energy is described as:
1 2 2
𝑅𝑅ℎ = 𝑐𝑐 �𝑥𝑥 2 + 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ 2
+ 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ � (2.15)
2 ℎ 𝑑𝑑ℎ
30
2.1.3 Rotor Energy
The energy equation for the rotor used here is a modified version of the equation
derived in [1]. In [1], the equation was derived for a rotor attachment with a centralized
disk using a lumped mass approach which is acceptable for a rotor with a thin and
flexible shaft holding a thin disk. However, in this application, the mass of the rotor
windings is distributed along the shaft which is better expressed as a cylinder rather than
a thin disk mass as stated in the literature [1]. In order to still apply a lumped approach to
this application, we have to redistribute the mass to each of the shaft mass stations. We
use the subscript ‘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑’ for the generalized coordinates of the central disk mass, and the
energy equations of the rotor are given by equation (2.16).
2.1.3.1 Kinetic Energy of Rotor
(2.16)
1 𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 (𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 )2 + 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 )2
𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟 = � 2 2�
2 +𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑡𝑡 �𝜃𝜃̇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 + 𝜃𝜃̇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌 � + 𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 �𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 �
Where
𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the transverse moment of inertia of the disk
𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 is half of the total shaft mass.
𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 is mass of the disk.
31
2.1.3.2 Potential Energy of Rotor
The potential energy of rotor is given by the following:
2 2 2
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 2𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 2𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
⎛−2𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥 ⎞
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ⎜ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 2𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘,𝑌𝑌 𝐿𝐿 − 2𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑌𝑌 𝐿𝐿 +
𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟 = 2 2 2 2
⎟ (2.17)
2𝐿𝐿 ⎜ 2𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑦𝑦 𝐿𝐿2 + 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 2𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
−2𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 2𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 2𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 𝐿𝐿 +
2
⎝ 2𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 𝐿𝐿 + 2𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 𝐿𝐿2 ⎠
2.1.3.3 Dissipation Energy of Rotor
The dissipation energy is modeled as the energy lost caused by the motor windings and
shaft flexure.
1 2 2 (2.18)
𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟 = (𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 )
2
Moreover, the effect from mass unbalance, the initial loading, and the
conservative gyroscopic effects are expressed in terms of generalized forces and the
dissipation expression is given as follows:
𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃̇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

2 ̇2
,𝑌𝑌 − 𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ,𝑋𝑋
⎛ 2
+𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑢 𝑒𝑒𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 cos(𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡 + ∅) + ⎞ (2.19)
𝑄𝑄𝑟𝑟 = ⎜ 2 ⎟
𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑢 𝑒𝑒𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 sin(𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡 + ∅)
⎝−0.5(2𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ) − 0.5(2𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 )⎠
Where
𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝 is the polar moment of inertia of the disk.
𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑢 is the disk mass unbalance.
𝑒𝑒 is eccentricity of the mass unbalance.
32
𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the frequency of rotation of the disk and shaft in rad/s .
𝑡𝑡 is time (seconds) starting at 0 seconds .
∅ is the phase angle of the mass unbalance relative to the horizontal at 𝑡𝑡 = 0 seconds.
The first two terms are for the generalized coordinates 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑋𝑋 and 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌
respectively. The second two terms are for the generalized coordinates 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
respectively. The last two terms are for the generalized coordinates 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
respectively.
The energy equation in (2.20) is obtained by taking the derivative of equation
(2.2) with respect to each generalized coordinate and rearranging the equation in the form
given below:
[𝑀𝑀]{𝑞𝑞̈ } + [𝐶𝐶]{𝑞𝑞̇ } + [𝐾𝐾]{𝑞𝑞} − {𝑄𝑄} + {𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁} = {0} (2.20)
Where 𝑀𝑀, 𝐶𝐶, 𝐾𝐾 are 29x29 time-varying mass, stiffness, and damping matrices. {𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁} is the
nonlinear the bearing stiffness term and is also a time-varying vector. The nonlinear
terms with the parameters ‘𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 ’ and ‘𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 ’ are active only when there is compression
between the bearing elements and raceway surfaces as described in equations (2.9) and
(2.10).
As we mentioned before, each generalized coordinate corresponds to each degree
of freedom. The system has 29 degrees of freedom, hence, it requires 29 generalized
coordinates and equations corresponding to each generalized coordinates as given in
equations (2.21) – (2.49). The 29 generalized coordinates for the equations of motion are:
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the position of the shaft mass element at the drive end in the 𝑥𝑥-direction.
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the position of the shaft mass element at the drive end in the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ is the position of the drive end of the housing mass in the 𝑥𝑥-direction.
33
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ is the position of the drive end of the housing mass in the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ,𝑖𝑖=1…9 is the radial position of each drive end bearing mass element (𝑖𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, 3, … ,9})
relative to the position of the shaft’s geometrical center at the drive end side.
𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ,𝑖𝑖=10…17 is the radial position of each fan end bearing mass element (𝑖𝑖 ∈
{10, 11, 12, … ,17}) relative to the position of the shaft’s geometrical center at the fan
end side.
𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 is the position of the shaft mass element at the fan end in the 𝑥𝑥-direction.
𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 is the position of the shaft mass element at the fan end in the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ is the position of the fan end of the housing mass in the 𝑥𝑥-direction.
𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ is the position of the fan end of the housing mass in the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the position of the disk mass element in the 𝑥𝑥-direction.
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the position of the disk mass element in the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑋𝑋 is the angular position of the disk mass element about the 𝑥𝑥-direction.
𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌 is the angular position of the disk mass element about the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
34
9 9
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ∶ �(𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 9𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑 )𝑥𝑥̈ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + � 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑 �𝜌𝜌̈ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 2 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ 2 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �� + �9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝐿𝐿𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑌𝑌 �
𝐿𝐿3 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑖𝑖=1
3�
9 1� 2
�[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2 − 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � (𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )
�� 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1 �=0
𝑖𝑖=1
[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] �2
9 9
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ∶ �(𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 9𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑 )𝑦𝑦̈ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + � 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑 �𝜌𝜌̈ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 2𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �� + �9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � +
̇2 �𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝐿𝐿𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 �
𝐿𝐿3 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑖𝑖=1
3�
9 1� 2
�[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2 − 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )
�� 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1� � = 0.5(2𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 )
𝑖𝑖=1
[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2
35
9
𝑚𝑚ℎ 𝐼𝐼ℎ𝑡𝑡
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ ∶ � �𝑥𝑥̈ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑥𝑥̈𝑓𝑓ℎ � + �𝑥𝑥̈ − 𝑥𝑥̈𝑓𝑓ℎ �� + �𝑐𝑐ℎ 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ − 9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + 𝑘𝑘ℎ 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ +
2 2𝐿𝐿 𝑑𝑑ℎ
𝑖𝑖=1
3�
9 1� 2
�[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2 − 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � (𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )
�� −𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1 �=0
𝑖𝑖=1
9
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ ∶ � �𝑦𝑦̈ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑦𝑦̈𝑓𝑓ℎ � + �𝑦𝑦̈ − 𝑦𝑦̈𝑓𝑓ℎ �� + �𝑐𝑐ℎ 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ − 9𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + 𝑘𝑘ℎ 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ +
2 2𝐿𝐿 𝑑𝑑ℎ
𝑖𝑖=1
3�
9 1� 2
�[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2 − 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )
�� −𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1 �=0
𝑖𝑖=1
𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ,𝑖𝑖 =1…9 ∶ 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑 �𝜌𝜌̈ 𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̈ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̈ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ 2 � + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 (2𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑦𝑦̇ 𝑑𝑑ℎ sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )
3�
2
− 𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 �𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 � +
3�
9 1� 2
�[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2 − 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 + 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � {cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 ) + sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )}
�� 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1� �
𝑖𝑖=1
[(𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 )2 ] 2
36
=0
𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ,𝑖𝑖 =10…17 ∶ 𝑚𝑚𝑓𝑓 �𝜌𝜌̈ 𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̈𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̈𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜃𝜃̇𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ 2 � + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 �2𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓ℎ cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓ℎ sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �
3�
2
− 𝑘𝑘1𝑖𝑖 �𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 � +
3�
1� 2
⎧ 2 2 2 ⎫
⎪ 17 ��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � � − 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � �cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 ��⎪
� 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1�
⎨𝑖𝑖=10 2 2 2 ⎬
⎪ ��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � � ⎪
⎩ ⎭
=0
17 17
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∶ ��𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 8𝑚𝑚𝑓𝑓 �𝑥𝑥̈𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + � 𝑚𝑚𝑓𝑓 �𝜌𝜌̈ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 2 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ 2 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �� + �8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝐿𝐿𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑌𝑌 �
𝐿𝐿3 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑖𝑖=10 𝑖𝑖=10
3�
1� 2
⎧ 2 2 2 ⎫
⎪ 17 ��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � � − 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � �𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �⎪
� 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1� =0
⎨𝑖𝑖=10 2 2 2 ⎬
⎩ ⎭
17 17
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∶ ��𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 8𝑚𝑚𝑓𝑓 �𝑦𝑦̈𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + � 𝑚𝑚𝑓𝑓 �𝜌𝜌̈ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 + 2𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃̇ cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 𝜃𝜃 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �� + �8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � +
̇2 �𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝐿𝐿𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,𝑋𝑋 �
𝐿𝐿3 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑖𝑖=10 𝑖𝑖=10
3�
1� 2
⎧ 2 2 2 ⎫
⎪ 17 ��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � � − 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �⎪
� 𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1� = 0.5(2𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 + 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 )
⎨𝑖𝑖=10 2 2 2 ⎬
��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � �
37
⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
17
𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ ∶ � �𝑥𝑥̈ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑥𝑥̈𝑓𝑓ℎ � + �𝑥𝑥̈ − 𝑥𝑥̈ 𝑑𝑑ℎ �� + �𝑐𝑐ℎ 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓ℎ + 8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓ℎ − 8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑥𝑥̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + 𝑘𝑘ℎ 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ +
2 2𝐿𝐿 𝑓𝑓ℎ
𝑖𝑖=10
3�
1� 2
⎧ 2 2 2 ⎫
⎪ 17 ��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � � − 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � �𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �⎪
� −𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1� =0
⎨𝑖𝑖=10 2 2 2 ⎬
⎩ ⎭
17
𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ ∶ � �𝑦𝑦̈ 𝑑𝑑ℎ + 𝑦𝑦̈𝑓𝑓ℎ � + �𝑦𝑦̈ − 𝑦𝑦̈ 𝑑𝑑ℎ �� + �𝑐𝑐ℎ 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓ℎ + 8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓ℎ − 8𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑦𝑦̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 � 𝜌𝜌̇ 𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + 𝑘𝑘ℎ 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ +
2 2𝐿𝐿 𝑓𝑓ℎ
𝑖𝑖=10
3�
1� 2
⎧ 2 2 2 ⎫
⎪ 17 ��𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 cos 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � + �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 � � − 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � �𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓ℎ + 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 �⎪
� −𝑘𝑘2𝑖𝑖 1� =0
⎨𝑖𝑖=10 2 2 2 ⎬
⎩ ⎭
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 2
𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ∶ 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥̈ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + �2𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � = 𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑢 𝑒𝑒𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 cos(𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡 + ∅)
𝐿𝐿3
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 2
𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ∶ 𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑦𝑦̈ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + �2𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � = 𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑢 𝑒𝑒𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 sin(𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡 + ∅)
𝐿𝐿3
38
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑋𝑋 ∶ 𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑡𝑡 𝜃𝜃̈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑋𝑋 + 𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃̇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌 + �2𝐿𝐿2 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑋𝑋 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝐿𝐿𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � = 0
𝐿𝐿3
3𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌 ∶ 𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑡𝑡 𝜃𝜃̈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌 − 𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜃𝜃̇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑋𝑋 + �2𝐿𝐿2 𝜃𝜃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ,𝑌𝑌 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝐿𝐿𝑦𝑦𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � = 0 (2.21) – (2.49)
𝐿𝐿3
In order to code the model above, all the second order differential equations are
rearranged into first order differential equations, and the dimension of the matrix
equation increases from 29 to 58. The equation will be presented in term of the mass
matrix [𝑀𝑀(𝑡𝑡)], the damping matrix [𝐶𝐶(𝑡𝑡)] , the stiffness matrix [𝐾𝐾(𝑡𝑡)] , the generalized
forces {𝑄𝑄(𝑡𝑡)} and the nonlinear stiffness terms {𝑁𝑁(𝑞𝑞, 𝑡𝑡)}
We can write equations (2.21) – (2.49) into the form:
[0]29 ×29 [𝐼𝐼]29 ×29

{𝒒𝒒̇ }58 ×1 = �� {𝒒𝒒}58 ×1
�−[𝑀𝑀(𝑡𝑡)]−1 [𝐾𝐾(𝑡𝑡)]�29 ×29 �−[𝑀𝑀(𝑡𝑡)]−1 [𝐶𝐶(𝑡𝑡)]� 29 ×29 58 ×58
(2.50)
[0]29 ×1
+ � �
�−[𝑀𝑀(𝑡𝑡)]−1 [𝑁𝑁(𝑡𝑡, 𝑞𝑞)]�29 ×1
58 ×1
{𝒒𝒒}29 ×1 {𝒒𝒒̇ }29 ×1

Where {𝒒𝒒}58 ×1 = � � , {𝒒𝒒̇ }58 ×1 = � �
{𝒒𝒒̇ }29 ×1 58 ×1 {𝒒𝒒̈ }29 ×1 58 ×1
The program for the model is listed in the appendix A.
39
2.2 Fault Frequencies
Number of Balls ( N )
Ball Diameter (Bd )
Pitch Diameter ( Pd ) Pd
Contact Angle (φ ) Bd
Figure 2.3: Bearing parameters
In [105], formulas for calculating bearing frequencies are developed from the
principle of planetary gears and the study also derived roller pass frequencies for
different kinds of surfaces. For deep groove ball bearings with a stationary outer ring, the
frequencies are given by the following equations:
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = �1 − � cos ∅ (2.51)
2 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 2
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = (𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟) �1 − � � (cos ∅)2 � (2.52)
2𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
40
OR = N(FTF) (2.53)
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝑁𝑁(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹) (2.54)
Where
Fundamental Train Frequency (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹) or cage frequency, Ball Spin (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵) , Outer Race
(𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂) frequency, Inner Race (𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼) frequency.
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 is the revolution per second of the inner raceway.
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 is the ball diameter as depicted in figure 2.3.
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 is the pitch diameter as shown in figure 2.3.
N is the number of balls.
∅ is the contact angle.
Note that the bearing element which has no thrust is assumed to be zero contact angle.
2.3 Fault Types
Faults in bearings can be caused by metal deformities, cracks, and fragments on
the surface raceway and can occur from a wide range of factors from contaminants in the
raceways, improper installation, incorrect handling of the bearing, etc.
When single bearing elements pass over a bearing defect, a train of force impulses
is generated. Due to the bearing rotation, these impulse forces will recur periodically with
a frequency depending on three factors, the location of the fault on the bearing, the
geometry of bearing, and the relative speeds of the bearing components with respect to
the shaft speed. In this research we assume that the outer race is stationary.
41
If we consider the entire rotating machine as a system, then we can view the
impulse train generated by the defected bearing as an input to the system, with the out
being the measured vibration response at the drive end of the machine in the 𝑦𝑦-direction.
There are two factors that could affect the system response, the load distribution and the
distance between the fault point and the sensor. These two effects can be captured into
the model by modulating the amplitude of the impulse train.
2.3.1 Outer Race Fault
An outer race fault is caused by a defect on the surface of the outer raceway and
because the outer raceway is stationary, the distance between the fault locations and the
sensor is constant and the sensor will receive the same response periodically and the
impulse train amplitude does not need to be modulated. The frequency of the impulse
train depends on the rotational speed of the bearing elements passing over the stationary
fault spot. In this study, we assume that the load is constant so there is also no modulation
due to the load distribution.
The force caused by outer race fault is as follows:

∞
𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑎𝑎 � 𝛿𝛿(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) (2.55)

𝑘𝑘=−∞
Where 𝛿𝛿(⋅) is the Dirac function, 𝑇𝑇 is the period of the impulse train, 𝑎𝑎 is the amplitude
which is adjusted by trial and error.
42
Figure 2.4: Periodic vibration signal for outer race fault, in this case the period is
𝑇𝑇 = 0.0093 seconds at a shaft speed of 1800 rpm.
2.3.2 Ball Fault
Ball faults occur because the defect is on the bearing rolling elements. When the
defected ball rotates, the defective spot could hit and cause an impulse force on both the
inner and outer raceways. Assuming that the defective ball will hit both raceways, the
frequency of the impulse train would be twice that of the ball-spin frequency obtained
from equation 2.52. However, in real world applications, that situation might not occur
since the defected ball might or might not hit either of the raceways or might hit just one
raceway. Therefore, the frequency of the impulse train could be less than twice the ball-
spin frequency and could be time-varying.
Because the impulse train period is unpredictable and might not be constant as we
mentioned previously, we will assume that the defective ball will hit both raceways in
43
every single spin cycle of the ball in order to be able to describe this phenomenon
mathematically.
There are affects due to the variable distance between the sensor and the rotating
fault i.e. the defective ball, and the load distribution profile. For the first factor, since the
defective balls are rotating around the shaft and spinning around in the bearing cage
while the sensor is stationary, the distance between the defective ball and the sensor is
variable. The changes in distance will affect the amplitude of the impulse force depends
on the location when the defective ball hits the raceway and which raceway is contacted.
By assuming the system is linear and the defective ball hits both raceways, we could
capture this effect by modulating the impulse train as follows [3]:

∞
𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑎𝑎1 (cos(𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡 + ∅1 ) + 𝑐𝑐1 ) � 𝛿𝛿(𝑡𝑡 − 2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) (2.56)

𝑘𝑘=−∞
Where 𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 is the cage frequency, ∅1 is the phase corresponding with the angular position
of the fault spot with respect to the stationary sensor location, 𝑇𝑇 is the ball spinning
period, 𝑎𝑎1 is the amplitude obtained from trial and error, 𝑐𝑐1 ≥ 1 is a constant so that the
overall amplitude is nonnegative.
Besides the affect from variable distance between the rotating defective spot and
the stationary sensor, the load distribution also affects the response of the system since
the load will affect the system output in every single cycle. Also, the vibration signals
from a ball defect passing over each load zone are not identical.
For uniform load distribution, this effect is described by the following equation
[3]:
44
∞
𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑏𝑏1 (cos(𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡 + ∅1 ) + 𝑐𝑐1 ) ⋅ (cos(𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡 + ∅2 ) + 𝑐𝑐2 ) � 𝛿𝛿(𝑡𝑡 − 2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) (2.57)

𝑘𝑘=−∞
Where 𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 is the cage frequency, ∅1 and ∅2 are the phase corresponding with the angular
position of the fault spot and the line of action respect to the stationary sensor location, 𝑇𝑇
is the ball spinning period, 𝑏𝑏1 is the amplitude obtained from trial and error, 𝑐𝑐1 , 𝑐𝑐2 ≥
1 are the constants.
Ball faults are not included in this study, and are considered for future work.
2.3.3 Inner Race Fault
Similar to the ball fault case, the inner raceway is not stationary. The rotating fault
spot will cause an impulse force every time when it passes a rolling (ball) element.
Again, there are an affects due to the variable distance between the sensor and the
rotating fault and the load distribution profile.
Because the inner race is rotating around the shaft, the distance between the fault
spot and the sensor is a function of time. Unlike the ball fault, the change in distance is
periodic with time because the fault spot is on the inner raceway and does not spin around
itself as in the previous case. Thus, the impulse train due to the inner race fault is periodic
with the inner ring frequency and the amplitude is modulated as a function of shaft speed
as follows:
∞
𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑎𝑎2 (cos(𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡 + 𝜃𝜃1 ) + 𝑐𝑐1 ) � 𝛿𝛿(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) (2.58)

𝑘𝑘=−∞
45
Where 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 is the shaft frequency, 𝜃𝜃1 is the phase corresponding with the angular position
of the fault spot with respect to the stationary sensor location, 𝑇𝑇 is the inner race ball pass
period, 𝑎𝑎2 is the amplitude obtained from trial and error, 𝑐𝑐1 ≥ 1 so that the amplitude is
nonnegative.
Similar with the ball fault case, the amplitude of the impulse force will vary when
the fault spot passes through the load zone of bearing. This phenomenon can be
expressed as an impulse train modulated with a frequency equal to the inner raceway
frequency. By assuming a uniform distribution, the effect from the load distribution
yields the following:

∞
𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑏𝑏2 (cos(𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡 + 𝜃𝜃1 ) + 𝑐𝑐1 ) ⋅ (cos(𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡 + 𝜃𝜃2 ) + 𝑐𝑐2 ) � 𝛿𝛿(𝑡𝑡 − 2𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) (2.59)
𝑘𝑘=−∞
Where 𝜔𝜔𝑠𝑠 is the shaft frequency, 𝜃𝜃1 and 𝜃𝜃2 are the phases corresponding to the angular
positions of the fault spot and the line of action with respect to the stationary sensor
location, 𝑇𝑇 is the inner raceway period, 𝑏𝑏2 is the amplitude obtained from trial and error,
𝑐𝑐1 , 𝑐𝑐2 ≥ 1 are constants so that the overall amplitude is nonnegative.
46
Figure 2.5: Periodic vibration signal for an inner race case, in this case the period 𝑇𝑇 = 0.0062 seconds
with a shaft speed of 1800 rpm.
2.4 Hammerstein – Wiener Model
As mentioned previously, this research uses data generated by the mathematical
model developed by Adam [1] as the raw data for system identification, the mathematical
model in [1] was validated against real data retrieved from a rotating machine. See the
CWRU Bearing Data Center [106] for additional details.
Due to high nonlinearity of the bearing response, we chose the Hammerstein –
Weiner model for system identification, this model is able to provide acceptable accuracy
around 70% compared to the original data. The Hammerstein-Wiener model also
provides a flexible way to find the parameters for the nonlinear model. For example, we
could estimate the linear model first and use nonlinear blocks at the input and output to
adjust the overall model response.
The Hammerstein – Weiner used in this research has the following structure:
47
u(t) Input w(t) x(t) Output Nonlinearity y(t)
Nonlinearity Linear Model (B/F)
(h)
(f)
Figure 2.6: The block diagram shows the structure of Hammerstein – Wiener model
Where
𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) is the input.
𝑤𝑤(𝑡𝑡) is the internal variable and also the input of linear block.
𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) is the internal variable and also the output of linear block.
𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) is the output.
It is worth noting that 𝑓𝑓(∙) and ℎ(∙) are called the input and output nonlinearity
respectively. Both functions are supposed to be stationary i.e. the output value at time 𝑡𝑡
depends only on input value at time 𝑡𝑡 as well. To illustrate, if 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑛𝑛 then 𝑤𝑤(𝑡𝑡) =
𝑓𝑓�𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡)� ∈ ℝ𝑛𝑛 i.e. 𝑓𝑓 is a nonlinear function mapping from 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) to 𝑤𝑤(𝑡𝑡) and the
dimension of 𝑤𝑤(𝑡𝑡) is the same as 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) and similarly for 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) = ℎ�𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡)� ∈ ℝ𝑛𝑛 where
the dimension of 𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) and 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) are also he same. For the linear transfer function, 𝐵𝐵 and 𝐹𝐹
are polynomials in the input-output polynomial model [43]:

𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖 (𝑞𝑞) 𝐶𝐶(𝑞𝑞)
𝐴𝐴(𝑞𝑞)𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) = � 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 ) + 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) (2.56)
𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖 (𝑞𝑞) 𝐷𝐷(𝑞𝑞)
𝑖𝑖=1
Where
𝐴𝐴, 𝐵𝐵, 𝐶𝐶, 𝐷𝐷 and 𝐹𝐹 are polynomials of the time-shift operator 𝑞𝑞� −1 .
𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 is the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ input.
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 is the total number of inputs.
48
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 is the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ input delay that characterizes delay.
𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) is noise.
As we have seen from the diagram, the Hammerstein – Wiener model captures the
nonlinearities by introducing a nonlinear function at the input and output of the linear
system block.
Since we were trying to determine the simplest model possible, the functions for
both input and output nonlinear blocks are chosen to be a monotonic piecewise linear
functions, and will take advantage of the injective properties of such functions for
observe design.
Identifying the Hammerstein – Wiener model for a long data set always turned
out to provide unsatisfactory results i.e. a low percentage fit. In order to gain an
acceptable identified model i.e. 70 % fit compared to raw data, we needed to truncate the
data points of the signal that correspond to the inner race or outer race fault cases. To
illustrate, we assume that the shaft speed is 1800 RPM (0.0333 seconds per round) and
from the equation (2.5) 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝑁𝑁(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹) = 162.469 revs per second which is 0.0062
seconds per rev.
49
Figure 2.7: Showing the inner race fault vibration signal has three lobes within one period (one period-like
element).
As seen from figure 2.7, the IR signal has 3 lobes recurring in every 0.0062
seconds starting from the largest amplitude, the middle amplitude, and the smallest
amplitude.
Due to the variety of amplitudes, it is difficult to select just one period-like data
element from the signal data and treat it as the representative of all data points for system
identification. Hence, the as the representative of all period-like elements we chose an
average sum of all period-like elements as described in figure 2.8. The number of period-
like elements is determined empirically until all the average elements from every segment
of the entire data are aligned into the same phase as depicted in figure 2.9. The program
for averaging the period-like elements is provided in the appendix B.
50
Truncate into 38 Perform pointwise averaging
pieces all the truncated signals
Perform
Hammerstein
– Wiener
 Identification
51
Truncated signals with various amplitudes The average signal with length 0.0062 sec
38 period-like elements with length 38 X 0.0062 = 0.2356 sec but same length (0.0062 sec)
Figure 2.8: Averaging 38 period-like elements to obtain the average data used as the representative for all 38 period-like elements.
Figure 2.9: Averaged period-like elements empirically adjusted until all average signals align in
the same phase. This figure shows the result of averaging 38 period-like elements.
For the OR signal, it is easier to truncate the signal and treat it as the
representative for the entire signal since it is nearly a periodic signal as shown in the
figure 2.10.
52
Truncated signals to one period length
(0.0093 seconds)
Perform
Hammerstein
– Wiener
Identification
53
The selected signal with length 0.0093
Outer race fault vibration signal has a period 0.0093 seconds seconds
Figure 2.10: Truncating an Outer race (OR) signal to perform Hammerstein – Wiener identification.
The selected data to identify the Hammerstein – Wiener models and the results are shown
in the following figures:
2.4.1 Outer Race (OR) Identification Result
Figure 2.11: The input nonlinearity for the OR case and the break points
Figure 2.12: The step response of the linear model OR case
54
Figure 2.13: The output nonlinearity for the OR case and the break points
2.4.2 Inner Race (IR) Identification Result
Figure 2.14: The input nonlinearity for the IR case and the break points
55
Figure 2.15: The response of the linear IR model
Figure 2.16: The output nonlinearity for the IR case and break points
The program used for system identification and determining the break points is provided
in appendix C.
56
Chapter 3: Observer Design and Fault Detection
3.1 Observer Design
The schematic of the observer we applied to this research is as follows:
u y y
Plant
y
y + y − yˆ IR
uIR zˆIR − + z
f () IR IR Linear System IR
g () −IR1
−
yˆ IR
zIR − zÎR
LIR
yˆ IR yˆ IR
zˆIR
g () IR
zÔR − + zOR y
uOR −1
f ()OR OR Linear System g ()OR
y y − yÔR
zOR − zˆOR +
−
yÔR
LOR
zÔR yÔR yÔR
g ()OR
Figure 3.1: The reduced system
Where, 𝑓𝑓(⋅)𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑓𝑓(⋅)𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are the input nonlinearities of the Inner Race (IR) and
Outer Race (OR) faults respectively. Both of them are restricted to be monotonic
functions, and 𝑔𝑔(⋅)𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑔𝑔(⋅)𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are the output nonlinearities of the IR and OR models
57
respectively. These were also chosen to be a monotonic function. The 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are
the impulse trains corresponding with IR frequency and OR frequency respectively. 𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
and 𝐿𝐿𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are calculated from the Ackerman formula in the program as noted in appendix
D. The input 𝑢𝑢 is the result of mass unbalance and is a sinusoidal signal as depicted in
figure 3.2. 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are the output signals emitted from the linear part of the
Hammerstein – Wiener model. 𝑦𝑦 is the output of the system, which is the acceleration in
the 𝑦𝑦-direction at the drive end of the rotating machine. 𝑧𝑧̃𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 is the output signal of the
monotonic function block 𝑔𝑔(∙)−1

𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 with 𝑦𝑦 as an input. Also, 𝑧𝑧̃𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 is the output signal of the
monotonic function block 𝑔𝑔(∙)−1

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 with 𝑦𝑦 as an input. 𝑦𝑦
�𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑦𝑦�𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are the estimated
outputs of the Hammerstein – Wiener observers for the IR and OR cases, respectively.
Figure 3.2: Mass unbalance excitation (𝑢𝑢) applied to the system.
To illustrate the reduced model, we excite both the IR and OR Hammerstein –
Wiener observer using the corresponding impulse trains i.e. 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 as an input for the IR
58
observer and 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 as an input for the OR observer; 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are the impulse trains
corresponding to IR and OR faults, respectively.
The corresponding impulse train will be mapped by the monotonic function
𝑓𝑓(⋅)𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑓𝑓(⋅)𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 and the result will be considered as an input of the IR and OR linear
system models respectively. The 𝑧𝑧̃𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑧𝑧̃𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are the result of mapping 𝑦𝑦 by the
−1
monotonic functions 𝑔𝑔(∙)−1
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑔𝑔(∙)𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 respectively. Whereas, the correction terms
𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 �𝑧𝑧̃𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 � and 𝐿𝐿𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 �𝑧𝑧̃𝑂𝑂𝑅𝑅 − 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 � will be added in the state equations of both IR and
OR linear observers as follows:
For the IR case:
𝑥𝑥̇ 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑥𝑥𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 + 𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑓𝑓(𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 )𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 ) + 𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 �𝑧𝑧̃𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 � (3.1)
𝑦𝑦𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐶𝐶𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑥𝑥 + 𝐷𝐷𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑓𝑓(𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 )𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 ) (3.2)
For the OR case:
𝑥𝑥̇ 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐴𝐴𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑥𝑥𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 + 𝐵𝐵𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 (𝑓𝑓(𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 )𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ) + 𝐿𝐿𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 �𝑧𝑧̃𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 − 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 � (3.3)
𝑦𝑦𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑥𝑥 + 𝐷𝐷𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 (𝑓𝑓(𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 )𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ) (3.4)
The output of the IR and OR linear observers, 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑧𝑧̃̂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 are fed to the monotonic
functions 𝑔𝑔(⋅)𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑔𝑔(⋅)𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 and the result are 𝑦𝑦�𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑦𝑦�𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 respectively. Ultimately, the
residual of the IR and OR observers are obtained from 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
respectively.
59
3.2 Results and Diagnosis
Our diagnosis is based on the cross-correlation between the residuals 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and
𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 with the corresponding impulse trains i.e. 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 . We can obtain
knowledge about the operating state i.e. the faulty or healthy condition by analyzing the
temporal patterns of the cross-correlation signals.
As shown in figures 3.3 and 3.6, the residual signal calculated from 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 and
𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 match the OR and IR impulse trains when the OR and IR faults occur in the
system.
Whereas, as we can see from the figure 3.4 and 3.5, the residual signal calculated
from 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 and 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦�𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 do not correspond to the OR and IR impulse trains when IR
or OR faults occur, respectively.
According to figure 3.3 to 3.6, if we consider the error signal of all the cases, we
will realize that there are two main components in the signals: 1) the components from
the series of impulse responses that match well with the impulse train applied to the
system because the system responds to the impulse train as the series of impulse
responses, and 2) the component from the discrepancies between the output of
Hammerstein-Wiener observer and the real output (𝑦𝑦).
60
Figure 3.3: The plot of the error between output of the OR observer model and the output of the rotating
machine when the OR fault occurs (in blue) compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in green).
Figure 3.4: The plot of the error between output of the IR observer and the output of the rotating machine
when the OR fault occurs (in blue) compared with the IR frequency impulse train (in green).
61
Figure 3.5: The plot of the error between output of the OR observer model and the output of the rotating
machine when the IR fault occurs (in blue) compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in green). The
impulses are scaled down for the purpose of plotting.
Figure 3.6: The plot of the error between output of the IR observer model and the output of the rotating
machine when IR fault occurs (in blue) compared with the IR frequency impulse train (in green). The
impulses are scaled down for the purpose of plotting.
62
In conclusion, from the figure 3.3 - 3.6, the residual from the specific observer
model will match with its own impulse train input when the rotating machine fault
corresponds with the observer model, thus we are able to detect the occurrence of a fault
by analyzing the cross-correlation between the observer residuals and the impulse train
inputs used to drive the observers. For reference, the results of the autocorrelation of 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
and 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 are shown in figures 3.7 – 3.8 respectively:
63
Figure 3.7: Plot of the autocorrelation of 𝑢𝑢𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 (OR impulse train).
Figure 3.8: Plot of the autocorrelation of 𝑢𝑢𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (IR impulse train).
64
Figure 3.9: The plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the OR observer model and the OR
impulse train when the OR fault occurs.
Figure 3.10: The plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the IR observer model and the IR
impulse train when the OR fault occurs.
65
From figure 3.9, when an OR fault occurs in the system, the cross-correlation
between the residual from the OR observer and the OR impulse train is similar to the
autocorrelation of the OR impulse train as shown in figure 3.7. The response due to the
impulse is dominant in the overall observer, although the transient response of the
observer due to the abrupt change in acceleration in 𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 or output of the system (𝑦𝑦) is
present.
According to figure 3.4, the errors between the output from the IR observer and
the system output 𝑦𝑦 do not match the IR impulse train when the OR fault occurs since
there are additional impulses caused by the transient response of the observer. From the
figure 3.10, the cross-correlation between the residual from the IR observer and the IR
impulse train when the OR fault occurs in the system will consist of the follow
components:
1). The cross-correlation between the IR impulse train and the residual generated
by the observer. This will be similar to the autocorrelation of IR impulse train (figure
3.8), and appears as the triangular shape in figure 3.10.
2). Excluding the data mentioned in 1), the remaining data is due to transient
response of the IR observer and consists of a series of impulses at the base of the
triangular shape as shown in figure 3.10.
66
Figure 3.11: Plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the IR observer and the IR impulse
train when IR fault occurs in the system.
Figure 3.12: Plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the OR observer and the OR impulse
train when IR fault occurs in the system.
67
Analogous to the pervious case, see figure 3.11, when an IR fault occurs, the
cross-correlation between the residual from the IR observer and the IR impulse train
matches the autocorrelation of the IR impulse train as depicted in figure 3.8. When the
system has an IR fault, according to figure 3.5, the errors between the outputs from the
OR observer and system output do not match the OR impulse train due to transients in
observer response.
When the IR fault occurs, from figure 3.12, the cross-correlation between the
residual from OR observer model and the OR impulse train consists of the follow
components:
1). The cross-correlation between the OR impulse train and the observer residual
caused by the excitation from the impulse train leading to the triangular shape in the
figure 3.8 which is similar to the autocorrelation of the OR impulse train shown in figure
3.7.
2). The cross-correlation between the OR impulse train and the components of the
observer residual which is due to the transient response of the OR observer, as shown in
the impulses at the base of the triangular shape in figure 3.12.
The following figures will show the results of fault detection for the mixed fault
cases: OR - IR, IR - OR, Normal – IR, IR – Normal, Normal - OR, and OR – Normal,
where the cases occur sequentially in time. For convenience, we will show the observer
residuals and the cross-correlation for each case as well.
68
3.2.1 OR – IR Case
In this case, we simulate OR fault from 0.000985 seconds until 0.2 seconds and
then we introduce IR fault into the system from 0.2 seconds until the end of simulation at
0.4 seconds as shown in figure 3.13.
Figure 3.13: The system output (the acceleration in 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at the drive end of the rotating machine). The
OR fault is from 0.000985 to 0.2 seconds and the IR fault is from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
69
Figure 3.14: Plot of OR observer residual for the OR - IR case (in blue) compared with the OR impulse
train (in green). The impulses are scaled for plotting.
Figure 3.15: Plot of the IR observer residuals for the OR - IR case (in blue) compared to the IR impulse
train (in green). The impulses are scaled for f plotting.
70
Figure 3.16: Plot of the cross-correlation between the OR observer residuals and the OR impulse train
when the OR fault occurs from 0.000985 to 0.2 seconds and IR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
Figure 3.17: Plot of the cross-correlation between the IR observer residuals and the IR impulse train when
the OR fault occurs from 0.000985 to 0.2 seconds and the IR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
71
As we can see from figure 3.14, the residual from the OR observer matches the
OR impulse train in the range of 0.000985 – 0.2 seconds which is the time period that the
OR fault occurs in the bearing while the residual from the OR observer does not match
the OR impulse train in the range of 0.2 – 0.4 seconds when the IR fault is introduced to
the system.
The residual from the IR observer in figure 3.15 does not match well with the IR
impulse train in the range of 0.000985 – 0.2 seconds which is the OR fault zone whereas
the residual from the IR observer corresponds well with IR impulse train in the range of
0.2 – 0.4 seconds which is the IR fault zone.
Figure 3.16 is the plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the OR
observer model and the OR impulse train when the OR fault occurs from 0.000985 to 0.2
seconds and the IR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds. The cross-correlation can be
decomposed into two parts. First, the triangular shape that is due to the cross-correlation
between the OR impulse train and the OR observer residual over the OR fault region.
Second, the series of impulses at the base of the pyramid during the IR fault period that is
caused by the mismatch between the OR impulse train and the residual of the OR
observer as shown in figure 3.14.
Figure 3.17 shows the plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the
IR observer and the IR impulse train when the OR fault occurs from 0.000985 to 0.2
seconds and the IR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds. Analogous to figure 3.16, the
cross-correlation consists of two parts. First, the triangular shape due to the cross-
correlation between the IR impulse train and the IR observer residual over the IR fault
zone. The residual over this period is dominated by the excitation from the impulse train,
72
and matches the impulse train. Second, the series of impulses at the base of the pyramid
during the OR fault period is caused by the mismatch between the IR impulse train and
the IR observer residuals as shown in figure 3.15.
3.2.2 IR – OR Case
In this case, the IR fault from 0.001000 seconds until 0.2 seconds and then we
introduce the OR fault into the system from 0.2 seconds until the end of simulation at 0.4
seconds as shown in figure 3.18. Figures 3.19-3.22 illustrate the results from these
simulations, with explanations as given in the previous case.
Figure 3.18: The system output (the acceleration in 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at the drive end of the rotational machine).
The IR fault starts from 0.001000 to 0.2 seconds and the OR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
73
Figure 3.19: Plot of the error between the output from the OR observer and the output of the rotating
machine in the IR - OR case (in blue) compared with the OR impulse train (in green). The impulses are
scaled for plotting.
Figure 3.20: Plot of the error between the output from the IR observer and the output of the rotating
machine in the IR - OR case (in blue) compared with the IR impulse train (in green). The impulses are
scaled for plotting.
74
train when the IR fault occurs from 0.001 to 0.2 seconds and the OR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
train when the IR fault occurs from 0.001 to 0.2 seconds and the OR fault occurs from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
75
3.2.3 OR – NORMAL Case
In this case, we simulate the OR fault starting from 0.003 seconds until 0.2
seconds and then the system operates normally from 0.2 seconds until the end of the
simulation at 0.4 second as shown in figure 3.23. Figures 3.24-3.27 illustrate the results
for this case.
The OR fault occurs from 0.003 to 0.2 seconds then the system runs normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
76
Figure 3.24: Plot of the error between the output from the OR observer model and the output of the
rotating machine in the OR – Normal case (in blue) compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in
green). The impulses are scaled down for plotting.
machine in the OR - Normal case (in blue) compared with the IR frequency impulse train (in green). The
impulses are scaled for plotting.
77
train when the OR fault starts from 0.003 to 0.2 seconds and the system operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
train when the OR fault starts from 0.003 to 0.2 seconds and the system operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
78
According to figure 3.24, the residual from the OR observer matches the OR
impulse train in the range of 0.003 to 0.2 second when the OR fault occurs. Also, the
residual matches well with the OR impulse train in the range of 0.2 to 0.4 seconds where
the system runs normally since the excitation from the impulse train causes spikes at the
same location where the impulses occur.
From figure 3.25, the residual from the IR observer does not match the IR impulse
train in the range 0.003 to 0.2 seconds, the OR fault period. Similar to figure 3.24, the
residual from the IR observer matches the IR impulse train in the range of 0.2 to 0.4
second where the system operates normally.
From figure 3.26, the result of the cross-correlation is similar to the result of the
OR fault case in figure 3.9 where for half the simulation period the triangle is created by
the cross-correlation between the OR impulse train and the OR observer residual
corresponding to the impulse train in the OR fault region and the other half of is from the
OR observer residual from the normal operating zone and the OR impulse train, where
the observer residual from the normal operating zone follows the OR impulse train. The
spikes occurring during the OR fault period are similar to the envelope profiles of the OR
observer residuals as shown in figure 3.24 during the OR fault period. Therefore, we
conclude the existence of the OR fault during the first half of the simulation shown in
figure 3.23.
In figure 3.27, we can separate the results of cross-correlation into two
components. First, the part of the triangular shape caused by the cross-correlation
between the IR impulse train and the IR observer residual that corresponding to the
impulse train. Moreover, the residual over the normal operating region follows the
79
excitation from every single impulse (during the normal period as shown in figure 3.23)
and is nearly zero. This residual matches with the impulse train in figure 3.27. The series
of spikes during the OR fault period is the result of mismatch discrepancies between the
IR impulse train and the residual of the IR observer as shown in figure 3.25.
3.2.4 NORMAL –OR Case
Next, the system operates normally from the beginning until we introduce the OR
fault starting from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds as presented in figure 3.28. Figures 3.29-3.32
illustrate these results.
The system runs normally from the beginning to 0.2 seconds and the OR fault starts from 0.2 to 0.4
seconds.
80
Figure 3.29: Plot of the error between output from the OR observer and the output of the rotating machine
in the Normal – OR case (in blue) compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in green). The impulses
are scaled for plotting.
Figure 3.30: Plot of the error between output from the IR observer and the output of the rotating machine
in the Normal – OR case (in blue) compared with the IR frequency impulse train (in green). The impulses
are scaled for plotting.
81
train when the system operates normally from the beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the OR fault starts
from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
train when the system operates normally from the beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the OR fault starts
82
3.2.5 IR – NORMAL Case
In this case, the IR fault period is from 0.001 until 0.2 seconds and then the
system operates normally from 0.2 seconds until the end of simulation at 0.4 seconds as
depicted in figure 3.33. Figures 3.34-3.37 illustrate the results from this simulation.
Figure 3.33: The system output (the acceleration in 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at the drive end of the rotating machine). The
system runs with the IR fault from 0.001 to 0.2 seconds and operates normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
83
rotating machine in the IR – NORMAL case (in blue) compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in
green). The impulses are scaled for plotting.
Figure 3.35: Plot of the error between output from the IR observer and the output of the rotating machine
in the IR - NORMAL case (in blue) compared with the IR frequency impulse train (in green). The impulses
are scaled down for the purpose of plotting.
84
Figure 3.36: Plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the OR observer and the OR frequency
impulse train when the IR fault occurs from 0.001 until 0.2 seconds and then the system operates normally
Figure 3.37: Plot of the cross-correlation between the residual from the IR observer and the IR frequency
impulse train when the IR fault occurs from the 0.001 until 0.2 seconds and then the system operates
normally from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.
85
3.2.6 NORMAR – IR Case
The system operate normally from the beginning until the IR fault occurs starting
from 0.2 seconds to 0.4 seconds as shown in figure 3.38. Figures 3.39-3.42 illustrate the
results of this simulation.
Figure 3.38: The system output (the acceleration in 𝑦𝑦 − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at the drive end of the rotating
machine). The system runs normally from the beginning to 0.2 seconds and the IR fault starts from 0.2 to
0.4 seconds.
86
rotating machine in the Normal – IR case (in blue) compared with the OR frequency impulse train (in
green). The impulses are for plotting.
machine in the Normal – IR case (in blue) compared with the IR frequency impulse train (in green). The
impulses are scaled for plotting.
87
train when the system operates normally from the beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the IR fault starts
train when the system operates normally from the beginning until 0.2 seconds and then the IR fault starts
88
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Future Work
4.1 Conclusion
This thesis developed an observer-based scheme for fault detection and diagnosis
of rolling element bearings using the Hammerstein – Wiener model and system
identification techniques to identify a system model from time-series data and use the
model for observer design.
The input and output nonlinear components of the Hammerstein-Weiner model
were chosen as static monotonic piecewise linear functions in order to exploit their
injective properties in the observer design and implantation by exploiting the linear
input/output characteristics of the dynamic portion of the Hammerstein-Weiner model.
In order to obtain an acceptable identified model, it was necessary to preprocess
the data based on specific fault types as described in equations 2.51-2.54.
Because the IR fault data has a time-varying amplitude, after truncating the IR data
period-by-period, the data was averaged over a certain number of a periodic-like segments,
determined empirically, until the averages converged; refer to figure 2.9
The OR data, is stationary and it was possible to use one representative period in
the data for model building, see figure 2.10
Cross-correlation between the observer residuals and fault impulse train used as
the observer provided the basis of the fault detection and diagnosis scheme. As shown in
figures 3.3 – 3.6, the residual from the observer will match its own input impulse train
when the rotating machine fault is the same as the fault used to design the observer. The
89
cross-correlation between the residual and its own input impulse train consists of two
main components:
1). The triangular profile generated by the cross-correlation between the impulse
train and the observer residuals when the fault and observer fault model agree.
2). The spikes at the base of the triangular profile that are due to the impulse train
and the observer residuals when the fault and observer fault model do not agree.
By considering these cross-correlation results, we are able to interpret what fault type
occurs and when it occurs. In this thesis, we provide eight cases to illustrate the
performance of the proposed fault detection and diagnosis method: OR, IR, IR-OR, OR-
IR, NORMAL-OR, OR-NORMAL, NORMAL-IR, and IR-Normal.
The merit of the proposed approach is that it provides a simple framework to cope
with a complicated nonlinear system. The method opens an avenue for exploiting linear
system design methods for highly nonlinear system such as the rolling element bearings.
Moreover, we also provide simple method for fault detection and diagnosis by using
cross-correlation.
90
4.2 Future Work
Our work can be improved and extended in several directions. A first step would
be to develop a systematic design procedure for the observer design based on
Hammerstein-Weiner models. Our work has relied on empirical approaches that are often
very time consuming and cannot be generally extended.
As shown in the chapter 3, the observer design scheme used specific properties of
the Hammerstein-Weiner model when the input and output nonlinear components were
chosen to be simple monotonic piecewise linear functions. These factors could allow us
to modify the conventional approaches to prove a convergence (i.e. stable observer
design) and establish a new design approach for general classes of nonlinear systems of
this type.
Numerical errors during system identification because the identified linear models
when converted to state space form were nearly unobservable, leads to round-off errors
even though the observability matrix is full rank. This causes the feedback gain, e.g. from
Ackerman’s formula, to be very large and that causes the entire system to be even more
sensitive to round-off errors when we run the program with the large number of
iterations. Therefore, more investigation about numerical issues are required in future
work.
Additionally, the length of data used to perform system identification is limited.
Not only is the proper length of data required to obtain enough information, it is also
necessary to not use an excessive amount of data to avoid over modeling the system
91
dynamics. Although we can avoid this problem by truncating the data manually, there is
still a chance that unexpected types of errors might occur.
We did not study the Ball Fault in this thesis because it is more complicated than
the others. One of the problems is due to the nature of the fault in the defective spot on
the ball might or might not hit the raceways, and if it does contact the raceways which
raceway(s) does it hit? One possible solution to dealing with this problem is to implement
additional observer models for each case as follows:
1). The case when the defective spot hits one time in one rotation.
1. Hits the inner raceway.
2. Hits the outer raceway.
2). The case when the defective spot hits twice in one rotation.
1. Hits the inner raceway and the outer raceway.
3). The case when the defective spot does not hit in one rotation.
4). The case when it is mixed between 1), 2) and 3) and is also governed by a
random process that describes how the fault will jump between 1) , 2) and 3).
As observed, implementing such as scheme will be very challenging. The other
approach is to conclude a Ball Fault, when the system is known to not be normal, but the
IR and OR cases cannot be specifically determined. In some sense, the Ball Fault can be
considered as a “combination” of IR and OR faults, and this may be a more practical
approach to dealing with this operating condition.
As mentioned, this thesis uses data from simulating the mathematical model
developed in [1], and although this model was validated against real-time data, the next
92
step would be to use the available real-time data to further validate the proposed fault
detection and diagnosis scheme.
93
Appendix A
Program for Simulation the Bearing Element Fault
All programs in appendix A are the modified version from the programs in [1].
Main Program (main_modified_save_input.m)
This program is a modified version from the main program in [1] to allow
simulating the mixed fault case, recording the state data from state space model, and
recording the eccentricity signal. Here is the example of the program for simulating the
data for OR-Normal case. The program can be changed to simulate other cases by calling
“modelpar_able_OR_fault”, “modelpar_able_IR_fault”, and
“modelpar_able_NORMAL_fault” for the case of OR, IR, and Normal case respectively.
For simulating a single fault case (“IR” or “OR” or “Normal”), see the Appendix C of
[1].
clear all
clc
%create required directories
status=mkdir('model_output');
status=mkdir('acceleration');
status=mkdir('parameters');
disp('Clear the \model_output, \acceleration and \parameters

directories')
disp('of unnecessary .mat files before continuing...')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
for k=1:200; %Length of Data 1 = 1e-6 Sec
tic
%set time span and time step
subTSPAN=(k-1)*2e-3:0.0000001:k*2e-3;
TSPAN=[subTSPAN];
%set initial conditions
if k <= 100;
modelpar_able_OR_fault %Call OR parameters
if k == 1;
94
%%%%%%% OR %%%%%%%%%
k %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
defect_size_OR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
defect_depth_OR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
theta_OR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
%%%%%%% IR %%%%%%%%
defect_size_IR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
defect_depth_IR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
t_defect_interval %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
t_IR_defect %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
theta_IR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%set initial conditions
Y0(1:58)=0;
Y0(2)=-3.05e-6;
Y0(23)=-3.75e-6;
Y0(5:13)=r1+rho_r1-0.5*radial_interference_i;
Y0(14:21)=r2+rho_r2-0.5*radial_interference_o;
%%%%%%%%%%%SolveODE%%%%%%
[T,Y]=ode23('model_OR',TSPAN,Y0);
S=int2str(k);
s=strcat('c:\b_calc\model_output\',S);
save(s,'T','Y')
else
%%%%%%% OR %%%%%%%%%
k %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
defect_size_OR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
defect_depth_OR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
theta_OR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
%%%%%%% IR %%%%%%%%
defect_size_IR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
defect_depth_IR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
t_defect_interval %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
t_IR_defect %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
theta_IR %Showing the Parameter on the Command Window
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
S=int2str(k-1);
load(s)
SZ=size(Y);
Y0=Y(SZ(1),:);
clear T Y
%%%%%%%%%%%SolveODE%%%%%%
[T,Y]=ode23('model_OR',TSPAN,Y0);
S=int2str(k);
save(s,'T','Y')
end
else
modelpar_able_NORMAL_fault %Call NORMAL Case parameters
if k == 101;
%%%%%%% OR %%%%%%%%%
k
defect_size_OR
defect_depth_OR
theta_OR
%%%%%%% IR %%%%%%%%
95
defect_size_IR
defect_depth_IR
t_defect_interval
t_IR_defect
theta_IR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
s_OR = 'c:\b_calc\model_output';
load(s_OR)
[m_Y0,n_Y0] = size(Y);
Y0(1:58)=0;
Y0=Y(m_Y0,:);
clear T Y
%%%%%%%%%%%SolveODE%%%%%%
[T,Y]=ode23('model_NORMAL',TSPAN,Y0);
S=int2str(k);
save(s,'T','Y')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
else
%%%%%%% OR %%%%%%%%%
k
defect_size_OR
defect_depth_OR
theta_OR
%%%%%%% IR %%%%%%%%
defect_size_IR
defect_depth_IR
t_defect_interval
t_IR_defect
theta_IR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
S=int2str(k-1);
load(s)
SZ=size(Y);
Y0=Y(SZ(1),:);
clear T Y
%%%%%%%%%%%SolveODE%%%%%%
[T,Y]=ode23('model_NORMAL',TSPAN,Y0);
S=int2str(k);
save(s,'T','Y')
end
end
toc
end
clear all
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Z=dir('c:\b_calc\model_output\*.mat');
numfiles=length(Z);
err=['there are .mat files in the current directory other than numbered
data files, clear these files from the directory and try again'];
% Calculate The Acceleration Output "Y", the State Matrix "X" and Save
the Eccentricity Input by using the model
for i=1:numfiles;
A=int2str(i);
a=strcat('c:\b_calc\model_output\',A);
96
eval('load(a)','error(err)')
for j=1:length(T)
[XDOT(:,j),e_mu_1(j),t1_1(j)]=model(T(j),transpose(Y(j,:))); %
Calculate the States "X" matrix
end
accel=XDOT(33,:); %Acceleration is in the 33th row
accel=transpose(accel);
name1=strcat('c:\b_calc\acceleration\',A,'accel'); %Save
Acceleration
save(name1,'T','accel');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if mod(i,2)==0;
e_mu=transpose(e_mu_1);
t1=transpose(t1_1);
else
e_mu=transpose(e_mu_1);
t1=transpose(t1_1);
end
name2=strcat('c:\b_calc\input_e_mu\',A,'e_mu'); %Save Input
save(name2,'t1','e_mu');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
end
clear all
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Concatenate the Acceleration Data
Z=dir('c:\b_calc\acceleration\*.mat');
numfiles=length(Z);
for i=1:numfiles;
A=int2str(i);
a=strcat('c:\b_calc\acceleration\',A,'accel');
eval('load(a)' ,'error(err)')
if i == 1;
TT=T;
AA=accel;
else
L=length(T);
TT=cat(1,TT,T(2:L));
AA=cat(1,AA,accel(2:L));
end
end
% Concatenate the Eccentricity Data
Z_emu=dir('c:\b_calc\input_e_mu\*.mat');
numfiles_emu=length(Z_emu);
for i_emu=1:numfiles_emu;
A_emu=int2str(i_emu);
a_emu=strcat('c:\b_calc\input_e_mu\',A_emu,'e_mu');
eval('load(a_emu)' ,'error(err)')
if i_emu == 1;
TT_emu=t1;
AA_emu=e_mu;
else
L_emu=length(t1);
97
TT_emu=cat(1,TT_emu,t1(2:L_emu));
AA_emu=cat(1,AA_emu,e_mu(2:L_emu));
end
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% interpolate data sets %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Tfinal=max(TT);
%interpolate data sets in order to obtain constant time step data
T1=0:1/10000000:Tfinal; %T1=0:1/100000000:Tfinal;
A1=interp1(TT,AA,T1);
A2=A1(2:length(A1));%truncate it so it has an even number of elements
% decimate data to 12000 ks/sec
T2=0:1/1000000:Tfinal; %T2=0:1/10000000:Tfinal;
T=T2(2:length(T2));
A3=decimate(A2,5);
A=decimate(A3,2);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Tfinal_emu=max(TT_emu);
%interpolate data sets in order to oblain constant time step data
T1_emu=0:1/10000000:Tfinal_emu;
A1_emu=interp1(TT_emu,AA_emu,T1_emu);
A2_emu=A1_emu(2:length(A1_emu));%truncate it so it has an even number
of elements
% decimate data to 12000 ks/sec
T2_emu=0:1/1000000:Tfinal_emu;
T_emu=T2_emu(2:length(T2_emu));
A3_emu=decimate(A2_emu,5);
A_emu=decimate(A3_emu,2);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
save c:\b_calc\acceleration\output T A %Save the Result
save c:\b_calc\input_e_mu\input T_emu A_emu
modelpar_able_NORMAL_fault
save c:\b_calc\parameters\parameters
clear all
98
The Program for Parameters (modelpar.m)
This program is from the Appendix C of [1].This program can be called by other
programs as “modelpar_able_OR_fault”, “modelpar_able_IR_fault”, and
modelpar_able_NORMAL_fault when this program is configured for OR fault, IR fault,
and Normal cases respectively.
%This program sets all the parameters for the motor/bearing system.
%The motor modeled is a Reliance Electric 2hp, 3 phase induction motor.
%Note: Mass matrix parameters, all masses are in lbm; 1 lb=386.4
lbm*in/sec^2
%-----------------------------------
%ROLLING ELEMENT PARAMETERS
%mass of drive end and fan end bearing rolling elements
mi=4.4784e-3/386.4; %drive end
mo=2.7469e-3/386.4; %fan end
cv=.4; %viscous damping between balls and bearing raceways
%set initial angular position of rolling elements, in radians
ni=9; %number of balls, inboard bearing
no=8; %number of balls, outboard bearing
%drive end angular bearing element positions
theta_ball(1)=0.2998;
for i=2:9;
theta_ball(i)=theta_ball(i-1)+2*pi/9;
end
%fan end angular bearing element positions
theta_ball(10)=0;
for i=11:17;
theta_ball(i)=theta_ball(i-1)+2*pi/8;
end
k1i=23.2903e6; %Hertzian stiffnesses
k2i=24.5254e6;
k1o=21.2248e6;
k2o=22.6897e6;
%Calculate ball precession rate and bearing geometry
N=1800; %shaft RPM
rho_r1 =0.3126/2; %inboard bearing ball diameter
rho_r2=0.2656/2; %outboard bearing ball diameter
odfri=3.5848; %outer ring defect frequency ratio, inboard bearing
odfro=3.0530; %outer ring defect frequency ratio, outboard bearing
r1=2*odfri*rho_r1/(ni-2*odfri); %inner raceway diameter, inboard
bearing
r2=2*odfro*rho_r2/(no-2*odfro); %inner raceway diameter, outboard
bearing
R1=r1+2*rho_r1; %outer raceway diameters
R2=r2+2*rho_r2;
radial_interference_i=0.00068022;
radial_interference_o=0.00049656;
99
R1 =R1-radial_interference_i;
R2 =R2-radial_interference_o;
thetadot_i=pi*N*r1/(60*(r1+rho_r1));
thetadot_o=pi*N*r2/(60*(r2+rho_r2));
%SHAFT AND DISK PARAMETERS
%mass, transverse inertia, and polar inertia of the shaft and disk
ms=3/386.4; %mass of shaft
md=6/386.4; %mass of disk
mu=5e-4/386.4; %disk unbalance mass
e_mu=1; %unbalance eccentricity
phi_mu=0; %unbalance phase
E=30e6; %Modulus of shaft
or_disk=1.8125; %geometry of the disk
ir_disk=0.4935;
l_disk=5;
l_shaft=8;
L=l_shaft/2;
I=pi*(ir_disk^4)/4;
p_disk=md/(pi*(or_disk^2-ir_disk^2)*l_disk); %density of disk
V1 =pi*or_disk^2*l_disk;
V2 =pi*ir_disk^2*l_disk;
%calculated transverse inertia of the disk
Itd=p_disk*(V1*(3*or_disk^2+l_disk^2)-V2*(3*ir_disk^2+l_disk^2))/12;
Ip=0.5*md*(or_disk^2-ir_disk^2); %calculated polar inertia of the disk
omega_d=N*pi/30;
rotormass=ms+md;
rotorstiffness=6*E*I/L^3;
rotorzeta=0.035;
crotor=2*rotorzeta*rotormass*sqrt(rotorstiffness/rotormass);
%HOUSING PARAMETERS
%mass and transverse inertia of the housing
mh=48/386.4; %mass of the housing
or_housing=3.5; %geometry of the housing
ir_housing=2;
l_housing=8;
V3=pi*or_housing^2*l_housing;
V4=pi*ir_housing^2*l_housing;
p_housing=mh/(V3-V4); %density of the housing
Ith=p_housing*(V3*(3*or_housing^2+l_housing^2)-
V4*(3*ir_housing^2+l_housing^2))/12;
%stiffness and damping
zeta_h=0.027; %damping ratio
wn_housing=21916;%natura1 frequency in rad/sec
kh=(mh)*wn_housing^2; %stiffness in Ibf/in
ch=2*zeta_h*(mh)*wn_housing; %damping in lbf*sec/in
%Defect parameters Outer Raceway:
defect_size_OR=0.007;
defect_depth_OR=0.002;
theta_OR=2*asin(defect_size_OR/(2*R1)); %angular size of defect
%Defect parameters Inner Raceway:
defect_size_IR=0.000;
defect_depth_IR=0.000;
start_time=0.001; %set the start time of the defects
starting_element=1 ;
%frequency of inner defect occurrences
omega_i=5.4152*(pi/30)*N;
%angular size of defect
100
theta_IR=2*asin(defect_size_IR/(2*r1));
%the time duration of a single defect occurrence
t_IR_defect=theta_IR/(omega_d-thetadot_i);
%time between the start of consecutive detect occurrences
t_defect_interval=2*pi/omega_i;
101
Program for the System Model (model.m)
This program is a modified version of the program in Appendix C of [1] to collect
the state data of the state-space model and recording the eccentricity signal. The line
“Modelpar” is used for calling the model parameters and it can be changed to be
“modelpar_able_IR_fault”, “modelpar_able_OR_fault”, and
“modelpar_able_NORMAL_fault” when we simulate the IR, OR, and Normal cases
respectively.
function [xdot,e_mu,t1]=model_a(t,x)
%Assign values to model parameters
Modelpar %this can be changed to be “modelpar_able_IR_fault
”, “modelpar_able_OR_fault”, and “modelpar_able_NORMAL_fault
” when we simulate the IR, OR, and Normal case respectively.
%Construct Mass matrix, M
M(1:29,1:29)=0;
M(1,1)=9*mi+ms/2;
M(2,2)=M(1,1);
for i=5:13;
M(1,i)=mi*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
M(i,1)=M(1,i);
M(2,i)=mi*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
M(i,2)=M(2,i);
M(i,i)=mi;
end
M(3,3)=mh/2+Ith/(2*L);
M(4,4)=M(3,3);
M(3,24)=mh/2-Ith/(2*L);
M(4,25)=M(3,24);
M(24,3)=M(3,24);
M(25,4)=M(3,24);
for i=14:21;
M(22,i)=mo*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
M(i,22)=M(1,i);
M(23,i)=mo*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
M(i,23)=M(2,i);
M(i,i)=mo;
end
M(22,22)=9*mo+ms/2;
M(23,23)=M(22,22);
M(24,24)=mh/2+Ith/(2*L);
M(25,25)=M(24,24);
M(26,26)=md;
M(27,27)=md;
M(28,28)=Itd;
M(29,29)=Itd;
102
%Construct Damping matix, C
cv=.4;
C(1:29,1:29)=0;
C(1,1)=9*cv;
C(2,2)=9*cv;
C(3,3)=9*cv+ch;
C(4,4)=9*cv+ch;
C(1,3)=-9*cv;
C(3,1)=-9*cv;
C(2,4)=-9*cv;
C(4,2)=-9*cv;
for i=5:13;
C(i,i)=2*cv;
C(1,i)=cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t)-
2*mi*thetadot_i*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(2,i)=cv*sin(theta_ball(i-
4)+thetadot_i*t)+2*mi*thetadot_i*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(i,1)=cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t)-
mi*thetadot_i*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(i,2)=cv*sin(theta_ball(i-
4)+thetadot_i*t)+mi*thetadot_i*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(3,i)=-cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(4,i)=-cv*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(i,3)=C(3,i);%-cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
C(i,4)=C(4,i);%-cv*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
end
for i=14:21;
C(i,i)=2*cv;
C(22,i)=cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t)-
2*mo*thetadot_o*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
C(23,i)=cv*sin(theta_ball(i-
4)+thetadot_o*t)+2*mo*thetadot_o*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
C(24,i)=-cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
C(25,i)=-cv*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
C(i,22)=cv*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t)-
mo*thetadot_o*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
C(i,23)=cv*sin(theta_ball(i-
4)+thetadot_o*t)+mo*thetadot_o*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
C(i,24)=C(24,i);
C(i,25)=C(25,i);
end
C(22,22)=8*cv;
C(23,23)=8*cv;
C(24,24)=8*cv+ch;
C(25,25)=8*cv+ch;
C(22,24)=-8*cv;
C(24,22)=-8*cv;
C(23,25)=-8*cv;
C(25,23)=-8*cv;
C(28,29)=Ip*omega_d;
C(29,28)=-Ip*omega_d;
C(26,26)=crotor;
C(27,27)=crotor;
%Construct Stiffness matrix, K
K(1:29,1:29)=0;
K(1,1)=3*E*I/(L^3);
K(2,2)=K(1,1);
103
K(3,3)=kh;
K(4,4)=kh;
for i=5:13;
K(i,i)=-mi*thetadot_i^2;
K(1,i)=-mi*thetadot_i^2*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
K(2,i)=-mi*thetadot_i^2*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_i*t);
end
for i=14:21;
K(i,i)=-mo*thetadot_o^2;
K(22,i)=-mo*thetadot_o^2*cos(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
K(23,i)=-mo*thetadot_o^2*sin(theta_ball(i-4)+thetadot_o*t);
end
K(26,1)=-K(1,1);
K(27,2)=-K(1,1);
K(28,2)=-K(1,1)*L;
K(29,1)=K(1,1)*L;
K(1,26)=K(26,1);
K(2,27)=K(27,2);
K(2,28)=K(28,2);
K(1,29)=K(29,1);
K(22,22)=K(1,1);
K(23,23)=K(1,1);
K(24,24)=kh;
K(25,25)=kh;
K(26,26)=2*K(1,1);
K(27,27)=2*K(1,1);
K(28,28)=2*K(1,1)*L^2;
K(29,29)=K(28,28);
K(22,26)=-K(1,1);
K(26,22)=K(22,26);
K(23,27)=-K(1,1);
K(27,23)=K(23,27);
K(23,28)=K(1,1)*L;
K(28,23)=K(23,28);
K(22,29)=-K(1,1)*L;
K(29,22)=K(22,29);
%Construct Nonlinear Terms and Forced Inputs vector, F
F(1:29)=0;
F=transpose(F);
% set outer race defect
% defect located at 6 o'clock (bottom ofraceway, path of greatest
static load)
RR1(1:9)=R1; %reset all radii to nonnal condition
for i=1:9;
if cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t) >= cos(3*pi/2-theta_OR/2);
if cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t) <= cos(3*pi/2+theta_OR/2);
if sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t) < 0;
RR1(i)=R1+defect_depth_OR;
end
end
end
end
% set inner race defect
rr1(1:9)=r1; %reset all radii to the normal condition
BB=(t-start_time)/t_defect_interval+starting_element;
if BB >= 1;
if (BB-floor(BB)) <= t_IR_defect/t_defect_interval;
104
current_element=round(9*((BB-1)/9-floor((BB-1)/9)))+1;
rr1(current_element)=r1-defect_depth_IR;
end
end
% calculate nonlinear forces and forcing functions
for i=1:9;
X(i)=((x(1)-x(3)+x(i+4)*cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t))^2+(x(2)-
x(4)+x(i+4)*sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t))^2)^0.5;
if X(i) > (RR1(i)-rho_r1);
F(1)=F(1)+k2i*((X(i)-RR1(i)+rho_r1)^(1.5))*(x(1)-
x(3)+x(i+4)*cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t))/X(i);
F(2)=F(2)+k2i*((X(i)-RR1(i)+rho_r1)^(1.5))*(x(2)-
x(4)+x(i+4)*sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t))/X(i);
F(3)=-F(1);
F(4)=-F(2);
F(i+4)=F(i+4)+k2i*((X(i)-
RR1(i)+rho_r1)^(1.5))*(cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t)*(x(1)-
x(3)+x(i+4)*cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t))+sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot
_i*t)*(x(2)-x(4)+x(i+4)*sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_i*t)))/X(i);
end
if x(i+4) < (rr1(i)+rho_r1);
F(i+4)=F(i+4)-k1i*((rr1(i)+rho_r1-x(i+4))^(1.5));
end
end
for i=10:17;
X(i)=((x(22)-x(24)+x(i+4)*cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t))^2+(x(23)-
x(25)+x(i+4)*sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t))^2)^0.5;
if X(i) > (R2-rho_r2);
F(22)=F(22)+k2o*((X(i)-R2+rho_r2)^(1.5))*(x(22)-
x(24)+x(i+4)*cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t))/X(i);
F(23)=F(23)+k2o*((X(i)-R2+rho_r2)^(1.5))*(x(23)-
x(25)+x(i+4)*sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t))/X(i);
F(24)=-F(22);
F(25)=-F(23);
F(i+4)=F(i+4)+k2o*((X(i)-
R2+rho_r2)^(1.5))*(cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t)*(x(22)-
x(24)+x(i+4)*cos(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t))+sin(theta_ball(i)+thetado
t_o*t)*(x(23)-x(25)+x(i+4)*sin(theta_ball(i)+thetadot_o*t)))/X(i);
end
if x(i+4) < (r2+rho_r2);
F(i+4)=F(i+4)-k1o*((r2+rho_r2-x(i+4))^(1.5));
end
end
e_mu=1;
phi_mu=0; %unbalance phase
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
mu=5e-4/386.4; %disk unbalance mass
F(26)=-mu*e_mu*(omega_d^2)*cos(omega_d*t+phi_mu);
F(27)=-mu*e_mu*(omega_d^2)*sin(omega_d*t+phi_mu);
F(2)=F(2)+0.5*(ms+md)*386.4;
F(23)=F(23)+0.5*(ms+md)*386.4;
F(4)=F(4)-0.5*(ms+md)*386.4;
F(25)=F(25)-0.5*(ms+md)*386.4;
%Assemble state space model from M, C, K, and F
A(1:58,1:58)=0;
B(1:58)=0;
B=transpose(B);
105
for i=1:29;
A(i,i+29)=1;
end
MI=inv(M);
A(30:58,1:29)=-MI*K;
A(30:58,30:58)=-MI*C;
B(30:58)=-MI*F;
%Define differential equation
xdot=A*x+B;
e_mu=F(27);
t1=t;
106
Appendix B
Program for Finding Average Inner Race (IR) Fault
(Find_avg_Model_IR_case.m)
clc
clear
load output
load input
initial=8000; %the initial data point i.e. start at 0.008 sec
WINDOW_SIZE = 6155; % the IR period (1/IR frequency), 6155 data point

is equal to 0.0062 sec.
n_dummy = length(A)/WINDOW_SIZE ;
n_sub = 38; % number of element
n = floor(n_dummy/n_sub);% calculate the total loop to run
for j = 1:n;
counterj = int2str(j); % counter
for i = 1:n_sub;
counter = int2str(i); % counter
U=(i-1)*WINDOW_SIZE + (initial+1) :i*WINDOW_SIZE +initial ;
str_dummy = strcat('A_IR_section',counter,'_loop_',counterj,'=
A(U);');
eval(str_dummy)
str_dummy = strcat('T_IR_section',counter,'_loop_',counterj,'=
T(U);');
eval(str_dummy)
str_dummy =
strcat('A_emu_IR_section',counter,'_loop_',counterj,'= A_emu(U);');
eval(str_dummy)
s=strcat('c:\Observer\AVG_MODEL\AVG_MODEL_IR_CASE\A_IR_section',counter
,'_loop_',counterj);
s1=strcat('A_IR_section',counter,'_loop_',counterj);
save(s,s1)
107
s=strcat('c:\Observer\AVG_MODEL\AVG_MODEL_IR_CASE\T_IR_section',counter
,'_loop_',counterj);
s1=strcat('T_IR_section',counter,'_loop_',counterj);
save(s,s1)
s=strcat('c:\Observer\AVG_MODEL\AVG_MODEL_IR_CASE\A_emu_IR_section',cou
nter,'_loop_',counterj);
s1=strcat('A_emu_IR_section',counter,'_loop_',counterj);
save(s,s1)
end
initial = i*WINDOW_SIZE+initial; % update initial
end
t1=T(1:WINDOW_SIZE); % Without loss of generality, let t1 to be the 0 -

0.0062 seconds
for k = 1:n;
counterk = int2str(k); % counter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% OUTPUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
str_dummy1 = strcat('t1,A_IR_section1_loop_',counterk);
str_dummy2 = str_dummy1;
for j = 2:n_sub;
str_dummy2 =
strcat(str_dummy2,',t1,A_IR_section',counterj,'_loop_',counterk);
end
str_dummy3 = strcat('plot(');
str_dummy4 = strcat(str_dummy3,str_dummy2,')');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INPUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

str_dummy1 = strcat('t1,A_emu_IR_section1_loop_',counterk);
for j = 2:n_sub;
str_dummy2 =
strcat(str_dummy2,',t1,A_emu_IR_section',counterj,'_loop_',counterk);
end
end
for k = 1:n;
counterk = int2str(k); % counter
108
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% OUTPUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
str_dummy1 = strcat('A_Avg_loop_',counterk,' = ((');
str_dummy2 = strcat('A_IR_section1_loop_',counterk);
for j = 2:n_sub;
str_dummy2 = strcat(str_dummy2,'+
A_IR_section',counterj,'_loop_',counterk);
end
str_dummy3 = strcat(')./n_sub);');
str_dummy4 = strcat(str_dummy1,str_dummy2,str_dummy3);
eval(str_dummy4)
s=strcat('c:\Observer\AVG_MODEL\AVG_MODEL_IR_CASE\A_Avg_loop_',counterk
);
s1=strcat('A_Avg_loop_',counterk);
save(s,s1)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INPUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
str_dummy1 = strcat('A_emu_Avg_loop_',counterk,' = ((');
str_dummy2 = strcat('A_emu_IR_section1_loop_',counterk);
for j = 2:n_sub;
str_dummy2 = strcat(str_dummy2,'+
A_emu_IR_section',counterj,'_loop_',counterk);
end
str_dummy3 = strcat(')./n_sub);');
str_dummy4 = strcat(str_dummy1,str_dummy2,str_dummy3);
eval(str_dummy4)
s=strcat('c:\Observer\AVG_MODEL\AVG_MODEL_IR_CASE\A_emu_Avg_loop_',coun
terk);
s1=strcat('A_emu_Avg_loop_',counterk);
save(s,s1)
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% OUTPUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
str_dummy1 = strcat('t1,A_Avg_loop_1');
for j = 2:n;
str_dummy2 = strcat(str_dummy2,',t1,A_Avg_loop_',counterj);
end
109
figure
eval(str_dummy4)
title('Compare Average Signal')
figure
plot(t1,A_Avg_loop_1)
title('Average Signal')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INPUT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
str_dummy1 = strcat('t1,A_emu_Avg_loop_1');
for j = 2:n;
str_dummy2 = strcat(str_dummy2,',t1,A_emu_Avg_loop_',counterj);
end
figure
eval(str_dummy4)
title('Compare Average Input Signal')
110
Appendix C
Program for Performing System Identification
(SystemIdent_for_IR.m)
This program is an example for performing system identification for an IR case. For OR
and Normal cases, one can change the parameter, file name and the input data for each case.
clc
clear
delete High_fit_data_IR.txt % clear the txt.file data
load A_Avg_loop_1 % Average IR data from the program for finding
average Inner Race (IR) fault
load T_IR_section1_loop_1 % Average time domain from the program for
finding average Inner Race (IR) fault
load A_emu_Avg_loop_1 % Average input from the program for finding
average Inner Race (IR) fault
A1 = A_Avg_loop_1;
T1 = T_IR_section1_loop_1 ;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Creat An Impluse for an input %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
dummy_input =zeros(1,length(A1));
dummy_input(1)=1000;
A2 = dummy_input ;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
y=A1';
Ts=0.0000001; % sampling time
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Filtering IR data %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
subplot(2,1,1); % first of two plots
plot(T1,y); grid on % plot with grid
xlabel('Time (s)'); % time expressed in seconds
ylabel('Acceleration Amplitude (m/s^2)'); % amplitude as function of
time
eY = fft(y); % Fourier transform of noisy signal
n = size(y,2)/2; % use size for scaling
amp_spec = abs(eY)/n; % compute amplitude spectrum
subplot(2,1,2); % second of two plots
freq = (0:size(amp_spec)-1)/(2*n*Ts); % abscissa viewing window
freq=freq';
plot(freq,amp_spec(1:size(amp_spec))); grid on % plot amplitude
spectrum
xlabel('Frequency (Hz)'); % 1 Herz = number of cycles/second
ylabel('Amplitude'); % amplitude as function of frequency
fY = fix(eY/1.5e+3)*(1.5e+3); % adjust the filter parameter
ifY = ifft(fY); % inverse Fourier transform of fixed data
cy = real(ifY); % remove imaginary parts
figure
plot(T1,cy); grid on % plot corrected signal
hold on
plot(T1,A1,'r');
111
ylabel('Amplitude'); % amplitude as function of time
figure
subplot(2,1,1);
plot(T1,cy); grid on
subplot(2,1,2);
plot(T1,A1,'r');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
u=transpose(A2);
data=iddata(y,u,Ts); % for average case
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
AA1 = [0, 0 , 0 , 0]; % set initial value for the dummy matrix to
record
for j=1:20;
Aj=int2str(j);
for i=1:20;
Ai=int2str(i);
for k=1:10;
Ak=int2str(k);
model=nlhw(data,[j i k],pwlinear('NumberOfUnits',15),
pwlinear('NumberOfUnits',15)); % Hammerstein – Wiener with 15 breaking
points piecewise linear function
[y,fit,x0] = compare(data,model);
fit % show fit percentage
if fit > 80 % record just a case that has fit percentage
over 80 percent
p=strcat('j=',Aj,' i=',Ai,' k=',Ak);
plot(model)
figure
compare(data,model)
eval('title(p)')
A1 = [j , i , k , fit];
AA1=[AA1;A1];
fid = fopen('High_fit_data_IR.txt','a');
fprintf(fid, ' j = %f i = %f k = %f fit = %f \n',
A1);
fclose(fid);
end
j % show the index j
i % show the index i
k % show the index k
end
end
end
112
Appendix D
Program for Reduced System Simulation and Determining the Cross-Correlation
(IR_OR_OBSERVER.m)
clc
clear
load output
load input
A_data = A;
T_data = T;
WINDOW_SIZE = length(A_data); % use A_OR since it is the shortest data
n_window = floor(length(A_data)/WINDOW_SIZE); %select the size of the
data to perform simulation
for n=1:n_window;
U1=(n-1)*WINDOW_SIZE +1 :n*WINDOW_SIZE; %the moving window
%%%%%%%%%%%%% Truncate Time and Output into the Moving Widow Size %%%%%
A1=A_data(U1);
T1=T_data(U1);
%%%%%%%%%%% Construct Impulse Train Input for OR CASE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
loop_NUM_OR = (length(T1)-1000)/9300; %8000 is the first data point
when raw data is IR (initial) 2924 when raw data is OR, 9300 is the OR
period
loop_NUM_OR = floor(loop_NUM_OR); %Determine the number of loop
A2_OR = zeros(1, length(T1)); %Initial zero vector
for m = 1:loop_NUM_OR; % For loop for construct impulse train
T1_dummy = T1-(0.000998 + 0.0093*(m-1)); % Use initial 0.002922 for

OR case //0.007998 for IR case
T2_dummy = T1-(0.001000 + 0.0093*(m-1)); % Use initial 0.002924
for OR case //0.008000 for IR case
A2_dummy =(5e5)*heaviside(T1_dummy)-(5e4)*heaviside(T2_dummy);
A2_OR = A2_OR+A2_dummy;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
OR_boundary = 0.001000 + 0.0093*(loop_NUM_OR-1); % The candidate length
of data from OR//Use initial 2924 for OR case //8000 for IR case
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Truncate Input %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
u_OR=transpose(A2_OR);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Construct Impulse Train Input for IR CASE %%%%%%%%%%%%%
loop_NUM_IR = (length(T1)-8000)/6155; %%8000 is the first data point
when raw data is IR (initial) 2924 when raw data is OR,, 6155 is the IR
period
loop_NUM_IR = floor(loop_NUM_IR); %Determine the number of loop
A2_IR = zeros(1, length(T1)); %Initial zero vector
for m = 1:loop_NUM_IR;
T1_dummy = T1-(0.000998 + 0.006155*(m-1)); % Use initial 0.002922

T2_dummy = T1-(0.001000 + 0.006155*(m-1));% Use initial 0.002924
113
A2_dummy = (5e5)*heaviside(T1_dummy)-(5e4)*heaviside(T2_dummy);
A2_IR = A2_IR+A2_dummy;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
IR_boundary = 0.001000+0.006155*(loop_NUM_IR-1); % The candidate length
of data from IR //Use initial 2924 for OR case //8000 for IR case
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
u_IR=transpose(A2_IR);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Calculate Data Length %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
boundary = min(IR_boundary,OR_boundary); %Select the shortest data
length
boundary=boundary*1e6;
U2 = 1:boundary;%The shortest length of data we use throughout the
program.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Load Break Points %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% IR Case %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Load Breaking Points for The Monotonic IR Linear Function

load Xu_breakPoint_IR_AVG;%Breaking points for input IR nonlinearity in
x coordinate
load Yu_breakPoint_IR_AVG;%Breaking points for input IR nonlinearity in
y coordinate
load Xy_breakPoint_IR_AVG;%Breaking points for output IR nonlinearity
in x coordinate
load Yy_breakPoint_IR_AVG;%Breaking points for output IR nonlinearity
in y coordinate
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Input Nonlinearity IR Case
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
xu_IR = Xu_breakPoint_IR_AVG; %Breaking points for input IR
nonlinearity in x coordinate
xu_IR=xu_IR' ;
yu_IR = Yu_breakPoint_IR_AVG; %Breaking points for input IR

nonlinearity in y coordinate
yu_IR=yu_IR' ;
figure
plot(xu_IR,yu_IR,'o',xu_IR,yu_IR,'-');
title('Breaking Points for Input Nonlinearity IR Model')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Output IR Nonlinearity %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
xy_IR = Xy_breakPoint_IR_AVG; %Breaking point for output IR
xy_IR=xy_IR' ;
yy_IR = Yy_breakPoint_IR_AVG; %Breaking point for output IR

yy_IR=yy_IR' ;
figure
plot(xy_IR,yy_IR,'o',xy_IR,yy_IR,'-');
title('Breaking Points for Output Nonlinearity IR Model')
%The Inverse of the Output of the Output Nonlinearity Function for IR
Case (vy_IR)
114
u3 = A1';%The Output of the Output Nonlinearity Function
vy_IR = Inverse_for_piecelin(xy_IR,yy_IR,u3);%The Inverse of the Output
of the Output Nonlinearity Function
figure
plot(xy_IR,yy_IR,'o',xy_IR,yy_IR,'-',vy_IR,A1','-r')
title('Verify Inverse of the Output of the Output Nonlinearity Function
for IR Case (vy)')
%The Mapping of the Output of the Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener
Model for IR Case (v_IR)
u3 = u_IR;%The Output of the Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener
Model
v_IR = piecelin(xu_IR,yu_IR,u3);%The Mapping of the Output of the
Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener Model
figure
plot(xu_IR,yu_IR,'o',xu_IR,yu_IR,'-',u3,v_IR,'-r')
title('Verify Mapping of the Output of the Linear Part of the
Hammerstein-Wiener Model for IR Case (v)')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% OR Case %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Load Breaking Points for The Monotonic OR Linear Function
load Xu_breakPoint_OR_Part1;%Breaking points for input OR nonlinearity
in x coordinate
load Yu_breakPoint_OR_Part1;%Breaking points for input OR nonlinearity
in y coordinate
load Xy_breakPoint_OR_Part1;%Breaking points for output OR nonlinearity
in x coordinate
load Yy_breakPoint_OR_Part1;%Breaking points for output OR nonlinearity
in y coordinate
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Input nonlinearity OR case %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
xu_OR = Xu_breakPoint_OR_Part1; %Breaking points for input OR
xu_OR=xu_OR' ;
yu_OR = Yu_breakPoint_OR_Part1; %Breaking points for input OR

yu_OR=yu_OR' ;
figure
plot(xu_OR,yu_OR,'o',xu_OR,yu_OR,'-');
title('Breaking Points for input nonlinearity OR Model')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Output nonlinearity OR case %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
xy_OR = Xy_breakPoint_OR_Part1; %Breaking points for output OR
xy_OR=xy_OR' ;
yy_OR = Yy_breakPoint_OR_Part1; %Breaking points for output OR

yy_OR=yy_OR' ;
figure
plot(xy_OR,yy_OR,'o',xy_OR,yy_OR,'-');
title('Breaking Points for output nonlinearity OR Model')
%The Inverse of the Output of the Output Nonlinearity Function for OR
Case (vy_OR)
u3 = A1';%The Output of the Output Nonlinearity Function
115
vy_OR = Inverse_for_piecelin(xy_OR,yy_OR,u3); %%The Inverse of the
Output of the Output Nonlinearity Function
%The Mapping of the Output of the Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener
Model for OR Case (v_OR)
u3 = u_OR;%The Output of the Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener
Model
v_OR = piecelin(xu_OR,yu_OR,u3);%The Mapping of the Output of the
Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener Model
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Transfer Function for IR Observer Model %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
load linModel_IR_AVG_use_nlwh %Load the IR Average Model
Mss_IR=idss(linModel_IR_AVG_use_nlwh);%Transform the IR model into
State-Space Form
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Determine State Space for IR System %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A_Mss_IR=Mss_IR.a; %"A" Matrix in State-Space Model
B_Mss_IR=Mss_IR.b; %"B" Matrix in State-Space Model
C_Mss_IR=Mss_IR.c; %"C" Matrix in State-Space Model
D_Mss_IR=Mss_IR.d; %"D" Matrix in State-Space Model
sys10 = ss(A_Mss_IR,B_Mss_IR,C_Mss_IR,D_Mss_IR);%IR State-Space Model
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Initial Condition %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
length_A_Mss_IR = length(A_Mss_IR);
ZERO_dummy = zeros(length_A_Mss_IR);
x0 = ZERO_dummy(:,1); %Zeros vector for Initial Condition "x0"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Controlability and Observability %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
rank(ctrb(sys10)) %IR Controlability
rank(obsv(sys10)) %OR Observability
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Pole Placement %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
P_dummy = [-0.0100;-0.0125;-0.020;-0.025;-0.030;-0.035;-0.040;-0.045;-
0.050;-0.055
;-0.060;-0.065;-0.070;-0.075;-0.080;-0.085;-0.090;-0.095;-0.010;-
0.0125;-0.15;-0.20
;-0.25;-0.30;-0.35;-0.40;-0.45;-0.50;-0.55;-0.60;-0.65;-0.70;-0.75;-
0.80;-0.85;-0.89
;-0.95;-0.98;-1.00;-1.05;-1.15;-1.20;-1.25;-1.30;-1.35;-1.40;-1.45;-
1.50;-1.55;-1.60
;-1.65;-1.70;-1.75;-1.80;-1.85;-1.90;-1.95;-2.00;-2.10;-2.15;-2.20;-
2.25;-2.30;-2.35
;-2.40;-2.45;-2.50;-2.55;-2.75;-2.95-3.00]; %Arbitary choose pole
pool for pole placement
P = P_dummy(1:length(A_Mss_IR))' ;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% the IR Hammerstein-Wiener Model %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
L_Mss_IR = acker(A_Mss_IR',C_Mss_IR',P)'; %Call Ackerman Function to
Determine Gain "L_Mss_OR" for the Linear Part of HWM Model in OR Case
eig(A_Mss_IR-L_Mss_IR*C_Mss_IR)%Show Eigenvalue of (A-LC) Matrix
%%%%%%%%%%% IR Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener model %%%%%%%%%%%%
x=x0; % initial state=zero vector
xhat=x0; % Initial Value =0
YYhat_IR_IR_inv=0;% Initial Value =0
XXhat_IR=xhat;% Initial Value =0
UU=v_IR;%Input of IR Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener model
for k=2:length(T1);
u2=UU(k);
y1=vy_IR(k);
yhat=C_Mss_IR*xhat+D_Mss_IR*u2;%y = Cx+Du
xhat=A_Mss_IR*xhat+B_Mss_IR*u2+L_Mss_IR*(y1-yhat);%x_dot =
Ax+Bu
YYhat_IR_IR_inv=[YYhat_IR_IR_inv,yhat];%Store Output of the
Linear Part of HMW Model (y) in the Array
116
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
figure
plot(T1,YYhat_IR_IR_inv,T1,vy_IR)
title ('The IR Linear Observer Output Compared with Original Data
(vy_{IR})')
legend ('The IR Linear Observer Output','Original Data (vy_{IR})')
%Determine the Error between Linear IR Observer Output Compared with
the Original Data
Error_from_IR_Observer_IR_inv = vy_IR' - YYhat_IR_IR_inv;
figure
plot(T1(U2),Error_from_IR_Observer_IR_inv(U2),T1(U2),u_IR(U2))
title ('The Error between the IR Linear Observer Output Compared with
the Original Data')
[xcorr_IR_Observer_IR_inv,lag_IR_Observer_IR_inv] =
xcorr(abs(Error_from_IR_Observer_IR_inv),u_IR); %Calculate the Cross-
Relation for The IR Linear Observer Output and the IR impulse Train
%Mapping the Output of the Linear Part of HMW Model by the Output
Nonlinearity Function (IR Case)
u4 = YYhat_IR_IR_inv';%The Output of the Linear Part of HMW Model
Y_sim_hat_IR_with_IR_inv= piecelin(xy_IR,yy_IR,u4); %Mapping the

Output of the Linear Part of HMW Model by the Output Nonlinearity
Function
s=strcat('c:\Observer\Observer_Result\IR\Y_sim_hat_IR_with_IR_inv');
%Save the result
s1=strcat('Y_sim_hat_IR_with_IR_inv');
save(s,s1)
%Determine the Error between IR Hammerstein-Wiener model Compared with
the Original Data
Error_from_IR_NL_IR_inv = A1(U2)' - Y_sim_hat_IR_with_IR_inv(U2);
figure
plot(T1(U2),Error_from_IR_NL_IR_inv,T(U2),u_IR(U2))
title ('The Error between IR Hammerstein-Wiener Model Compared with the
Original Data')
[xcorr_IR_NL_IR_inv,lag_IR_NL_IR_inv] =
xcorr(abs(Error_from_IR_NL_IR_inv(U2)),u_IR(U2));%Calculate the Cross-
Relation for The IR HMW ModelOutput and the IR impulse Train
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Plot the Result %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
load Y_sim_hat_IR_with_IR_inv
figure
plot(T(U2),A(U2),T(U2),u_IR(U2),T(U2),Y_sim_hat_IR_with_IR_inv(U2)','--
r')
title('The Original Data, the IR Frequency Impulse Train, and the IR
Hammerstein-Wiener Model Output')
legend('The Original Data','the IR Frequency Impulse Train','the IR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% OR Hammerstein-Wiener Model %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Transfer Function for OR Observer Model %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
load linModel_OR_Part1 %Load the OR Model
Mss_OR=idss(linModel_OR_Part1);%Transform the OR model into State-Space
Form
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Determine State Space %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A_Mss_OR=Mss_OR.a;%"A" Matrix in State-Space Model
B_Mss_OR=Mss_OR.b;%"B" Matrix in State-Space Model
C_Mss_OR=Mss_OR.c;%"C" Matrix in State-Space Model
D_Mss_OR=Mss_OR.d;%"D" Matrix in State-Space Model
sys10 = ss(A_Mss_OR,B_Mss_OR,C_Mss_OR,D_Mss_OR);%OR State-Space Model
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Initial Condition %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
length_A_Mss_OR = length(A_Mss_OR);
ZERO_dummy = zeros(length_A_Mss_OR);
x0 = ZERO_dummy(:,1); %Zeros vector for Initial Condition "x0"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Controlability and Observability %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
rank(ctrb(sys10))%IR Controlability
rank(obsv(sys10))%OR Observability
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Pole Placement %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
P = P_dummy(1:length(A_Mss_OR))' ;
L_Mss_OR = acker(A_Mss_OR',C_Mss_OR',P)';%Call Ackerman Function to
Determine Gain "L_Mss_OR" for the Linear Part of HWM Model in OR Case
eig(A_Mss_OR-L_Mss_OR*C_Mss_OR)%Show Eigenvalue of (A-LC) Matrix
%%%%%%%%%%% OR Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener model %%%%%%%%%%%%
x=x0;% initial state=zero vector
xhat=x0;% Initial Value =0
YYhat_OR_OR_inv=0;% Initial Value =0
XXhat_OR=xhat;% Initial Value =0
UU=v_OR;%Input of OR Linear Part of the Hammerstein-Wiener model
for k=2:length(T1);
u2=UU(k);
y1=vy_OR(k);
yhat=C_Mss_OR*xhat+D_Mss_OR*u2;%y = Cx+Du
xhat=A_Mss_OR*xhat+B_Mss_OR*u2+L_Mss_OR*(y1-yhat);%x_dot =
Ax+Bu
YYhat_OR_OR_inv=[YYhat_OR_OR_inv,yhat];%Store Output of the
Linear Part of HMW Model (y) in the Array
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
figure
plot(T1,YYhat_OR_OR_inv,T1,vy_OR)
title ('The OR Linear Observer Output Compared with Original Data
(vy_{OR})')
legend ('The OR Linear Observer Output','Original Data (vy_{OR})')
%Determine the Error between Linear OR Observer Output Compared with
the Original Data
Error_from_OR_Observer_OR_inv = vy_OR' - YYhat_OR_OR_inv;
figure
plot(T1(U2),Error_from_OR_Observer_OR_inv(U2),T1(U2),u_OR(U2))
title ('The Error between the OR Linear Observer Output Compared with
the Original Data')
[xcorr_OR_Observer_OR_inv,lag_OR_Observer_OR_inv] =
xcorr(abs(Error_from_OR_Observer_OR_inv),u_OR);%Calculate the Cross-
Relation for The OR Linear Observer Output and the OR impulse Train
118
%Mapping the Output of the Linear Part of HMW Model by the Output
Nonlinearity Function (OR Case)
u4 = YYhat_OR_OR_inv';
Y_sim_hat_OR_with_OR_inv= piecelin(xy_OR,yy_OR,u4); %Mapping the Output

of the Linear Part of HMW Model by the Output Nonlinearity Function
s=strcat('c:\Observer\Observer_Result\OR\Y_sim_hat_OR_with_OR_inv');%Sa
ve the result
s1=strcat('Y_sim_hat_OR_with_OR_inv');
save(s,s1)
%Determine the Error between OR Hammerstein-Wiener model Compared with
the Original Data
Error_from_OR_NL_OR_inv = A1(U2)' - Y_sim_hat_OR_with_OR_inv(U2);
figure
plot(T1(U2),Error_from_OR_NL_OR_inv,T1(U2),u_OR(U2))
title ('The Error between OR Hammerstein-Wiener Model Compared with the
Original Data')
[xcorr_OR_NL_OR_inv,lag_OR_NL_OR_inv] =
xcorr(abs(Error_from_OR_NL_OR_inv(U2)),u_OR(U2));%Calculate the Cross-
Relation for The OR HMW Model Output and the OR impulse Train
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Plot Result %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
load Y_sim_hat_OR_with_OR_inv
figure
plot(T(U2),A(U2),T(U2),u_OR(U2),T(U2),Y_sim_hat_OR_with_OR_inv(U2)','--
r')
title('The Original Data, the OR Frequency Impulse Train, and the OR
legend('The Original Data','the IR Frequency Impulse Train','the IR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Plot the Cross-Corelations %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
figure
plot(lag_IR_Observer_IR_inv,xcorr_IR_Observer_IR_inv)
title('Calculate the Cross-Relation for The IR Linear Observer Output
and the IR impulse Train')
figure
plot(lag_OR_Observer_OR_inv,xcorr_OR_Observer_OR_inv)
title('Calculate the Cross-Relation for The OR Linear Observer Output
and the OR impulse Train')
figure
plot(lag_IR_NL_IR_inv,xcorr_IR_NL_IR_inv)%,lag_IR_NL_IR_inv,xcorr_U_IR)
title('The Cross-Relation for The IR HMW Model Output and the IR
impulse Train')
figure
plot(lag_OR_NL_OR_inv,xcorr_OR_NL_OR_inv)%lag_OR_NL_OR_inv,xcorr_U_OR)
title('The Cross-Relation for The OR HMW Model Output and the OR
impulse Train')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Correlation of impulse %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%for the reference purpose
119
[xcorr_u_IR,lag_u_IR] = xcorr(u_IR,u_IR); %Cross-Correlation of IR
impulse train
figure
plot(lag_u_IR,xcorr_u_IR)
title('The Cross-Correlation of IR impulse train')
[xcorr_u_OR,lag_u_OR] = xcorr(u_OR,u_OR); %Cross-Correlation of OR

impulse train
figure
plot(lag_u_OR,xcorr_u_OR)
title('The Cross-Correlation of OR impulse train')
end
120
Appendix E
Program for Piecewise Linear Interpolation
(piecelin.m)
This program is from [107].
function v = piecelin(x,y,u)
%PIECELIN Piecewise linear interpolation.
% v = piecelin(x,y,u) finds the piecewise linear L(x)
% with L(x(j)) = y(j) and returns v(k) = L(u(k)).
% First divided difference
delta = diff(y)./diff(x);
% Find subinterval indices k so that x(k) <= u < x(k+1)
n = length(x);
k = ones(size(u));
for j = 2:n-1;
k(x(j) <= u) = j;
end
% Evaluate interpolant
s = u - x(k);
v = y(k) + s.*delta(k);
Program for Inverse Piecewise Linear Interpolation
(Inverse_for_piecelin.m)
This program is modified from piecelin.m.
function v = Inverse_for_piecelin(x,y,u)
%Inverse_for_piecelin Inverse for Piecewise linear interpolation.
% v = Inverse_for_piecelin(x,y,u) finds the inverse for piecewise
linear L(x)
% with L(x(j)) = y(j) and returns v(k) = L^-1(u(k)).
% First divided difference
delta = diff(y)./diff(x);
% Find subinterval indices k so that x(k) <= u < x(k+1)
n = length(y);
k = ones(size(u));
for j = 2:n-1;
k(y(j) <= u) = j;
end
% Evaluate interpolant
s = u - y(k);
v=x(k)+s./delta(k);
121
Bibliography
[1] Adams, Michael Louis, “Analysis of Rolling Element Bearing Faults in Rotating
Machinery,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Aug.2001.
[2] Lundberg, G. and Palmgren, A., “Dynamic Capacity of Rolling Bearings”, Acta
Polytechnica 96 Mechanical Engineering Series 2 1952.
[3] Afshari, Nader, “Model-Based Techniques for Real-Time Fault Detection of Rolling
Element Bearing”, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of System, Control, and Industrial
Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, May.1998.
[4] Inseok Hwang, Sungwan Kim, Youdan Kim, Chze Eng Seah, “A Survey of Fault
Detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration Methods” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 18, NO. 3, pp. 636 – 653, May 2010.
[5] R. N. Clark, D. C. Fosth, and V. M. Walton, “Detecting instrument malfunctions in
contol systems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 11, pp. 465–473, Nov. 1975.
[6] P. M. Frank and J. Wünnenberg, S. G. Tzafestas, M. G. Singh, and G. Schmidt, Eds.,

“Sensor fault detection via robust observers,” in Proc. System Fault Diagnostics, Reliab.
Related Knowledge-Based Approaches, 1987, vol. 1, pp. 147–160.
[7] J. C. Deckert, M. N. Desai, J. J. Deyst, and A. S.Willsky, “F-8 DFBW sensor failure
identification using analytic redundancy,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 22, no. 5,
pp. 795–809, Oct. 1977.
[8] J. Gertler, “Fault detection and isolation using parity relations,” Control Eng.
Practice, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 653–661, 1997.
[9] R. J. Patton and J. Chen, “Robust fault detection using eigenstructure assignment: A
tutorial consideration and some new results,” in Proc. 39th Conf. Dec. Control, Brighton,
U.K., Dec. 1991, pp. 2242–2247.
[10] R. J. Patton and J. Chen, “A review of parity space approaches to fault diagnosis for
aerospace systems,” J. Guid., Control, Dyn., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 278–285, 1994.
[11] R. V. Beard, “Failure accommodation in linear systems through self-reorganization,”

Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Aeronautics Astronautics, Massachusetts Inst. Technol.,
Cambridge, Feb. 1971.
[12] L. H. Jones and H. L. Jones, “Failure detection in linear systems,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Dept. Aeronautics Astronautics, Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, Feb.
1973.
122
[13] J. E. White and J. L. Speyer, “Detection filter design: Spectral theory and
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 593–603, Jul. 1987.
[14] J. H. Park, Y. Halevi, and G. Rizzoni, “A new interpretation of the fault-detection

filter 1: Closed-form algorithm,” Int. J. Control, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 767–787, 1994.
[15] J. H. Park, Y. Halevi, and G. Rizzoni, “A new interpretation of the fault-detection

filter 2: The optimal detection filter,” Int. J. Control, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 767–787, 1994.
[16] C. Bakiotis, J. Raymond, and A. Rault, “Parameter and discriminant analysis for jet
engine mechanical state diagnosis,” presented at the IEEE Conf. Decision Control, Fort
Lauderdale, FL, 1979.
[17] R. Isermann, “Process fault detection based on modeling and estimation methods:A
survey,” Automatica, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 387–304, 1984.
[18] R. K. Mehra and I. Peshon, “An innovations approach to fault detection and
diagnosis in dynamic systems,” Automatica, vol. 7, pp. 637–640, 1971.
[19] A. S. Willsky, “A survey of design methods for failure detection in dynamic

systems,” Automatica, vol. 12, pp. 601–611, 1976.
[20] M. Basseville, “Detecting changes in signals and systems—A survey,” Automatica,

vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 309–326, 1988.
[21] M. Basseville and I. V. Nikiforov, Detection of Abrupt Changes: Theory and

Application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[22] A. S. Willsky, and H.L. Jones, “A generalized likelihood ratio approach to the
detection and estimation of jumps in linear systems”, IEEE Trans. On Automatic Control,
vol. AC-21, p. 108 – 112, 1976
[23] R. J. Patton and J. Chen, “On eigenstructure assignment for robust fault diagnosis,”
Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 10, pp. 1193–1208, 2000.
[24] M. A. Massoumnia, “A geometric approach to the synthesis of failure detection

filters,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 839–846, Sep. 1986.
[25] Albino Martínez-Sibaja, et al, “Dedicated Observer Scheme for Fault Diagnosis and
Isolation in Instruments of an Anaerobic Reactor” Procedia Technology, 3rd
Iberoamerican Conference on Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, CIIECC
2013, Volume 7, pp. 173–180, 2013.
[26] Clark R., “Instrument Fault Detection”, IEEE Trans. On Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 456 – 465, 1978
123
[27] Paul M. Frank, “Evaluation of analytical redundancy for fault diagnosis in dynamic
systems”, AIPAC, vol. 1, pp. 7 – 21, 1989.
[28] Janssen K., and Paul M. Frank, “Component failure detection vis state estimation”,
Proceedings, 9th IFAC World Congress, Budapest, Hungary, 1984
[29] E. Y. Chow and A. S. Willsky, “Analytical redundancy and the design of robust failure
detection systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 603–614, Jul. 1984.
[30] Luo X. C., A. S. Willsky, and Verghese G. L., “Optimally robust redundancy relation
for failure detection in uncertain systems” Automatica, 26, 3, pp. 333-344, 1986.
[31] Massoumnia M., and W.E. Vanderwelde, “Generating parity relations for detecting
and identifying control system component failures”, AIAA journal of Guidance, Control
and Dynamics, 11, pp. 60 – 65, 1988.
[32] Stoustrup and Niemann, “Fault estimation— A standard problem approach,” Int. J.
Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 12, pp. 649–673, 2002.
[33] T. Song and E. G. Collins Jr., “Robust 𝐻𝐻2 estimation with application to robust fault
detection,” J. Guid., Control Dyn., vol. 23, no. 6, pp.1067–1071, 2000.
[34] A. Stoorvogel, H. H. Niemann, A. Saberi, and P. Sannuti, “Optimal fault signal

estimation,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 12, pp.697–727, 2002.
[35] H.Wang and J. Lam, “Robust fault detection for uncertain discrete-time systems,” J.
Guid., Control Dyn., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 291–301, 2002.
[36] R. H. Chen and J. L. Speyer, “Optimal stochastic fault detection filter,” presented at
the Amer. Control Conf., San Diego, CA, June 1997.
[37] R. H. Chen and J. L. Speyer, “A generalized least-squares fault detection filter,” Int.
J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., vol. 14, pp. 747–757, 2000.
[38] R. H. Chen, D. L. Mingori, and J. L. Speyer, “Optimal stochastic fault detection

filter,” Automatica, vol. 39, pp. 377–390, 2003.
[39] B. Darkhovski and M. Staroswiecki, “A game-theoretic approach to decision in

FDI,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 853–858, May 2003.
[40] Barkov, A., Barkov, N., “Condition assessment and life prediction of rolling element
bearings part2”, Sound and Vibration, September 1995, pp.27-31.
[41] Berry, J., “How to Track Rolling Element Bearing Health with Vibration Signature
Analysis”, Sound and Vibration, June 1986, pp. 10-17
124
[42] Eschmann, P., “Ball and Roller Bearings”, Walzlagerpraxis, 1985.
[43] MathWork. 2015. Identifying Hammerstein-Wiener Models. [ONLINE] Available

at:http://www.mathworks.com/help/ident/ug/identifying-hammerstein-wiener-
models.html#bq4noaq. [Accessed 09 July 15].
[44] M. Basseville, A. Benveniste, M. Goursat, and L. Mevel, “Subspacebased

algorithms for structural identification, damage detection, and sensor data fusion,”
EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., 2007.
[45] M. Basseville, A. Benveniste, M. Goursat, L. Hermans, L. Mevel, and H. van der

Auweraer, “Output-only subspacebased structural identification: From theory to
industrial testing practice,” J. Dyn. Syst., Meas.Control, Trans. ASME, vol. 123, no. 4, p.
668676, 2001.
[46] P. Van Overschee and B. De Moor, Subspace Identification for Linear Systems.
Boston, MA: Kluwer, 1996.
[47] R. Isermann, “Supervision, fault-detection and fault-diagnosis methods—An

introduction,” Control Eng. Practice, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 639–652, 1997.
[48] S. Simani, C. Fantuzzi, and R. J. Patton, “Model-based fault diagnosis in dynamic

systems using identification techniques,” in Volume Information and System Science.
London, U.K.: Springer, 2003.
[49] D. T. Maqill, “Optimal adaptive estimation of sampled stochastic processes,” IEEE

Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 434–439, Oct. 1965.
[50] P. S. Maybeck, Stochastic Models, Estimation and Control. Arlington, VA: Navtech
Press, 1994, vol. 1.
[51] P. S. Maybeck, Stochastic Models, Estimation and Control. Arlington, VA: Navtech
Press, 1994, vol. 2.
[52] Y. M. Zhang and X. R. Li, “Detection and diagnosis of sensor and actuator failures
using IMM estimator,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1293–
1313, Oct. 1998.
[53] H. Wang and W. Lin, “Applying observer based FDI techniques to detect faults in
dynamic and bounded stochastic distributions,” Int. J. Control, vol. 73, pp. 1424–1436,
2000.
[54] H. Wang, “Detecting faults in dynamic and bounded stochastic distributions:An

observer based technique,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Arlington, VA, 2001, pp. 482–
487.
125
[55] L. Guo and H. Wang, “Fault detection and diagnosis for general stochastic systems
using B-spline expansions and nonlinear filters,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg.
Papers, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1424–1436, Aug. 2005.
[56] I. Yaesh and U. Shaked, “Robust 𝐻𝐻∞ deconvolution and its application to fault
detection,” J. Guid., Control Dyn., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1001–1012, 2000.
[57] T. D. Curry and E. G. Collins Jr., “Robust fault detection and isolation using robust
𝐿𝐿1 estimation,” AIAA J. Guid., Control, Dyn., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 905–908, 2005.
[58] P. M. Frank and J. Wünnenberg, “Robust fault diagnosis using unknown input
schemes,” in Fault Diagnosis in Dynamic Systems: Theory and Application, R. J. Patton,
P. M. Frank, and R. N. Clark, Eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989, pp. 47–98.
[59] J. Chen, R. J. Patton, and H. Y. Zhang, “Design of unknown input observers and
robust fault-detection filters,” Int. J. Control, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 85–105, 1996.
[60] R. H. Chen, H. K. Ng, J. L. Speyer, L. S. Guntur, and R. Carpenter, “Health

monitoring of a satellite system,” J. Guid., Control, Dyn., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 593–605,
2006.
[61] C. De Persis and A. Isidori, “A geometric approach to nonlinear fault detection and
isolation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 853–865, Jun. 2001.
[62] X. Zhang, M. Polycarpou, and T. Parisini, “A robust detection and isolation scheme
for abrupt and incipient faults in nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol.
47, no. 4, pp. 576–593, Apr. 2002.
[63] M. Zhong, H. Ye, P. Shi, and G.Wang, “Fault detection for Markovian jump
systems,” IEE Proc.—Control Theory Appl., vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 397–402, 2005.
[64] A. Doucet, N. Gordon, and V. Krishnamurthy, “Particle filters for state estimation of
jump Markov linear systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 613–624,
Mar. 2001.
[65] H. A. P. Blom and E. A. Bloem, “Exact Bayesian and particle filtering of stochastic
hybrid systems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 55–70, Jan.
2007.
[66] Brotherton, T. B. and Pollard, T., “Applications of Time-Frequency and Time-Scale

Representations to Fault Detection and Classification”, Proc. IEEE Signal Processing
International Symposium on Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Analysis, pp. 95 - 98,
1992.
[67] M.-O. Cordier, P. Dugue, M. Dumas, F. Lévy, J. Montmain, M. Staroswiecki, and L.

Travé-Massuyès, “AI and automatic control approaches of model-based diagnosis: Links
126
and underlying hypotheses,” in Proc. IFAC 4th Symp. Fault Detection, Supervision,
Safety Techn. Process., Budapest, Hungary, 2000, pp. 25–32.
[68] M.-O. Cordier, P. Dague, F. Lévy, J.Mountmain, M. Staroswiecki, and L. Travé-

Massuyès, “Conflicts versus analytical redundancy relations: Acomparative analysis of
the model based diagnosis approach from the artificial intelligence and automatic control
perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 2163–
2177, Oct. 2004.
[69] S. Gentil, J. Montmain, and C. Combastel, “Combining FDI and AI approahces

within causal-model-based diagnosis,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol.
34, no. 5, pp. 2207–2221, Oct. 2004.
[70] B. Pulido and C. A. González, “Possible conflicts: A compilation technique for

consistency-based diagnosis,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 34, no. 5,
pp. 2192–2206, Oct. 2004.
[71] L. Travé-Massuyès, T. Escobet, and X. Olive, “Diagnosability analysis based on

component-supported analytical redundancy relations,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.
A, Syst. Humans, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1146–1160, 2006.
[72] Lou Xinsheng, “Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Rolling Element Bearing”, Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Aug.2000.
[73] Gustaffson, G. O. and Tallian, T., “Detection of Damage of Assembled Rolling

Element Bearings”, ASLE Transactions, Vol. 5, pp. 197 - 209, 1962.
[74] Dyer, D. and Stewart, R. M., “Detection of Rolling Element Bearing Damaged by
Statistical Vibration Analysis”, Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 100, pp. 229 - 235,
1978.
[75] Alfredson, R. J. and Mathew, J., “Time Domain Methods for Monitoring the
Condition of Rolling Element Bearings”, The Institution of Engineers, Australia,
Mechanical Engineering Transactions, vol. 10, pp. 102-107, 1985.
[76] Martin, H. R. and Honarvar, F., “Application of Statistical Moments to Bearing

Failure Detection”, Applied Acoustics, Vol. 44, pp. 67 - 77, 1995.
[77] Braun, S. and Datner, B., “Analysis of Roller/Ball Bearing Vibrations”,

Transactions of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 101, pp. 118 - 125, 1979.
[78] Li, J. C., Ma, J. and Hwang, B., “Bearing Localized Defect detection by Bicoherence
Analysis of Vibrations”, Transactions of the ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry,
vol. 117, pp.625 - 629, 1995.
127
[79] Li, James C. and Ma, Jun, “Wavelet Decomposition of Vibrations for Detection of
Bearing-Localized Defects”, NDT & E International, Vol. 30, No. 30, pp. 143- 49, 1997
[80] Choe, H. C. “Signature Detection, recognition, and Classification Using Wavelets in

Signal and Image Processing”, PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, December 1997.
[81] Liu, B. and Ling, S. F., “On the selection of Informative Wavelet for Machinery
Diagnosis”, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (1999) 13 (1), pp. 145 - 162,
1999.
[82] Grant, P. M., “Speech Recognition Techniques”, Electronics and Communication

Engineering Journal, pp. 37- 48, February 1991.
[83] Algazi, V. R., Brown, K. L., Ready, M. J., Irvine, D. H., Cadwell, C. L. and Chung,
S., “Transform Representation of the Spectra of Acoustic Speech Segments with
Applications - I: General Approach and Application to Speech Recognition”, IEEE
Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 180 - 195, 1993.
[84] Biem, A., Katagiri, S. and Juang, B. H., “Discriminative Feature Extraction for
Speech Recognition”, Proc. IEEE Signal Processing Workshop, pp. 392 - 402, 1993.
[85] Evangelista, G., “Pitch-Synchronous Wavelet Representations of Speech and Music

Signals”, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3313 - 3330,
1993.
[86] Rahim, M. G., “Self-Leaning Neural Tree Network for Recognition of Speech
Features”, Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing (ICASSP - 93), vol. 1, pp. 517 - 520, 1993.
[87] Sankar, A. and Lee, C. H., “Robust Speech Recognition Based on Stochastic
Matching”, Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing (ICASSP - 95), vol. 1, pp. 121 - 124, 1995.
[88] Renals, S., “Radial Basis Function Network for Speech Pattern Classification”,
Electronic Letters, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 437 - 439, 1989.
[89] Heck, L. P. and Chou, K. C., “Gaussian Mixture Model Classifier for Machine
Monitoring”, Proc. IEEE world Congress on Computational Neural Network and
International Conference on Intelligence, vol. 7, pp. 4493 - 4496, 1994.
[90] Chow, M., Sharpe, R. N., and Hung, J., “On the Application and Design of Artificial
Neural Network for Motor Fault Detection - Part II”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 40, no.2, pp. 189 - 196, April 1993.
[91] Meyer, E. and Tuthill, T., “Bayesian Classification of Ultrasound Signals Using
Wavelet Coefficients”, Proc. IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference
128
NAECON, vol. 1, pp. 240 - 243, 1995.
[92] Baugh, K. W., “On Parametrically Phase-Coupled Random Harmonic Processes”,

Proc. IEEE Signal Processing Workshop on Higher-Order Statics, pp. 346 - 350, June
1993.
[93] Leonard, J. A. and Kramer, M. A., “Radial Basis Function Networks for Classifying
Process Faults”, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, pp. 31 - 38, April 1991.
[94] Choe, H. C., Poole, C. E., Yu, A. M. and Szu, H. H., “Novel Identification of
Intercepted Signals from Unknown Radio Transmitters”, Proc. SPIE Wavelet
Applications, vol. 2419, pp. 504 -517, April 1995.
[95] Hoeprich, M. R., “Rolling Element Bearing Fatigue Damage Propagation”,

Transactions of the ASME Journal of Tribology, vol. 114, pp.328-333,1992.
[96] Li, Y., Billington, S., Zhang, C., Kurfess, T., Danyluk, S. and Liang, S., “Adaptive
Prognostics for Rolling Element Bearing Condition”, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, Vol. 13, no. 1, pp.103 - 113, 1999.
[97] J. Gertler, Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Engineering Systems. New York:
Marcel Dekker, 1998.
[98] J. Chen and R. J. Patton, Robust Model-Based Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1999.
[99] F. Gustafsson, Adaptive Filtering and Change Detection. New York: Wiley, 2000.
[100] J. Korbicz, J. M. Koscielny, Z. Kowlaczuk, and W. Cholewa, Fault Diagnosis.

Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
[101] Blanke, M., Kinnaert, M., Lunze, J., Staroswiecki, M., Diagnosis and Fault-
Tolerant Control, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2006.
[102] Loparo, Z Roth, and S. Eckert, “Nonlinear filtering for systems with random
structures” IEEE trans. On Automatic Control, vol. AC-31, pp 1064 – 1068 , Nov. 1986
[103] Schoen, R. R., Habetler, T. G., Kamran, F. and Bartheld, R. G., “Motor Bearing
Damage Detection Using Stator Current Monitoring”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Applications, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1274 - 1279, 1995.
[104] Abdel-Magied, Mohammed Farouk, “Fault Detection of Rotating Machinery Using

Model-Based Techniques”, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of System, Control, and
Industrial Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Aug.1997.
129
[105] Arthur C. Tinney, “The Analysis of Rolling Element Bearing, Vibration Diagnostic
Techniques”, Master’s Thesis, Ohio State University, 1973.
[106] Bearing Data Center. 2015. Case Western Reserve University Bearing Data Center
Website. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://csegroups.case.edu/bearingdatacenter/pages/welcome-case-western-reserve-
university-bearing-data-center-website. [Accessed 09 July 15].
[107] Cleve Moler. 2004. Numerical Computing with MATLAB. [ONLINE] Available
at: https://www.mathworks.com/moler/. [Accessed 09 July 15].
130

SORN SIMATRANG Fault Detection For Rolling Element Bearings Using Model-Based Technique

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SORN SIMATRANG Fault Detection For Rolling Element Bearings Using Model-Based Technique

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAULT DETECTION FOR ROLLING ELEMENT BEARINGS

USING MODEL-BASED TECHNIQUE

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Science

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Kenneth A. Loparo

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis of

Candidate for the degree of Master of Science*

Professor Kenneth A. Loparo, Ph.D.

Professor Vira Chankong, Ph.D.

Professor Richard Kolacinski, Ph.D.

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained

for any proprietary material contained therein.

For my parents and all friends who have always supported me

List of Symbols xvii

1.2 Thesis Outline 2

1.3 Literature Review 3

1.3.1 General Concept of Fault detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration 3

1.3.2 Approaches for FDI 7

1.3.3 Fault Detection, Isolation on Bearing of Rotational Machine Applications 14

Chapter 2: Modeling, Fault Types, Fault frequencies, and System 18

2.1 Mathematical Model 21

2.1.1.1 Kinetic Energy of Bearing Elements 24

2.1.1.2 Potential Energy of Bearing Elements 25

2.1.1.3 Total Dissipation Term of Bearing Elements 28

2.1.2 Housing Energy 29

2.1.2.1 Housing Kinetic Energy 29

2.1.2.2 Housing Potential Energy and Dissipation Energy 30

2.1.3 Rotor Energy 30

2.1.3.1 Kinetic Energy of Rotor 31

2.1.3.2 Potential Energy of Rotor 32

2.1.3.3 Dissipation Energy of Rotor 32

2.2 Fault Frequencies 40

2.3 Fault Types 41

2.3.1 Outer Race Fault 42

2.3.2 Ball Fault 43

2.3.3 Inner Race Fault 45

2.4 Hammerstein – Wiener Model 47

2.4.2 Inner Race (IR) Identification Result 55

Chapter 3: Observer Design and Fault Detection 57

3.1 Observer Design 57

3.2 Results and Diagnosis 60

3.2.3 OR – NORMAL Case 76

3.2.4 NORMAL –OR Case 80

3.2.5 IR – NORMAL Case 83

3.2.6 NORMAR – IR Case 86

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Future Work 89

4.2 Future Work 91

Program for Simulation the Bearing Element Fault 94

Program for the System Model 102

Program for Finding Average Inner Race (IR) Fault 107

Program for Performing System Identification 111

Program for Piecewise Linear Interpolation 121

Program for Inverse Piecewise Linear Interpolation 121

Figure 1.2 : Fault detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration (FDIR) scheme in 5

Figure 1.3 : Classification of FDIR. 14

Figure 2.2 : Defining distance vectors relative to bearing raceway. 23

Figure 2.3 : Bearing parameters. 40

𝑇𝑇 = 0.0093 seconds at a shaft speed of 1800 rpm.

𝑇𝑇 = 0.0062 seconds with a shaft speed of 1800 rpm.

period (one period-like element).