Impact of hybrid workpieces on statistical process monitoring of machining operations

  • Berend Denkena
  • Benjamin Bergmann
  • Matthias WittEmail author


This paper examines the influence of material transition on a process monitoring approach based on confidence limits for friction-welded EN-AW6082/20MnCr5 shafts. Process error sensitivity was investigated for different control and acceleration signals as well as for the first principal component during slot milling. To that end, three material defects were applied by a hole, stainless steel rod, and high-speed steel drill. The signal changes caused by these defects were characterized by amplitude, duration, and shape. Based on the information, errors were simulated for each signal, which were used to evaluate the confidence limits and to compare the detection time for the entire machining process. A new methodology was developed to evaluate process monitoring systems with regard to error sensitivity. It was determined that errors were not detected during the entire process due to the material transition. By combining features with the first principal component analysis, the sensitivity of process monitoring had been improved by more than 50%.


Monitoring Milling Hybrid parts Sensor data fusion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The results presented in this paper were obtained within the Collaborative Research Centre 1153 “Process chain to produce hybrid high performance components by Tailored Forming” in the subproject B5. The authors would like to thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for the financial and organizational support of this project.


  1. 1.
    Tönshoff HK, Wulfsberg JP, Kals H, König W, van Luttervelt CA (1988) Developments and trends in monitoring and control of machining processes. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 37(2):611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 26:693–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dimla ERA (2000) Sensor signals for tool-wear monitoring in metal cutting operations - a review of methods. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40(8):1073–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teti R, Jemielniak K, O’Donnell G, Dornfeld DRA (2010) Advanced monitoring of machining operations. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2:717–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lauro CH, Brandão LC, Baldo D, Reis RA, Davim JP (2014) Monitoring and processing signal applied in machining processes – a review. Measurement 58:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinkhaus JEB (2009) Statistische Verfahren zur selbstlernenden Überwachung spanender Bearbeitungen in Werkzeugmaschinen. Dissertation, Leibniz Universität HannoverGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shi D, Gindy NN (2007) Tool wear predictive model based on least squares support vector machines. Mech Syst Signal Process 21:1799–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abellan-Nebot JV, Subirón FR (2010) A review of machining monitoring systems based on artificial intelligence process models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 47(1–4):237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denkena B, Dahlmann D, Neff T (2016) Autonomous modular process monitoring. Proc. Technol. 26:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kong DD, Chen YJ, Li N, Tan SL (2017) Tool wear monitoring based on kernel principal component analysis and v-support vector regression. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Behrens BA, Bouguecha A, Frischkorn C, Huskic A, Stakhieva A, Duran D (2016) Tailored forming technology for three dimensional components: approaches to heating and forming. 5th International Conference on Thermomechanical Processing, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denkena B, Bergmann B, Witt M (2017) Automatic process parameter adaption for hybrid workpieces during cylindrical operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:311–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boehnke D (2007) Qualitätsorientierte Zerspanung von Parallelverbunden im kontinuierlichen Schnitt. Dissertation, Leibniz Universität HannoverGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozsváth P, Szmejkál A, Takács J, Eidenhammer M, Obermair F (2006) Development of face milling process for Mg-hybrid (Mg-Al, Mg-sintered steel) materials. Proceedings of the 7th Int. Conference on Magnesium Alloys and Their Applications, Wiley-VCH: pp 894-900Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Denkena B, Köhker J, Hasselberg E (2013) Modeling of workpiece shape deviations in face milling of parallel workpiece compounds. Proc. CIRP 8:176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denkena B, Dahlmann D, Damm J (2015) Self-adjusting process monitoring system in series production. Proc. CIRP 33:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berend Denkena
    • 1
  • Benjamin Bergmann
    • 1
  • Matthias Witt
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Production Engineering and Machine ToolsLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations