Advertisement

Tool wear monitoring using naïve Bayes classifiers

  • Jaydeep KarandikarEmail author
  • Tom McLeay
  • Sam Turner
  • Tony Schmitz
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

A naïve Bayes classifier method for tool condition monitoring is described. End-milling tests were performed at different spindle speeds and the cutting force was measured using a table-mounted dynamometer. The effect of tool wear on force features in the time and frequency domains was evaluated and used for training the classifier. The amount of tool wear was predicted using the naïve Bayes classifier method. Two cases are presented. First, the tool wear is divided into discrete states based on the amount of flank wear and the probability of the tool wear being in any state is updated using force data. Second, a continuous case is considered and the probability density function of the tool flank wear width is updated. The results are discussed.

Keywords

Tool condition monitoring Naïve Bayes classifier Flank wear Uncertainty Cutting force 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Konstantinos S, Athanasios K (2014) Reliability assessment of cutting tool life based on surrogate approximation methods. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(5–8):1197–1208Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yeo S, Khoo L, Neo S (2000) Tool condition monitoring using reflectance of chip surface and neural network. J Intell Manuf 11:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurada S, Bradley C (1997) A review of machine vision sensors for tool condition monitoring. Comp Ind 34:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rehorn AG, Jiang J, Orban PE (2005) State-of-the-art methods and results in tool condition monitoring: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26(7–8):693–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prickett PW, Johns C (1999) An overview of approaches to end milling tool monitoring. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dimla E Snr (2000) Sensor signals for tool-wear monitoring in metal cutting operations—a review of methods. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:10735–11098Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burke LI, Rangwala S (1991) Tool condition monitoring in metal cutting: a neural network approach. J Intell Manuf 2(5):269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sick B (2002) On-line and indirect tool wear monitoring in turning with artificial neural networks—a review of more than a decade of research. Mech Syst Signal Process 16(4):487–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dornfeld DA (1990) Neural network sensor fusion for tool condition monitoring. Ann CIRP 39:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghosh N, Ravi YB, Patra A, Mukhopadhyay S, Paul S, Mohanty AR, Chattopadhyay AB (2007) Estimation of tool wear during CNC milling using neural network-based sensor fusion. Mech Syst Signal Process 21:466–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jemielniak K, Leszek K, Pawel W (1998) Diagnosis of tool wear based on cutting forces and acoustic emission measures as inputs to a neural network. J Intell Manuf 9(5):447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aliustaoglu C, Ertunc HM, Ocak H (2009) Tool wear condition monitoring using a sensor fusion model based on fuzzy inference system. Mech Syst Signal Process 23(2):539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li X, Yuan Z (1998) Tool wear monitoring with wavelet packet transform—fuzzy clustering method. Wear 219(2):145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen JC, Susanto V (2003) Fuzzy logic based in-process tool-wear monitoring system in face milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21(3):186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuo RJ, Cohen PH (1998) Intelligent tool wear estimation system through artificial neural networks and fuzzy modeling. Artif Intell Eng 12(3):229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li AU, Elbestawi MA (1996) Fuzzy clustering for automated tool condition monitoring in machining. J Mech Syst Signal Proc 10(5):533–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li X, Yao Y, Yuan Z (1997) On-line tool condition monitoring system with wavelet fuzzy neural network. J Intell Manuf 8(4):271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen JC (1996) A fuzzy nets tool breakage detection system for end milling operations. J Adv Manuf Technol 12:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dey S, Stori JA (2005) A Bayesian network approach to root cause diagnosis of process variations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(1):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Atlas L, Ostendod M, Bernard GD (2000) Hidden Markov Models for monitoring tool wear. IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Proc 6:3887–3890Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ertunc HM, Loparo KA (2001) A decision fusion algorithm for tool wear condition monitoring in drilling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41(9):1347–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ertunc HM, Loparo KA, Ocak H (2001) Tool wear condition monitoring in drilling operations using hidden Markov models (HMMs). Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:1363–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vallejo AG, Nolazco-Flores JA, Morales-Menéndez R, Sucar LE, Rodríguez CA (2005) Tool-Wear Monitoring Based on Continuous Hidden Markov Models, Progress in Pattern recognition. Image Anal Appl Lect Comp Sci 3773:880–890Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Constantinides N, Benett S (1987) An investigation of methods for on-line estimation of tool wear. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 27(2):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Domingos P, Pazzani M (1997) Beyond independence: Conditions for the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier. Mach Learn 29:103–130CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2012) Pattern classification. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang H (2004) The Optimality of Naive Bayes. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference. AAAI Press, Miami BeachGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geiger D, Heckerman D (1997) A characterization of the Dirichlet distribution through global and local independence. Ann Stat 25:1344–1369CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall CRC, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaydeep Karandikar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tom McLeay
    • 2
  • Sam Turner
    • 2
  • Tony Schmitz
    • 3
  1. 1.The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre with BoeingUniversity of SheffieldRotherhamUK
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering and Engineering ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations