Research Article
A New Framework Based on Supervised Joint Distribution Adaptation for Bearing Fault Diagnosis across Diverse Working Conditions
Table 11
CFD results of M1–M18 models in case 2.
| Model | Accuracies of task 1 (%) | Accuracies of task 2 (%) |
| M1 | 81.17 | 77.83 | M2 | 76.33 | 75.00 | M3 | 75.17 | 80.83 | M4 | 71.83 | 73.00 | M5 | 69.33 | 67.67 | M6 | 66.17 | 59.33 | M7 | 76.00 | 69.83 | M8 | 82.50 | 72.00 | M9 | 66.17 | 70.83 | M10 | 80.17 | 74.00 | M11 | 74.50 | 75.50 | M12 | 86.17 | 86.83 | M13 | 77.67 nf : 136 | 79.17 nf : 75 | M14 | 89.00 nf : 116 | 83.83 nf : 99 | M15 | 74.33 nf : 112 | 76.83 nf : 88 | M16 | 84.67 nf : 118 | 86.83 nf : 56 | M17 | 81.67 nf : 95 | 78.83 nf : 110 | M18 | 91.83 nf : 121 | 95.17 nf : 65 |
|
|
The bold values highlight that the experimental results are desirable.
|