| Literature DB >> 30297666 |
Jun Wang1,2, Jose A Sanchez3, Izaro Ayesta4, Jon A Iturrioz5.
Abstract
Manufacturing more efficient low pressure turbines has become a topic of primary importance for aerospace companies. Specifically, wire electrical discharge machining of disc turbine fir-tree slots has attracted increasing interest in recent years. However, important issues must be still addressed for optimum application of the WEDM process for fir-tree slot production. The current work presents a novel approach for tolerance monitoring based on unsupervised machine learning methods using distribution of ionization time as a variable. The need for time-consuming experiments to set-up threshold values of the monitoring signal is avoided by using K-means and hierarchical clustering. The developments have been tested in the WEDM of a generic fir-tree slot under industrial conditions. Results show that 100% of the zones classified into Clusters 1 and 2 are related to short-circuit situations. Further, 100% of the zones classified in Clusters 3 and 5 lie within the tolerance band of ±15 μm. Finally, the 9 regions classified in Cluster 4 correspond to situations in which the wire is moving too far away from the part surface. These results are strongly in accord with tolerance distribution as measured by a coordinate measuring machine.Entities:
Keywords: aerospace; fir‐tree slots; machine learning; tolerance monitoring; turbine manufacturing; wire electrical discharge machining
Year: 2018 PMID: 30297666 PMCID: PMC6210559 DOI: 10.3390/s18103359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Example of geometry of a fir-tree slot.
Electrical parameters for the second trim cut (taken from ONA AV35 WEDM machine).
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Servo (V) | 10 |
| Pulse time (μs) | 80 |
| Current (A) | 4 |
| Open circuit voltage (V) | 90 |
| Off-time (μs) | 1 |
Infeed values and surface finish for each region at different heights.
| Region | Infeed | Surface Finish Ra (μm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (μm) | Bottom | Middle | Up | |
| 1 | −8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| 3 | 12 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 4 | 22 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| 5 | 32 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
Figure 2Voltage signal (time on horizontal axis) as registered by the oscilloscope during the second trim cut.
Figure 3Surface appearance of the different regions as a function of wire infeed.
Figure 4(a) 3D Surface topography of Region 3 as measured using the optical profilometer; (b) top view of the measured surface.
Figure 5Abbot-Firestone curve of accumulated occurrence of types of discharge as a function of T (μs).
Hierarchical clustering (HC) of the different regions using the curves of distribution of T for classification.
| Group | Region | Infeed (μm) |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | 4 | 22 |
| 5 | 32 | |
| Group 2 | 1 | −8 |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 3 | 12 |
Figure 6Result of HC applied on the curves of T distribution for the different regions of the experiment.
Results from the correlation analysis (PCC) between wire infeed and features from T distribution: average (Avg), standard deviation (Std), skewness (Skw) and kurtosis (Krt).
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 0.079 | −0.995 | −0.948 | −0.999 |
|
| 0.079 | 1 | 0.019 | −0.382 | −0.041 |
|
| −0.995 | 0.019 | 1 | 0.915 | 0.998 |
|
| −0.948 | −0.382 | 0.915 | 1 | 0.937 |
|
| −0.999 | −0.041 | 0.998 | 0.937 | 1 |
Results obtained from K-means assuming 2 clusters and 3 clusters.
| Region |
|
| 2 Clusters | 3 Clusters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.491 | −0.213 | −8 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0.445 | 0.192 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0.394 | 0.524 | 12 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0.336 | 0.823 | 22 | 1 | 2 |
|
| 0.283 | 1.13 | 32 | 1 | 2 |
Figure 7Set-up of the Inconel 718 prototype of the disc turbine mounted on the machine before WEDM’ing.
Figure 8(a) Geometry of the generic fir-tree slot for industrial tests; (b) The profile is divided into 30 zones in which CMM measurements are compared with clustering results.
Hierarchical clustering using T distribution of the 30 zones in which the fir-tree profile was divided for the analysis.
| Zones | Maximum Error (μm) | 3 Clusters | 4 Clusters | 5 Clusters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −9 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 2 | −2 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 3 | −8 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 4 | −4 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 5 | −4 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 6 | −8 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| 7 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 8 | 40 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 9 | 48 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 10 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 11 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 12 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 13 | −10 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 14 | −12 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 15 | −19 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 16 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 17 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| 18 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 19 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 20 | 46 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 21 | 46 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 22 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 23 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 24 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 25 | −15 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 26 | −18 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 27 | −20 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 28 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 29 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| 30 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
Figure 9(a) Graphical representation of the clusters provided by hierarchical clustering; (b) Geometry of the error throughout the fir-tree profile, as measured by the CMM.