STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF DIFFERENT PROCESS

PARAMETERS AFFECTING BEARING VIBRATION

A
Presentation
submitted
in partial fulfillment
for the award of the Degree of
Master of Technology
in Department of Mechanical Engineering
(With specialization in Production Engineering)

Guided by – Dr. Alok Khatri (Assistant Professor) Submitted by – Parth Vyas

(Engineering College Ajmer) Roll Number – 15EEAPE605

1
OUTLINES

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Research gap
• Objective
• Experimental setup
• Research Methodology
• Design of experiment
• Particle Swarm Optimization
• Experimental results
• Conclusion
• Future scope
• References

2
INTRODUCTION

Bearing plays a very important role in any machine. Without bearing, it is very difficult for a rotary element to
rotate during any machining operation. It helps in load transmission and not only that, it also reduces the friction
which in turn reduces the power and effort required during the operation.

4
 Hydrodynamic bearings

Classification of Bearing Hydrostatic bearings

Rolling element bearings

Bearing

Defects in Bearing

Lubrication failure

Contamination

Improper Mounting

Overheating

Corrosion

Misalignment and Mass Unbalance

False Brinelling

Fatigue
5
LITERATURE REVIEW

• Gupta et al. (Year 1997) The Vibration analysis deals with the extraction of the feature from a signal which
can give results and analyses whether the components of a machine are good or not. In real all the
components of machine produce vibration. Under normal condition, when the bearing is in operation and is in
healthy state, level of the vibrations are very small and stable; but, when the defects arises, some of the
process related to machine dynamics changes, the vibration pattern also changed

• Tandon et al. (year 1992) conducted the condition monitoring on the rolling elements of the bearings by
utilizing the technique of acoustic emissions and vibration analysis of the signals. The writers obtained the
acoustic emission and vibration analysis of signals. They obtained the characteristics like vibration, envelope
vibration, and intensity of sound, pressure of sound and peak amplitude. They ended resulting that the
reliability and accuracy of fault identification and monitoring with acoustic emission and envelope vibration
was much good than any other characteristics.

6
• Hariharan et al. (year 2010) studied the effect of the presence of contamination in the lubricant by the solid
particles on the efficiency of bearings. They introduced the contaminants by using the distinct sizes of the
silica powder in different concentrations. The writers observed the vibration data from the healthy and the
contaminated bearing for the analysis. They discovered that the considerable deflection in RMS value of
vibration for distinct size of particle and the contaminant concentration. The writer received the vibration data
from the several conditions of bearings like healthy bearing, inner race defect, outer race defect and rolling
element defect. The received data sets were analyzed and processed with the wavelet transformation (WT).

• Choudhury et al. (year 2000) used acoustic emission signals to detect the faults in different sized bearings
with the variation in bearing speed from 500 RPM to 1500 RPM. It was observed that healthy (undamaged)
bearings had experienced extremely low values of acoustic emission count. Moreover, it was also observed
that for faulty bearings acoustic emission counts increased significantly with increase in the speed and for the
healthy bearings no considerable variation in acoustic emission count were observed upon increasing the
value load.

7
RESEARCH GAP

Most of researchers were carried out their experiments on performance and condition monitoring of bearings to
do an observational analysis on some common parameters like the crest factor, kurtosis curves, and skew values
to detect the defects in bearings some other parameters such as load, contaminant concentration, rotational
speed, feed rate, particle size of contaminant etc. were also used to find their effect on some well-liked output
parameter such as Kurtosis, peak to peak, root mean square values of vibration, temperature of bearing etc.
However, some of the researchers analyze faults in the bearings and their fatigue life using current signal and
measuring surface topography respectively but there are merely few researchers who are doing any
statistical analysis, different from the general observational analysis carried out by most of the
researchers, and optimization of some input parameters to find their effect on different values of vibrations.

8
OBJECTIVE

To identify the bearing

failure

To study the effect of

different machining or
process parameters

To optimize the Data using

particle swarm
optimization

9
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

10
11
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Literature Survey

Define Objective

Experimental Setup
• 6205 Ball Bearing (Healthy and contaminated)
• Variable Speed
• Variable Load
• Variable concentration

Design Experiments using L16

orthogonal array

Collection of data and it’s statistical analysis

• Regression and ANOVA analysis

Optimization of data using PSO

Validation of optimized results

12
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

In order to design our experiments, Taguchi L 16 orthogonal array approach is used. The approach was
implemented by using Minitab 18 software.

13
14
15
16
 Process parameters and levels

Levels
Sr. No. Process Parameters
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1 Load (Kg) 0 1 3 5
2 Contaminant Concentration (%) 0 5 10 15
3 Particle size (µm) 70 100
4 RPM 1000 1500

17
 Designed set of experiments

Sr. No. Load (Kg) Contaminant Concentration (%) Particle size (µm) RPM
1 0 0 70 1000
2 0 5 70 1000
3 0 10 100 1500
4 0 15 100 1500
5 1 0 70 1500
6 1 5 70 1500
7 1 10 100 1000
8 1 15 100 1000
9 3 0 100 1000
10 3 5 100 1000
11 3 10 70 1500
12 3 15 70 1500
13 5 0 100 1500
14 5 5 100 1500
15 5 10 70 1000
16 5 15 70 1000
18
 Set of experiments with RMS and Peak To Peak
Sr. No Load(kg) Contaminants Concentration (%) Particle size (µm) RPM RMS Peak to peak

1 0 0 70 1000 0.47000 4.625

2 0 5 70 1000 0.55233 5.860
3 0 10 100 1500 0.56400 5.275
4 0 15 100 1500 0.58500 5.574
5 1 0 70 1500 0.48900 4.591
6 1 5 70 1500 0.58500 5.880
7 1 10 100 1000 0.61400 6.641
8 1 15 100 1000 0.63400 7.141
9 3 0 100 1000 0.52100 6.454
10 3 5 100 1000 0.62300 7.995
11 3 10 70 1500 0.66400 7.052
12 3 15 70 1500 0.68500 7.481
13 5 0 100 1500 0.60570 8.066
14 5 5 100 1500 0.68508 9.535
15 5 10 70 1000 0.67300 7.617
16 5 15 70 1000 0.70100 7.724
19
RESULTS

ANOVA Table for RMS

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Regression 6 0.074654 0.012442 168.08 0.000
Load 1 0.001286 0.001286 17.37 0.002
Contaminants Concentration 1 0.016514 0.016514 223.09 0.000
Particle size 1 0.002264 0.002264 30.59 0.000
RPM 1 0.000035 0.000035 0.47 0.508
Contaminants
Concentration*Contaminants 1 0.004546 0.004546 61.42 0.000
Concentration
Load*Particle size 1 0.00295 0.00295 39.86 0.000
Error 9 0.000666 0.000074
Total 15 0.07532
20
Regression Equation for RMS

RMS = 0.5929 - 0.0471 Load + 0.02176 Contaminants Concentration - 0.001827 Particle size
+ 0.000006 RPM - 0.000674 Contaminants Concentration*Contaminants Concentration
+ 0.000835 Load*Particle size

• Load is the most significant Input parameter

• RPM is highly insignificant

21
 ANOVA Table for Peak To Peak

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Regression 6 27.7072 4.61787 232.48 0.000
Load 1 2.1167 2.11673 106.56 0.000
Contaminants Concentration 1 3.7914 3.79142 190.88 0.000
Particle size 1 1.1657 1.16573 58.69 0.000
RPM 1 0.3302 0.33016 16.62 0.003

Contaminants
Concentration*Contaminants 1 1.1020 1.10198 55.48 0.000
Concentration

Load*Particle size 1 3.6220 3.62201 182.35 0.000

Error 9 0.1788 0.01986
Total 15 27.8860 22
Regression Equation for Peak To Peak

Peak to Peak = 8.130 - 1.911 Load + 0.3297 Contaminants Concentration - 0.04146 Particle size
- 0.000590 RPM - 0.01050 Contaminants Concentration*Contaminants Concentration
+ 0.02926 Load*Particle size

• Load is the most significant Input parameter

• RPM is the least significant input parameter

23
Model summary for RMS

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.0086037 99.12% 98.53% 97.03%

24
Model summary for Peak to Peak

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.140937 99.36% 98.93% 97.79%

25
Predicted RMS Value

• To find predicted values of RMS for all set of experiments, we have to put values of all input parameters
from each set one by one in Regression equation for RMS

• Example – Let’s put values of all input parameters from set 1 in regression equation for RMS

Regression equation for RMS is

RMS = 0.5929 - 0.0471 Load + 0.02176 Contaminants Concentration - 0.001827 Particle size
+ 0.000006 RPM - 0.000674 Contaminants Concentration*Contaminants Concentration
+ 0.000835 Load*Particle size

Value of all parameters in Set 1 is as follows

Load = 0 Kg, Contaminant concentration = 0%, Particle size = 70µm, RPM = 1000

RMS = 0.5929 – 0.0471*0 + 0.02176*0 – 0.001827*70 + 0.000006*1000 – 0.000674*0*0 + 0.000835*0*70

RMS = 0.47101
26
 Predicted RMS

Sr.No Load Contaminants Concentration Particle size RPM Predicted RMS

1 0 0 70 1000 0.47101
2 0 5 70 1000 0.56296
3 0 10 100 1500 0.5694
4 0 15 100 1500 0.59395
5 1 0 70 1500 0.48536
6 1 5 70 1500 0.57731
7 1 10 100 1000 0.6028
8 1 15 100 1000 0.62735
9 3 0 100 1000 0.5254
10 3 5 100 1000 0.61735
11 3 10 70 1500 0.65826
12 3 15 70 1500 0.68281
13 5 0 100 1500 0.6012
14 5 5 100 1500 0.69315
15 5 10 70 1000 0.67796
16 5 15 70 1000 0.70251

27
Predicted Peak to Peak Value

• Similarly, we can also find predicted peak to peak value by simply putting the value of each parameter from
all the set in regression equation for peak to peak

Regression equation for Peak to Peak is

Peak to Peak = 8.130 - 1.911 Load + 0.3297 Contaminants Concentration - 0.04146 Particle size
- 0.000590 RPM - 0.01050 Contaminants Concentration*Contaminants Concentration
+ 0.02926 Load*Particle size

Value of all parameters in Set 1 is as follows

Load = 0 Kg, Contaminant concentration = 0%, Particle size = 70µm, RPM = 1000

RMS = 8.130 – 1.911*0 + 0.3297*0 – 0.04146*70 + 0.000590*1000 – 0.01050*0*0 + 0.02926*0*70

RMS = 4.6378

28
 Predicted Peak to Peak

Sr.No. Load Contaminants Concentration Particle size RPM Predicted Peak to

Peak

1 0 0 70 1000 4.6378
2 0 5 70 1000 6.0238
3 0 10 100 1500 5.346
4 0 15 100 1500 5.682
5 1 0 70 1500 4.48
6 1 5 70 1500 5.866
7 1 10 100 1000 6.656
8 1 15 100 1000 6.992
9 3 0 100 1000 6.439
10 3 5 100 1000 7.825
11 3 10 70 1500 7.0014
12 3 15 70 1500 7.3374
13 5 0 100 1500 8.174
14 5 5 100 1500 9.56
15 5 10 70 1000 7.5708
16 5 15 70 1000 7.9068
29
 Error Table

Error =
Error = Predicted
Experimental Predicted Experimental Experimental -
Sr.No. Experimental - Peak to
RMS RMS Peak to Peak predicted peak
Predicted RMS Peak
to peak

1 0.47 0.47101 -0.00101 4.625 4.6378 -0.0128

2 0.55233 0.56296 -0.01063 5.86 6.0238 -0.1638
3 0.564 0.5694 -0.0054 5.275 5.346 -0.071
4 0.585 0.59395 -0.00895 5.574 5.682 -0.108
5 0.489 0.48536 0.00364 4.591 4.48 0.111
6 0.585 0.57731 0.00769 5.88 5.866 0.014
7 0.614 0.6028 0.0112 6.641 6.656 -0.015
8 0.634 0.62735 0.00665 7.141 6.992 0.149
9 0.521 0.5254 -0.0044 6.454 6.439 0.015
10 0.623 0.61735 0.00565 7.995 7.825 0.17
11 0.664 0.65826 0.00574 7.052 7.0014 0.0506
12 0.685 0.68281 0.00219 7.481 7.3374 0.1436
13 0.6057 0.6012 0.0045 8.066 8.174 -0.108
14 0.68508 0.69315 -0.00807 9.535 9.56 -0.025
15 0.673 0.67796 -0.00496 7.617 7.5708 0.0462
16 0.701 0.70251 -0.00151 7.724 7.9068 -0.1828
30
 Comparison between experimental and predicted RMS
0.8

0.7

0.6

RMS 0.5

0.4 Predicted RMS

Linear (Predicted RMS)
Experimental RMS
0.3 Linear (Experimental RMS)

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

No. of Experiments

31
 Comparison between experimental and predicted Peak to Peak
12

10

8
Peak to Peak

6 Predicted Peak to Peak

Linear (Predicted Peak to Peak)
Experimental Peak to Peak
Linear (Experimental Peak to Peak)
4

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

No. of Experiments

32
 Effect of different input parameters on RMS value

Effect of Load on RMS Effect of Contaminants Concentration on RMS

0.675 0.66

0.64
0.650

0.62

0.625
0.60
Mean

Mean
0.600 0.58

0.56
0.575

0.54
0.550
0.52
0 1 3 5 0 5 10 15
Load Contaminants Concentration

Effect of Particle size on RMS Effect of RPM on RMS

0.60400 0.608

0.60375
0.606

0.60350

0.604
0.60325
Mean

Mean
0.60300 0.602

0.60275
0.600

0.60250

0.598
70 100 1000 1500
Particle size RPM

33
 Effect of different input parameters on Peak to Peak value

Effect of Load on Peak to Peak Effect of Contaminants Concentration on Peak to Peak

8.5 7.4

8.0 7.2

7.0
7.5

6.8
7.0
Mean

Mean
6.6
6.5

6.4
6.0
6.2
5.5
6.0
5.0
0 1 3 5 0 5 10 15
Load Contaminants Concentration

Effect of Particle size on Peak to Peak Effect of RPM on Peak to Peak

7.1 6.76

7.0 6.75

6.9 6.74

6.8 6.73
Mean

Mean
6.7 6.72

6.6 6.71

6.5 6.70

6.4 6.69

6.3 6.68
70 100 1000 1500
Particle size RPM

34
PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION

• PSO is an intelligent optimization algorithm

• PSO is a metaheuristic algorithm
• PSO is initially developed by James Kennedy and Russell C. Eberhart
• PSO is inspired by social behaviour of animals like fish and birds

35
36
Principles of PSO

• Communication
• Learning

PSO is a swarm intelligence method and it uses some unintelligent particles to reach an upper level of
intelligence which is absolutely unreachable for any particle in the world.

37
Working of PSO

• For every particle (i) position of particle is denoted by

• To distinguish between time steps we add a time index to this position

• In the example of Alice and Bob, at the beginning of search, both of their positions are given by and.

• In addition to position we have a velocity which describes the movement of every particle in terms of
direction and distance and is denoted by

• So, we have a particle in time step (t) which is located in the position and it moves towards a vector

38
• In addition to position and velocity every particle has a memory of its own best position called personal best,
denoted by Along with personal best every particle experiences a common best among the members of
swarm called global best denoted by

• On every iteration of PSO position and velocity of every particle is updated according to the simple
mechanism discussed below

Where w is inertia coefficient and , are acceleration coefficient

39
Standard PSO equations

⃗ ⃗ ⃗
⃗V𝑖𝑗(𝑡+1)=𝑤∗⃗V𝑖𝑗(𝑡)+𝑟1∗𝑐1∗(𝑃𝑖𝑗(𝑡)−𝑋𝑖𝑗(𝑡))+𝑟2∗𝑐2∗(𝑔𝑗(𝑡)−𝑋𝑖𝑗(𝑡))
Inertia term
Cognitive or individual
component

and are the random number uniformly distributed in the range of 0 and 1
Social Component

• So, we have to combine inertia term, cognitive component and social component in order to obtain a new or
updated velocity vector.

40
Sr.No. Iteration number
1 Iteration number 1
2 Iteration number 2
3 Iteration number 3
4 Iteration number 4
5 Iteration number 5
6 Iteration number 6
7 Iteration number 7
8 Iteration number 8
9 Iteration number 9
10 Iteration number 10
11 Iteration number 11
12 Iteration number 12
13 Iteration number 13
14 Iteration number 14
15 Iteration number 15
16 Iteration number 16
17 Iteration number 17
18 Iteration number 18
19 Iteration number 19
20 Iteration number 20
21 Iteration number 21
22 Iteration number 22
23 Iteration number 23
24 Iteration number 24
25 Iteration number 25
26 Iteration number 26
27 Iteration number 27
28 Iteration number 28
29 Iteration number 29
30 Iteration number 30
31 Iteration number 31
32 Iteration number 32
33 Iteration number 33
34 Iteration number 34
35 Iteration number 35
36 Iteration number 36
37 Iteration number 37
38 Iteration number 38
39 Iteration number 39
40 Iteration number 40
41 Iteration number 41
42 Iteration number 42
43 Iteration number 43
44 Iteration number 44
45 Iteration number 45
46 Iteration number 46
47 Iteration number 47
48 Iteration number 48
49 Iteration number 49
50 Iteration number 50
Best RMS
0.545724807890667
0.545724807890667
0.505572550393005
0.492581779034261
0.484360820271419
0.476780078976856
0.473807495178774
0.473807495178774
0.473752359934819
0.473564322933673
0.473281894921517
0.472739954079068
0.472139954079068
0.471606708721376
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
41
0.471010000000000
0.471010000000000
Results of PSO for RMS Value

Best RMS vs Number of iterations

42
Optimal value of process parameters

Load Contaminants Concentration Particle size RPM RMS

0 0 70 1000 0.471010000000000

Minimum value of Root Mean Square obtained by particle swarm optimization is 0.471010000000000.

43
Experimental validation for optimized value of RMS

In order to validate the optimized result, experiments were performed on the same process parameters on which
the optimized value of RMS is obtained and calculate RMS value after the experiment. RMS value obtained after
experiment is

Load Contaminants Concentration Particle size RPM RMS

0 0 70 1000 0.446250000000

|𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 − 𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 |

% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ∗100
𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

As it is known that and . So, from equation % error = 5.2567%.

44
Sr.No. Iteration number
1 Iteration number 1
2 Iteration number 2
3 Iteration number 3
4 Iteration number 4
5 Iteration number 5
6 Iteration number 6
7 Iteration number 7
8 Iteration number 8
9 Iteration number 9
10 Iteration number 10
11 Iteration number 11
12 Iteration number 12
13 Iteration number 13
14 Iteration number 14
15 Iteration number 15
16 Iteration number 16
17 Iteration number 17
18 Iteration number 18
19 Iteration number 19
20 Iteration number 20
21 Iteration number 21
22 Iteration number 22
23 Iteration number 23
24 Iteration number 24
25 Iteration number 25
26 Iteration number 26
27 Iteration number 27
28 Iteration number 28
29 Iteration number 29
30 Iteration number 30
31 Iteration number 31
32 Iteration number 32
33 Iteration number 33
34 Iteration number 34
35 Iteration number 35
36 Iteration number 36
37 Iteration number 37
38 Iteration number 38
39 Iteration number 39
40 Iteration number 40
41 Iteration number 41
42 Iteration number 42
43 Iteration number 43
44 Iteration number 44
45 Iteration number 45
46 Iteration number 46
47 Iteration number 47
48 Iteration number 48
49 Iteration number 49
50 Iteration number 50
Best Peak to Peak
6.60937526156573
6.60937526156573
6.10862344094587
5.89277514602017
5.13389562969256
4.95463335199788
4.87962883336089
4.82488725135212
4.78166495984652
4.72865459941275
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
45
4.63780000000000
4.63780000000000
Results of PSO for Peak to Peak Value

Best Peak to Peak vs Number of iterations

46
Optimal value of process parameters

Load Contaminants Concentration Particle size RPM Peak to Peak

0 0 70 1000 4.63780000000000

Minimum value of Peak to Peak obtained by particle swarm optimization is 4.63780000000000.

47
Experimental validation for optimized value of Peak to Peak

In order to validate the optimized result, experiments were performed on the same process parameters on which
the optimized value of Peak to Peak is obtained and calculate Peak to Peak value after the experiment. Peak to
Peak value obtained after experiment is

Load Contaminants Concentration Particle size RPM Peak to Peak

0 0 70 1000 4.38368000000

|𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 − 𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 |

% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ∗100
𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

As it is known that and So, from above equation % error = 5.4793%.

48
CONCLUSION

 Experiments were carried out on stainless steel bearings using solid concentrations of contaminations under
different speeds and load conditions

 A model was developed in the form of regression equation to establish relation between dependent and
independent variable.

 With the increase in load, Contaminant concentration, particle size and RPM, Root mean square value of
vibration increases.

 With the increase in load and particle size, Peak to Peak value of vibration increases however, Peak to Peak
value decreases with the increase in RPM but with the increase in contaminant concentration peak to peak
value first increases then decreases a little bit and then again increases with the increase in contaminant
concentration.

49
 PSO optimized the values of process parameters to minimize the Root mean square value of vibration at a
load of ≈ 0kg, particle size of 70µm, contaminant concentration of ≈ 0 and at 1000 RPM, minimum RMS
value of vibration obtained is 0.446250000000 m/s 2.

 Similarly, process parameters were also optimized to minimize the Peak to Peak value of vibration at a load
of ≈ 0kg, particle size of 70µm, contaminant concentration of ≈ 0 and at 1000 RPM, minimum Peak to Peak
value of vibration obtained is 4.38368000000 m/s 2.

50
FUTURE SCOPE

 The data could be obtained for various temperature values under different parameters like load, RPM,
contaminant concentration and particle size of contaminant. Taguchi analysis could be done for various
temperature values so obtained.

 Bearing surface roughness and surface deterioration rate can be find out and rate by which surface erodes
can be predicted by using Taguchi analysis.

 With the introduction of contaminant, lubricant viscosity also varies. The viscosity at various parameters cab
be find out and life of lubricant can be found out by using Taguchi analysis.

51
REFERENCES

•1. Gupta, K 1997, ‘Vibration – A tool for machine diagnostics and condition monitoring’, Sadhana, vol. 22, no.
3, pp. 393-410.

•2. Mathew, J & Alfredson, R 1984, ‘The condition monitoring of rolling element bearings using vibration
analysis’, Journal of vibration, acoustics, stress, and reliability in design, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 447-453.

•3. Tandon, N & Nakra, B 1992, ‘Comparison of vibration and acoustic measurement techniques for the
condition monitoring of rolling element bearings’, Tribology International, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 205-212.

•4. Liu, T & Mengel, J 1992, ‘Intelligent monitoring of ball bearing conditions’, Mechanical systems and signal
processing, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 419-431.

•5. Heng, R & Nor, MJM 1998, ‘Statistical analysis of sound and vibration signals for monitoring rolling
element bearing condition’, Applied Acoustics, vol. 53, no. 1-3, pp. 211-226.

52
•7. Kiral, Z & Karagülle, H 2003, ‘Simulation and analysis of vibration signals generated by rolling element

bearing with defects’, Tribology International, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 667-678.

•8. Shao, Y & Nezu, K 2005, ‘Design of mixture de-noising for detecting faulty bearing signals’, Journal of Sound

and Vibration, vol. 282, no. 3-5, pp. 899-917.

•9. Orhan, S, Aktürk, N & Celik, V 2006, ‘Vibration monitoring for defect diagnosis of rolling element bearings as

a predictive maintenance tool: Comprehensive case studies’, Ndt & E International, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 293-298.

•10. Kim, EY, Tan, AC, Mathew, J & Yang, BS 2008, ‘Condition monitoring of low-speed bearings: A comparative

study of the ultrasound technique versus vibration measurements’, Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering,

vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 177-189.

•11. Hariharan,V & Srinivasan, PSS 2010, ‘Condition monitoring studies on ball bearings considering solid

contaminants in the lubricant’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of

Mechanical Engineering Science, vol. 224, no. 8, pp. 1727-1748.

53
•12. Boškoski, P, Petrovčič, J, Musizza, B & Juričić, Đ 2010, ‘Detection of lubrication starved bearings in electrical

motors by means of vibration analysis’, Tribology international, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1683-1692.

•13. Kulkarni, S & Bewoor, A 2016, ‘Vibration based condition assessment of ball bearing with distributed
defects’, Journal of Measurements in Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 87-94.

•14. Nistane, V & Harsha, S 2016, ‘Failure evaluation of ball bearing for prognostics’, Procedia Technology, vol.
23, pp. 179-186.

•15. Matthews, JR 1983. Acoustic emission, CRC Press.

•16. Catlin, J 1983, ‘The use of ultrasonic diagnostic technique to detect rolling element bearing defects’,
Proceedings of the Proceedings of the machinery and vibration monitoring and analysis meeting, pp. 123-130.

•17. Tan, C 1990, ‘Application of acoustic emission to the detection of bearing failures’, Proceedings of the
International Tribology Conference 1990, Brisbane 2-5 December 1990: Putting Tribology to Work; Reliability and
Maintainability through Lubrication and Wear Technology; Preprints of Papers, pp. 110.

•18. Tandon, N & Nakra, B 1990a, ‘The application of the sound-intensity technique to defect detection in rolling-
54
element bearings’, Applied Acoustics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 207-217.
•19. Tandon, N & Nakra, B 1990b, ‘Defect detection in rolling element bearings by acoustic emission method’,
Journal of acoustic emission, vol. 9, pp. 25-28.

•20. Choudhury, A & Tandon, N 2000, ‘Application of acoustic emission technique for the detection of defects
in rolling element bearings’, Tribology international, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 39-45.

•21. Morhain, A & Mba, D 2003, ‘Bearing defect diagnosis and acoustic emission’, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, vol. 217, no. 4, pp. 257-272.

•22. Al-Ghamdi, AM, Cole, P, Such, R & Mba, D 2004, ‘Estimation of bearing defect size with acoustic
emission’, Insight-Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 758-761.

•23. Al-Ghamd, AM & Mba, D 2006, ‘A comparative experimental study on the use of acoustic emission and
vibration analysis for bearing defect identification and estimation of defect size’, Mechanical systems and signal
processing, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1537-1571.

•24. Saravanan, S, Yadava, G & Rao, P 2006, ‘Condition monitoring studies on spindle bearing of a lathe’, The

international journal of advanced manufacturing technology, vol. 28, no. 9-10, pp. 993-1005.
55
•25. Mba, D 2008, ‘The Use of Acoustic Emission for Estimation of Bearing Defect Size’, Journal of Failure
Analysis and Prevention, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 188-192.

•26. Al-Dossary, S, Hamzah, RR & Mba, D 2009, ‘Observations of changes in acoustic emission waveform for
varying seeded defect sizes in a rolling element bearing’, Applied acoustics, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 58-81.

•27. Cockerill, A, Clarke, A, Pullin, R, Bradshaw, T, Cole, P & Holford, KM 2016, ‘Determination of rolling
element bearing condition via acoustic emission’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, vol. 230, no. 11, pp. 1377-1388.

•28. Maru, B & Zotos, PA 1989, ‘Anti-friction bearing temperature rise for NEMA frame motors’, IEEE
transactions on industry applications, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 883-888.

•29. Hoeprich, MR 1996, ‘Rolling-Element Bearing Internal Temperatures’, Tribology Transactions, vol. 39, no.
4, pp. 855-858.

•30. Nickel, DA & Sadeghi, F, 1997, ‘In situ tribocomponent temperature measurement using a radio telemeter’,
Tribology transactions, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 514-520.
56
•31. Joshi, A, Marble, S & Sadeghi, F 2001, ‘Bearing cage temperature measurement using radio telemetry’, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, vol. 215, no. 5, pp. 471-481.

•32. Zhou, RS 1993, ‘Surface Topography and Fatigue Life of Rolling Contact Bearing’, Tribology Transactions, vol. 36,
no. 3, pp. 329-340.

•33. Schnabel, S, Marklund, P & Larsson, R 2014, ‘Study of the short-term effect of Fe3O4 particles in rolling element
bearings: Observation of vibration, friction and change of surface topography of contaminated angular contact ball
bearings’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, vol. 228, no.
10, pp. 1063-1070.

•34. Irfan, M, Saad, N, Ibrahim, R, Asirvadam, VS, Hung, NT & Magzoub, MA 2015, ‘Analysis of Bearing Surface
Roughness Defects in Induction Motors’, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 730-736.

•35. Jurko, J, Panda, A, Valíček, J, Harničárová, M & Pandová, I 2016, ‘Study on cone roller bearing surface roughness
improvement and the effect of surface roughness on tapered roller bearing service life’, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 1099-1106.

•36. H. Hernadewita, I. Rochmad, H. Hendra, H. Hermiyetti, and E. N. S. Yuliani, “An analysis of implementation of
Taguchi method to improve production of pulp on hydrapulper milling,” Int. J. Prod. Manag. Eng., vol. 7, no. 2, p. 125,
57
2019, doi: 10.4995/ijpme.2019.10163.
•37. A. Mishra and A. Gangele, “Application of Taguchi Method in Optimization of Tool Flank Wear Width in
Turning Operation of AISI 1045 Steel,” Ind. Eng. Lett., vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 11–18, 2012, [Online]. Available:
www.iiste.org

•38. S. Patidar and P. K. Soni, “An Overview on Vibration Analysis Techniques for the Diagnosis of Rolling
Element Bearing Faults,” Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1804–1809, 2013, [Online]. Available:
http://ijettjournal.org/archive/ijett-v4i5p97

•39. D. Šaravanja and M. Grbešić, “Application of vibration analysis in journal bearing problems diagnostics,”
Ann. DAAAM Proc. Int. DAAAM Symp., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 100–106, 2019, doi:
10.2507/30th.daaam.proceedings.013.

•40. A. Soni, “Vibration Analysis of Ball Bearing with Grease Contaminated by Sand,” Int. Res. J. Eng.
Technol., no. March, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339780540

58