Abstract
AbstractPhysics-guided machine learning (PGML) offers a new approach to stability modeling during machining that leverages experimental data generated during the machining process while incorporating decades of theoretical process modeling efforts. This approach addresses specific limitations of machine learning models and physics-based models individually. Data-driven machine learning models are typically black box models that do not provide deep insight into the underlying physics and do not reflect physical constraints for the modeled system, sometimes yielding solutions that violate physical laws or operational constraints. In addition, acquiring the large amounts of manufacturing data needed for machine learning modeling can be costly. On the other hand, many physical processes are not completely understood by domain experts and have a high degree of uncertainty. Physics-based models must make simplifying assumptions that can compromise prediction accuracy. This research explores whether data generated by an uncertain physics-based milling stability model that is used to train a physics-guided machine learning stability model, and then updated with measured data, domain knowledge, and theory-based knowledge provides a useful approximation to the unknown true stability model for a specific set of factory operating conditions. Four novel strategies for updating the machine learning model with experimental data are explored. These updating strategies differ in their assumptions about and implementation of the type of physics-based knowledge included in the PGML model. Using a simulation experiment, these strategies achieve useful approximations of the underlying true stability model while reducing the number of experimental measurements required for model update.
Funder
Research Opportunities Initiative, University of North Carolina
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,Software
Reference46 articles.
1. Altintas, Y., & Budak, E. (1995). Analytical prediction of stability lobes in milling. Annals of the CIRP, 44(1), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62342-7
2. Cherukuri, H., Perez-Bernabeu, E., Selles, M., & Schmitz, T. (2019). Machining chatter prediction using a data learning model. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 3(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp3020045
3. Cornelius, A., Karandikar, J., Gomez, M., & Schmitz, T. (2021). A Bayesian Framework for Milling Stability Prediction and Reverse Parameter Identification. Procedia Manufacturing, 53, 760–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.06.073
4. Cuomo, S., Di Cola, V. S., Giampaolo, F., Rozza, G., Raissi, M., & Piccialli, F. (2022). Scientific Machine Learning through Physics-Informed Neural Networks: Where we are and What’s next.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05624. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.05624.pdf
5. Deshmukh, J., & Bhosle, U. (2018). A Study of Mammogram Classification using AdaBoost with Decision Tree, KNN, SVM and Hybrid SVM-KNN as Component Classifiers. Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, 9(3), 548–557. Retrieved 21 April 2022 from http://bit.kuas.edu.tw/~jihmsp/2018/vol9/JIH-MSP-2018-03-004.pdf
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献