No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Prediction of microdrill breakage using rough sets
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2010
Abstract
This study attempts to correlate the nonlinear invariants' with the changing conditions of a drilling process through a series of condition monitoring experiments on small diameter (1 mm) drill bits. Run-to-failure tests are performed on these drill bits, and vibration data are consecutively gathered at equal time intervals. Nonlinear invariants, such as the Kolmogorov entropy and correlation dimension, and statistical parameters are calculated based on the corresponding conditions of the drill bits. By intervariations of these values between two successive measurements, a drop–rise table is created. Any variation that is within a certain threshold (±20% of the measurements in this case) is assumed to be constant. Any fluctuation above or below is assumed to be either a rise or a drop. The reduct and conflict tables then help eliminate incongruous and redundant data by the use of rough sets (RSs). Inconsistent data, which by definition is the boundary region, are classified through certainty and coverage factors. By handling inconsistencies and redundancies, 11 rules are extracted from 39 experiments, representing the underlying rules. Then 22 new experiments are used to check the validity of the rule space. The RS decision frame performs best at predicting no failure cases. It is believed that RSs are superior in dealing with real-life data over fuzzy set logic in that actual measured data are never as consistent as here and may dominate the monitoring of the manufacturing processes as it becomes more widespread.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
References
REFERENCES
Atlas, L., Ostendod, M., & Bernard, G.D. (2000). Hidden Markov models for monitoring machining tool-wear. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 3887–3890.Google Scholar
Drongelen, W.V., Nayak, S., Frim, D.M., Kohrman, M.H., Towle, V.L., Lee, H.C., McGee, A.B., Chico, M.S., & Hecox, K.E. (2003). Seizure anticipation in pediatric epilepsy: use of Kolmogorov entropy. Pediatric Neurology 29, 207–213.Google Scholar
Ertunc, H.M., & Oysu, C. (2004). Drill wear monitoring using cutting force signals. Mechatronics 14, 533–548.Google Scholar
Kaya, A. (2005). An investigation with fractal geometry analysis of time series. MS Thesis. Izmir Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Li, X., & Tso, S.K. (1999). Drill wear monitoring based on current signals. Wear 231, 172–178.Google Scholar
Liu, S., & Shi, W. (2001). Rough set based intelligence diagnostic system for valves in reciprocating pumps. IEEE Int. Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 353–358, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Nowicki, R., Stowifiski, R., & Stefanowski, J. (1992). Evaluation of vibroacoustic diagnostic symptoms by means of the rough set theory. Computers in Industry 20, 141–152.Google Scholar
Panda, S.S., Chakraborty, D., & Pal, S.K. (2008). Flank wear prediction in drilling using back propagation neural network and radial basis function network. Applied Soft Computing 8(2), 858–871.Google Scholar
Pasek, Z.J. (2006). Exploration of rough sets theory use for manufacturing process monitoring. Journal of Engineering Manufacture 220(3), 365–374.Google Scholar
Pawlak, Z. (2002). Rough sets and intelligent data analysis. Information Sciences 147, 1–12.Google Scholar
Purkait, P., & Chakravorti, P. (2003). Impulse fault classification in transformers by fractal analysis. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 10(1), 109–116.Google Scholar
Ravindra, H.V., Srinivasa, Y.G., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1997). Acoustic emission for tool condition monitoring in metal cutting. Wear 212, 78–84.Google Scholar
Scheffer, C., & Heyns, P.S. (2001). Wear monitoring in turning operations using vibration and strain measurements. Mechanical Systems & Signal Processing 15(6), 1185–1202.Google Scholar
Sevil, H.E. (2006). On the predictability of time series by metric entropy. MS Thesis. Izmir Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shen, L., Tay, F.E.H., Qu, L., & Shen, Y. (2000). Fault diagnosis using on rough set theory. Computers in Industry 43, 61–72.Google Scholar
Sortino, M. (2003). Application of statistical filtering for optical detection of tool wear. Machine Tools & Manufacture 43, 493–497.Google Scholar
Szczuka, M., & Wojdyllo, P. (2001). Neuro-wavelet classifiers for EEG signals based on rough set methods. Neurocomputing 36, 103–122.Google Scholar
Tansel, I., Trujillo, M., Nedbouyan, A., Velez, C., Bao, W.Y., Arkan, T.T., & Tansel, B. (1998). Micro-end-milling—III. Wear estimation and tool breakage detection using acoustic emission signals. Machine Tools & Manufacture 38, 1449–1466.Google Scholar
Tansel, I.N., Arkan, T.T., Bao, W.Y., Mahendrakar, N., Shisler, B., Smith, D., & McCool, M. (2000 a). Tool wear estimation in micro-machining: Part I. Tool usage—cutting force relationship. Machine Tools & Manufacture 40, 599–608.Google Scholar
Tansel, I.N., Arkan, T.T., Bao, W.Y., Mahendrakar, N., Shisler, B., Smith, D., & McCool, M. (2000 b). Tool wear estimation in micro-machining: Part II. Neural-network-based periodic inspector for non-metals. Machine Tools & Manufacture 40, 609–620.Google Scholar
Tay, F.E.H., & Shen, L. (2001). Fault diagnosis based on rough set theory. Engineering Application of Artificial Intelligence 16, 39–43.Google Scholar
Tjahjowidodo, T., Bender, F.A., & Brussel, H.V. (2007). Quantifying chaotic responses of mechanical systems with backlash component. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 21(2), 973–993.Google Scholar