| Literature DB >> 29690641 |
Kun He1,2, Zhijun Yang3, Yun Bai4, Jianyu Long5, Chuan Li6,7.
Abstract
Health condition is a vital factor affecting printing quality for a 3D printer. In this work, an attitude monitoring approach is proposed to diagnose the fault of the delta 3D printer using support vector machines (SVM). An attitude sensor was mounted on the moving platform of the printer to monitor its 3-axial attitude angle, angular velocity, vibratory acceleration and magnetic field intensity. The attitude data of the working printer were collected under different conditions involving 12 fault types and a normal condition. The collected data were analyzed for diagnosing the health condition. To this end, the combination of binary classification, one-against-one with least-square SVM, was adopted for fault diagnosis modelling by using all channels of attitude monitoring data in the experiment. For comparison, each one channel of the attitude monitoring data was employed for model training and testing. On the other hand, a back propagation neural network (BPNN) was also applied to diagnose fault using the same data. The best fault diagnosis accuracy (94.44%) was obtained when all channels of the attitude monitoring data were used with SVM modelling. The results indicate that the attitude monitoring with SVM is an effective method for the fault diagnosis of delta 3D printers.Entities:
Keywords: attitude sensor; condition monitoring; delta 3D printer; fault diagnosis; support vector machine
Year: 2018 PMID: 29690641 PMCID: PMC5948518 DOI: 10.3390/s18041298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic of the FDM process.
Figure 2Typical structure of the delta 3D printer: (a) over view (b) local view of slider (c) local view of moving platform.
Figure 3Contact kinematic of joint bearing with clearance.
Figure 4Attitude modelling theory: (a) the basic structure of the attitude sensor, (b) the reference frame and attitude angles, and (c) the schematic of the sensor installation.
Figure 5Overview of the proposed approach.
Figure 6Experimental configurations for the fault diagnosis of the delta 3D printer.
Condition patterns set in the experiments.
| Pattern No. | Description of the Delta 3D Printer |
|---|---|
| 1 | Normal |
| 2 | Faulty joint bearing A |
| 3 | Faulty joint bearing B |
| 4 | Faulty joint bearing C |
| 5 | Faulty joint bearing D |
| 6 | Faulty joint bearing E |
| 7 | Faulty joint bearing F |
| 8 | Faulty joint bearing G |
| 9 | Faulty joint bearing H |
| 10 | Faulty joint bearing I |
| 11 | Faulty joint bearing J |
| 12 | Faulty joint bearing K |
| 13 | Faulty joint bearing L |
Figure 7Printed balls with the normal condition (left) and the faulty joint bearing A (right).
Fault diagnosis results using LS-SVM model with all channels data.
| Channel | Repeat Order | Mean (%) | Variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1(%) | 2(%) | 3(%) | 4(%) | 5(%) | 6(%) | |||
| All channels | 94.79 | 95.56 | 93.50 | 94.96 | 94.44 | 93.42 | 94.44 | 0.00007101 |
Fault diagnosis results using LS-SVM model with one of the twelve channels data.
| Channel | Repeat Order | Mean (%) | Variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1(%) | 2(%) | 3(%) | 4(%) | 5(%) | 6(%) | |||
| 1 | 35.64 | 35.56 | 36.75 | 33.08 | 36.50 | 35.98 | 35.59 | 0.00017258 |
| 2 | 31.71 | 30.94 | 33.68 | 31.37 | 34.10 | 30.51 | 32.05 | 0.00022082 |
| 3 | 67.86 | 67.35 | 70.43 | 68.21 | 68.21 | 67.95 | 68.34 | 0.00011529 |
| 4 | 45.04 | 44.36 | 41.97 | 42.91 | 43.08 | 41.97 | 43.22 | 0.00015705 |
| 5 | 37.52 | 39.83 | 37.52 | 39.91 | 36.75 | 40.60 | 38.69 | 0.00025875 |
| 6 | 33.16 | 31.03 | 31.54 | 32.91 | 32.99 | 32.74 | 32.40 | 0.00007836 |
| 7 | 6.24 | 6.50 | 6.15 | 7.01 | 5.64 | 5.90 | 6.24 | 0.00002288 |
| 8 | 6.58 | 5.81 | 6.15 | 6.50 | 6.84 | 8.80 | 6.78 | 0.00011080 |
| 9 | 8.55 | 6.32 | 6.84 | 6.75 | 6.84 | 6.24 | 6.92 | 0.00007042 |
| 10 | 71.37 | 72.14 | 72.05 | 71.45 | 69.57 | 73.68 | 71.71 | 0.00017888 |
| 11 | 71.20 | 72.05 | 71.11 | 70.68 | 71.37 | 71.97 | 71.40 | 0.00002781 |
| 12 | 71.71 | 69.66 | 72.22 | 72.48 | 73.16 | 68.89 | 71.35 | 0.00028694 |
Fault diagnosis results using BPNN model with all the twelve channels data.
| Channel | Repeat Order | Mean (%) | Variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1(%) | 2(%) | 3(%) | 4(%) | 5(%) | 6(%) | |||
| 1 | 25.21 | 20.68 | 17.86 | 9.57 | 27.95 | 23.42 | 20.78 | 0.00424408 |
| 2 | 26.58 | 22.99 | 23.59 | 22.82 | 23.25 | 20.43 | 23.28 | 0.00038810 |
| 3 | 54.96 | 56.84 | 55.04 | 50.51 | 48.72 | 56.50 | 53.76 | 0.00112073 |
| 4 | 15.04 | 18.89 | 14.27 | 15.98 | 17.26 | 18.97 | 16.74 | 0.00038868 |
| 5 | 17.26 | 15.64 | 15.90 | 15.21 | 15.38 | 14.79 | 15.70 | 0.00007295 |
| 6 | 13.42 | 15.81 | 13.33 | 15.81 | 16.32 | 14.36 | 14.84 | 0.00017198 |
| 7 | 25.56 | 25.30 | 15.98 | 25.73 | 28.63 | 23.33 | 24.09 | 0.00186552 |
| 8 | 33.76 | 31.37 | 37.26 | 33.93 | 31.71 | 30.43 | 33.08 | 0.00060961 |
| 9 | 10.77 | 12.31 | 11.45 | 11.26 | 8.29 | 12.39 | 11.08 | 0.00022557 |
| 10 | 57.69 | 49.23 | 57.26 | 50.68 | 59.83 | 60.68 | 55.90 | 0.00230168 |
| 11 | 54.62 | 58.12 | 57.35 | 54.02 | 58.21 | 57.95 | 56.71 | 0.00035579 |
| 12 | 36.41 | 37.18 | 34.62 | 37.69 | 30.60 | 32.99 | 34.92 | 0.00074956 |
Fault diagnosis results using BPNN model with all the twelve channels data.
| Channel | Repeat Order | Mean (%) | Variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1(%) | 2(%) | 3(%) | 4(%) | 5(%) | 6(%) | |||
| All channels | 49.40 | 50.85 | 12.48 | 43.85 | 45.85 | 9.49 | 35.34 | 0.03629351 |