Rough Cloud Model and PROMETHEE Failure Mode Importance Evaluation for Aeroengine Spindle Bearings
-
摘要: 针对目前航空发动机主轴轴承关键失效模式确定困难的问题,提出了一种粗糙云模型与偏好顺序结构评估(PROMETHEE)的航发主轴轴承失效模式重要度评估方法。结合失效模式与影响分析(FMEA)方法,通过专家系统构建主轴轴承各失效模式的风险评估矩阵;运用粗糙集理论与云模型理论,将风险评估矩阵转换为粗糙云评估矩阵,描述专家评价信息中存在的主观性、模糊性和随机性问题;运用PROMETHEE计算各失效模式的流出量、流入量与净流量,根据净流量的大小对航发主轴轴承的6种失效模式进行风险排序,为制定预防措施和降低风险提供可靠依据。Abstract: In order to solve the problem that it is difficult to determine the critical failure mode of aeroengine spindle bearing,a method of failure mode importance evaluation for aeroengine spindle bearing based on rough cloud model and preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) is proposed in this study. Combined with the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) method, the risk assessment matrix of each failure mode of spindle bearing was first constructed by expert system.Using rough set theory and cloud model theory, the risk assessment matrix was then transformed into rough cloud assessment matrix to describe the subjectivity, fuzziness and randomness of expert assessment information.After using PROMETHEE to calculate the leaving, entering and net flow of each failure mode, the six failure modes of aeroenginespindle bearing were ranked according to the net flow, providing a reliable basis for formulating preventive measures and reducing risks.
-
Key words:
- FMEA /
- rough sets /
- cloud model /
- PROMETHEE /
- aeroengine spindle bearing
-
表 1 语言术语集
等级 语言术语 Ⅰ 极低 Ⅱ 非常低 Ⅲ 低 Ⅳ 中低 Ⅴ 中等 Ⅵ 中高 Ⅶ 高 Ⅷ 非常高 Ⅸ 极高 表 2 航发主轴轴承主要潜在失效模式
编号 失效模式 形成原因 预防措施 FM1 摩擦磨损 润滑剂承载能力低;润滑剂污染;轴承装配后游隙不合理 改进轴承结构与精加工工艺;选择合适的润滑条件(润滑种类与方式等);保证清洁的工作环境,严格过滤润滑油 FM2 锈蚀锈斑 润滑油变质等引起的电化学腐蚀;摩擦热等引起的摩擦腐蚀 按标准进行轴承的存放保管,定期做防锈处理;安装时仔细清洗轴承;选用有防腐蚀功能的润滑剂 FM3 打滑蹭伤 高速轻载使主动套圈与滚动体间的拖动力过小 保持架采用高强度轻质材料;适当减小径向游隙;使用附着系数大的润滑油;采用外圈椭圆法 FM4 划伤压坑 安装不当;润滑剂污染(混入磨损产生或外界进入的硬质颗粒) 保证清洁的工作环境,严格过滤润滑油;严格按照标准清洗、安装轴承;安装过程中避免污染物的掉入;改变润滑方式,如:环下供油 FM5 疲劳剥落 次表面形成疲劳裂纹;润滑条件劣化引起表面损伤 改善润滑条件;优化材料、热处理工艺,改善表面质量 FM6 保持架
损坏其他部件有较大振动或发生偏载;保持架存在装配损伤;保持架结构设计不合理 改进结构设计;保持架采用高强度轻质材料;严格按照标准清洗、安装轴承 表 3 航发主轴轴承失效模式的风险评估矩阵
FMi O S D FM1 (Ⅸ,Ⅶ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅷ) (Ⅷ,Ⅷ,Ⅷ,Ⅶ,Ⅶ) (Ⅶ,Ⅵ,Ⅶ,Ⅵ,Ⅵ) FM2 (Ⅷ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ) (Ⅷ,Ⅶ,Ⅶ,Ⅷ,Ⅶ) (Ⅵ,Ⅶ,Ⅶ,Ⅵ,Ⅶ) FM3 (Ⅴ,Ⅴ,Ⅳ,Ⅴ,Ⅳ) (Ⅸ,Ⅸ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅷ) (Ⅳ,Ⅴ,Ⅳ,Ⅴ,Ⅴ) FM4 (Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅸ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ) (Ⅷ,Ⅷ,Ⅶ,Ⅶ,Ⅶ) (Ⅳ,Ⅲ,Ⅳ,Ⅳ,Ⅲ) FM5 (Ⅱ,Ⅲ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ,Ⅲ) (Ⅸ,Ⅸ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅷ) (Ⅳ,Ⅳ,Ⅴ,Ⅴ,Ⅴ) FM6 (Ⅲ,Ⅲ,Ⅱ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ) (Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅸ,Ⅷ,Ⅷ) (Ⅲ,Ⅲ,Ⅳ,Ⅳ,Ⅴ) 表 4 TM1的粗糙集评估矩阵
FMi O S D FM1 (8.2,9) (7.6,8) (6.4,7) FM2 (8,8.4) (7.4,8) (6,6.6) FM3 (4.6,5) (8.6,9) (4,4.6) FM4 (8.6,9) (7.4,8) (3.6,4) FM5 (2,2.6) (8.6,9) (4,4.6) FM6 (2.6,3) (8.4,9) (3,3.8) 表 5 TM1的粗糙云评估矩阵
FMi O S D FM1 (8.2,9,0.133,0.1) (7.6,8,0.067,0.1) (6.4,7,0.1,0.1) FM2 (8,8.4,0.067,0.1) (7.4,8,0.1,0.1) (6,6.6,0.1,0.1) FM3 (4.6,5,0.067,0.1) (8.6,9,0.067,0.1) (4,4.6,0.1,0.1) FM4 (8.6,9,0.067,0.1) (7.4,8,0.1,0.1) (3.6,4,0.067,0.1) FM5 (2,2.6,0.1,0.1) (8.6,9,0.067,0.1) (4,4.6,0.1,0.1) FM6 (2.6,3,0.067,0.1) (8.4,9,0.1,0.1) (3,3.8,0.133,0.1) 表 6 专家成员与风险元的权重
TMi 专家权重 RPN元素 O S D TM1 0.4 客观权重 0.80 0.04 0.16 TM2 0.2 TM3 0.2 主观权重 0.45 0.35 0.2 TM4 0.1 TM5 0.1 综合权重 0.625 0.195 0.18 表 7 加权粗糙云评估矩阵
FMi O S D FM1 (7.853,8.74,0.15,0.1) (7.48,7.92,0.075,0.1) (6.24,6.76,0.088,0.1) FM2 (8.12,8.58,0.078,0.1) (7.20,7.70,0.085,0.1) (6.30,6.80,0.085,0.1) FM3 (4.42,4.88,0.078,0.1) (8.48,8.92,0.075,0.1) (4.24,4.76,0.088,0.1) FM4 (8.42,8.88,0.078,0.1) (7.24,7.76,0.088,0.1) (3.42,3.88,0.078,0.1) FM5 (2.24,2.76,0.088,0.1) (8.48,8.92,0.075,0.1) (4.24,4.76,0.088,0.1) FM6 (2.42,2.88,0.078,0.1) (8.24,8.76,0.088,0.1) (3.23,4.08,0.143,0.1) 表 8 总体风险指数
FMi FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 FM5 FM6 FM1 - 0.366 0.263 0.356 1.683 1.336 FM2 3.221 - 2.958 0 4.904 4.557 FM3 0.670 1.036 - 0 1.946 1.996 FM4 3.947 0.838 3.894 - 5.222 4.797 FM5 0.670 1.036 0 0.618 - 0.397 FM6 1.002 1.097 0.458 0.602 0.805 - 表 9 航发主轴轴承失效模式风险排序
FMi 流出量 流入量 净流量 排序 FM1 0.801 1.902 − 1.101 4 FM2 3.128 0.874 2.254 2 FM3 1.129 1.515 − 0.385 3 FM4 3.740 0.315 3.424 1 FM5 0.544 2.912 − 2.368 6 FM6 0.793 2.617 − 1.824 5 表 10 3种不同FMEA方法的风险排序结果
FMi 传统FMEA方法 粗糙云与TOPSIS 粗糙云与PROMETHEE O S D RPN乘积 排序 CCi 排序 排序 FM1 8.2 7.6 6.4 398.848 2 3.030 3 4 FM2 8.4 7.4 6.6 410.256 1 3.052 2 2 FM3 4.6 8.6 4.6 181.976 4 − 1.104 4 3 FM4 8.6 7.4 3.6 229.104 3 3.646 1 1 FM5 2.6 8.6 4.6 102.856 5 − 3.453 6 6 FM6 2.6 8.4 3.8 82.992 6 − 3.211 5 5 -
[1] 刘德林, 姜涛, 何玉怀, 等. 浅论国内航空轴承的失效问题[J]. 失效分析与预防, 2015, 10(5): 324-330 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6214.2015.05.012LIU D L, JIANG T, HE Y H, et al. Discussion on failure problems of aero-bearing[J]. Failure Analysis and Prevention, 2015, 10(5): 324-330 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6214.2015.05.012 [2] 许林, 谢庆红. 基于灰色理论的改进FMEA方法在装配工艺改善中的应用[J]. 现代制造工程, 2020(4): 135-141XU L, XIE Q H. Improved FMEA method based on grey theory in assembly process improved application[J]. Modern Manufacturing Engineering, 2020(4): 135-141 (in Chinese) [3] LIU H C, FAN X J, LI P, et al. Evaluating the risk of failure modes with extended MULTIMOORA method under fuzzy environment[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2014, 34: 168-177 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2014.04.011 [4] 张红旗, 邵晓东, 苏春, 等. 改进FMEA与故障传播模型混合故障诊断方法[J]. 机械科学与技术, 2017, 36(1): 23-28ZHANG H Q, SHAO X D, SU C, et al. Integrated fault diagnosis method based on improved FMEA and failure propagation model[J]. Mechanical Science and Technology for Aerospace Engineering, 2017, 36(1): 23-28 (in Chinese) [5] 张蓉, 王春洁. 基于FMEA和FTA的三自由度直角坐标机器人系统可靠性仿真分析[J]. 机械科学与技术, 2006, 25(6): 651-654 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1003-8728.2006.06.005ZHANG R, WANG C J. Simulative research on the system reliability of a 3-DOF Cartesian-coordinate robot based on FMEA and FTA[J]. Mechanical Science and Technology for Aerospace Engineering, 2006, 25(6): 651-654 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1003-8728.2006.06.005 [6] 崔文彬, 吴桂涛, 孙培廷, 等. 基于FMEA和模糊综合评判的船舶安全评估[J]. 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2007, 28(3): 263-267,276 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7043.2007.03.004CUI W B, WU G T, SUN P T, et al. Ship safety assessment based on FMEA and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods[J]. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 2007, 28(3): 263-267,276 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7043.2007.03.004 [7] 耿秀丽, 张永政. 基于犹豫模糊集的改进FMEA风险评估方法[J]. 计算机集成制造系统, 2017, 23(2): 340-348GENG X L, ZHANG Y Z. Improved FMEA approach for risk evaluation based on hesitant fuzzy set[J]. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2017, 23(2): 340-348 (in Chinese) [8] WANG X T, YANG W M, XU Z H, et al. A normal cloud model-based method for water quality assessment of springs and its application in Jinan[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(8): 2248 doi: 10.3390/su11082248 [9] 张彦如, 汪方祥, 王小巧, 等. 基于粗糙集田口质量观的失效模式与影响分析[J]. 中国机械工程, 2016, 27(14): 1892-1898,1987 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-132X.2016.14.009ZHANG Y R, WANG F X, WANG X Q, et al. Failure mode and effect analysis based on rough set theory and Taguchi’s view of quality[J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2016, 27(14): 1892-1898,1987 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-132X.2016.14.009 [10] JIANG W, XIE C H, ZHUANG M Y, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis based on a novel fuzzy evidential method[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2017, 57: 672-683 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.008 [11] 杜晗恒, 彭翀. 基于模糊TOPSIS的FMEA方法[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报, 2016, 42(2): 368-374DU H H, PENG C. Failure mode and effects analysis method based on fuzzy TOPSIS[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016, 42(2): 368-374 (in Chinese) [12] RASHIDI K, CULLINANE K. A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: Implications for sourcing strategy[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2019, 121: 266-281 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.025 [13] 李元斌, 孙有朝, 李龙彪. 改进熵权逼近理想解排序法的航空发动机限寿件模糊风险评估[J]. 中国机械工程, 2018, 29(10): 1135-1140 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-132X.2018.10.001LI Y B, SUN Y Z, LI L B. Fuzzy risk assessment of aeroengine life-limited parts based on improved entropy TOPSIS method[J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2018, 29(10): 1135-1140 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-132X.2018.10.001 [14] LIU H C, WANG L E, LI Z W, et al. Improving risk evaluation in FMEA with cloud model and hierarchical TOPSIS method[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2019, 27(1): 84-95 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2861719 [15] HUANG G Q, XIAO L M, ZHANG W, et al. An improving approach for failure mode and effect analysis under uncertainty environment: a case study of critical function component[J]. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2020, 36(6): 2119-2145 doi: 10.1002/qre.2686 [16] 鞠萍华, 陈资, 冉琰, 等. 多粒度概率语言环境下基于PROMETHEE的改进FMEA方法[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报, 2019, 45(11): 2266-2276JU P H, CHEN Z, RAN Y, et al. Improved FMEA method based on PROMETHEE in multi-granular probabilistic linguistic environment[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2019, 45(11): 2266-2276 (in Chinese) [17] MAITY S R, CHAKRABORTY S. Tool steel material selection using PROMETHEE II method[J]. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2015, 78(9-12): 1537-1547 doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6760-0 [18] 尤建新, 刘威, 杨迷影. 用于供应商风险评价的FMEA改进[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 47(1): 130-135YOU J X, LIU W, YANG M Y. An improved FMEA for supplier risk assessment[J]. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 2019, 47(1): 130-135 (in Chinese) [19] 李磊, 郭歌, 李杰, 等. 基于云模型和信息公理的车辆故障模式风险评估方法[J]. 北京交通大学学报, 2019, 43(5): 126-134LI L, GU G, LI J, et al. Failure mode risk evaluation method based on cloud model and information axiomatic[J]. Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2019, 43(5): 126-134 (in Chinese) [20] 陈超, 曾昭洋, 罗军, 等. 航空发动机主轴轴承失效模式分析[J]. 润滑与密封, 2020, 45(3): 126-131 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-0150.2020.03.022CHEN C, ZENG Z Y, LUO J, et al. Failure mode analysis of aeroengine spindle bearings[J]. Lubrication Engineering, 2020, 45(3): 126-131 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-0150.2020.03.022 [21] 孔德龙, 林国昌. 航空发动机主轴轴承主要损伤模式及原因分析[J]. 航空科学技术, 2011(5): 22-24 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5453.2011.05.007KONG D L, LIN G C. Major damage mode and analysis of main shaft bearings of aeroengine[J]. Aeronautical Science & Technology, 2011(5): 22-24 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5453.2011.05.007 [22] 周志澜, 马纯民. 航空发动机主轴轴承失效分析与预防[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1998: 47-52. ZHOU Z L, MA C M. Failure analysis and prevention of aero-engine spindle bearing[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1998: 47-52 (in Chinese). [23] 方明伟, 谢向宇, 罗军, 等. 航空发动机主轴后轴承打滑损伤失效分析[J]. 润滑与密封, 2016, 41(10): 98-102 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-0150.2016.10.019FANG M W, XIE X Y, LUO J, et al. Failure analysis of skidding damage of rear bearing aero-engine main shaft[J]. Lubrication Engineering, 2016, 41(10): 98-102 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-0150.2016.10.019 [24] 李海涛, 石东丹, 王萌, 等. 航空发动机主轴圆柱滚子轴承故障分析及改进设计[J]. 轴承, 2020(3): 12-15LI H T, SHI D D, WANG M, et al. Fault analysis and improved design of cylindrical roller bearings for aero-engine spindle[J]. Bearing, 2020(3): 12-15 (in Chinese)