2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Friction stir welding tool condition monitoring using vibration signals and Random forest algorithm – A Machine learning approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Output: a probability distribution of the weld being good, broken, or having an air bubble [103,104] AlexNet, a CNN containing 5 layers of filter sizes 5, 3, 3, 3, and 3 with the number of filters being 96, 256, 384, 384, and 256, which took in images from the weld pool and classified them into two classes; ok and not ok…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Output: a probability distribution of the weld being good, broken, or having an air bubble [103,104] AlexNet, a CNN containing 5 layers of filter sizes 5, 3, 3, 3, and 3 with the number of filters being 96, 256, 384, 384, and 256, which took in images from the weld pool and classified them into two classes; ok and not ok…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The correlation occurs between the tensile strength and the surface appearance and relates to various input and process parameters [67,78,125]. It proves over 95 percent accurate in detecting the good and bad welds, which helps greater in online monitoring and feedback systems [58,103,[131][132][133][134][135][136]. A modified LSVM is also being used to obtain temperature signals of different frequency bands another step towards obtaining more data to check what predicts better weld quality [137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, estimation models for tool wear and surface roughness should be developed. Recently, various estimation approaches have been proposed, e.g., artificial neural networks [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ], regression [ 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], support vector machines [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], response surface methodology [ 21 , 22 ], random forest [ 18 , 23 , 24 ], and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference systems [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. In general, the chosen model and data directly affect estimation accuracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results showed that the Artificial Neural Network model resulted in a good accuracy score of 0.94. Balachandar et al [11] monitored the Friction Stir Welding tool condition by using the Random Forest algorithm which gave better results. There is a limited number of research studies available on the application of Supervised Machine Learning Classification models in the Friction Stir Welding Process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%