J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-024-01883-0
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Diagnosis of Bearing Faults Using Temporal Vibration Signals:
A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Models with Feature
Selection Techniques
Alaa Abdulhady Jaber
Submitted: 21 November 2023 / in revised form: 19 January 2024 / Accepted: 23 January 2024
 ASM International 2024
Abstract Accurately identifying bearing defects is cru-
cial for guaranteeing the dependability and effectiveness of
industrial systems. Although the use of vibration signals for
diagnosing bearing faults is highly important, there are still
persistent obstacles, especially when it comes to detecting
minor damage in the early stages. Relying solely on time-
domain analysis for statistical feature extraction in com-
plex multi-fault scenarios may lack robustness. The
computational difficulties of frequency-domain and time–
frequency approaches impede the real-time identification
of emergent errors, despite their effectiveness. Although
machine learning holds potential, its reliance on attributes
that are not generated from the time domain poses a dif-
ficulty. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to fill these
deficiencies by examining the utilization of temporal
vibration signals for the purpose of diagnosing bearing
defects. The vibration signals originated from the Case
Western Reserve University. A total of fourteen time-do-
main features were derived from the vibration signal,
encompassing root mean square, kurtosis, and skewness.
The study employed two feature selection strategies,
specifically Information Gain and Fast Correlation-Based
Filter (FCBF), to identify the most important seven features
for training machine learning models, including k-Nearest
Neighbor (kNN), Support Vector Machines, and Naı̈ve
Bayes. Based on the acquired data, the kNN-based FCBF
model (kNN-FCBF) approach exhibited superior classifi-
cation outcomes in comparison to alternative methods. The
evaluation metrics, including Area Under the Curve
(AUC), Accuracy (AC), F1-score, Precision, and Recall,
A. A. Jaber (&)
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Technology-
Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq
e-mail: alaa.a.jaber@uotechnology.edu.iq
demonstrated a robust performance. The AUC attained a
value of 99.1%, AC was assessed at 97%, F1-score reached
96%, Precision was 96%, and Recall earned a score of
95.7%. The benefits of the kNN-FCBF model were
emphasized by a comparison analysis with prior studies.
The kNN-FCBF algorithm provides a straightforward and
precise approach that is less intricate and computationally
affordable, while still achieving high levels of accuracy.
Keywords Bearing fault diagnosis 
Condition monitoring  Vibration analysis 
Feature selection  Machine learning
Introduction
Today, rotating machines play a significant role in indus-
trial systems and are perhaps one of the most crucial
equipments in various industrial applications, like the
petrochemical, aviation, chemical, and household appli-
ance sectors. These rotating machines have many
components, including shafts, gears, and bearings. Bear-
ings play a key role as they guide and support the shafts in
rotating machinery, and frequently operate in harsh envi-
ronments. However, their design, production, assembly,
and operation problems eventually manifested in bearing
performance deterioration and machine failure [1, 2]. Many
studies have shown that bearing failure is the primary cause
of most mechanical failures in rotating equipment. In
practical applications, the failure of rotating machinery’s
bearings poses a major danger to its dependability and
safety and might result in production and equipment losses.
Although the onset of early bearing faults may not cause an
instant breakdown, their growth over time will result in a
123

severe failure in machines that involves costly maintenance
[3]. In recent years, a great deal has been paid to bearing
health monitoring, and several measures have been
undertaken to avoid bearing failure. As a result, monitoring
the health condition and diagnosing faults in bearings have
considered a crucial area of industrial research. Various
monitoring methods for bearing health have been intro-
duced in recent years, including noise, temperature,
current, and vibration analysis [4–7].
The vibration signals are one of the most valuable and
informative sources for understanding phenomena related
to bearing issues [3, 8]. It can offer information on the
actual operating condition of the equipment at any given
time without halting the manufacturing line. Nevertheless,
vibration monitoring is the most effective strategy because
one of the benefits of vibration monitoring is its capability
to identify, locate, and differentiate various kinds of defects
from their onset before they become severe and harmful.
The approach for vibration monitoring of rotary equipment
comprises a sensor that transmits the machine vibration
signature to a data-gathering system that is interfaced with
a computer [9]. Nevertheless, the efficiency of vibration
monitoring is dependent on the signal processing approach
used to extract fault diagnostic features from the collected
data. This has led several researchers to suggest various
diagnosis techniques by examining the signal recorded
using different approaches, such as temporal/time-domain
analysis, frequency analysis, and time–frequency analysis.
Due to its significant findings in various health monitoring
applications, temporal/statistical analysis is frequently
employed [10, 11]. It employs different time-based indi-
cators such as root mean square [9, 12], kurtosis [12], peak
value, and skewness [13]. Simplified and shorter compu-
tations are a benefit of time-domain analysis. However, this
technique’s main shortcomings are its insensitivity to early
faults and deeply dispersed defects.
Spectrum or frequency analysis is the most traditional
way to find faults in rotating machinery. This method
makes it possible to convert the temporal signal to the
frequency domain. Compared to time-domain analysis, it
provides thorough and early information on the machine’s
status. As a result, many techniques, including the bearing
defect frequencies analysis technique [14], the envelope
spectrum method [15], and the Hilbert transformation
method [16], are based on exploiting the spectrum of the
temporal signal. This method is accurate and reliable for
locating damage and locating bearing faults. However, the
effectiveness is based on the bearing’s size and rotational
speed. Additionally, as the high energy noise frequently
masks the information, all approaches that use the fre-
quency domain need careful consideration when choosing
the frequency band. As a result, the fault in the spectra
cannot be found using traditional frequency-based
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
techniques. The key benefit of the time–frequency-domain
analysis approach over temporal and frequency-based
techniques is its ability to provide valuable information for
stationary and non-stationary signals [17]. Numerous time–
frequency analysis techniques, including the short-term
Fourier Transform (STFT) [18, 19], wavelet transforms
[20, 21], and empirical mode decomposition [22], have
been developed. It should be emphasized that in many
instances, and especially with variable speed and load
systems, a simple assessment of the monitoring index does
not offer trustworthy information about the machine’s
condition [3].
Due to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI)
technology, machine learning techniques are often
employed in the mechanical component failure diagnostic
process [17]. Rolling bearings display unique vibration
characteristics depending on the working environment. The
dependability and stability of the whole machine are
directly impacted by how the bearings operate. Due to this,
several researchers have suggested various intelligent
diagnosis techniques based on machine learning or artifi-
cial intelligence models to detect bearing defects.
Patil, et al. [21] proposed a fault identification and
classification system for induction motor bearing health
monitoring based on vibration signal analysis. The discrete
wavelet transform (DWT), considering different wavelet
families such as DB4, DB8, and Sym5, was applied first for
signal analysis. Different statistical features, including
RMS, kurtosis, and skewness, were then extracted from the
third level of the DWT. These features were fed to a three-
layer artificial neural network (ANN) model for fault
classification. The developed system was capable of clas-
sifying ball, inner race, and outer race bearing faults with
98.7% accuracy. In similar research, Deák and Kocsis [23]
used the Support Vector Machine (SVM) method for
classification features related to different bearing faults
extracted from vibration signals using the DWT. However,
the authors used an approach based on the energy-to-
Shannon entropy ratio to enhance the feature extraction
step to select the best wavelet family.
Another research suggested using k-Nearest Neighbor
(kNN), Decision Tree (DT), and SVM to diagnose different
induction motor faults, including bearing faults [16]. The
researchers have adopted current signal analysis based on
the Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT) to extract fault-related
features. Then, the most salient features were selected
using different dimensionality reduction algorithms and
provided to the employed machine learning approaches.
The general conclusion of this research is that the feature
selection step can considerably enhance the classification
accuracy of the fault diagnosis system. Furthermore, for the
identification and localization of faults in roller bearings,
several statistical attributes of vibration signals in the time
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
and frequency domains were extracted in [24]. For
obtaining better classification accuracy, these attributes
were then concatenated and fed to three machine learning
algorithms, namely kNN, SVM, and kernel linear dis-
criminant analysis (KLDA). Based on the simulation
results, KLDA has achieved the best classification accuracy
(99.13%). Li, et al. [25] have investigated the application
of the convolutional neural network (CNN) based on raw
time-domain vibration signal analysis for bearings fault
diagnosis. The aim was to avoid the time-consuming fea-
ture extraction step using a data enhancement method. The
suggested method’s recognition accuracy in the CWRU-
bearing database exceeds 96%. In [26], a unique monitor-
ing approach for bearing defect diagnosis considering the
identification of distributed faults, such as roughness, and
local defects, such as single-point ball and raceway faults,
was proposed. First, the approach evaluates the most rel-
evant statistical time characteristics computed from the
vibration signal. Then, the most significant features that
best discriminate among faults were selected. In the final
step, classification, a hierarchical neural network topology
is utilized. The efficacy of this condition-monitoring
technique has been validated by experimental findings
gathered under various operating situations.
Previous research into diagnosing bearing faults using
vibration signals has shown effectiveness through fre-
quency-domain, time–frequency, and time-domain
analyses. However, these methods face limitations, as
frequency-domain and time–frequency approaches can be
computationally intensive [27, 28], impeding real-time
diagnosis and the detection of subtle early-stage faults.
While time-domain statistical features are computationally
simple, their standalone use may lack robustness in multi-
fault diagnosis scenarios. Although time-domain features
are computationally simpler, relying solely on them in
research may lack robustness in complex multi-fault sce-
narios with noise interference. Moreover, many machine
learning-based approaches have predominantly utilized
features derived from frequency or time–frequency trans-
forms rather than optimizing time-domain features
[29, 30]. Nevertheless, these strategies have primarily
depended on characteristics obtained from frequency or
time–frequency analysis.
To overcome these problems, the current study proposes
a comprehensive framework that combines effective time-
domain feature extraction with enhanced machine-learning
methods that include essential feature selection. The
objective of this strategy is to address previous studies’
limitations by developing a system that achieves precise
fault classification while still being simple for the prompt
detection of early damage. The incorporation of feature
selection aims to improve model performance by elimi-
nating irrelevant and duplicated features that may impair
classification. The suggested methodology offers a com-
putationally efficient and robust way to diagnose bearing
problems. The efficacy of the suggested approach is eval-
uated in terms of its capacity to detect incipient bearing
abnormalities, employing refined time-domain analysis and
machine learning modeling.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The fol-
lowing section provides an overview of the machine
learning algorithms employed, including kNN, SVM, and
Naive Bayes classifiers. ‘‘Experimental Setup’’ section
describes the experimental apparatus and the CWRU-
bearing dataset used in this research. The process of
extracting time-domain features is discussed in ‘‘Feature
Extraction’’ section. ‘‘Feature Selection’’ section investi-
gates the considered techniques for selecting features. The
evaluation methodology for machine learning models is
described in ‘‘Machine Learning Models Evaluation’’ sec-
tion. ‘‘Results and Discussion’’ section presents the results
and discussion, including feature importance rankings,
classification results, confusion matrix analysis, and com-
parative evaluation. The conclusion and contributions of
this investigation are summarized in ‘‘Conclusion’’ section.
Considered Machine Learning Algorithms
k-Nearest Neighbor
The k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) algorithm is a fundamental
and widely used machine learning technique. It involves
calculating the distance between data points and assumes
that similar entities are in close proximity to each other, as
depicted in Fig. 1. This nonparametric method is popular
due to its simplicity and straightforward implementation
[31, 32].
Fig. 1 An illustration of the kNN algorithm [adapted from Ref 32]
123
 J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

kNN employs various distance calculation techniques, the classification boundary, and parallel lines H1 and H2
including Euclidean and Manhattan distances, to determine pass via the data points closest to H from the two data
the similarity or proximity between two points. Among types. These specific data points, termed support vectors,
these methods, Euclidean distance is the most commonly play a crucial role. The distance between H1 or H2 and H is
used and can be expressed by Eq.1 [32]. known as the geometric separation, and the key goal during
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi training of the SVM model is to maximize this geometric
Xn
DðX; Y Þ ¼ ðx i  y i Þ2 ðEq 1Þ margin.
i¼1 Consider a training dataset,
D ¼ fðxi ; yi Þ; i ¼ 1; . . .. . .; ng, where xi is a K-dimensional
In the given context, D represents the distance between
column vector ðx 2 RK1 Þ, yi denotes the category of xi ,
two points. X and Y denote two points in an n dimensional
and yi 2 f1; 1g. The overall decision function can be
Euclidian space, where xi and yi represent the values of two
expressed as follows [32]:
corresponding data points.
When a new data point is provided, the algorithm yi ¼ sgnððw  xÞ þ bÞ ðEq 2Þ
computes the distance between the new data point and its
In the equation, the sgn is a symbolic function, the
closest neighbors, with the number of nearest neighbors (k)
weight vector is denoted by w, and b represents the bias.
predetermined. By calculating the distances and consider-
Consequently, maximizing the geometric interval can be
ing the class labels of the k-Nearest Neighbors, the
converted into solving a quadratic programming problem
algorithm determines the class of the new data point. The
as follows:
choice of k is crucial as a higher value reduces the impact  
of noise but may blur the class boundaries, leading to an 1 2
min ¼ kwk ðEq 3Þ
underfitted model. Conversely, a smaller k imposes stricter 2
classification criteria, resulting in faster computation but However, the constraint in the above equation is
risking overfitting. Therefore, optimizing the value of k is [32, 33, 36]:
essential for enhancing the performance of the kNN algo-
rithm by decreasing the error in prediction. yi ðw  xi þ bÞ  1; i ¼ 1; . . .. . .; n ðEq 4Þ
The Lagrange optimization function is introduced to the
Support Vector Machine above function:
1 Xn Xn
Support Vector Machine (SVM) is a widely used classifier Lðw; b; aÞ ¼ kwk2  ai y i ð w  x i þ bÞ þ ai ðEq 5Þ
that offers significant advantages in addressing pattern 2 i¼1 i¼1
recognition problems involving limited samples, nonlin-
The Lagrange multiplier ai must be non-negative
earity, and high dimensions [33–35]. As depicted in Fig. 2,
ðai  0Þ. Hence, the overall expression for the decision
the primary concept of SVM involves recognizing an
function is as follows:
optimal hyperplane in the feature space to effectively dis- !
tinguish the dataset. In the illustration figure, H symbolizes X n
f ð xÞ ¼ sgn ai yi ðxi  xÞ þ b ðEq 6Þ
i¼1

However, it is common for the samples in the original

space to exhibit nonlinearity and inseparability. Therefore,
it is imperative to incorporate a suitable kernel function.
Ultimately, this enables the derivation of the fundamental
SVM model as:
!
X n
f ð xÞ ¼ sgn ai yi K ðxi  xÞ þ b ðEq 7Þ
i¼1

In this context, K denotes the kernel function, which can

take various forms such as linear, polynomial, S-shaped, or
Gaussian radial basis functions.

Fig. 2 Illustration depicting the underlying principle of SVM

classification [adapted from Ref 33]

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
Naı̈ve Bayes
The Naı̈ve Bayes algorithm was founded with the
assumption that all variables in the network are indepen-
dent of the classification variable, meaning that attributes
X1 ; . . .. . .; Xn are conditionally independent of each other
given Y [37, 38]. This assumption has significant value as it
greatly simplifies the representation of PðXjY Þ and the
challenge of estimating it from the training data. To illus-
trate, let’s examine a specific scenario where X vector is
composed of attributes X1 and X2 ; hence [37, 38],
PðXjY Þ ¼ PðX1 ; X2 jY Þ ¼ PðX1 jX2 ; Y ÞPðX2 jY Þ
¼ PðX1 jY ÞPðX2 jY Þ ðEq 8Þ
In a more general context, if X consists of n attributes
that are conditionally independent of each other given Y,
then we can observe the following.
Y
n and 6203-2RS JEM). A 16-channel digital audio tape
PðX1 ; . . .::; Xn jY Þ PðXi jY Þ ðEq 9Þ
i¼1
Xi and Y are Boolean variables, so only 2n parameters
are required to define PðXi ¼ Xik jY ¼ yi Þ for the
appropriate i, j, and k. This is a significant reduction
compared to the 2(2n—1) parameters needed to describe
PðXjY Þ without assuming conditional independence. Now,
let us derive the Naı̈ve Bayes algorithm in a general
context, where Y can be any discrete-valued variable and
the attributes X1 ; . . .::; Xn can be either discrete or real
valued. The objective here is to train a classifier that
provides a probability distribution over the potential values
of Y for each new instance X that requires classification.
Following Bayes’ rule, the expression for the probability
that Y assumes its kth possible value is as follows [37, 38]:
PðY ¼ yk ÞPðX1 ; . . .; Xn jY ¼ yk Þ
PðY ¼ yk jX1 ; . . .; Xn Þ ¼ P   
P Y ¼ yj P X1 ; . . .; Xn jY ¼ yj
ðEq 10Þ
We sum over all possible values of yj for the variable Y.
Given the assumption that Xi is conditionally independent
given Y, Eq. 10 can be rewritten as follows:
Q
PðY ¼ yk Þ i PðXi jY ¼ yk Þ
PðY ¼ yk jX1 ; . . .::; Xn Þ ¼ P  Q  
P Y ¼ yj i P Xi jY ¼ yj
ðEq 11Þ
Equation 11 is the key equation for the Naı̈ve Bayes
classifier. When it is provided with a new instance
Xnew ¼ ð1; . . .; Xn Þ, it demonstrates how to compute the
probability of Y adopting a specific value. This calculation
is based on the observed attribute values of Xnew , as well as
the estimated distributions PðY Þ and PðXi jY Þ derived from
the training data.
Experimental Setup
The vibration signals utilized in this research for bearing
fault detection were obtained from the Bearing Data Centre
at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU); these sig-
nals were used as a benchmark dataset [39]. This dataset is
widely acknowledged for its easy accessibility and direct
applicability to real-world industrial scenarios, which
makes it a significant resource given the limited availability
of actual industrial data in the public domain. The funda-
mental configuration of the employed test rig to obtain
these signals is shown in Fig. 3. It consists of a shaft
powered by a 2 horsepower Reliance Electric motor
equipped with a torque transducer and an encoder. Vibra-
tion signals were collected using accelerometers on the
motor’s supporting base plate and bearings housing, rep-
resenting SKF deep groove ball bearings (6205-2RS JEM
(DAT) recorder captured the datasets [29]. The bearing
vibration signals were collected under various health states
(normal and faults) and motor speeds (1730, 1750, 1772,
and 1797 rpm), with faults induced using the Electro-dis-
charge machining (EMD) technique. Faults on the inner
race, outer race, and balls had specific dimensions (widths
of 0.007, 0.014, and 0.021 inches, depth of 0.011 inches).
Experiments were conducted under four load conditions (0
hp, 1 hp, 2 hp, and 3 hp) and different sampling frequencies
(12 kHz or 48 kHz), each lasting 10 seconds. Table 1
summarizes the ten data categories used in this research.
In this research, 40 datasets are selected from the
CWRU database, which are the vibration signals captured
by the fan-end bearing accelerometer with a sampling rate
of 12 kHz. The dataset files come in MATLAB format and
have a .mat extension. Of these 40 datasets, 4 are of normal
 bearings, and 36 are faulty bearings with flaws in various
bearing components at different loading and speed condi-
tions, as shown in Table 1.
Fig. 3 Bearing experimental setup of CWRU [adapted from Refs 1,
40]
123
 J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

Table 1 Information of the used CWRU rolling bearing vibration features from random signals, enabling defect diagnosis
signals and categorization. These methods include temporal (time)
Health Fault diameter Load and spectral (frequency) domain analysis, each revealing
condition (in) Speed (rpm) (hp) signal dynamics. Time-domain feature extraction has many
advantages over the other methods. It enables direct
Healthy … 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
monitoring of vibration signal temporal properties, helping
Ball fault 0.007 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
identify fault patterns and abnormalities [41, 42].
0.014 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
In contrast with frequency-domain analysis, which
0.021 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
requires transforming signals into the frequency spectrum
Inner race fault 0.007 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
[43], time-domain characteristics have the advantages of
0.014 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
being understandable and computationally efficient. Hence,
0.021 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
they are well suited for applications that involve real-time
Outer race fault 0.007 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
fault detection and condition monitoring. In cases like
0.014 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3
these, being able to make decisions and take action is
0.021 1797/1772/1750/1730 0/1/2/3 extremely important. The time-domain features show the
strength, distribution, and patterns of signals which helps to
identify spikes, differences in amplitude, and changes in
In order to process and evaluate the CWRU data, a
signal frequency over time. The utilization of time-domain
specialized LabVIEW code was developed to extract the
features in machine learning algorithms allows classifiers
time-domain features. The decision to utilize the LabVIEW
to learn how to differentiate between the conditions and
programming environment was based on its inclusion of
various types of faults. This discrimination of bearing
specialized toolkits designed for the purposes of vibration
defects is attained with the help of the unique temporal
analysis and data processing. The CWRU datasets con-
features presented in vibration signals. This time-domain
sisted of lengthy raw signal files. These files were initially
methodology is a significantly effective approach to clas-
partitioned into segments of equal length, each containing
sify the bearing defects as it helps in identifying definite
4096 samples. This partitioning process was carried out
fault patterns linked to different faults occurring due to
using LabVIEW VI, which was created for this purpose.
outer race, inner race, and rolling element defect of bear-
This approach guaranteed that each individual signal
ings. Therefore, this contributes to building new
sample contained an adequate number of data points for
maintenance methods that are more effective, increased
accurately characterizing the bearing condition while also
system stability as well as reduced downtime. Using time-
ensuring that the processing times remained within rea-
domain features to classify faults is a practical and efficient
sonable limits. Figure 4 shows samples of these signals; it
method for assessing the status of bearings and monitoring
can be noticed that the vibration amplitude of the fault
their health in different sectors. Therefore, a total of 14
bearings becomes higher and has more pulses as fault
temporal domain characteristics are derived using the
severity increases. The implementation of the LabVIEW
equations presented in Table 2, utilizing the developed
code was utilized to automate the calculation of the 14
LabVIEW program in this research [17, 41, 42].
time-domain statistical features, as described in ‘‘Feature
where xi is a sample in the acquired signal and N is the
Extraction’’ section, for every pre-processed vibration
total number of samples.
signal segment. Subsequently, the feature matrices
obtained were exported to Excel to facilitate subsequent
analysis utilizing the Orange data mining software. By
Feature Selection
utilizing the LabVIEW platform, the raw CWRU datasets
were processed effectively, enabling reading, segmenta-
In fault diagnosis, features collected from the data set are
tion, and feature extraction to be carried out with ease. The
often utilized as input to the classification process. Some
subsequent creation and assessment of machine learning
applications only have a small number of features, while
models relied heavily on this vibration signal preparation.
others could have too many [44]. Each data item’s
retrieved features are saved in a feature matrix. Therefore,
the size of the matrix and, therefore, the length of the
Feature Extraction
process will depend on both the size of the dataset and the
number of features. However, not all features hold equal
The feature extraction procedure is critical to vibration
importance for a specific task. Some may be redundant or
signal analysis as it extracts key fault classification char-
even irrelevant, and better performance can be achieved by
acteristics. Many methods can be used to extract relevant
eliminating such features. Therefore, feature selection

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

Fig. 4 Samples of CWRU vibration signals for different faults at 1730 (rpm) and 3 (hp)

123
 J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

Table 2 Mathematical expressions of the extracted time-domain features [10, 41]

Feature Equation Feature Equation

Mean P
N
x Minimum xmin ¼ minðxi Þ
xm ¼ N i=
i¼1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Root mean square PN . Peak-to-Peak xpp ¼ maxðxi Þ  minðxi Þ
xrms ¼ ðxi Þ2
N
i¼1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Standard deviation PN . Peak xp ¼ maxjxi j
xstd ¼ ðxi  xm Þ2
N
i¼1

Variance P
N . Crest factor CF ¼ xrms
p x
xvar ¼ ðxi  xm Þ2
N
i¼1
Kurtosis P
N . Impulse factor x
IF ¼ 1 PNp
xkur ¼ ðxi  xm Þ4 N jxi j
Nx4std i¼1
i¼1
Skewness P
N . Shape factor SF ¼ 1 Pxrms
xkur ¼ ðxi  xm Þ3 N
N
jxi j
Nx3std i¼1
i¼1
Maximum xmax ¼ maxðxi Þ Clearance factor CF ¼  PNxmaxpffiffiffiffiffi2
1
N i¼1
jxi j

plays a crucial role in distinguishing between significant

and insignificant features. The curse of dimensionality
affects identification algorithms, as the presence of irrele-
vant, redundant, and noisy attributes leads to poor
predictive performance and increased computational
requirements. Hence, feature selection is vital to enhance
the efficiency of fault identification algorithms. The
objective of feature subset selection is to extract features
with low dimensionality while preserving sufficient infor-
mation and improving feature separability in the feature
space. In the proposed methodology, two ranking methods,
namely Information Gain and Fast Correlation-Based Fil- Fig. 5 FCBF feature selection approach [adapted from Ref 16]
ter, are utilized for feature ranking.
for Information Gain [16]. One notable advantage of FCBF
Information Gain is its ability to eliminate redundant features. During the
screening process, FCBF compares pairs of features and
Entropy, represented by the symbol H, is a metric that retains the one that exhibits a stronger correlation with the
enables the quantification of impurity within a given target. By leveraging features with higher correlations, the
dataset. Building upon this notion, an Information Gain screening is effectively completed. This approach reduces
(IG) measure can be defined, which captures the additional time complexity, enhances computational efficiency,
information pertaining to class Y contributed by feature X accelerates calculations, and simultaneously improves
[45]. This measure precisely indicates the extent to which recognition rates. Figure 5 demonstrates the process
the entropy of Y decreases as a result of considering X. The involved in this method for removing redundant features.
formula for calculating this measure is as follows: In this particular illustration, F1, F2, and F4 are considered
IG ¼ H ðY Þ  H ðYjX Þ ¼ H ð X Þ  H ðXjY Þ ðEq 12Þ similar features, with F1 demonstrating a stronger con-
nection to the target. As a result, F2 and F4 are deemed
Fast Correlation-Based Filter redundant features. Building upon this assessment, F3
enables the removal of F6 and F7.
The Fast Correlation-Based Filter (FCBF) is a feature
selection method that utilizes symmetric uncertainty (SU),
which assesses information based on the average content
within a message as a basis for evaluation, as a replacement

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
Machine Learning Models Evaluation
To assess the effectiveness of various classification meth-
ods, performance is evaluated using selected indicators,
including Accuracy (AC), F1-score, Precision, and Recall
[43, 46]. These evaluation metrics are shown in Table 3
[47]. Typically, AC quantifies the proportion of accurate
predictions out of the total number of instances assessed.
On the other hand, Precision measures the correct identi-
fication of positive patterns from the total predicted
patterns in the positive class. Recall assesses the fraction of
positive patterns that are accurately classified. The F1-
score provides a balanced evaluation of Precision and
Recall by calculating their harmonic mean, effectively
combining these two metrics into a single value, achieving
its highest value at 1 and the lowest value at 0.
Additionally, the area under the ROC (receiver operat-
ing characteristic) curve or AUC is used in determining the
ability of a classifier to distinguish between different
classes. The ROC curve is one of the widely used statistical
tools that provide a comprehensive assessment of sensi-
tivity and specificity. The AUC metric measures the quality
of classification by noting sensitivity on one axis and
specificity on another. A value of AUC closer to 1 indicates
improved classifier performance. The confusion matrix was
an additional evaluation metric employed in this study. It is
an important tool in machine learning because it provides a
thorough representation of the contingency table for a
given classifier. It effectively summarizes the classifier’s
efficacy on a particular set of test data [48, 49]. The matrix
arrangement illustrates the organization of predictions in a
tabular format, wherein each column corresponds to the
instances classified into a predicted class, and each row
corresponds to the instances classified into an actual class.
The confusion matrix provides a concise representation of
the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives,
and false negatives, facilitating a straightforward under-
standing of the outcomes [50]. The calculation of the
mentioned above indicators can be easily derived from the
values present in the confusion matrix.
The formulas listed above contain the variables TP and
TN, which stand for the number of true positives and true
Table 3 Considered evaluation indices for the machine learning
models
Indicator Mathematical expression
Accuracy (AC) TP + TN
TP + FP + TN + FN
Precision TP
TP + FP
Recall TP
TP + FN
F1-score 2  Precision  Recall
Precision þ Recall
negatives, respectively, whereas FP and FN represent the
number of false positives and false negatives, respectively.
Orange Software for Machine Learning Models Design
Orange is an open-source data mining software for
machine learning applications, has impressive data visu-
alization capabilities, and is perfect for both beginners and
experienced users [37]. Scientists at the University of
Ljubljana in Slovenia developed it in 1997 utilizing
Python, Cython, C ? ? , and C programming languages
[44]. The Python and Qt3 libraries were used to build the
software’s graphical user interface and environment. This
software’s most recent version, Orange 3.35.0, was
released in March 2023, and it includes a straightforward
user interface where users may arrange graphical elements,
called widgets, to build a data analysis process. This pro-
gram’s user-friendly widget provides users access to
fundamental activities such as reading data, presenting data
tables, choosing features, selecting learning estimators,
comparing learning methods, and visualizing data items.
The user may also see the outcomes graphically. One of the
key benefits of this application is the comparison of several
algorithms using different criteria during the performance
assessment phase. A dataset with a .tab extension may be
used with Orange. However, it can also open widely used
dataset file formats, including txt, basket, .csv, and .arff.
The developed Orange data processing workflow is
shown in Fig. 6. It starts first by loading the data, which are
the extracted 14 features using the developed LabVIEW
code, from an Excel sheet file saved on the PC. The data
are then visualized in table format and sent to a ranking
widget to select the most important first 7 features using IG
and FCBF. The selected features are passed to the data
sampler widget, incorporating various sampling tech-
niques. It produces two datasets: one used for taring and
another that includes instances from the original dataset not
included in the sampled dataset used for testing. However,
this research considered a 10-fold cross-validation crite-
rion: 9 for training and 1 for testing. The learning algorithm
testing widget (Test and Score) enables the evaluation of
various learning algorithms, in this research, kNN, SVM,
and Naı̈ve Bayes, respectively. The widget performs two
main functions. Firstly, it displays a table presenting per-
formance measures of different classifiers, such as
classification accuracy and Area under the curve. Secondly,
it generates evaluation results that other widgets can utilize
for further analysis of classifier performance, such as ROC
Analysis or Confusion Matrix widgets. The kNN widget
utilizes the kNN algorithm where the used number of
nearest neighbors (k) is 5 with Euclidean distance. Simi-
larly, the SVM and Naı̈ve Bayes algorithms are applied
using SVM and Naı̈ve Bayes widgets where the Gaussian
123

Fig. 6 Developed Orange workflow for feature ranking and classification
radial basis function (RBF) has been chosen as the pre-
ferred kernel option to obtain high accuracy. The
performance of different machine learning algorithms is
evaluated using a confusion matrix. The confusion matrix
widget shows each algorithm’s number of true positives,
false positives, true negatives, and false negatives. The
scatter plot widget incorporates advanced exploratory
analysis features and intelligent data visualization
enhancements.
Results and Discussion
Feature Ranking Results
Figure 7 shows the feature ranking results. It can clearly
observe the importance of the considered 14 features. The
features that have the highest IG scores (Figure 7a) are
‘‘Peak-to-Peak,’’ ‘‘Variance,’’ ‘‘STD,’’ and ‘‘RMS.’’ The
higher-score features suggest they are important for the
classification task and provide valuable information. The
features ‘‘Min,’’ ‘‘Peak,’’ and ‘‘Max’’ also exhibit relatively
high IG scores, yet slightly lower than the previously
mentioned features. The features ‘‘Shape factor,’’ ‘‘Clear-
ance factor,’’ ‘‘Kurtosis,’’ ‘‘Impulse factor,’’ ‘‘Crest
factor,’’ ‘‘Skewness,’’ and ‘‘Mean’’ have smaller IG scores,
indicating that they provide relatively less information
compared to the features that are ranked higher.
According to the FCBF rankings (Figure 7b), the ‘‘Peak-
to-Peak’’ feature is considered the most significant.
According to their FCBF scores, ‘‘Skewness,’’ ‘‘Mean,’’
‘‘Variance,’’ ‘‘STD,’’ and ‘‘RMS’’ are deemed relatively
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
significant. The features ‘‘Min,’’ ‘‘Peak,’’ ‘‘Max,’’ ‘‘Shape
factor,’’ ‘‘Clearance factor,’’ ‘‘Kurtosis,’’ ‘‘Impulse factor,’’
and ‘‘Crest factor’’ have lower FCBF scores, suggesting
that they are less significant for the classification task in
comparison to other features.
The presence of ‘‘Peak-to-Peak’’ as a consistent feature
in both rankings indicates its importance in classification.
The presence of ‘‘Variance,’’ ‘‘STD,’’ and ‘‘RMS’’ in both
rankings highlights their significance, further emphasizing
their importance. The rankings of certain features, such as
‘‘Skewness,’’ ‘‘Mean,’’ and ‘‘Min,’’ differ between the
FCBF and IG results. In the FCBF rankings, these features
have higher positions than the IG results rankings. Based
on the feature rankings obtained from IG and FCBF, it is
proposed to prioritize the top 7 features in each method
when training machine learning models.
Classification Results
Table 4 presents the classification results obtained from
machine learning algorithms (kNN, SVM, Naive Bayes)
combined with the considered feature ranking methods (IG,
FCBF). Performance evaluation utilizes various measures,
including AUC, AC, F1, Precision, and Recall. In general,
the performance of all three machine learning algorithms is
satisfactory, even without feature selection. However, the
level of success varies across different performance mea-
sures. The kNN algorithm demonstrates superior
performance with the highest AUC score, suggesting its
effectiveness in accurately differentiating between classes.
The Naive Bayes algorithm demonstrates strong perfor-
mance across various evaluation metrics, including high
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
Fig. 7. Feature ranking results
(a) feature ranking based on IG
(b) feature ranking based on
FCBF
AC, F1-score, Precision, and Recall. The performance of
SVM is comparatively lower than kNN and Naive Bayes,
as it exhibits lower scores across most measures.
Applying the IG method for feature selection leads to an
enhancement in the overall performance of the models,
with a notable improvement observed in SVM and Naive
Bayes. The consistently high performance of kNN across
various measures indicates that the initial set of features
effectively captured significant discriminatory information.
The SVM model significantly enhances AUC, AC, and
Precision metrics. This suggests that the feature selection
process positively impacts the model’s classification
accuracy and Precision. A number of improvements in all
metrics demonstrate the impact of IG-based feature selec-
tion as it allows for improved Naive Bayes performance.
Although the FCBF performance is comparable to the
IG-based feature selection technique, there may be some
differences. The SVM technique greatly enhances several
performance indicators, such as AUC, AC, F1-score, and
Precision. The kNN method consistently exhibits robust
performance, showing marginal improvements in metrics
for instance AUC, AC, F1-score, and Recall. The results
also show that the use of FCBF leads to improved SVM
classification. The Naive Bayes approach displays
improvements in all the metrics similar to the feature
selection method based on IG. This suggests that the FCBF
significantly improves the effectiveness of Naive Bayes.
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of performance
across multiple criteria, it can be inferred that the inte-
gration of kNN with FCBF (kNN-FCBF) feature selection
123
 J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

exhibits significant promise. The kNN algorithm frequently model combined with the FCBF method for significant
exhibits robust performance in diverse settings. Addition- feature selection.
ally, its classification performance is further enhanced In the first matrix, the model correctly predicted 314 out
when combined with the FCBF feature selection technique, of 360 instances of ball fault but incorrectly classified 11
showing the best evaluation results, as indicated by the instances as healthy, 34 as inner race fault, and 1 as outer
bold-highlighted values in Table 4. Furthermore, it is worth race fault. The classification of each of the 160 instances of
noting that SVM with FCBF feature selection demonstrates healthy bearings was accurate. The model accurately pre-
significant enhancements, suggesting that it has the dicted 305 instances of inner race fault but misclassified 6
potential to be a powerful combination. instances as ball fault and 49 as outer race fault. The model
The confusion matrices of the kNN model are repre- correctly identified 251 out of 360 instances of outer race
sented in Fig. 8. The first confusion matrix (Figure 8a) defect. However, 14 instances were misclassified as ball
corresponds to a kNN model without significant feature faults and 92 as healthy. In the second matrix, however,
selection, while the second (Figure 8b) represents a kNN 335 out of 360 instances of ball defect were correctly
classified. There were 19 instances of inner race fault
misclassification and 6 instances of outer race fault mis-
classification. All 160 instances of healthy bearings were
Table 4 Evaluation measures of the used machine learning models classified accurately. The model accurately predicted 356
with and without feature selection instances of inner race defect out of 360. There were four
Model AUC AC F1 Precision Recall incorrect classifications of ball defect. The model accu-
rately identified 339 out of 360 instances of outer race
Without feature selection
defect. Twenty instances were incorrectly classified as ball
kNN 0.988 0.951 0.95 0.951 0.95
faults and one as inner race fault.
SVM 0.898 0.734 0.726 0.733 0.734
Both models performed well in classifying instances as
Naı̈ve Bayes 0.976 0.83 0.833 0.852 0.83
healthy with 100 percent accuracy. The second model
With feature selection using IG
(kNN-FCBF) predicted various fault categories more
kNN 0.989 0.957 0.951 0.952 0.952
accurately than the first model (kNN without feature
SVM 0.965 0.89 0.885 0.907 0.89
selection). For the ball fault and inner race fault classes, the
Naı̈ve Bayes 0.941 0.81 0.814 0.84 0.81 second model was more precise and made fewer misclas-
With feature selection using FCBF sifications than the first. In contrast, the first model was
kNN 0.991 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.957 more accurate for the outer race fault class and made fewer
SVM 0.936 0.837 0.832 0.84 0.838 errors than the second. The findings demonstrate the effect
Naı̈ve Bayes 0.975 0.859 0.86 0.87 0.857 of feature selection (FCBF) on the kNN model’s general
performance for bearing defect diagnosis. The second
model was more accurate and had fewer misclassifications

Fig. 8 kNN confusion matrices

(a) without important feature
selection (b) with important
feature selection using FCBF

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

for certain fault categories due to selecting and using only
the important features. However, it is important to note that
each model may have unique strengths and limitations
depending on the fault class.
The scatter plot in Fig. 9 displays the distribution of the
four bearing health states in a two-dimensional space, as
obtained from the confusion matrix of the enhanced model
(kNN-FCBF). In Fig. 9a, the x-axis corresponds to the
standard deviation, while in Fig. 9b, it represents the peak-
to-peak value. On the other hand, the y-axis in both fig-
ures represents the skewness value. The selection of these
axes was arbitrary and aimed at presenting the data based

Fig. 9 Features clustering of the studied cases (a) Peak-to-Peak with skewness (b) standard deviation with skewness

123

on their ranking using significant feature selection
approaches. The four health states are visually distin-
guished by distinct colors: red for ball fault, green for
healthy, blue for inner race fault, and yellow for outer race
fault. The scatter plot illustrates distinct separation among
the four health states. Specifically, the ball fault bearings
tend to cluster in the lower-left corner, the healthy bearings
cluster in the upper-right corner, the inner race fault
bearings cluster in the lower-right corner, and the outer
race fault bearings cluster in the upper-left corner. This
finding implies that the chosen features successfully dif-
ferentiate among the four states of bearing health. The
observation that the four health states exhibit a
notable degree of distinctiveness is a positive development,
as it suggests that the improved model is expected to
possess the capability to accurately classify various states
of bearing health.
Comparative Analysis
Table 5 provides a comparison summary of the obtained
best model in this study, which is kNN-FCBF, with a
number of previous studies. These studies also used the
CWRU dataset and focused on categorizing four health
classes: Healthy bearing, Ball fault, Inner race fault, and
Outer race fault, as the present study. Comparative
parameters include the classifier type, the number of fea-
tures used for classifier training, and the classification
accuracy.
Various adopted approaches were observed across
studies in terms of classifier complexity and computational
effort. Rule-based classifiers, as utilized by Grover and
Turk [22], offer lower complexity and computational
demands due to predefined rules, which can result in decent
accuracy with a smaller number of features. Back-Propa-
gation Neural Networks (BPNN), such as those described
in Huang et al. [51], can manage complex patterns but may
require more computational resources for training due to
their multiple layers and connections. SVM, as employed
by Cascales-Fulgencio, et al. [52], is effective at managing
Table 5 Performance comparison of machine learning models for bearing fault diagnosis
Author Classifier
Grover and Turk [22] Rule-based classifiers
Huang, et al. [51] BPNN (Back-propagation neural network)
Cascales-Fulgencio, et al. [52] SVM
Jamil, et al. [32] kNN
Alonso-Gonzalez, et al. [53] Kernel Naive Bayes
Rajput, et al. [54] Fuzzy-CNN (Convolution neural network)
Current work FCBF-kNN
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
high-dimensional data, but their computational complexity
can increase as the number of features increases. kNN,
utilized by Jamil, et al. [32], is a relatively simple and
intuitive algorithm with minimal computational complexity
during training, but larger datasets may require additional
computational resources during the prediction phase. Naive
Bayes classifiers, including Kernel Naive Bayes as
employed by Alonso-Gonzalez, et al. [53], are known for
their simplicity and speed, resulting in high computational
efficiency. Fuzzy-CNN (Convolution Neural Network), as
applied by Rajput, et al. [54], is a powerful model for
complex pattern recognition. Nevertheless, its computa-
tional complexity can be high due to its multiple layers and
convolution operations.
The kNN-FCBF model which incorporates seven unique
time-domain features was used in this study to evaluate the
performance of diverse machine learning algorithms used
for industrial machine fault diagnostics. As shown in
Table 5, the kNN-FCBF model achieved an accuracy of
97%, ranking second. In particular, the Fuzzy-CNN model
with 16 features achieved the most accurate result at
99.87%. But this model needed a lot of computational
power, which reduced its practicality in widespread
implementation. On the other hand, it was found that the
kNN-FCBF model is quite simple and less computationally
extensive, however still provided a high degree of cor-
rectness thus indicating its adequacy in fault diagnosis. The
efficiency and ease of use that come with the kNN-FCBF
strategy facilitate real-time machine health monitoring
through embedded electronics. Embedded electronic sys-
tems, however, have limitations such as a lack of
processing power, memory, and energy capabilities. This
approach effectively resolves these problems because the
low computational cost allows for real-time detection of
faults using cheap embedded processors. Further, the small
number of features that were used (only 7) have low
memory and data transfer requirements which is very
important in embedded implantation where there are lim-
ited resources. In contrast, larger and more resource-
intensive approaches may not be practically feasible in
Number of features Accuracy (%)
3 93.82
4 91.6
16 84.7
9 96.2
5 94.4
16 99.87
7 97
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
embedded monitors with strict constraints. However, the
demonstrated efficiency of the kNN-FCBF technique here
attains high accuracy while adhering to such constraints.
This makes it well suited for integration into embedded
condition monitoring systems, allowing for real-time
alerting of machinery faults directly on-device during
operations. The on-equipment deployment potential holds
the promise of significantly enhancing maintenance
practices.
In conclusion, various diagnostic methods for bearing
faults have been utilized in various investigations. Each
method has its own tradeoffs in terms of classifier com-
plexity, computational effort, accuracy, and the number of
features employed. The current work’s combination of the
FCBF feature selection method with the kNN classifier
improved accuracy while reducing the number of features,
establishing a balance between computational efficiency
and classification performance.
Conclusion
The focus of this research was on the application of kNN,
SVM, and naı̈ve Bayes classifiers for bearing fault diag-
nosis by using time-domain vibration signals. It was
observed from the results that despite all three classifiers
producing good results in bearing faults detection, kNN
and SVM produced better results. Evaluation of IG and
FCBF for the best feature selection was also done in this
study. These techniques were found to enhance the per-
formance of all three classifiers. The greatest improvement
was observed with the kNN algorithm, where the AUC rose
from 0.988 to 0.991 taking feature selection into consid-
eration. In general, this study proved the effectiveness of
machine learning classifiers including kNN and SVM in
bearing fault diagnosis with time-domain vibration signals
and feature selection. The AC has changed from 0.951 to
0.97, the F1-score is now 0.96 as against the previous value
of 0.95, Recall is no longer at 0.951 but increased to
0.96. The data presented in the confusion matrices
demonstrated that kNN-FCBF outperformed using kNN
without feature selection.
The suggested framework, which integrates optimized
time-domain feature extraction with machine learning
models and feature selection, yielded promising outcomes
in bearing fault diagnosis. A key advantage is the com-
putational efficiency achieved by directly analyzing
vibration signals in the time domain without transforming.
Incorporating dual feature selection further enhanced
model performance by eliminating irrelevant inputs.
However, it is important to acknowledge the potential
limitations of this study. The vibration signals utilized in
this study (CWRU dataset) may not accurately reflect the
entirety of bearing fault conditions encountered in real-
world scenarios. Hence, further testing on varied datasets
representing different fault severities and operating condi-
tions would help validate the robustness and
generalizability of the proposed method. Also, the efficacy
of the used classifiers can fluctuate based on factors such as
the specific type of bearing fault, the extent of the fault, and
the overall quality of the vibration signals. Therefore, it is
imperative to acknowledge the constraints of this study in
subsequent research endeavors. This can be achieved by
employing a dataset that is more inclusive and reflective of
the population; ensemble or deep learning approaches may
provide a better diagnostic ability and assess the classifiers’
efficacy on data that has not been previously encountered.
Additionally, exploring alternative feature selection tech-
niques would be imperative to enhance the efficacy of
bearing fault diagnosis.
Funding This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Not applicable.
Conflict of interest The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. A. Boudiaf, A. Moussaoui, A. Dahane, I. Atoui, A comparative
study of various methods of bearing faults diagnosis using the
case western reserve university data,’’ (in English). J. Fail. Anal.
Prev. 16(2), 271–284 (2016)
2. J. Liu, L. Xue, L. Wang, Z. Shi, M. Xia, A new impact model for
vibration features of a defective ball bearing. ISA Trans. 142,
465–477 (2023)
3. C. Abdelkrim, M.S. Meridjet, N. Boutasseta, L. Boulanouar,
Detection and classification of bearing faults in industrial geared
motors using temporal features and adaptive neuro-fuzzy infer-
ence system, (in English). Heliyon. 5(8), e02046 (2019)
4. P. Guo, J. Fu, X. Yang, Condition monitoring and fault diagnosis
ofwind turbines gearbox bearing temperature based on kol-
mogorov-smirnov test and convolutional neural network model,
(in English). Energies. 11(9), 2248 (2018)
5. M. Irfan et al., A Comparison of Machine Learning Methods for
the Diagnosis of Motor Faults Using Automated Spectral Feature
Extraction Technique, (in English). J. Nondestruct. Eval. 41(2),
31 (2022)
6. H. Shi, Y. Li, X. Bai, K. Zhang, X. Sun, A two-stage sound-
vibration signal fusion method for weak fault detection in rolling
bearing systems, (in English). Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 172,
109012 (2022)
7. H. Zhao, H. Liu, Y. Jin, X. Dang, W. Deng, Feature extraction for
data-driven remaining useful life prediction of rolling bearings.
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70, 1–10 (2021)
8. R. Liu, B. Yang, E. Zio, X. Chen, Artificial intelligence for fault
diagnosis of rotating machinery: a review, (in English). Mech.
Syst. Signal Process. Review. 108, 33–47 (2018)
9. V.V. Rao, C. Ratnam, Estimation of defect severity in rolling
element bearings using vibration signals with artificial neural
123

network, (in English). Jordan J. Mech. Ind. Eng. 9(2), 113–120
(2015)
10. J. Liu, Z. Xu, L. Zhou, W. Yu, Y. Shao, A statistical feature
investigation of the spalling propagation assessment for a ball
bearing. Mech. Mach. Theory. 131, 336–350 (2019)
11. A.A.F. Ogaili, A. AbdulhadyJaber, M.N. Hamzah, Statistically
optimal vibration feature selection for fault diagnosis in wind
turbine blade. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 13(3), 1082–1092
(2023)
12. M. Savolainen, A. Lehtovaara, Development of damage detection
parameters over the lifetime of a rolling element bearing, (in
English). Tribologia. 38(3–4), 61–71 (2021)
13. S. Agrawal, V.K. Giri, Improved mechanical fault identification
of an induction motor using Teager-Kaiser energy operator, (in
English). J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 12(5), 1955–1962 (2017)
14. H. Shi, Z. Liu, X. Bai, Y. Li, Y. Wu, A theoretical model with the
effect of cracks in the local spalling of full ceramic ball bearings,
(in English). Appl. Sci. (Switzerland). 9(19), 4142 (2019)
15. P. Wang et al., Vibration characteristics of rotor-bearing system
with angular misalignment and cage fracture: simulation and
experiment, (in English). Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 182,
109545 (2023)
16. C.Y. Lee, W.C. Lin, Induction motor fault classification based on
ROC curve and t-SNE, (in English). IEEE Access. 9, 56330–
56343 (2021)
17. X. Liu, H. Huang, J.J.S. Xiang, A personalized diagnosis method
to detect faults in a bearing based on acceleration sensors and an
FEM simulation driving support vector machine. Sensors. 20(2),
420 (2020)
18. H. Liu, L. Li, J. Ma, Rolling bearing fault diagnosis based on
STFT-deep learning and sound signals. Shock. Vib. 2016,
6127479 (2016)
19. C.T. Alexakos, Y.L. Karnavas, M. Drakaki, I.A. Tziafettas, A
combined short time fourier transform and image classification
transformer model for rolling element bearings fault diagnosis in
electric motors. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr. 3(1), 228–242 (2021)
20. F. He, Q. Ye, A bearing fault diagnosis method based on wavelet
packet transform and convolutional neural network optimized by
simulated annealing algorithm, (in English). Sensors. 22(4), 1410
(2022)
21. A. B. Patil, J. A. Gaikwad, and J. V. Kulkarni, Bearing fault
diagnosis using discrete Wavelet Transform and Artificial Neural
Network, 2017, pp 399-405: Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineers Inc
22. C. Grover, N. Turk, Rolling element bearing fault diagnosis using
empirical mode decomposition and hjorth parameters. Procedia
Comput. Sci. 167, 1484–1494 (2020)
23. K. Deák, I. Kocsis, Support vector machine with wavelet
decomposition method for fault diagnosis of tapered roller
bearings by modelling manufacturing defects, (in English). Per-
iod. Polytech. Mechan. Eng. 61(4), 276–281 (2017)
24. M. Altaf, T. Akram, M.A. Khan, M. Iqbal, M.M.I. Ch, C.H. Hsu,
A new statistical features based approach for bearing fault
diagnosis using vibration signals, (in English). Sensors. 22(5),
2012 (2022)
25. M. Li, Q. Wei, H. Wang, X. Zhang, Research on fault diagnosis
of time-domain vibration signal based on convolutional neural
networks, (in English). Syst. Sci. Control Eng. 7(3), 73–81 (2019)
26. M.D. Prieto, G. Cirrincione, A.G. Espinosa, J.A. Ortega, H.
Henao, Bearing fault detection by a novel condition-monitoring
scheme based on statistical-time features and neural networks, (in
English). IEEE Trans. Ind. Electr. 60(8), 3398–3407 (2013)
27. X. Li, H. Zhao, L. Yu, H. Chen, W. Deng, W. Deng, Feature
extraction using parameterized multisynchrosqueezing transform.
IEEE Sens. J. 22(14), 14263–14272 (2022)
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
28. H. Zhao et al., Intelligent diagnosis using continuous wavelet
transform and gauss convolutional deep belief network. IEEE
Trans. Reliab. 72(2), 692–702 (2023)
29. H. Zhao, H. Liu, J. Xu, W. Deng, Performance prediction using
high-order differential mathematical morphology gradient spec-
trum entropy and extreme learning machine. IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas. 69(7), 4165–4172 (2020)
30. L.A. Al-Haddad, A.A. Jaber, Improved UAV blade unbalance
prediction based on machine learning and ReliefF supreme fea-
ture ranking method. J. Brazil. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 45(9), 463
(2023)
31. S. Mochammad, Y.J. Kang, Y. Noh, S. Park, B. Ahn, Stable hy-
brid feature selection method for compressor fault diagnosis.
IEEE Access. 9, 97415–97429 (2021)
32. M.A. Jamil, M.A. Khan, S. Khanam, Feature-based performance
of SVM and KNN classifiers for diagnosis of rolling element
bearing faults. Vibroeng. Procedia. 39, 36–42 (2021)
33. L. Yuan, D. Lian, X. Kang, Y. Chen, K. Zhai, Rolling bearing
fault diagnosis based on convolutional neural network and sup-
port vector machine. IEEE Access. 8, 137395–137406 (2020)
34. J. Zhang, X. Hu, X. Zhong, H. Zhou, Fault diagnosis of axle box
bearing with acoustic signal based on chirplet transform and
support vector machine. Shock. Vib. 2022, 9868999 (2022)
35. M.A.S. Al Tobi, K.P. Ramachandran, S. Al-Araimi, R. Pacturan,
A. Rajakannu, C. Achuthan, Machinery faults diagnosis using
support vector machine (SVM) and Naı̈ve Bayes classifiers. Int. J.
Engi. Trends Technol. 70(12), 26–34 (2022)
36. A.A.F. Ogaili, A.A. Jaber, M.N. Hamzah, A methodological
approach for detecting multiple faults in wind turbine blades
based on vibration signals and machine learning. Curved Layer.
Str. 10(1), 20220214 (2023)
37. K. Vernekar, H. Kumar, K.V. Gangadharan, Engine gearbox fault
diagnosis using empirical mode decomposition method and Naı̈ve
Bayes algorithm. Sadhana Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci. 42(7), 1143–
1153 (2017)
38. V. Muralidharan, V. Sugumaran, A comparative study of Naı̈ve
Bayes classifier and Bayes net classifier for fault diagnosis of
monoblock centrifugal pump using wavelet analysis. Appl. Soft
Comput. J. 12(8), 2023–2029 (2012)
39. C. W. R. U. B. D. Center. (2023, January). Seeded fault test data.
Available: https://engineering.case.edu/bearingdatacenter
40. W.A. Smith, R.B. Randall, Rolling element bearing diagnostics
using the Case Western Reserve University data: a benchmark
study, (in English). Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 64–65, 100–131
(2015)
41. B. Cui, Y. Weng, N. Zhang, A feature extraction and machine
learning framework for bearing fault diagnosis. Renew. Energy.
191, 987–997 (2022)
42. J. J. Saucedo-Dorantes, I. Zamudio-Ramirez, J. Cureno-Osornio,
R. A. Osornio-Rios, and J. A. Antonino-Daviu, ‘‘Condition
monitoring method for the detection of fault graduality in outer
race bearing based on vibration-current fusion, statistical features
and neural network,’’ (in English), Applied Sciences (Switzer-
land), Article vol. 11, no. 17, 2021, Art. no. 8033.
43. V. Vakharia, V.K. Gupta, P.K. Kankar, A comparison of feature
ranking techniques for fault diagnosis of ball bearing. Soft.
Comput. 20(4), 1601–1619 (2016)
44. M. Peker, O. Özkaraca, and A. Şaşar, Use of orange data mining
toolbox for data analysis in clinical decision making: the diag-
nosis of diabetes disease, in expert system techniques in
biomedical science practice: IGI Global, 2018, pp 143-167
45. R.V. Sánchez, P. Lucero, R.E. Vásquez, M. Cerrada, J.C.
Macancela, D. Cabrera, Feature ranking for multi-fault diagnosis
of rotating machinery by using random forest and KNN. J. Intell.
Fuzzy Syst. Conf. Paper. 34(6), 3463–3473 (2018)
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
46. J. Li, X. Yao, X. Wang, Q. Yu, Y. Zhang, Multiscale local fea-
tures learning based on BP neural network for rolling bearing
intelligent fault diagnosis. Measurement J. Int. Measurement
Confed. 153, 107419 (2020)
47. M. Hossin, M.N. Sulaiman, A review on evaluation metrics for
data classification evaluations. Int. J. Data Min. Knowl. Manag.
Process. 5(2), 1 (2015)
48. S. Visa, B. Ramsay, A. Ralescu, E. Van Der Knaap, Confusion
matrix-based feature selection. CEUR Workshop Proc. 710, 120–
127 (2011)
49. L.A. Al-Haddad, A.A. Jaber, An intelligent fault diagnosis
approach for multirotor UAVs based on deep neural network of
multi-resolution transform features. Drones. 7(2), 82 (2023)
50. R.H. Hadi, H.N. Hady, A.M. Hasan, A. Al-Jodah, A.J. Humaidi,
Improved fault classification for predictive maintenance in
industrial IoT based on AutoML: a case study of ball-bearing
faults. Processes. 11(5), 1507 (2023)
51. M. Huang, Z. Liu, Y. Tao, Mechanical fault diagnosis and pre-
diction in IoT based on multi-source sensing data fusion. Simul.
Model Practice Theory. 102, 101981 (2020)
52. D. Cascales-Fulgencio, E. Quiles-Cucarella, E. Garcı́a-Moreno,
Computation and statistical analysis of bearings’ time- and
frequency-domain features enhanced using cepstrum pre-
whitening: A ML- and DL-based classification. Appl. Sci.
(Switzerland). 12(21), 10882 (2022)
53. M. Alonso-González, V.G. Dı́az, B.L. Pérez, B.C. G-Bustelo, J.P.
Anzola, Bearing fault diagnosis with envelope analysis and
machine learning approaches using CWRU dataset. IEEE Access.
11, 57796–57805 (2023)
54. D.S. Rajput, G. Meena, M. Acharya, K.K. Mohbey, Fault pre-
diction using fuzzy convolution neural network on IoT
environment with heterogeneous sensing data fusion. Measure-
ment: Sens. 26, 100701 (2023)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123