Advertisement

Production Engineering

, Volume 12, Issue 3–4, pp 525–533 | Cite as

A novel approach for data-driven process and condition monitoring systems on the example of mill-turn centers

  • Dominik Kißkalt
  • Hans Fleischmann
  • Sven Kreitlein
  • Manuel Knott
  • Jörg Franke
Quality Assurance

Abstract

Implementing condition monitoring functionality in production machinery often proves to be a difficult task. Device- and process-specific algorithms must be created while inhomogeneous industrial communication networks hinder the aggregation of control signals and process variables. Further challenges arise from the advance of flexible cyber-physical systems (CPS) and the industrial internet of things (IIoT). They demand a service-oriented condition monitoring architecture, which seamlessly adapts to quickly changing production topologies. In this context, data-driven systems which are capable of unsupervised learning are promising approaches. The aim is the autonomous identification of significant process variables and patterns. This paper describes a machine learning approach for a condition and process monitoring system on the basis of pattern recognition within structure-borne noise of rotating cutting machinery. Process states are defined under application of non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). A production model is learned and deployed on the basis of Gaussian mixture models (GMM) and hidden Markov models (HMM) in a two stage process. Additionally a generic framework to ease the implementation of decentralized condition monitoring functionalities is given. A decentralized component, the monitoring module, constitutes a part of a holistic condition monitoring architecture managed by a central server. The approach is evaluated on the example of mill-turn centers.

Keywords

Condition monitoring systems Smart factory Cyber-physical systems Machine learning Unsupervised learning Machine tools 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Robert Bosch GmbH for providing access to its production facilities.

References

  1. 1.
    Marwala T (2012) Condition monitoring using computational intelligence methods: applications in mechanical and electrical systems. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuh G, Stich V, Reuter C, Blum M, Brambring F, Hempel T, Reschke J, Schiemann D (2017) Cyber physical production control. In: Jeschke S, Brecher C, Song H, Rawat DB (eds) Industrial internet of things. Springer, Cham, pp 519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oks SJ, Fritzsche A, Möslein KM (2017) An application map for industrial cyber-physical systems. In: Jeschke S, Brecher C, Song H, Rawat DB (eds) Industrial internet of things. Springer, Cham, pp 21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niggemann O, Lohweg V (2015) On the diagnosis of cyber-physical production systems—state-of-the-art and research agenda. In: Twenty-ninth conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-15) pp 4119–4126Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee WG, Lee JW, Hong MS, Nam SH, Jeon YH, Lee MG (2015) Failure diagnosis system for a ball-screw by using vibration signals. Shock Vib.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/435870 (Article ID 435870)
  6. 6.
    Schopp M (2009) Sensorbasierte Zustandsdiagnose und -prognose von Kugelgewindetrieben. Dissertation, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Institut für Produktionstechnik wbkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleischmann H, Kohl J, Franke J, Reidt A, Duchon M, Krcmar H (2016) Improving maintenance processes with distributed monitoring systems. In: IEEE 14th international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN), pp 377–382.  https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2016.7819189
  8. 8.
    Isermann R (2011) Fault-diagnosis applications—model-based condition monitoring: actuators, drives, machinery, plants, sensors, and fault-tolerant systems. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vodenčarević A, Büning HK, Niggemann O, Maier A (2011) Identifying behavior models for process plants. In: IEEE 16th conference on emerging technologies & factory automation (ETFA), pp 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.2011.6059080
  10. 10.
    Vodenčarević A, Büning HK, Niggemann O, Maier A (2011) Using behavior models for anomaly detection in hybrid systems. XXIII International Symposium on Information, Communication and Automation Technologies 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAT.2011.6102093
  11. 11.
    Henning S, Niggemann O, Otto J, Schriegel S (2014) A descriptive engineering approach for cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE emerging technology and factory automation (ETFA) pp 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.2014.7005286
  12. 12.
    Fleischmann H, Spreng S, Kohl J, Kißkalt D, Franke J (2016) Distributed condition monitoring systems in electric drives manufacturing. In: 6th international electric drives production conference (EDPC), pp 52–57.  https://doi.org/10.1109/EDPC.2016.7851314
  13. 13.
    Maier A, Niggemann O, Koester M, Gatica CP (2013) Automated generation of timing models in distributed production plants. In: Proceedings international conference on industrial technology (ICIT), pp 1086–1091.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2013.6505823
  14. 14.
    Windmann S, Niggemann O (2015) Efficient fault detection for industrial automation processes with observable process variables. In: Proceedings international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN), pp 121–126.  https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2015.7281721
  15. 15.
    Branicky MS (2005) Introduction to hybrid systems. In: Hristu-Varsakelis D, Levine WS (eds) Handbook of networked and embedded control systems. Birkhäuser, Boston, pp 91–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dionisio Rocha A, Peres R, Barata J (2015) An agent based monitoring architecture for plug and produce based manufacturing systems. In: Proceedings 13th IEEE international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN), pp 1318–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2015.7281926
  17. 17.
    Hoyer PO (2004) Non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraints. J Mach Learn Res 5:1457–1469MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berry MW, Browne M, Langville AN, Pauca VP, Plemmons RJ (2007) Algorithms and applications for approximate nonnegative matrix factorization. Comput Stat Data Anal 52(1):155–173MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabiner L, Luang B (1986) An introduction to hidden Markov models. IEEE ASSP Mag 3(1):4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MASSP.1986.1165342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fine S, Singer Y, Tishby N (1998) The hierarchical hidden Markov model: analysis and applications. Mach Learn 32:41–62.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007469218079 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Windmann S, Jungbluth F, Niggemann O (2015) A HMM-based fault detection method for piecewise stationary industrial processes. In: Emerging technologies & factory automation (ETFA), pp 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.2015.7301465
  23. 23.
    Fleischmann H, Kohl J, Franke J (2016) A reference architecture for the development of socio-cyber-physical condition monitoring systems. In: 11th system of systems engineering conference (SoSE), pp 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2016.7542963
  24. 24.
    VDI/VDE Society Measurement and Automatic Control (2015) Status report: reference architecture model industrie 4.0 (RAMI 4.0)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Factory Automation and Production SystemsFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU)ErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations