Failure Analysis of Hydraulic Expanding Assembled Camshafts Using BP Neural Network and Failure Tree Theory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Research
2.1. Description of Structure and Materials
2.2. Experimental Details
2.2.1. Hydraulic Expanding Experiment
2.2.2. Orthogonal Torsion Experiment
2.2.3. Laser Measurement Experiment
3. Finite Element Analysis
4. Establishment of BP Neural Network Model
4.1. Basic Principles
4.2. Parameters Determination
4.3. Learning Procedure
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Prediction of Main Failure Factors using BP Neural Network
5.2. Failure Manifestation of Assembled Camshaft
5.3. Analyzing Failure Causes with Failure Tree Theory
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Horvat, G.L.; Surface, S.C. Assembled Camshafts for Automotive Engines. J. Mater. Shap. Technol. 1989, 7, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherzer, R.; Fritsch, S.; Landgraf, R.; Ihlemann, J.; Franz, M.W.X. Finite Element Simulation of the Presta Joining Process for Assembled Camshafts: Application to Aluminum Shafts. Metals 2018, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meusburger, P. The Camshaft as an Example of Lightweight Design in Engine Construction. ThyssenKrupp Techforum 2004, 12, 50–55. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, B.J.; Yu, G.; Yang, S.H.; Kou, S.Q.; Wang, J.H. Application of a New Type Feedforward-Feedback Controller in Assembly Machine for Assembled Camshaft. Assem. Autom. 2012, 32, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.T.; Yang, L.F. State-of-the-art of Joining Technologies for Assembled Camshaft. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 602–604, 2118–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.P.; Yang, L.F.; He, Y.L. Dynamic Frictional Characteristics of TP2 Copper Tubes during Hydroforming under Different Loading and Fluid Velocities. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2019, 28, 3661–3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.M.; Manabe, K.I. Latest Hydroforming Technology of Metallic Tubes and Sheets. Metals 2021, 11, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Li, H.Y.; Li, H.; Jia, H. Investigation on Fatigue Performance of Adhesively Bonded Butt-joints and Multiaxial Life Estimation Using Stress-based Failure Models. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2020, 107, 102498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanarocak, R.K.; Boz, H. Design Optimization of a Valvetrain System under Engine Brake Switch Loading by Means of Strain Measurement. SAE Int. J. Eng. 2016, 9, 1825–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.S.K.; Abdullah, S.; Nikabdullah, N. The Needs of Understanding Stochastic Fatigue Failure for the Automobile Crankshaft: A Review. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 80, 464–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ktari, A.; Haddar, N.; Ayedi, H.F. Fatigue Fracture Expertise of Train Engine Crankshafts. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 8, 1085–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becerra, J.A.; Jimenez, F.J.; Torres, M.; Sanchez, D.T.; Carvajal, E. Failure Analysis of Reciprocating Compressor Crankshafts. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 18, 735–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Mahadevan, S. Stochastic Fatigue Damage Modeling under Variable Amplitude Loading. Int. J. Fatigue 2007, 29, 1149–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, Y.; Shantz, C.; Mahadevan, S.; Sankararaman, S. Stochastic Prediction of Fatigue Loading Using Real-time Monitoring Data. Int. J. Fatigue 2011, 33, 868–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, W.S.; Song, J.H. An Expert System for Estimation of Fatigue Properties of Metallic Materials. Int. J. Fatigue 2002, 24, 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Taylor, D.; Bouquina, B.; Devlukiab, J.; Ciepalowicz, A. Prediction of Fatigue Failure in a Camshaft Using the Crack Modelling Method. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2000, 7, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ossai, C.I.; Boswell, B.; Davies, I. Markov Chain Modelling for Time Evolution of Internal Pitting Corrosion Distribution of Oil and Gas Pipelines. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 60, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nipane, R.D.; Patil, R.K. Modelling and Fatigue Analysis of Metal Matrix Composite Camshaft Using Finite Element Analysis. Int. Eng. Res. 2015, 1, 497–501. [Google Scholar]
- Zhai, Z.F.; Yang, L.F. Joint Structure between the Shaft and Cam Lobes in Assembled Camshaft. Adv. Eng. Res. 2015, 9, 274–277. [Google Scholar]
- Zhai, Z.F.; Yang, L.F.; Ma, J.P.; Zhang, M.H. An Evaluation of the Assemblability of Two Novel Assembled Camshaft Configurations by Tube Hydroforming. In Proceedings of the Esaform2017, Dublin, Ireland, 26–28 April 2017. AIP Conference Proceedings. [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, J.; Kou, S.Q.; He, D.Y.; Yang, S.H. Torque Strength and Influencing Factors Analysis for Assembled Camshaft by Knurling Joining. Mater. Sci. Forum 2008, 575–578, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Londhe, A.; Yadav, V.; Patil, A. Evaluation of a 4-stroke 4-cylinder Diesel Engine Valve-train for Replacement of a Solid Camshaft with a Hollow Camshaft. SAE Int. J. Engines 2009, 2, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, T.; Wang, H.J.; Shi, L. Study of Camshaft Grinders Faults Prediction Based on RBF Neural Network. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 141, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.S.; Kong, X.J.; Gao, X.Q.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y. FOA Based Diagnosis Model for Multivariate Production Process. Int. J. u- e-Serv. Sci. Technol. 2015, 8, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Duan, Z.; Peng, Z. A New Swarm Intelligence Optimized Multiclass Multi-kernel Relevant Vector Machine: An Experimental Analysis in Failure Diagnostics of Diesel Engines. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 17, 1503–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czyzewski, T.; Odman, M.T. Analysis of Contact Stress and Deformation in a Trilobe Polygonal Connection. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 1988, 110, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahn-Jetter, Z.L.; Hundertmark, E.; Wright, S. Comparison of Torque Transmitting Shaft Connectivity using a Trilobe Polygon Connection and an Involute Spline. J. Mech. Des. 2000, 122, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.P.; Yang, L.F.; Liu, J.; Chen, Z.B.; He, Y.L. Evaluating the Quality of Assembled Camshafts under Pulsating Hydroforming. J. Manuf. Process. 2021, 61, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.P.; Yang, L.F.; Huang, J.J.; Chen, Z.B.; He, Y.L.; Jiang, J.Y. Residual Contact Pressure and Elastic Recovery of an Assembled Camshaft using Tube Hydroforming. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2021, 32, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, G.Y.; Zhang, Z.; Cai, C.; Zhang, J.L.; Nie, B.H. Cavitation Damage Prediction of Stainless Steels Using an Artificial Neural Network Approach. Metals 2019, 9, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, Y.; Farzaneh, N.; Mahnaz, N. Failure Probability Analysis by Employing Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2017, 8, 1177–1193. [Google Scholar]
- Qi, B.; Sun, X.M.; Liu, B.J.; Wu, X.; Gao, R.T.; Zhu, H.; Li, Y.H. Influencing Factors of Agricultural Machinery Accidents Based on Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis. J. Comput. Methods Sci. Eng. 2022, 22, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Part | Fe | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Cr | Ni | Cu | Al |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tube | Base | 0.07 | 0.47 | 1.94 | 0.028 | 0.001 | 16.59 | 8.29 | — | 1.05 |
Cam | Base | 0.45 | 0.27 | 0.65 | — | — | 0.18 | 0.2 | 0.2 | — |
Part | Young’s Modulus E/GPa | Poisson Ratio μ | Yield Strength σy/MPa | Tensile Strength σb/MPa |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tube | 215 | 0.285 | 423 | 1466 |
Cam | 203 | 0.269 | 355 | 660 |
Factors | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Maximum hydraulic pressure Pmax/(MPa) | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 |
Torsion velocity v/(°/min) | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Torsion angle a/(°) | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
No. | Torsion Velocity v/(°/min) | Maximum Hydraulic Pressure Pmax/(MPa) | Torsion Angle a/(°) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 4 | 65 | 6 |
2 | 4 | 65 | 9 |
3 | 4 | 75 | 7 |
4 | 4 | 80 | 8 |
5 | 5 | 70 | 7 |
6 | 5 | 70 | 7 |
7 | 5 | 75 | 9 |
8 | 5 | 75 | 9 |
9 | 5 | 80 | 6 |
10 | 5 | 80 | 6 |
11 | 6 | 65 | 8 |
12 | 6 | 65 | 8 |
13 | 6 | 70 | 7 |
14 | 6 | 70 | 7 |
15 | 6 | 80 | 9 |
16 | 7 | 65 | 6 |
17 | 7 | 70 | 9 |
18 | 7 | 75 | 6 |
19 | 7 | 80 | 8 |
20 | 7 | 80 | 8 |
No. | Torque T/(N.m) | Surface Roughness Rq | Scratch width bavg/(um) | Shear Stress τ/(MPa) | Residual Contact Pressure Pn/(MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 21.4145 | 1.306 | 14.256 | 15.9366 | 170.099 |
2 | 30.7890 | 3.951 | 46.329 | 20.6680 | 179.326 |
3 | 20.2384 | 1.842 | 12.753 | 6.2725 | 82.904 |
4 | 25.9765 | 0.958 | 23.699 | 17.9093 | 207.934 |
5 | 23.6245 | 1.306 | 25.124 | 13.7821 | 138.834 |
6 | 18.9849 | 1.236 | 19.169 | 13.4588 | 133.252 |
7 | 29.5700 | 2.557 | 45.238 | 7.7986 | 83.071 |
8 | 31.2356 | 2.311 | 52.733 | 8.2564 | 83.297 |
9 | 18.3333 | 0.627 | 15.530 | 18.7162 | 203.519 |
10 | 19.4047 | 1.891 | 15.223 | 18.3961 | 206.802 |
11 | 25.4813 | 1.817 | 26.871 | 12.2360 | 168.744 |
12 | 27.6493 | 2.472 | 28.036 | 11.7208 | 170.439 |
13 | 17.9282 | 2.264 | 16.497 | 8.5697 | 139.241 |
14 | 21.0662 | 2.015 | 24.326 | 9.3190 | 142.312 |
15 | 31.5135 | 1.391 | 47.229 | 17.5566 | 207.925 |
16 | 19.4324 | 2.786 | 27.049 | 13.4096 | 170.256 |
17 | 20.4762 | 3.467 | 25.637 | 8.7113 | 139.929 |
18 | 25.9765 | 1.573 | 37.125 | 10.4553 | 95.032 |
19 | 25.9894 | 1.478 | 36.758 | 17.6845 | 206.519 |
20 | 26.1291 | 1.633 | 39.146 | 18.1240 | 202.168 |
Cross-Section Profile of cam-Bores | Hydraulic Pressure Pmax/MPa | Mesh Quantity of Cams 1, 2 and 3 | Mesh Quantity of Tube | Analysis Step |
---|---|---|---|---|
Isometric-trilateral profile | 65, 70, 75, 80 | 11,415 | 20,956 | 2 |
No. | Output Parameters | Target Values | Predicted Values | Relative Errors (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
18 | Torque T/(N.m) | 25.9765 | 24.1643 | −6.97 |
18 | Surface roughness Rq | 1.573 | 1.496 | −4.89 |
18 | Scratch width bavg/(um) | 37.125 | 36.954 | −0.46 |
18 | Shear stress τ/(MPa) | 10.4553 | 9.6566 | −7.63 |
18 | Residual contact pressure Pn/(MPa) | 95.032 | 88.741 | −6.61 |
19 | Torque T/(N.m) | 25.9894 | 25.4208 | −2.18 |
19 | Surface roughness Rq | 1.478 | 1.563 | 5.75 |
19 | Scratch width bavg/(um) | 36.758 | 39.825 | 8.34 |
19 | Shear stress τ/(MPa) | 17.6845 | 18.0052 | 1.81 |
19 | Residual contact pressure Pn/(MPa) | 206.519 | 206.972 | 0.22 |
20 | Torque T/(N.m) | 26.1291 | 25.4208 | −2.71 |
20 | Surface roughness Rq | 1.633 | 1.612 | −1.28 |
20 | Scratch width bavg/(um) | 39.146 | 41.218 | 5.29 |
20 | Shear stress τ/(MPa) | 18.124 | 18.0465 | −0.42 |
20 | Residual contact pressure Pn/(MPa) | 202.168 | 208.569 | 3.16 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ma, J.; Yang, L.; Song, L.; Gao, Z.; Pang, S.; Han, H. Failure Analysis of Hydraulic Expanding Assembled Camshafts Using BP Neural Network and Failure Tree Theory. Metals 2022, 12, 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12101639
Ma J, Yang L, Song L, Gao Z, Pang S, Han H. Failure Analysis of Hydraulic Expanding Assembled Camshafts Using BP Neural Network and Failure Tree Theory. Metals. 2022; 12(10):1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12101639
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Jianping, Lianfa Yang, Lin Song, Zhiwei Gao, Saisai Pang, and Haimei Han. 2022. "Failure Analysis of Hydraulic Expanding Assembled Camshafts Using BP Neural Network and Failure Tree Theory" Metals 12, no. 10: 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12101639