| Literature DB >> 35458806 |
Jung-Sing Jwo1,2, Cheng-Hsiung Lee1, Ching-Sheng Lin1.
Abstract
Because of the complex production processes and technology-intensive operations that take place in the aerospace and defense industry, introducing Industry 4.0 into the manufacturing processes of aircraft composite materials is inevitable. Digital Twin and Cyber-Physical Systems in Industry 4.0 are key techniques to develop digital manufacturing. Since it is very difficult to create high-fidelity virtual models, the development of digital manufacturing for aircraft manufacturers is challenging. In this study, we provide a view from a data simulation perspective and adopt machine learning approaches to simplify the high-fidelity virtual models in Digital Twin. The novel concept is called Data Twin, and the deployable service to support the simulation is known as the Data Twin Service (DTS). Relying on the DTS, we also propose a microservice software architecture, Cyber-Physical Factory (CPF), to simulate the shop floor environment. Additionally, there are two war rooms in the CPF that can be used to establish a collaborative platform: one is the Physical War Room, used to integrate real data, and the other is the Cyber War Room for handling simulation data and the results of the CPF.Entities:
Keywords: Digital Twin; Industry 4.0; cyber-physical factory; cyber-physical systems; data twin; digital manufacturing; machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458806 PMCID: PMC9033120 DOI: 10.3390/s22082821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Two parallel networks and the relationship between IoT, Digital Twin and CPS.
Figure 2The comparison of Digital Twin (top-right) and Data Twin (bottom left).
Figure 3The architecture of Data Twin Service.
Figure 4Workflow of Data Twin construction.
Figure 5The architecture of the Cyber-Physical Factory.
The statistics of 100 MCCs based on the synthesis data.
| Min | 1st Quartile | 2nd Quartile | Mean | 3rd Quartile | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1878 | 0.2406 | 0.2588 | 0.2603 | 0.2816 | 0.3245 |
Figure 6Three variables, linear speed (a), temperature (b) and tension (c) were selected for the distribution comparison between synthesis data and real one-month data.
Figure 7The three representative stages of the bonding process and the CPF in the aerospace manufacturing.