Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modeling Condition and Performance of Mining Equipment: Tad S. Golosinski and Hui Hu
Modeling Condition and Performance of Mining Equipment: Tad S. Golosinski and Hui Hu
Of Mining Equipment
Tad S. Golosinski and Hui Hu
Mining Engineering
University of
Missouri-Rolla
1
Condition and Performance Monitoring
Systems
2
CAT’s VIMS
(Vital Information Management System)
3
Other, Similar Systems
Cummins
• CENSE (Engine Module)
Euclid-Hitachi
• Contronics & Haultronics
Komatsu
• VHMS (Vehicle Health Monitoring System)
LeTourneau
• LINCS (LeTourneau Integrated Network Control System)
4
Round Mountain Gold Mine
Truck Fleet
17 CAT 785 (150t)
11 CAT 789B (190t)
PSA
(Product Support
Agreement) CAT
dealer guarantees
88% availability
5
VIMS in RMG Mine
Average availability is 93%
over 70,000 operating hours
VIMS used to help with
preventive maintenance
• Diagnostics after engine failure
• Haul road condition assessment
• Other
7
Cummins Mining Gateway
Modem
Base
Cummins
Engine Station
RF Receiver Modem
8
VIMS Data & Information Flow
VIMS
Mine Legacy
Site 1 Database
Mine
Site 3
Information
Extraction
Information
Data Mining
Apply
Tools
9
Earlier Research:
Data Mining of VIMS
10
Research Objectives
Build the VIMS data warehouse to
facilitate the data mining
Develop the data mining application for
knowledge discovery
Build the predictive models for prediction
of equipment condition and performance
11
Interactions
Data Data
Acquisition Preparation
Result
Interpretation Data Mining
12
VIMS Features
Operator
Download
13
Data Source
14
VIMS Statistical Data Warehouse
1-3 minute interval statistical data
• Minimum • Regression Intercept
•
•
Maximum
Average
• Regression Slope
• Data Range • Regression SYY
• Variance • Standard Deviation
15
VIMS Data Description
Six CAT 789B trucks
300 MB of VIMS data
79 “High Engine Speed” events
16
SPRINT -A Decision Tree Algorithm
IBM Almaden Research Center
gini ( s ) 1 p 2
j
n1 n2
ginisplit ( s ) gini ( s1 ) gini ( s2 )
n n
Strictly binary tree
Built-in v-fold cross validation
17
18
VIMS EVENT PREDICTION
19
“One-Minute”
decision tree 20
Decision Tree: Training on One-Minute Data
Total Errors = 120 (6.734%)
Predicted Class --> | Other | Eng1 | Eng3 | Eng2 | Eng4 | Eng6 | Eng5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other | 1331 | 18 | 9| 5| 16 | 6| 1 | total = 1386
Eng1 | 0| 62 | 1| 3| 0| 0| 0 | total = 66
Eng3 | 0| 11 | 51 | 2| 2| 1| 0 | total = 67
Eng2 | 0| 12 | 8| 38 | 7| 0| 0 | total = 65
Eng4 | 0| 3| 7| 2| 55 | 0| 1 | total = 68
Eng6 | 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 61 | 4 | total = 66
Eng5 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 64 | total = 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1331 | 106 | 76 | 51 | 80 | 68 | 70 | total = 1782
21
Decision Tree: Test#1 on One-Minute Data
Total Errors = 24 (24%)
Predicted Class --> | Other | Eng1 | Eng3 | Eng2 | Eng4 | Eng6 | Eng5 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other | 59 | 3| 0| 2| 3| 0| 1 | total = 68
Eng1 | 4| 1| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0 | total = 6
Eng3 | 0| 3| 1| 0| 1| 0| 0 | total = 5
Eng2 | 1| 1| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0 | total = 4
Eng4 | 1| 1| 0| 1| 1| 0| 0 | total = 4
Eng6 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 7| 0 | total = 7
Eng5 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 6 | total = 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65 | 9| 2| 5| 5| 7| 7 | total = 100
22
Decision Tree: Test#2 on One-Minute Data
Total Errors = 35 (17.86%)
Predicted Class --> | Other | Eng1 | Eng3 | Eng2 | Eng4 | Eng6 | Eng5 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other | 141 | 9| 2| 4| 4| 0| 0 | total = 160
Eng1 | 2| 2| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0 | total = 6
Eng3 | 2| 1| 2| 0| 1| 0| 0 | total = 6
Eng2 | 2| 1| 2| 1| 0| 0| 0| total = 6
Eng4 | 1| 0| 1| 1| 3| 0| 0| total = 6
Eng6 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 6| 0| total = 6
Eng5 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 6| total = 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
148 | 13 | 8| 7| 8| 6| 6 | total = 196
23
“Two-Minute”
decision tree
24
Decision Tree
Training on Two-Minute Data Sets
25
Decision Tree
Test #1 on Two-Minute Data
26
Decision Tree
Test #2 on Two-Minute Data
27
“Three-Minute”
decision tree
28
Decision Tree
Training on Three-Minute Data
30
Decision Tree
Test #2 on Three-Minute Data
31
Decision Tree Summary
“One-Minute model” needs more complex tree
structure
“One-Minute model” gives low accuracy of
predictions
“Three-Minute” decision tree model gives
reasonable accuracy of predictions
• Based on test #1 
• Other - 13% error rate
• Eng1 - 50% error rate
• Eng2 – 0 error rate
Other approach?
32
Backpropagation
A Neural Network Classification Algorithm
Node
Node Detail
x1
w1
w2
x2 f(z)
w3
x3
z = iwixi
Input Hidden Out
Layer
Some choices for F(z):
Characteristic: Each output f(z) = 1 / [1+e-z] (sigmoid)
corresponds to a possible classification. f(z) = (1-e-2z) / (1+e-2z) (tanh)
33
Minimize the Sum of Squares
SSQ Error Function
1 m
E ( t k yk ) 2
2 k 1
1 m
min E ( t k yk ) 2
2 k 1
yk (output) is a function of
the weights wj,k. Freeman & Skapura, Neural Networks,
Addison Wesley, 1992
tk is the true value. In the graph:
• Ep is the sum of
E
EW j ,k and solve EW j ,k 0 for Wj,k squares error
More
34
Neural Network Modeling Results
“Three-Minute training set”
35
Neural Network Modeling Result
“Three-Minute set”: test #1 and #2
Test #1
Test #2
36
NN Summary
Insufficient data for one-minute and two-
minute prediction models
Three-minute network shows better
performance than the decision tree
model:
• Other - 17% error rate
• Eng1 - 28% error rate
• Eng2 - 20% error rate
37
Conclusions
Predictive model can be built
Neural Network model is more accurate
than the Decision Tree one
• Based on all data
Overall accuracy is not sufficient for
practical applications
More data is needed to train and test the
models
38
References
Failure Pattern Recognition of a Mining
Truck with a Decision Tree Algorithm
• Tad Golosinski & Hui Hu, Mineral Resources
Engineering, 2002 (?)