Cargando…

Inspection of Enamel Removal Using Infrared Thermal Imaging and Machine Learning Techniques

Within aerospace and automotive manufacturing, the majority of quality assurance is through inspection or tests at various steps during manufacturing and assembly. Such tests do not tend to capture or make use of process data for in-process inspection and certification at the point of manufacture. I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tiwari, Divya, Miller, David, Farnsworth, Michael, Lambourne, Alexis, Jewell, Geraint W., Tiwari, Ashutosh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10144671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37112318
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23083977
Descripción
Sumario:Within aerospace and automotive manufacturing, the majority of quality assurance is through inspection or tests at various steps during manufacturing and assembly. Such tests do not tend to capture or make use of process data for in-process inspection and certification at the point of manufacture. Inspection of the product during manufacturing can potentially detect defects, thus allowing consistent product quality and reducing scrappage. However, a review of the literature has revealed a lack of any significant research in the area of inspection during the manufacturing of terminations. This work utilises infrared thermal imaging and machine learning techniques for inspection of the enamel removal process on Litz wire, typically used for aerospace and automotive applications. Infrared thermal imaging was utilised to inspect bundles of Litz wire containing those with and without enamel. The temperature profiles of the wires with or without enamel were recorded and then machine learning techniques were utilised for automated inspection of enamel removal. The feasibility of various classifier models for identifying the remaining enamel on a set of enamelled copper wires was evaluated. A comparison of the performance of classifier models in terms of classification accuracy is presented. The best model for enamel classification accuracy was the Gaussian Mixture Model with expectation maximisation; it achieved a training accuracy of 85% and enamel classification accuracy of 100% with the fastest evaluation time of 1.05 s. The support vector classification model achieved both the training and enamel classification accuracy of more than 82%; however, it suffered the drawback of a higher evaluation time of 134 s.