Enhanced DET-Based Fault Signature Analysis for Reliable Diagnosis of Single and Multiple-Combined Bearing Defects

Table 4

Performance comparison between the conventional DET and the proposed EDET in terms of average classification accuracy and true positive rate via k-fold cross validation (Unit: %).

		ATPR for each bearing condition (standard deviation)								ACA; (standard deviation)
		CRBCO	CRBCI	CRBCR	CRBCOI	CRBCOR	CRBCIR	CRBCOIR	DFCRB
DET	1	27.22 (6.74)	37.22 (9.18)	43.33 (4.41)	51.11 (10.72)	22.22 (5.09)	35.00 (2.89)	33.33 (5.77)	100.00 (0.00)	43.68 (5.60)
	0.3	82.22 (5.36)	76.67 (2.89)	93.33 (2.89)	93.89 (2.55)	74.44 (9.18)	75.00 (10.41)	83.33 (11.67)	100.00 (0.00)	84.96 (5.62)
	0.1	85.00 (7.26)	73.33 (1.67)	93.33 (4.41)	93.89 (2.55)	67.22 (5.85)	81.11 (3.50)	82.78 (3.85)	100.00 (0.00)	84.58 (3.63)
EDET	—	91.67 (2.89)	84.44 (3.50)	96.11 (5.36)	93.33 (2.89)	76.67 (11.67)	86.67 (7.26)	93.89 (0.96)	100.00 (0.00)	90.35 (4.31)