| Literature DB >> 30558357 |
Pedro Junior1, Doriana M D'Addona2, Paulo Aguiar3, Roberto Teti4.
Abstract
This paper presents an approach for impedance-based sensor monitoring of dressing tool condition in grinding by using the electromechanical impedance (EMI) technique. This method was introduced in Part 1 of this work and the purpose of this paper (Part 2) is to achieve an optimal selection of the excitation frequency band based on multi-layer neural networks (MLNN) and k-nearest neighbor classifier (k-NN). The proposed approach was validated on the basis of dressing tool condition information obtained from the monitoring of experimental dressing tests with two industrial stationary single-point dressing tools. Moreover, representative damage indices for diverse damage cases, obtained from impedance signatures at different frequency bands, were taken into account for MLNN data processing. The intelligent system was able to select the most damage-sensitive features based on optimal frequency band. The best models showed a general overall error lower than 2%, thus robustly contributing to the efficient automation of grinding and dressing operations. The promising results of this study foster the EMI-based sensor monitoring approach to fault diagnosis in dressing operations and its effective implementation for industrial grinding process automation.Entities:
Keywords: MLNN; dressing; electromechanical impedance; grinding process; k-NN; neural networks; piezoelectric sensors; sensor monitoring; tool condition monitoring
Year: 2018 PMID: 30558357 PMCID: PMC6308412 DOI: 10.3390/s18124453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Experimental test specification.
| Parameter | Specification |
|---|---|
| Grinding machine | SULMECANICA RAPH 1055 surface-grinding machine |
| Grinding wheel | NORTON 38A150L6VH aluminum oxide (355.6 × 25.4 × 127 mm) |
| Dressing tool | CDV and natural diamond single-point conical type dressers |
|
| 1 at beginning |
| Traverse dressing feed | 3.45 mm/s |
| Dressing depth | 40 µm |
| Cooling | Dry-dressing |
| Number of dressing passes | 600 for CVD diamond and 300 for natural diamond |
| Temperature monitoring | MINIPA MT455 using a type K thermocouple |
|
| |
| DAQ system | NATIONAL NI USB-6221 DAQ device |
| Transducers | Two diaphragms MURATA 7BB-20-6 |
Figure 1Proposed sensing setup for dressing tool condition monitoring (Part 2): (a) schematic representation of the test bench; and (b) the two types of diamond dressing tools and the two lead zirconate titanate (PZT) transducers for experimental testing; configuration of the dresser body; top and side views of the diamonds. (DAQ: multifunctional data acquisition; CVD: chemical vapor deposition)
Selected frequency sub-ranges for damage metrics calculation. (RMSD: root mean square deviation; CCDM: the correlation coefficient deviation metric)
| Nomenclature | Frequency Sub-Range for RMSD and CCDM Calculation |
|---|---|
|
| 0–20 kHz |
|
| 20–40 kHz |
|
| 40–60 kHz |
|
| 60–80 kHz |
|
| 80–100 kHz |
|
| 100–120 kHz |
Main characteristics of the ANN models in experimental test case #1.
| Input Models | Combined Frequency Bands | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0–20 kHz |
| 40–60 kHz |
| 80–100 kHz | ||
|
| 20–40kHz |
| 60–80 kHz |
| 100–120 kHz | ||
| PZT#1 CVD RMSD | 1.7% | 1.1% | 9.8% | ||||
| PZT#1 CVD CCDM | 14.5% | 5.9% | 2.6% | ||||
| PZT#2 CVD RMSD | 17.6% | 0.9% | 11.9% | ||||
| PZT#2 CVD CCDM | 2.6% | 5.2% | 1.9% | ||||
| Average error | 9.1% | 3.2% | 6.5% | ||||
| Standard deviation | 8.1 | 2.6 | 5 | ||||
Figure 2Intelligent dressing tool health monitoring approach based on electromechanical impedance (EMI).
Figure 3Artificial neural network (ANN) model construction.
Figure 4Analysis of the CVD diamond wear state: (a) top view; (b) wear area trend; and (c) side view.
Main characteristics of the best ANN models in experimental test case #1.
| Parameters | Specification | |
|---|---|---|
| Best input model of the test | PZT#1 CVD RMSD- | PZT#2 CVD RMSD- |
| Structure (layers and neurons) | 2-10-10-05–3 | 2-05-15-00-3 |
| Input pattern | [ | |
| Optimal combined frequency ranges | [40–60 kHz + 60–80 kHz] | |
| Training function | LVM backpropagation | |
| Max number of epochs | 2000 | |
| Number of patterns considered | 2000 features for each condition, 10% for validation | |
| Decision rule of |
| |
Figure 5Confusion matrices of the best ANN models in experimental case #1: (a) model#1; and (b) model#3.
Figure 6k-NN results via decision boundary graphics for the best ANN models in experimental case #1: (a) model#1; and (b) model#3.
Figure 7Analysis of the natural diamond wear state: (a) top view; (b) wear area trend; and (c) side view.
Main characteristics of the ANN models in experimental test case #2.
| Input Models | Combined Frequency Bands | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0–20 kHz |
| 40–60 kHz |
| 80–100 kHz | ||
|
| 20–40kHz |
| 60–80 kHz |
| 100–120 kHz | ||
| PZT#1 natural RMSD | 45.2% | 1.1% | 9.3% | ||||
| PZT#1 natural CCDM | 1.7% | 4.8% | 2.4% | ||||
| PZT#2 natural RMSD | 1.7% | 0.6% | 8.9% | ||||
| PZT#2 natural CCDM | 2.8% | 5.0% | 2.6% | ||||
| Average error | 12.8% | 2.8% | 5.8% | ||||
| Standard deviation | 21.5 | 2.3 | 3.8 | ||||
Main characteristics of the best ANN models in experimental test case #2.
| Parameters | Specification | |
|---|---|---|
| Best Input model of the test | PZT#1 CVD RMSD- | PZT#2 CVD RMSD– |
| Structure (layers and neurons) | 2-05-05-05–3 | 2-05-15-00-3 |
| Input pattern | [ | |
| Optimal combined frequency ranges | [40-60 kHz + 60-80 kHz] | |
| Training function | LVM Backpropagation | |
| Max number of epochs | 2000 | |
| Number of patterns considered | 2000 features for each condition, 10% for validation | |
| Decision rule of |
| |
Figure 8Confusion matrices of the best ANN models in experimental case #2: (a) model#5; and (b) model#7.
Figure 9k-NN results via decision boundary graphics for the best ANN models in experimental case #2: (a) model#5; and (b) model#7.