IP Library Granted Patent US 10,139,311
Granted Patent B2
US 10,139,311 · App. 14/499,060 · Granted Nov 27, 2018

Computer-implemented method and system for machine tool damage assessment, prediction, and planning in manufacturing shop floor

Inventors: Linxia Liao (Mountain View, CA); Rajinderjeet Singh Minhas (Mountain View, CA); Arvind Rangarajan (Santa Clara, CA); Tolga Kurtoglu (San Jose, CA); Johan de Kleer (Los Altos, CA)
Assignee: Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated
G01M13/00B23Q17/0995G05B19/4065G05B23/0283G05B2219/34477G05B2219/37252G05B2219/37258G05B2219/50185
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 10,139,311
App. No.
14/499,060
Granted
Nov 27, 2018
Kind
B2
Abstract

A self-aware machine platform is implemented through analyzing operational data of machining tools to achieve machine tool damage assessment, prediction and planning in manufacturing shop floor. Machining processes are first identified by matching similar processes through an ICP algorithm. Machining processes are further clustered by Hotelling's T-squared statistics. Degradation of the machining tool is detected through a trend of the operational data within a cluster of machining processes by a monotonicity test, and the remaining useful life of the machining tool is predicted through a particle filter by extrapolating the trend under a first-order Markov process. In addition, process anomalies across machines are detected through a combination of outlier detection methods including SOMs, multivariate regression, and robust Mahalanobis distance. Warnings and recommendations are flexibly provided to manufacturing shop floor based on policy choice.

Claims (204)

1. A computer-implemented system for detecting machine tool wear, predicting machine tool failure, and manufacturing shop floor planning, comprising:

a computing device comprising a processor and configured to:

obtain a machine tool's operational data comprising positional parameters and movement parameters during a time window;

identify a plurality of machining processes of the machine tool based upon a match of the positional parameters and the movement parameters that defines the machining processes;

cluster the plurality of the machining processes into one or more process clusters, based upon a similarity of the machining processes;

detect the machine tool's wear by characterizing a trend of change in a parameter from the one or more clusters of machining processes performed by the machine tool; and

predict the machine tool's remaining useful life by extrapolating the trend under a first-order Markov process, wherein the machine tool is replaced based on the predicted remaining useful life.

2. A computer-implemented system according to claim 1 , wherein the operational data comprise of at least one of X-axis position, Y-axis position, Z-axis position, feed rate, spindle speed, spindle power, spindle load, and tool number.

3. A computer-implemented system according to claim 1 , the computing device further configured to:

determine a tool path shape in a 3-D space for the plurality of the machining processes by plotting X-, Y-, and Z- positions of the machine tool during associated with the processes;

determine a movement parameter shape by plotting the spindle speed, feed rate, and time of the machine tool in the parameter space for the plurality of the machining processes associated with the machine tool; and

determine the match between two machining processes from the plurality of the machining processes by matching both the tool path shapes in the 3-D space and the movement parameter shapes in the parameter space between two machining processes, via finding the smallest possible differences between the matched shapes using an ICP algorithm.

4. A computer-implemented system according to claim 1 , the computing device further configured to:

cluster the machining processes based on the similarity of the machining processes, further comprising:

obtain an initial cluster of machining processes;

calculate the difference between at least one of the plurality of the machining processes and the average of the initial cluster using a T2 method of:

T 2=( d a −{circumflex over (d)} a )* s −1 * ( d a −{circumflex over (d)} a )′

wherein d a is a measurement of the difference and calculated by d a =[d s ,d p ], d s is a difference between tool path shapes in shape spaces, d p is a difference between movement parameter shapes in parameter spaces, {circumflex over (d)} a is the mean value of the difference of the initial cluster of the processes, and s is the covariance;

determine a T2 limit by a formula of

T

2

limit

=

(

N

-

1

)

(

N

+

1

)

p

N

(

N

-

p

)

F

α

(

p

,

N

-

p

)

,

 where F α (p,N−p) is the 100α% confidence level of F−distribution with p and N−p degrees of freedom;

keep the at least one process out of the cluster if the T2 statistics is above the T2 limit ; and

assign the at least one process into the initial cluster of the processes and update the centroid of the cluster if the T2 statistics is below the T2 limit .

5. A computer-implemented system according to claim 1 , the computing device further configured to:

characterize the trend of the parameter from one of the one or more clusters through detecting a unidirectional change of the parameter via a monotonicity test as described in for

Monotonicity

(

F

)

=

#

d

/

dF

>

0

n

-

1

-

#

d

/

dF

<

0

n

-

1

wherein F is the measurement of the parameter, d/dF is the derivative, and n is the number of measurement in a period of time;

set up a threshold of F ; and

provide a notification of a degradation when the threshold is exceeded by the calculated monotonicity,

wherein the parameter used for the trend detection is chosen from at least one of the following group: the machine tool's spindle power, the machine tool's torque, heat generated by the machine tool during the processes, and frictions of a bearing associated with the machine tool during the processes.

6. A computer-implemented system according to claim 1 , the computing device further configured to:

define the first-order Markov process model with a second order polynomial model of:

Xk=a k t k +b k t k 2 +c k =X k −1 +( a k +2bt k−1 ) Δt + b k Δt 2

wherein the Xk is the state of tool wear, t k is the time at step K, and a k , b k , and C k are parameters of the second order polynomial model.

7. A computer-implemented system according to claim 6 , the computing device further configured to:

notify of the remaining useful life,

wherein the machine tool is a cutting tool and the parameter is the values of the spindle powers of the processes.

8. A computer-implemented method for detecting machine tool wear, predicting machine tool failure, and manufacturing shop floor planning, comprising:

obtaining by a computing device comprising a processor a machine tool's operational data comprising positional parameters and movement parameters during a time window;

identifying by the computing device a plurality of machining processes of the machine tool based upon a match of the positional parameters and the movement parameters that defines the machining processes;

clustering by the computing device the plurality of the machining processes into one or more process clusters, based upon a similarity of the machining processes;

detecting by the computing device the machine tool's wear by characterizing a trend of change in a parameter from the one or more clusters of machining processes performed by the machine tool; and

predicting by the computing device the machine tool's remaining useful life by extrapolating the trend under a first-order Markov process, wherein the machine tool is replaced based on the predicted remaining useful life.

9. A method according to claim 8 , wherein the operational data comprise of at least one of X-axis position, Y-axis position, Z-axis position, feed rate, spindle speed, spindle power, spindle load, and tool number.

10. A method according to claim 8 , further comprising:

determining by the computing device the match of the positional parameters and the movement parameters, further comprising the steps of:

for the plurality of the machining processes associated with the machine tool, determining a tool path shape for each machining process in a 3-D space by plotting X-, Y-, and Z- positions of the machine tool during the each machining process;

for the plurality of the machining processes associated with the machine tool, determining a movement parameter shape by plotting the spindle speed, feed rate, and time of the machine tool in a parameter space for the each machining process; and

determining the match between two machining processes from the plurality of the machining processes by matching both the tool path shapes in the 3-D space and the movement parameter shapes in the parameter space between the two machining processes, via finding the smallest possible differences between the matched shapes using an ICP algorithm.

11. A method according to claim 8 , further comprising:

clustering by the computing device the machining processes based on the similarity of the machining processes, further comprising the steps of:

obtaining an initial cluster of machining processes;

for at least one of the plurality of the machining processes, calculating the difference between the at least one process and the average of the initial cluster using a T2 method of:

T 2=( d a −{circumflex over (d)} a )* s −1 *( d a −{circumflex over (d)} a )′,

wherein d a is a measurement of the difference and calculated by d a =[d s ,d p ], d s is a difference between tool path shapes in shape spaces, d p is a difference between movement parameter shapes in parameter spaces, {circumflex over (d)} a is the mean value of the difference of the initial cluster of the processes, and s is the covariance;

determining a T2 limit by a formula of

T

2

limit

=

(

N

-

1

)

(

N

+

1

)

p

N

(

N

-

p

)

F

α

(

p

,

N

-

p

)

,

 where F α (p,N−p) is the 100α% confidence level of F−distribution with p and N−p degrees of freedom;

keeping the at least one process out of the cluster if the T2 statistics is above the T2 limit ; and

assigning the at least one process into the initial cluster of the processes and updating the centroid of the cluster if the T2 statistics is below the T2 limit .

12. A method according to claim 8 , further comprising:

for one of the one or more clusters, characterizing by the computing device the trend of the parameter through detecting a unidirectional change of the parameter via a monotonicity test as described in

Monotonicity

(

F

)

=

#

d

/

dF

>

0

n

-

1

-

#

d

/

dF

<

0

n

-

1

wherein F is the measurement of the parameter, d/dF is the derivative, and n is the number of measurement in a period of time;

setting up by the computing device a threshold of F ; and

notifying by the computing device of a degradation when the threshold is exceeded by the calculated monotonicity,

wherein the parameter used for the trend detection is chosen from at least one of the following group: the machine tool's spindle power, the machine tool's torque, heat generated by the machine tool during the processes, and frictions of a bearing associated with the machine tool during the processes.

13. A method according to claim 8 , further comprising:

defining by the computing device the first-order Markov process model with a second order polynomial model of:

Xk=a k t k +b k t k 2 +c k =X k−1 +( a k +2 bt k−1 ) Δt+b k Δt 2

wherein the Xk is the state of tool wear, t k is the time at step K, and a k , b k , and c k are parameters of the second order polynomial model.

14. A method according to claim 13 , further comprising:

notifying by the computing device of the remaining useful life,

wherein the machine tool is a cutting tool and the parameter is the values of the spindle powers of the processes.

15. A method according to claim 8 , further comprising:

providing by the computing device a recommendation on scheduling a machine maintenance by comparing a performance history of the machine to another machine performing comparable machining process, comprising:

comparing a histogram of a spindle speed measured by RPM weighted by spindle load at the speed for the one machine to the other; and

comparing the total traverse of across all feed axes on the one machine to the other.

Assignments (11)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 14, 2025
From: XEROX CORPORATION
To: GENESEE VALLEY INNOVATIONS, LLC
Reel/Frame 073562/0677 →
SECOND LIEN NOTES PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Jul 2, 2025
From: XEROX CORPORATION
To: U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 071785/0550 →
FIRST LIEN NOTES PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Apr 11, 2025
From: XEROX CORPORATION
To: U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 070824/0001 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Feb 13, 2024
From: XEROX CORPORATION
To: CITIBANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 066741/0001 →
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS RECORDED AT RF 064760/0389 Recorded Feb 13, 2024
From: CITIBANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
To: XEROX CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 068261/0001 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Nov 20, 2023
From: XEROX CORPORATION
To: JEFFERIES FINANCE LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 065628/0019 →
CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE REMOVAL OF US PATENTS 9356603, 10026651, 10626048 AND INCLUSION OF US PATENT 7167871 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 064038 FRAME 0001. ASSIGNOR(S) HEREBY CONFIRMS THE ASSIGNMENT. Recorded Jun 28, 2023
From: PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER INCORPORATED
To: XEROX CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 064161/0001 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jun 22, 2023
From: XEROX CORPORATION
To: CITIBANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 064760/0389 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 20, 2023
From: PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER INCORPORATED
To: XEROX CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 064038/0001 →
CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE SECOND INVENTOR'S NAME PREVIOUSLY RECORDED AT REEL: 034468 FRAME: 0206. ASSIGNOR(S) HEREBY CONFIRMS THE ASSIGNMENT. Recorded May 7, 2015
From: LIAO, LINXIA; MINHAS, RAJINDERJEET SINGH; RANGARAJAN, ARVIND; KURTOGLU, TOLGA; DE KLEER, JOHAN
To: PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER INCORPORATED
Reel/Frame 035614/0055 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 10, 2014
From: LIAO, LINXIA; MINHAS, RAJ; KURTOGLU, TOLGA; RANGARAJAN, ARVIND; DE KLEER, JOHAN
To: PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER INCORPORATED
Reel/Frame 034468/0206 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20160091393A1 · Mar 31, 2016
Cited By (1)
US 12,287,615