| Literature DB >> 30200296 |
Hao Zheng1, Yixiong Feng2, Yicong Gao3, Jianrong Tan4.
Abstract
Industrial Internet of Things (IoT) is a ubiquitous network integrating various sensing technologies and communication technologies to provide intelligent information processing and smart control abilities for the manufacturing enterprises. The aim of applying industrial IoT is to assist manufacturers manage and optimize the entire product manufacturing process to improve product quality and production efficiency. Data-driven product development is considered as one of the critical application scenarios of industrial IoT, which is used to acquire the satisfied and robust design solution according to customer demands. Performance analysis is an effective tool to identify whether the key performance have reached the requirements in data-driven product development. The existing performance analysis approaches mainly focus on the metamodel construction, however, the uncertainty and complexity in product development process are rarely considered. In response, this paper investigates a robust performance analysis approach in industrial IoT environment to help product developers forecast the performance parameters accurately. The service-oriented layered architecture of industrial IoT for product development is first described. Then a dimension reduction approach based on mutual information (MI) and outlier detection is proposed. A metamodel based on least squares support vector regression (LSSVR) is established to conduct performance prediction process. Furthermore, the predicted performance analysis method based on confidence interval estimation is developed to deal with the uncertainty to improve the robustness of the forecasting results. Finally, a case study is given to show the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed approach.Entities:
Keywords: Industrial Internet of Things; performance analysis; product development; support vector regression
Year: 2018 PMID: 30200296 PMCID: PMC6164570 DOI: 10.3390/s18092871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The service-oriented layered architecture of industrial IoT.
Figure 2The illustration of the performance monitoring of turbo-expander in industrial IoT.
Figure 3The overview of the robust performance analysis in product development.
Figure 4The illustration of the density-based outlier.
Figure 5The flowchart of the proposed performance analysis approach.
Figure 6The simulation model of a hydraulic press.
Figure 7The framework of the data gathering of hydraulic press in industrial IoT.
The detailed description of design variables.
| No | Design Variables | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Sample 4 | Sample 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | Tie rod diameter (mm) | 670 | 704 | 735 | 765 | 794 |
| X2 | Tie rod bias (mm) | 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 |
| X3 | Cross-sectional area of stand column (mm2) | 848,583 | 707,152 | 606,131 | 530,364 | 471,435 |
| X4 | Flexural coefficient | 16.12 | 19.37 | 25.99 | 29.82 | 22.68 |
| X5 | Pretightening force (MN) | 11.63 | 13.09 | 14.55 | 16.00 | 17.46 |
| X6 | Stiffness ratio | 0.3319 | 0.3663 | 0.3994 | 0.4327 | 0.4661 |
| X7 | Moment of inertia (cm4) | 1.6 × 108 | 1.45 × 108 | 1.57 × 108 | 1.49 × 108 | 1.5 × 108 |
| X8 | Relative deflection (mm/m) | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.30 |
| X9 | Eccentricity (mm) | 0 | 100 | 200 | 300 | 400 |
| X10 | Inside gap (mm) | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0 | 1.5 |
| X11 | Swaging (mm) | 9.1 | 5.48 | 0.45 | 0.56 | 0 |
| X12 | Saddle forging (mm) | 28.45 | 23.67 | 0 | 15.71 | 0 |
| X13 | Eccentric heading (mm) | 23.56 | 14.67 | 15.32 | 0 | 0 |
| X14 | Surface pressure (MPa) | 13.3 | 15.6 | 14.5 | 16.1 | 13.9 |
The value of MI between the design variables and the overall performance.
| No | Overall Performance | No | Overall Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 2.7 | X8 | 2.9 |
| X2 | 3.5 | X9 | 2.6 |
| X3 | 3.2 | X10 | 2.1 |
| X4 | 1.3 | X11 | 1.9 |
| X5 | 2.8 | X12 | 1.8 |
| X6 | 3.6 | X13 | 1.2 |
| X7 | 1.5 | X14 | 1.7 |
Figure 8The test comparison results.
The confidence interval estimation.
| No | The Predicted Performance | Confidence Upper Limit | Confidence Lower Limit | Confidence Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 2.7693 | 2.5308 | 3.1077 | 0.95 |
| S2 | 1.6971 | 1.3574 | 1.9875 | 0.95 |
| S3 | 3.7346 | 3.2145 | 4.1047 | 0.95 |
| S4 | 2.1549 | 1.8546 | 2.5674 | 0.95 |
Comparison between the proposed approach and the other approaches using the same experimental data.
| Prediction Model | MAPE (%) | Computing Time (s) | Performance Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MI + SVR | 2.5489 | 25.87 | real number |
| MI + Kriging | 1.6784 | 20.21 | real number |
| MI + ANN | 1.4895 | 24.69 | real number |
| Proposed approach | 0.8579 | 18.62 | interval |