The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Semi-physical simulation optimization method for machining deformation based on

meta-LSTM and PPO
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: JAMT-D-23-04087

Full Title: Semi-physical simulation optimization method for machining deformation based on
meta-LSTM and PPO

Article Type: Original Research

Keywords: Machining deformation prediction; Meta-learning; Semi-physical simulation;

Machining deformation optimization

Corresponding Author: Mingwei Wang

Northwestern Polytechnical University
Xi 'an, 陕西省 CHINA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Northwestern Polytechnical University

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Huibin Zhang

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Huibin Zhang

Mingwei Wang

Jingtao Zhou

Changsen Yang

Enming Li

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Funding Information: National Key R&D Program of China Dr. Jingtao Zhou
(No. 2020YFB1710300)

Abstract: In order to solve the problem that thin-walled parts meet the deformation requirements
after processing, but the workpiece deformation is out of tolerance after being placed
for a period of time. In this paper, a semi-physical simulation optimization method of
machining deformation based on meta-LSTM and PPO is proposed to optimize the
machining deformation of thin-walled parts, so that the final machining deformation of
thin-walled parts can meet the design requirements. The methodology consists of three
main components: Firstly, the deformation problem of multi-layer machining of thin-
walled parts is defined. To study for milling of thin-walled parts of cylindrical type and to
establish the residual stress layered analytical model; Then, using the meta-learning
idea, the cumulative deformation of multi-layer machining of thin-walled parts is
regarded as a combination of several different machining tasks, and the meta-LSTM
model is trained using simulation data to obtain a meta-LSTM-based machining
deformation prediction model. During the application of the model, the model needs to
be retrained using only a small amount of real data to obtain a model corresponding to
that processing task; Finally, using the idea of semi-physical simulation, the actual data
of the machined layer is fused with the theoretical data of the unmachined layer, and
the final machining deformation of the thin-walled part is used as the optimization
target, and the PPO algorithm is used to optimize the machining process parameters of
the next layer in real time to ensure that the final machining deformation of the
workpiece meets the design requirements.

Suggested Reviewers: Zhiyong Gao

Xian Jiaotong University: Xi'an Jiaotong University

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 zhygao@mail.xjtu.edu.cn
Zhiyong Gao is a professor and doctoral supervisor at Xi'an Jiaotong University. His
research interests are manufacturing information engineering and intelligence in
manufacturing process, and he has presided over many major projects. I believe Mr.
Gao can give effective guidance to this research.

Wei Wang
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
wangwhit@163.com
Prof. Wei Wang is a professor at the University of Electronic Science and Technology
of China. His research interests are digitalization and intelligence of aircraft structural
parts processing and manufacturing, including data acquisition and data mining, and
he has presided over a number of major national science and technology projects. His
research direction is related to the direction of this study and can provide guidance for
the research methodology of this paper.

Shikai Jing
Beijing Institute of Technology
jingshikai@bit.edu.cn
Mr. Jing is a professor and doctoral supervisor at Beijing Institute of Technology. His
main research interests are neural networks and data mining, and he has published
several related papers and undertaken several major national projects. I believe Prof.
Jing can provide methodological guidance to this paper ah.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Manuscript.docx

Click here to view linked References

1 Semi-physical simulation optimization method for machining

2
3
4 deformation based on meta-LSTM and PPO
5
6 Huibin Zhang1, Mingwei Wang1*, Jingtao Zhou1, Changsen Yang1, Enming Li1
7 (1School of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an
8 710072, China)
9
10 *Correspondence:zhb1044439925@mail.nwpu.edu.cn
11
Abstract：In order to solve the problem that thin-walled parts meet the deformation
12
13
14
requirements after processing, but the workpiece deformation is out of tolerance after
15
16 being placed for a period of time. In this paper, a semi-physical simulation optimization
17
18 method of machining deformation based on meta-LSTM and PPO is proposed to
19
20 optimize the machining deformation of thin-walled parts, so that the final machining
21
22 deformation of thin-walled parts can meet the design requirements. The methodology
23
24 consists of three main components: Firstly, the deformation problem of multi-layer
25
26 machining of thin-walled parts is defined. To study for milling of thin-walled parts of
27
28 cylindrical type and to establish the residual stress layered analytical model; Then,
29
30 using the meta-learning idea, the cumulative deformation of multi-layer machining of
31
32 thin-walled parts is regarded as a combination of several different machining tasks, and
33
34 the meta-LSTM model is trained using simulation data to obtain a meta-LSTM-based
35
36 machining deformation prediction model. During the application of the model, the
37
38 model needs to be retrained using only a small amount of real data to obtain a model
39
40 corresponding to that processing task; Finally, using the idea of semi-physical
41
42 simulation, the actual data of the machined layer is fused with the theoretical data of
43
44
45
the unmachined layer, and the final machining deformation of the thin-walled part is
46
47
used as the optimization target, and the PPO algorithm is used to optimize the
48
49 machining process parameters of the next layer in real time to ensure that the final
50
51 machining deformation of the workpiece meets the design requirements.
52
53 Keywords: Machining deformation prediction; Meta-learning; Semi-physical
54
55 simulation; Machining deformation optimization
56
57 1. Introduction
58
59 Thin-walled parts are widely used in the aerospace field, such as aeroengine casing,
60
61 1
62
63
64
65
 integral frame, beam, wall panel, etc. However, due to its poor rigidity, complex
1
2
3
structure and high machining accuracy requirements, it is very easy to have machining
4
5
deformation problems due to the initial residual stress, cutting force, clamping force
6
7 and other factors during machining[1]. Machining distortion seriously affects the
8
9 machining quality and efficiency of thin-walled parts. Therefore, the machining
10
11 deformation needs to be optimally controlled to ensure that the finished part meets the
12
13 design requirements.
14
15 The processing deformation of thin-walled parts has the following characteristics:
16
17 (1) The deformation of thin-walled parts is a gradual process under a layer-by-
18
19 layer machining strategy. Because the process parameters and the state of the workpiece
20
21 remain relatively stable, the correlation between the current processing layer and the
22
23 previous processing layer is strong, and the processing deformation of the previous
24
25 layer will affect the processing deformation of the next layer. Therefore, the machining
26
27 process of thin-walled parts can be regarded as a series of multi-layer machining
28
29 cumulative deformation processes with strong temporal correlation and mutual
30
31 influence.
32
33
34
(2) For the processing of different layers of the workpiece, because the residual
35
36
stress of each layer is different, that is, the processing conditions are different, so the
37
38 processing of each layer can be regarded as a different processing task, and the
39
40 processing of thin-walled parts can be regarded as a multi-layer processing composed
41
42 of a variety of different processing tasks.
43
44 (3) Thin-walled parts processing is a single-piece, low-volume processing with a
45
46 small amount of labeled data, which cannot support the training of deep learning. Even
47
48 if data augmentation is performed using methods similar to adversarial networks, the
49
50 real data distribution is not available due to insufficient real data, resulting in poor
51
52 diversity of the generated data and consequently poor generalization ability of the
53
54 trained models.
55
56 (4) The deformation of thin-walled parts is influenced by residual stress and
57
58 fixture binding, and it is easy to have the problem that the deformation requirements
59
60
61 2
62
63
64
65
 are met after machining is completed, but the deformation of the workpiece is super
1
2
3
poor after being left for a period of time. but the workpiece deformation is out of
4
5
tolerance after placing for a period of time.
6
7 In order to solve the above problems and optimize the machining deformation, the
8
9 paper proposes a semi-physical simulation optimization method for machining
10
11 deformation based on meta-LSTM and PPO. Firstly, the multilayer machining
12
13 deformation problem of thin-walled parts is defined, and a residual stress hierarchical
14
15 analytical model is established for the milling of thin-walled parts of cylindrical type;
16
17 Then, using the idea of meta-learning, the cumulative deformation of multi-layer
18
19 machining of thin-walled parts is regarded as a combination of several different
20
21 machining tasks, and the meta-LSTM model is trained using simulation data to obtain
22
23 a meta-LSTM-based machining deformation prediction model. During the application
24
25 of the model, the model needs to be retrained using only a small amount of real data to
26
27 obtain a model corresponding to that processing task;
28
29 2. Literature Review
30
31 Domestic and foreign scholars have conducted a lot of research on the machining
32
33
34
deformation of thin-walled parts, which can be divided into mechanism model-based
35
36
methods and data-driven methods. Combined with the optimization method of semi-
37
38 physical simulation based on the meta LSTM model proposed in this paper, the related
39
40 research of the above content is reviewed and analyzed.
41
42 2.1 Optimization of machining deformation based on mechanism model
43
44 The machining deformation optimization method based on the mechanism model
45
46 is mainly to optimize the machining deformation by the change of force during the
47
48 machining process, including the change of residual stress, the change of cutting force
49
50 and the influence of the change of clamping force on the machining deformation.
51
52 From the perspective of residual stress brought by blank, the formation of
53
54 machining deformation can be seen as the residual stress maintaining balance before
55
56 machining, while the balance breaking during machining leads to the redistribution of
57
58 residual stress resulting in deformation[2]. Richter[3] et al. proposed a method for
59
60
61 3
62
63
64
65
 predicting workpiece deformation based on workpiece residual stresses for thin-walled
1
2
3
parts of aerospace aluminum alloys, and a finite element model can be built from the
4
5
measured residual stresses to approximate the shape deformation of simple and
6
7 complex high-speed machined parts. Huang[4] et al. analyzed the effects of material
8
9 initial residual stress and machining residual stress on the machining deformation of
10
11 aluminum alloy plates and found that the coupling effect of compressive initial residual
12
13 stress and cutting residual stress increased the plate deformation, while the coupling
14
15 effect of tensile initial residual stress and cutting residual stress decreased the plate
16
17 deformation. In general, the mapping relationship between residual stress and
18
19 machining deformation of a part is not clear, nor is the effect of residual stress on
20
21 machining deformation[5], so using residual stress to optimize machining deformation
22
23 remains difficult.
24
25 Cutting force is a very important physical quantity in the machining process, and
26
27 the magnitude of the cutting force not only affects the cutting heat and cutting power,
28
29 but also the workpiece deformation and surface quality[6]. Liu[7] et al. considered the
30
31 dynamic response of the tool/workpiece deflection deformation to the milling force in
32
33
34
the calculation of the milling force, and calculated to obtain the instantaneous cutting
35
36
thickness of the milling tool and the overall milling force considering the tool letting
37
38 feedback, and finally obtained the real-time variation law of the machining process of
39
40 the part and the deformation of the workpiece sidewall under the influence of this
41
42 milling force. Liu[8] et al. developed a dynamic feature model for feature stiffness
43
44 evaluation and the correlation between geometric information and real-time cutting
45
46 force information. Then the deformation was calculated based on the dynamic feature
47
48 model. Research on cutting forces during machining has focused on theoretical rigid
49
50 force models, or mechanical force models that consider the effect of tool/part deflection
51
52 during machining. However, the applicability of the cutting force model in the
53
54 continuous machining of low stiffness parts is limited by the fact that the stiffness of
55
56 arbitrarily shaped parts during continuous machining cannot be easily modeled, and in-
57
58 depth research on key technologies such as workpiece material modeling and chip
59
60
61 4
62
63
64
65
 separation is still needed.
1
2
3
The deformation of the workpiece is not only related to the residual stress and
4
5
cutting force of the workpiece, but also to the machining conditions such as cutting
6
7 sequence, fixture arrangement, and clamping force[9]. Gonzalo[10] et al. analyzed the
8
9 causes of static deformation during clamping and proposed a method to correct the
10
11 geometric distortion and deformation of the clamped workpiece by evaluating the
12
13 reaction forces at the selected clamping point. And based on this, a clamping unit was
14
15 developed that combines a positioner and a clamp in a single assembly that controls the
16
17 reaction force and deformation of the workpiece at the clamping point and performs the
18
19 positioning of that point to minimize the deformation of the workpiece.
20
21 2.2 Machining deformation optimization based on data-driven model
22
23 With the large amount of data generated during processing and the development
24
25 of data analysis techniques, data-driven approaches are being extended to the
26
27 manufacturing domain[12]. Data-driven approaches have been applied and continue to
28
29 form new research themes in manufacturing, partly because of the limited ability of
30
31 physical models to describe complex manufacturing processes, and because predictions
32
33
34
based on physical models inevitably contain simplifications and even inappropriate
35
36
assumptions. In contrast, prediction methods based on data-driven models can, to some
37
38 extent, avoid erroneous and uncertain reasoning due to insufficient human
39
40 understanding of the physical phenomena of processing. Researchers have also tried to
41
42 extend the grounded theory research approach to the field of data-driven research
43
44 methods[13]. On the other hand, when more and more manufacturing data are obtained,
45
46 the surge in the volume of data and the need for analysis of large amounts of data input
47
48 has changed the way data analysis is performed. Machine learning, especially deep
49
50 learning methods have a great potential to make better data analysis decisions[14].
51
52 The use of data-driven approach is to achieve the prediction of machining
53
54 deformation by discovering the correlation pattern between each element that affects
55
56 machining deformation and deformation. Zhao[14] et al. proposed a deep learning
57
58 model-based online prediction method for CNC machined part deformation, established
59
60
61 5
62
63
64
65
 a fourth-order tensor model to represent the geometric information, machining
1
2
3
information and monitoring information of continuous parts, and constructed and
4
5
trained a deep learning model consisting of traditional neural networks and recurrent
6
7 neural networks to achieve online prediction of part deformation using deformation
8
9 monitoring data and machining information related to intermediate part geometry
10
11 information. Guiassa[15] et al. proposed a compensation model for online detection of
12
13 multi-pass milling based on predicted flexibility, which relates the total deflection of
14
15 the system to the depth of cut and uses a method based on Lagrangian interpolation to
16
17 effectively compensate for the final cut. Wang[16] et al. used ARIMA with Kalman filter
18
19 to predict the deformation caused by cutting forces at the next point in time to ensure
20
21 the remaining wall thickness for notch milling of large thin-walled parts. Li[17] et al.
22
23 proposed a machining deformation prediction method based on geometry, cutting force
24
25 and spatio-temporal correlation learning, and predicted the deformation of thin-walled
26
27 parts by establishing a workpiece geometric state change process model and a load
28
29 time-varying process model considering material removal.
30
31 In summary, complex data in processing contains many physical relationships,
32
33
34
especially the coupling effects between data. The data-driven approach can model the
35
36
complex multivariate nonlinear relationships between these data, and also provides
37
38 ideas for the establishment of an optimal processing deformation model based on meta-
39
40 LSTM and PPO algorithms in this paper.
41
42 2.3 Application of meta-learning models
43
44 Data-driven models can provide ideas for machining deformation problems to a
45
46 certain extent, but the existing models have poor generalization capability for different
47
48 working conditions. The reason is that the training of deep learning requires a large
49
50 amount of labeled sample data under different working conditions, and it is difficult to
51
52 obtain the sample data directly during the processing of thin-walled parts. Sample tags
53
54 also require downtime measurements at regular intervals, costing a lot of time and
55
56 making it difficult to train a deep learning model that is suitable for changing conditions.
57
58 The idea of meta-learning is the learning process of learning a model that enables
59
60
61 6
62
63
64
65
 learning a new model for a new task with few samples based on learning a similar task
1
2
3
with enough samples. Mou[18] proposed a tool wear prediction method based on meta-
4
5
learning, by learning the change law of the tool wear prediction model under different
6
7 working conditions, in the face of new working conditions, relying on a small amount
8
9 of data can be quickly adjusted to achieve accurate prediction of tool wear. Liu[19] et al.
10
11 propose a meta-reinforcement learning model that combines simulated and actual data,
12
13 uses a segmented sampling strategy for data acquisition, and uses the proposed method
14
15 for machining deformation finishing process optimization. Wan Peng[20] et al. proposed
16
17 a tool wear prediction method based on meta-learning and PINN. The solution space of
18
19 the data-driven model was constrained by the wear mechanism, and the loss function
20
21 of the fusion model was optimized by combining the meta-learning algorithm to make
22
23 reasonable use of the information provided by the data and mechanism. The application
24
25 of meta-learning models provides a solution to the problem of poor model
26
27 generalization ability of data-driven models for different working conditions.
28
29 2.4 Application of Semi-Physical Simulation Optimization Method
30
31 Semi-physical simulation technology is a simulation technology that combines
32
33
34
virtual data with partially real data and possesses a higher degree of realism. By
35
36
introducing some physical objects in the simulation loop, the output is highly realistic
37
38 and the output can be used to further calibrate the established model and optimize it for
39
40 subsequent virtual data input. Wang[21] et al. proposed a semi-physical simulation
41
42 optimization method for unbalance prediction based on mechanism and data fusion. In
43
44 the process of fan rotor assembly, the assembled actual data and unassembled
45
46 theoretical data are combined to predict the unbalance. At the same time, the assembly
47
48 process parameters of subsequent unassembled steps are continuously optimized to
49
50 ensure that the unbalance meets the design requirements. Zhang[22] et al. proposed a
51
52 semi-physical simulation optimization method for bolt tightening process based on
53
54 reinforcement learning. Consider the elastic interaction relationship between bolts in
55
56 the bolt tightening process and establish a semi-physical simulation optimization model
57
58 for bolt tightening. Optimize the tightening torque of subsequent untightened bolts by
59
60
61 7
62
63
64
65
 semi-physical simulation technology to keep the coaxiality of the components optimal.
1
2
3
Zhang[23] et al. proposed a semi-physical simulation method for fan rotor unbalance
4
5
optimization based on reinforcement learning. The semi-physical simulation
6
7 technology is used to optimize the assembly sequence of the subsequent unassembled
8
9 blades to maintain the best unbalance of the fan rotor. Bao Jinsong[24] et al. proposed a
10
11 semi-physical virtual assembly model based on fat model, which provides guidance for
12
13 product preassembly, assembly analysis and manufacturing decision by combining
14
15 CAD model with point cloud data.
16
17 The above studies show that semi-physical simulation techniques can take into
18
19 account contextual information during machining or assembly. The semi-physical
20
21 simulation technology is suitable for multi-layer machining of thin-walled parts.
22
23 Therefore, this paper intends to use the semi-physical simulation technology to
24
25 optimize the process parameters in the process of thin-walled parts. To solve the
26
27 problem that the workpiece meets the design requirements after machining, but the
28
29 deformation of the workpiece is super poor after being placed for a period of time.
30
31 3. Semi-physical simulation optimization method for machining deformation based on
32
33
34
meta-LSTM and PPO
35
36
3.1 Problem Definition
37
38 In this paper, the machining deformation of thin-walled parts is regarded as a series
39
40 of multi-layer machining cumulative deformation processes with strong temporal
41
42 correlation and mutual influence, and the processing of each layer is regarded as a
43
44 machining step. In order to optimize the machining deformation of thin-walled parts,
45
46 the machining data of all layers in the machining process of thin-walled parts are taken
47
48 as input, and the predicted deformation value of thin-walled parts after machining is
49
50 output. However, since there is no actual data of the subsequent unmachined layer in
51
52 the machining process, the semi-physical simulation method is used to fuse the actual
53
54 deformation data of the machined layer with the theoretical cutting data of the
55
56 unmachined layer to predict the final machining deformation of the workpiece in real
57
58 time. According to the predicted results, the process parameters of the next layer are
59
60
61 8
62
63
64
65
 optimized in real time to ensure that the final machining deformation of the workpiece
1
2
3
meets the design requirements. The processing deformation problem is defined as
4
5
follows:
6
7 DEFM  f  X 
8 X  ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X i ,..., X n ) (1)
9
10 X i  ( i , MPi , PDi , def i )
11
12 In the formula, DEFM indicates the final processing deformation.  indicates
13
14 the residual stress of the workpiece during machining. MP indicates the process
15
16
17
parameter data of the machining process. PD indicates the process data. defi
18
19 indicates workpiece machining quality data. n indicates the number of layers of the
20
21 workpiece to be machined.
22
23  =( 1 , 2 , 3 ,..., n ) (2)
24
25
26 In the formula,  i indicates the residual stress in each layer of the workpiece
27
28
29 during machining.
30
31 MP   Sp, Fe, De  (3)
32
33
34 In the formula, Sp indicates the cutting line speed. Fe indicates feed rate. De
35
36 indicates the depth of cut.
37
PD   Fc, Fj 
38
39
(4)
40
41 In the formula, Fc indicates the cutting force. Fj indicates the clamping force.
42
43
44 def   def1 , def 2 ,..., def n  (5)
45
46
47 In the formula, defi indicates the deformation of the workpiece in each layer of
48
49 the machining process. n indicates the number of layers of the workpiece to be
50
51 machined.
52
53
3.2 Overall Methodology Flow
54
55
56
The semi-physical simulation optimization method of machining deformation
57
58 based on meta LSTM and PPO proposed in this paper is shown in Figure 1. Firstly, the
59
60
61 9
62
63
64
65
 1 layered analytical model of residual stress is established to obtain the residual stress  i
2
3 of each layer of thin-walled parts after machining. Then, the simulation environment is
4
5 created, and the multi-layer machining of thin-walled parts is viewed as several
6
7
8
different machining tasks Ti , and the LSTM network-based thin-walled part machining
9
10 deformation prediction model M  i is built for each task Ti separately. Based on the
11
12
13 idea of meta-learning, the meta-LSTM model is trained with simulation data based on
14
15 M  i , and the meta-LSTM model M  is obtained. In the process of model application,
16
17
18 when facing the new machining task Tnew , it is only necessary to train the meta LSTM
19
20
21 model M  with a small amount of real data of the new task, and then the LSTM
22
23 prediction model M  new which is suitable for the new machining task can be obtained.
24
25
26 Finally, the input data is X   X1 , X 2 ,..., X t , X t 1 ,...X n  when the processing of the t
27
28
29 layer is completed. Where X 1 to X t are the actual data for the processed layers and
30
31
32 X t 1 to X n are the theoretical data for the unprocessed layers. Using the semi-
33
34 physical simulation idea, the actual data of the processed layer is fused with the
35
36 theoretical data of the unprocessed layer. The fused data is used as input for real-time
37
38 prediction of the final machining deformation DEFM of the workpiece. According
39
40 to the prediction results, the PPO algorithm is used to optimize the machining process
41
42 parameters of the next layer in real time to ensure that the final machining deformation
43
44
45
of the workpiece meets the design requirements. It solves the problem that the
46
47
workpiece meets the design requirements after machining, but the deformation of the
48
49 workpiece is super poor after leaving it for a period of time.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 10
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 Figure 1 Overall method flow chart
48
49 3.3 Layered analytical model of residual stresses
50
51 Residual stress is the main factor affecting machining deformation. During the
52
53
milling process, residual stresses are continuously released and redistributed in the
54
55
56
workpiece. Therefore, when optimizing the machining deformation of thin-walled parts,
57
58 it is necessary to obtain the actual residual stresses in each layer of the workpiece after
59
60
61 11
62
63
64
65
 machining, so as to build a machining deformation optimization model that meets the
1
2
3
actual machining conditions. In this paper, a study is conducted for the milling of thin-
4
5
walled parts of cylindrical type, and a hierarchical analytical model of residual stresses
6
7 is established.
8
9 The blank is formed by forging, extrusion, etc. The residual stress in the blank is
10
11 in a state of stress equilibrium. During machining, as the excess material is removed,
12
13 the stress balance within the blank is broken and residual stresses in the unmachined
14
15 material are redistributed, causing deformation of the workpiece. Two basic
16
17 assumptions are made in the process of building the residual stress layered analytical
18
19 model: (1) The stress distribution in the billet is uniform for the same thickness. (2) The
20
21 residual stresses in the height direction are zero[25].
22
23 According to hypothesis (2), the three-dimensional cylindrical residual stress
24
25 stratification problem can be transformed into a two-dimensional planar residual stress
26
27
28
stratification problem. In performing the analysis, the polar coordinates  r ,  were
29
30 used to represent the components. Due to axisymmetry, the radial stress and tangential
31
32 stress are only functions of r , independent of  . The stress is  r (r ),  (r ) , the strain
33
34
35 is  r (r ),   (r ) , and the radial displacement is u(r ) . From the literature[26], the
36
37
38 equilibrium equation of the workpiece is as follows.
39 d r  r   
40  0 (6)
41 dr r
42 The geometric equations is as follows.
43
44 du u
45 r  ,   (7)
46 dr r
47 The present constitutive equations is as follows.
48
49  1
50  r  E ( r    )
51  (8)
52   1 (  )
53   E  r

54
55 The deformed coordination equation is obtained from equations (6) and (7) as
56
57 follows.
58
59
60
61 12
62
63
64
65
 d     r
1  0 (9)
dr r
2
3 Bringing equation (8) into equation (9), the coordination equation expressed in
4
5 terms of stress components is obtained as follows.
6
7 d  d r 1  
8   ( r    ) (10)
dr dr r
9
10 From the equilibrium equation (6), it can be obtained.
11
d r
12   = r  r
13 dr
14 (11)
d  d 2 r d
15 r 2 r
16 dr dr 2 dr
17
18 Substituting equation (11) into equation (10) yields the differential equation as
19
20 follows.
21
d 2 r 3 d r
22  0 (12)
23 dr 2 r dr
24
25
By integrating the above formula, we can get:
26
27 ln( r' )  3ln r  ln C (13)
28
29 Thus available:
30
31 d r
32  r'   Cr 3 (14)
dr
33
34 Integrate equation (9) to obtain  r , and then substitute  r into the equilibrium
35
36
37 equation, we can get:
38
C C
39 r   2
 C1  C1  22
40 2r r (15)
41 C2
42   =C1  2
43 r
44
45 In the formula, C1 , C2 is the integral constant, determined by the boundary
46
47 conditions.
48
49
50 When a cylinder with an inner diameter of R1 and an outer diameter of R2 is
51
52 processed, the clamping force F is applied to the outer surface, so the boundary
53
54 conditions are:
55
56 r r  R1
 0, r r  R2
F (16)
57
58
59 Substituting the boundary conditions into equation (15), the two integration
60
61 13
62
63
64
65
 constants can be obtained as:
1
2
R22 F R12 R22 F
3 C1   , C  (17)
R22  R12 R22  R12
2
4
5
6
7 Then the analytical model of residual stress stratification at the workpiece is as
8
9 follows.
10
11 R22 F R12
r   (1  )
12 R22  R12 r2
13 (18)
14 R2 F R2
    2 2 2 (1  12 )
15 R2  R1 r
16
17
18 From equation (18), it can be seen that the residual stress of the workpiece is a
19
20 function about r . When the workpiece is processed, the r changes continuously with
21
22 the removal of the workpiece material, and the residual stress of the different machining
23
24 layers of the workpiece can be obtained.
25
26 3.4 Machining deformation prediction model based on Meta-LSTM
27
28 The processing deformation of thin-walled parts is a gradual process under the
29
30 layer-by-layer processing strategy. The correlation between the current processing layer
31
32 and the previous processing layer is strong, and the processing deformation of the
33
34 previous layer will affect the processing deformation of the next layer, so the thin-
35
36 walled parts processing process can be seen as a series of multi-layer processing with
37
38 strong time sequence correlation and mutual influence on the cumulative deformation
39
40 process. Since the mechanism of deformation of thin-walled parts and its influencing
41
42 factors is not clear, an accurate analytical model cannot be established. Therefore, a
43
44
45
method of machining deformation prediction based on Meta-LSTM is proposed in this
46
47
paper. The meta-learning method is used to solve the problem of less data with labels
48
49 in thin-walled parts processing. The advantage of LSTM network is used to capture the
50
51 time sequence influence law in the processing of thin-walled parts.
52
53 The meta-learning model consists of a base model and a meta-model. Base model
54
55 is used to learn specific learning tasks. During the machining of thin-walled parts,
56
57 multi-layer milling is viewed as several different machining tasks, and the base model
58
59 is used to learn the machining deformation patterns for each layer. The meta-model is
60
61 14
62
63
64
65
 used to summarize the learning rules of multiple base models and obtain the essential
1
2
3
rules of predicting model changes for different learning tasks. When the prediction
4
5
model encounters a new machining task, the meta-learning model uses the essential
6
7 laws to obtain a new machining deformation prediction model by quickly adjusting the
8
9 parameters to fit the new machining task with a small number of samples of the new
10
11 task. As shown in Figure 2. The initial network structures of the base model and meta-
12
13 model are the same, and the LSTM network is chosen to construct the base model and
14
15 meta-model in this paper. LSTM model is a variant of recurrent neural network RNN,
16
17 which can solve the problem of gradient disappearance of long sequence RNN model.
18
19 The LSTM can be used to learn the variation pattern of processing deformation of thin-
20
21 walled parts in time scale.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 (1) Meta-model training phase
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 15
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 (2) Meta-model testing phase
19
20 Figure 2 Meta-LSTM processing deformation prediction model
21
22
23 The inputs to the base model is the data X i collected during machining,
24
25
including the residual stress data  i , the process parameter data MPi during
26
27
28 machining, the process data PDi , and the workpiece machining quality data defi . The
29
30
31 output of the base model is the final machined deformation DEFM f of a thin-walled i
32
33
34
part of the cylindrical type.
35
36
The base model is composed of an LSTM plus a layer of fully connected networks,
37
38 using the LSTM to learn the features of the input X i data . The output of the LSTM
39
40 is used as the input of the fully connected layer. Thus, the base model consists of a
41
42 sequentially connected four-layer network: feature input layer, LSTM implicit layer,
43
44
45
fully connected layer, and processing deformation output layer. The constructed base
46
47 model M  i is shown below.
48
49
Z  LSTM ( X 1 , X 2 , Xi , , Xn)
50 (19)
51 X i  ( i , MPi , PDi , defi )
52
53
54 DEFM fi  f (i , X i )  f 2 (h2 f1 (h1 X i  b1 )  b2 ) (20)
55
56
In the formula, LSTM represents LSTM network;  i is the model parameter,
57
58
59 containing h1 , h2 , b1 , b2 ; h1 , b1 are the weights and biases of the LSTM implicit layers
60
61 16
62
63
64
65
 1 in the base model, respectively; h2 , b2 are the weights and biases of the fully connected
2
3 layers in the base model, respectively; f1 and f 2 are the activation functions of the
4
5
6 LSTM implicit and fully connected layers in the base model, respectively.
7
8 Consider each layer of thin-walled part machining as a different machining task
9
10 Ti . Each base model is trained on a different processing layer. n processing layers
11
12
13 require n base models to be trained. The parameters of the base model are represented
14
15 by  i' . The loss function of the base model uses the mean square error loss function, as
16
17
18 shown in equation (21). The gradient descent method is used to update the base model
19
20 parameters  i' , as shown in equation (22).
21
1 N

22
23 LTi ( DEFM fi , Y )  ( DEFM fi  Y ) 2 (21)
N i 1
24
25
i'  i   LT  DEFM f , Y  (22)
26 i i

27
28 In the formula,  is the learning rate of the base model. Y is the training data
29
30 label. N is the number of training samples.
31
32 The meta-model considers the distribution of the model M  over different
33
34
35 processing tasks Ti . The aim is to find algorithmic parameters   that can be applied
36
37
38 to all tasks Ti and thus learn the essential laws between different tasks. The meta-
39
40 model divides the training set of the base model into a support set and a query set, which
41
42 are used to calculate the training error and test error for each processing task,
43
44
45
respectively. The meta-model training is divided into inner optimization for learning
46
47
model parameters and outer optimization for learning algorithm parameters, as shown
48
49 in Eqs. (23) and (24). The inner optimization gives  to learn i* . Then, the effect of
50
51
52 the obtained parameter i* is verified by the query set, and if the effect is not good,
53
54 then  is not good, and the loss function is continuously iterated to obtain   . Meta-
55
56 model testing is to learn a new model on the test set with the already trained parameters
57
58   . The final  * is the parameters of the new model, as shown in equation (25).
59
60
61 17
62
63
64
65
 i* ()  arg min LT ( , , Dtrain
support ( i )
) (23)
1 
i

2 n
3  * = arg min  Lmeta
T (i* ( ), Dtrain
query ( i )
) (24)
4  i 1
i

5
6  * =argmin Lnewtask
T ( , * , Dtest
j
support ( j )
) (25)
7 

8
9 The training process of the meta-model is performed for all tasks, and the loss
10
11 function is used as the mean square error loss function, as shown in equation (26). The
12
13 gradient descent method is used to update the meta-model parameters  as shown in
14
15 equation (27).
16
17 1 n N
18 LTi (Mi )  
nN j 1 i 1
( DEFM fi  Y )2 (26)
19
20
21 n
22 * = -  LT (M ) i i
(27)
23 j 1

24
25
In the formula,  is the learning rate of the meta-model, and this step is crucial
26
27
28 for meta-model learning, where the meta-model parameter  * is updated and
29
30 optimized by combining the losses of the base model.
31
32 3.5 Semi-physical simulation optimization model based on PPO algorithm
33
34 In this section, based on the advantage of semi-physical simulation method that
35
36 constantly replaces theoretical data with real-time data, the PPO algorithm is used to
37
38 optimize the real-time data in the machining process by iterative optimization
39
40 constantly to ensure that the final machining deformation of thin-walled parts meets the
41
42 design requirements, and to solve the problem that the workpiece meets the design
43
44
45
requirements after machining is completed but the deformation of the workpiece is
46
47
exceedingly poor after placing it for a period of time. The PPO algorithm belongs to
48
49 the category of policy-based reinforcement learning, where the purpose of learning is
50
51 to find the policy that maximizes the long-term cumulative reward, and can be well
52
53 applied to tasks in continuous state space and continuous action space. The PPO
54
55 algorithm uses the Actor-Critic framework for single-step updating, where the Actor
56
57 network takes the observed state of the environment as an input and generates the
58
59 corresponding policy that produces the appropriate action. The Critic network evaluates
60
61 18
62
63
64
65
 the strengths and weaknesses of the current strategy by advantage function. Every time
1
2
3
an Actor network performs an action, it is evaluated by the Critic network, which can
4
5
be combined with the advantages of the semi-physical simulation method. After
6
7 selecting the action in the Actor network, the processed real processing data and
8
9 unprocessed theoretical design data are integrated and input into the thin wall parts
10
11 processing deformation prediction network, making the input of the prediction model
12
13 more close to the real processing conditions. The Actor network optimizes the
14
15 theoretical data for subsequent unprocessed layers based on the machining state of thin-
16
17 walled parts obtained from predictions based on real machining data. The principle of
18
19 the method is shown in Figure 3.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 Figure 3 Semi-physical simulation optimization based on PPO algorithm
43
44
45
In the thin-walled part machining deformation problem, the inputs to the Actor
46
47
network are the machining deformation data of each layer and the residual stresses in
48
49 each layer, so the state space s is defined as follows.
50
51 s  (def1 , def 2 ,..., def n , 1 ,  2 ,...,  n ) (28)
52
53
54 In the formula, defi represents the machining deformation of each layer of the
55
56
workpiece during the machining process,  i represents the residual stress of each
57
58
59 layer of the workpiece, and n represents the number of machining layers of the
60
61 19
62
63
64
65
 workpiece.
1
2
3
The output of the Actor network is a probability distribution of the output actions
4
5
based on the input states. For the probability distribution of continuous action, it is
6
7 considered to be a Gaussian distribution[27], so the output estimates of the Actor network
8
9 are actually the mean and variance corresponding to the Gaussian distribution.
10
11 According to the probability distribution of the output of the Actor network, the
12
13 processing parameters of each layer in the processing of thin-walled parts are selected.
14
15 Therefore, the action space includes the cutting line speed Sp , feed rate Fe , and depth
16
17
18 of cut De during machining. The action space a is defined as follows.
19
20 a   Sp, Fe, De  (29)
21
22
The objective function is the key to determine whether the reinforcement learning
23
24
25
algorithm can converge successfully. The ultimate goal of PPO algorithm is to find an
26
27 optimal strategy, so that the network can choose the behavior to perform according to
28
29 the current state, so as to maximize the cumulative expected total return. In order to
30
31 prevent the performance collapse problem caused by the step size selection, the PPO
32
33 algorithm introduces the ratio of the probability distribution P A (at st ) under the
34
35
36 current policy to the probability distribution P Aold (at st ) under the original policy into
37
38 the objective function. And in order to avoid the occurrence of strategy mutation due to
39
40 the large gap between the current strategy and the original strategy, the ratio between
41
42 the new strategy and the old strategy is artificially set in a fixed stage range, thus
43
44
45
preventing the fluctuation caused by the large gap between the strategies. Therefore,
46
47
the objective function is set as follows.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 20
62
63
64
65
 P A (at st ) P A (at st )
1 J clip ( A )  Et [min A( st , at ), clip( ,1   ,1   ) A( st , at )]
2 P Aold (at st ) P Aold (at st )
3
 P A (at st )
4 (1   ) A( st , at ), 当 >1+ 且 A( st , at )  0
5  P Aold (at st )
6  P (a s )
7   A t t A( s , a ), 当 P A (at st ) <1+ 且 A( s , a )  0 (30)
8  P (at st ) t t
P Aold (at st )
t t
clip

Aold
9 J
10  P A (at st ) P A (at st )
11  P (a s ) A( st , at ), 当 P (a s ) >1- 且 A( st , at )  0
12   Aold t t  Aold t t

13  P (a s )
14 (1   ) A( st , at ), 当  A t t <1- 且 A( st , at )  0
15  P Aold (at st )
16
17 In the formula, clip is the function in python that takes the interval;  is the
18
19 hyperparameter, generally set to 0.2; A  st , at  is the advantage function. When
20
21
22 A  st , at   0 , it indicates that this action is better than the average action, increasing
23
24
25 the probability of choosing it; When A  st , at   0 , it indicates that this action is worse
26
27 than the average action and reduces the probability of choosing this action. However,
28
29 the probability distributions of the actions obtained from the new strategy network and
30
31 the old strategy network cannot be too far apart, and therefore, truncation at 1   and
32
33
34
1   , respectively, limits the magnitude of the strategy update.
35
36
The Critic network evaluates the value of the actions output by the Actor network
37
38 through the advantage function, which helps the Actor network to choose a better action.
39
40 For the thin-walled part machining deformation problem, the Critic network is used to
41
42 evaluate the magnitude of the final machining deformation of the action, and judge the
43
44 merit of the selected action based on the final deformation. The advantage function
45
46 expression is shown below.
47
48 A  r   V (st 1 )  V (st ) (31)
49
50
51 In the formula, r is the reward value obtained by performing the current action.
52
53  is the incentive discount factor. V  st  is the value of the state corresponding to the
54
55
56
current state, that is, the magnitude of the final processing deformation caused by the
57
58 current state. V  st 1  is the state value corresponding to the next state, that is, the
59
60
61 21
62
63
64
65
 magnitude of the final processing deformation caused by the next state. The larger the
1
2
3
value of the advantage function, the more room there is to improve the prediction
4
5
accuracy of the trained Critic network, and the more the samples need to be "learned"
6
7 as much as possible. Therefore, the Critic network training goal is to make the
8
9 advantage function as minimal as possible, and the Loss function is set as follows.
10 1
  r   V (st 1 )  V (st )
2
11 Loss  (32)
12 n
13
14
As the final processing deformation is formed after all the processing layers are
15
16 fully processed, and the subsequent processing layers have not been processed in the
17
18 process, it is not possible to optimize the processing parameters of the subsequent
19
20 processing layers according to the final processing deformation, and the optimization
21
22 of the processing parameters based on the current deformation alone can not ensure that
23
24 the final processing deformation meets the design requirements. Therefore, the semi-
25
26 physical simulation method is used to integrate the processed real data with the
27
28 unprocessed theoretical design data, and gradually replace the data of the processed
29
30 layer with real data in the processing process, so that the model input is closer to the
31
32 real processing conditions. When the tth machining layer finishes machining, the
33
34 cutting line speed Sp , feed rate Fe , and depth of cut De before this machining layer
35
36
37 are all actual values, and the machining parameters of the subsequent unprocessed parts
38
39 are all theoretical values. When the Actor network selects the corresponding action a
40
41 according to the state s , the actual value is fused with the theoretical value, and the
42
43 residual stress data  i , process data PDi , and workpiece processing quality data defi
44
45
46 are added to form the input X   X1 , X 2 ,..., X t , X t 1..., X n  of the model.
47
48
49 ( X1 , X 2 , X 3 ,..., X t ) before t+1 machining layer is the actual value and
50
 X t 1, X t 2 ,..., X n 
51
52 after t machining layer is the theoretical value. The fused data X
53
54 is fed into the prediction model to obtain the next state st 1 after the execution of
55
56
57 action a . The Actor network can optimize the processing parameters for the next time
58
59 based on the next state.
60
61 22
62
63
64
65
 4. Model training and validation
1
2
3
Firstly, the training data is obtained in the simulation environment, and the
4
5
machining deformation prediction model based on meta LSTM and the semi-physical
6
7 simulation optimization model based on PPO algorithm are trained. Then, the proposed
8
9 method is validated by obtaining real processing data through a real processing
10
11 environment, and the effectiveness of the proposed model is verified by comparing it
12
13 with the prediction results of an ordinary LSTM network; Finally, the validity of the
14
15 proposed optimization method and the semi-physical simulation method will be
16
17 verified by comparing the results after machining with the semi-physical simulation
18
19 optimization method, the results after optimization machining without the semi-
20
21 physical simulation operation, and the results after machining without the optimization
22
23 method.
24
25 4.1 Training of meta-model and optimization model
26
27 In this paper, the machining process of the diesel piston skirt line was selected for
28
29 verification. The parts were 280mm in outer diameter, 230mm in inner diameter, 25mm
30
31 in wall thickness, 258mm in maximum height and 215mm in minimum distance from
32
33
34
the skirt of the piston skirt, and the material was forged aluminum alloy. The three-
35
36
dimensional model was shown in Fig. 4 (1). In order to obtain the simulation data,
37
38 ABAQUS software was used to establish a simulation environment to simulate the
39
40 material removal process using 3D milling analysis. The mesh of the material close to
41
42 the skirt of the piston skirt is refined to improve simulation efficiency. Discrete 0.1mm
43
44 per grid in Z direction. The mesh of the material near the bottom of the piston skirt is
45
46 discretized by 2mm in the Z direction. The mesh in the X- and Y-direction is discretized
47
48 by 4 mm. The meshing is shown in Fig. 4(2). The simulation results are shown in Fig.
49
50 4(3).
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 23
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 （1）3D model （2）Meshing （3）Simulation results
13
14 Figure 4 Simulation Data Acquisition
15
16 Based on the Tensorflow platform, Python was used to develop the meta-LSTM
17
18 processing deformation prediction model, and the simulation data were used for the
19
20 training of the meta-LSTM processing deformation prediction model. The convergence
21
22
curves of the 10 base models and 1 meta-model are shown in Figure 5. As can be seen
23
24
25
in Fig. 5, the losses of all 10 base models are gradually reduced and stabilized, and the
26
27 convergence speed is gradually increasing, which indicates that the base models have
28
29 gradually learned the laws of piston skirt machining deformation. As can be seen in Fig.
30
31 5(11), the loss of the meta-model fluctuates continuously as the meta-model learns the
32
33 base model for different machining tasks. After nearly 400 iterations, the loss of the
34
35 model stabilizes and maintains a relatively lower loss value, which indicates that the
36
37 meta-LSTM model has learned the intrinsic laws of piston skirt machining deformation
38
39 under different machining tasks. After nearly 400 iterations, the loss of the model
40
41 stabilizes and maintains a relatively lower loss value, which indicates that the meta-
42
43 LSTM model has learned the intrinsic laws of piston skirt machining deformation under
44
45 different machining tasks. The essential law can be reflected in the subsequent new
46
47 machining tasks, so that the model can quickly train the machining deformation
48
49 prediction model suitable for the new tasks when it meets the new machining tasks.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 24
62
63
64
65
 1 （1）Base Model 1 （2）Base Model 2 （3）Base Model 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 （4）Base Model 4 （5）Base Model 5 （6）Base Model 6
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 （7）Base Model 7 （8）Base Model 8 （9）Base Model 9
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 （10）Base Model 10 （11）Meta Model
43
44
45
Figure 5 Convergence curves of base model and meta model
46
47
Based on the Tensorflow platform, Python is used to develop a semi-physical
48
49 simulation optimization model for machining deformation based on the PPO algorithm,
50
51 and the simulation data are used for the training of the optimization model. The
52
53 optimization model takes the machining deformation and residual stress of each layer
54
55 of the piston skirt as input, so the input layer is set to 20 neurons. The output is the
56
57 processing parameters to be optimized, so the output layer is set to 3 neurons. Based on
58
59 continuous debugging, the hidden layer neurons were set to 16. The discount factor 
60
61 25
62
63
64
65
 is set to 0.9, the learning rate of Actor network is set to 0.001, and the learning rate of
1
2
3
Critic network is set to 0.1. The optimization model is trained iteratively for 300 times,
4
5
and the convergence curve is shown in Fig. 6. From the figure, it can be seen that after
6
7 100 iterations of the optimization model, the cumulative reward of the model is stable
8
9 at about 269mm, and the model reaches the convergence state, which indicates that the
10
11 optimization model has learned the essential laws of the machining parameters of each
12
13 layer of the piston skirt.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 6 Convergence curve of the optimization model
35
36 4.2 Predictive Model Case Study
37
38 In order to further verify the validity of the machining deformation prediction
39
40 model based on meta LSTM, it is verified in the actual machining process. The
41
42 processing deformation prediction model based on meta LSTM is compared with that
43
44
45
based on ordinary LSTM in terms of training time, network performance and
46
47
generalization ability. The dimensions of the part are consistent with those of the
48
49 simulation environment, the material of the part is forged aluminum alloy, and the wall
50
51 thickness of the part is 25mm. The wall thickness of the part is 25mm, 10 layers are
52
53 milled during machining and the machining parameters for each layer are shown in
54
55 Table 1.
56
57 Table 1 Milling parameters for machining process
58
59 Number Spindle speed（r/min） Feed speed（mm/min） Depth of cut（mm）
60
61 26
62
63
64
65
 1 800 180 2
1
2
2 1000 200 1.8
3
4
5
3 1200 400 1.6
6
7 4 800 200 1.4
8
9 5 1000 400 1.2
10
11 6 1200 180 1.0
12
13 7 800 400 0.8
14
15 8 1000 180 0.6
16
17 9 1200 200 0.4
18
19 10 1500 240 0.2
20
21 The cutting force data is measured by means of a SPIKE tool holder. SPIKE can
22
23 be mounted directly on the spindle, which captures the cutting forces during machining
24
25 and saves the data to a specified location in the computer via wireless transmission.
26
27 Clamping force data at the clamping point is collected by the XR-D7 three-way force
28
29 sensor and the corresponding eight-way acquisition card. In the process of use, the force
30
31
32
point of the sensor is kept in constant contact with the piston skirt without relative slip,
33
34 and the clamping force data is collected by the corresponding data acquisition software.
35
36 The actual machining verification environment is shown in Figure 7.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Figure 7 Process validation environment
51
52 During the experiment, milling was carried out using a tool of  25 and the
53
54
55 detailed parameters of the tool are shown in Table 2. After each layer is processed, the
56
57 clamp is loosened to release the stress, and a probe is used to measure the deformation
58
59 during 60 minutes of stress release.
60
61 27
62
63
64
65
 Table 2 Tool parameters
1
2
Tool Tool Type Tool Material Coating Diameter Number of teeth
3
4
5  25 End Mills Carbide TiAIN 25mm 4
6
7 In order to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in terms of training
8
9
10
efficiency in the face of new processing tasks, different batchsize was used to train the
11
12 processing deformation prediction model based on meta LSTM and the processing
13
14 deformation prediction model based on ordinary LSTM for five times, respectively, and
15
16 compare the training time of the two models, as shown in Fig. 8. As can be seen from
17
18 the figure, the training time of the two models decreases to varying degrees as batchsize
19
20 grows from small to large, but the training time of the processing deformation
21
22 prediction model based on meta LSTM is always smaller than that of the processing
23
24 deformation prediction model based on ordinary LSTM. This is because when the
25
26 simulation data is used to train the machining deformation prediction model of the meta
27
28 LSTM in the early stage, the meta model has already preserved part of the essential
29
30 laws of machining deformation. When faced with a new processing task, the model is
31
32 trained on a previous basis using data from the new task, whereas ordinary LSTM
33
34 processing deformation prediction model need to be re-trained before they can be used
35
36 for prediction of the new task. Therefore, in the face of new tasks, the training efficiency
37
38 of machining deformation prediction model based on meta LSTM is higher.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 8 Comparison of training time
57
58 In order to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in terms of network
59
60
61 28
62
63
64
65
 performance and generalization ability, the actual data of five new sets of machining
1
2
3
tasks during the experimental process are inputted into the meta-LSTM-based
4
5
machining deformation prediction model and the ordinary LSTM-based machining
6
7 deformation prediction model, respectively, and compared with the real deformation
8
9 data to validate the network performance and generalization ability of the prediction
10
11 models as shown in Fig. 9. From the figure, it can be seen that the prediction
12
13 performance of the meta-LSTM-based processing deformation prediction model is
14
15 better than the prediction performance of the ordinary LSTM-based processing
16
17 deformation prediction model. By calculation, the average deformation error of the
18
19 meta-LSTM-based machining deformation prediction model is 0.3812 mm and the
20
21 average deformation error of the ordinary LSTM-based machining deformation
22
23 prediction model is 1.9916 mm. The deformation error of the meta-LSTM-based
24
25 machining deformation prediction model is much lower than that of the ordinary
26
27 LSTM-based machining deformation prediction model. This is because the meta-
28
29 LSTM-based processing deformation prediction model will use a small amount of data
30
31 from the new task to retrain the model when faced with a new task, which makes the
32
33
34
model more targeted and thus reduces the prediction error of the model. At the same
35
36
time, the ability of the model to generalize in the face of new tasks is improved.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Figure 9 Comparison of network performance and generalization ability
57
58 4.3 Optimization model Case Study
59
60
61 29
62
63
64
65
 In order to further verify the effectiveness of the semi-physical simulation
1
2
3
optimization model based on the PPO algorithm, the machining deformations
4
5
optimized by using semi-physical simulation operation and the machining deformations
6
7 not optimized by using semi-physical simulation operation are compared with the
8
9 machining deformations without the optimization model, respectively, as shown in Fig.
10
11 10. From the figure, it can be seen that the machining deflection for each layer of
12
13 machining parameter optimization using the optimization model is less than the
14
15 machining deflection without the optimization model. This is because the optimization
16
17 method proposed in this paper can adjust the machining parameters of the next layer in
18
19 time according to the machining deformation of each layer, so as to reduce the
20
21 machining deformation of the workpiece and ensure that the deformation of the
22
23 workpiece after the final release of stress meets the design requirements.
24
25 After calculation, the machining deformation after optimization with semi-
26
27 physical simulation operation is 1.5156mm, and the machining deformation without
28
29 optimization with semi-physical simulation operation is 1.8338mm, and the machining
30
31 deformation after optimization with semi-physical simulation operation is smaller than
32
33
34
the machining deformation without optimization with semi-physical simulation
35
36
operation. This is because the use of semi-physical simulation operation for
37
38 optimization can be real-time machining process real data into account, so as to dig out
39
40 for the task of the machining process of machining deformation law, according to the
41
42 machining deformation of the situation in a timely manner to adjust the next layer of
43
44 machining parameters, the establishment of the optimization model is closer to the real
45
46 machining process. The optimization model without semi-physical simulation
47
48 operation lacks real-time real data of the machining process, and when the optimization
49
50 is carried out, the established optimization model deviates slightly from the real
51
52 machining process, and the optimization results are poor.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 30
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Figure 10 Comparison of optimization results
18
19 5. Conclusions and future work
20
21 In this paper, for the problem that thin-walled parts meet the deformation
22
23 requirements after machining, but the deformation of the workpiece is super poor after
24
25 placing it for a period of time, a semi-physical simulation optimization method of
26
27 machining deformation based on meta-LSTM and PPO is proposed. Simulation data is
28
29 used to train the model, and during the process, only a small amount of real data is
30
31 needed to update the model parameters to obtain a prediction model of machining
32
33
34
deformation under the corresponding machining task. The method is compared with the
35
36
common LSTM-based processing deformation prediction method, and the results show
37
38 that the method has better prediction results. On this basis, the theory data of the
39
40 machined layer and the unmachined layer are fused with the idea of semi-physical
41
42 simulation, and the final machining deformation of thin-walled parts is taken as the
43
44 optimization goal, and the processing parameters of the next layer are optimized by
45
46 PPO algorithm. The method is compared with the optimization method without semi-
47
48 physical simulation operation and the method without optimization model, and the
49
50 results show that the machining deformation after optimization by this method is
51
52 smaller than the other two methods, which proves the effectiveness of this method.
53
54 The authors' future work will focus on combining real-time variations in the
55
56 stiffness and geometric model of the workpiece itself with information from
57
58 measurements taken during the machining process of the part to obtain a more complete
59
60
61 31
62
63
64
65
 description of the machining process and to build a model more in line with the real
1
2
3
machining process of thin-walled parts.
4
5
6
7 Statements and Declarations
8
9 Data availability: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current
10
11 study are not publicly available due to the experimental data in this paper belong to a
12
13 part of the follow-up study, but are available from the corresponding author on
14
15 reasonable request.
16
17 Acknowledgements: This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of
18
19 China (No. 2020YFB1710300).
20
21 Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
22
23 interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work
24
25 reported in this study.
26
27 Authors contribution statement: Huibin Zhang contributed to the analysis of the
28
29 deformation optimization problem of thin-walled parts machining, the determination
30
31 of the solution, the design of the experiments, the processing of the experimental data
32
33
34
and the writing of the thesis. Mingwei Wang and Jingtao Zhou gave guidance on the
35
36
overall research program of the thesis. Changsen Yang, Enming Li and Jianhua Zhao
37
38 contributed to the figures, tables and English translation in the manuscript.
39
40 Compliance with Ethical Standards: This paper is not applicable.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 32
62
63
64
65
 References
1
2
3
[1] Wu Zegang, Liu Liangbao, Sun Jianfei, et al. (2017). Study on Controlling
4
5
Machining Distortion of Aeroengine TC4 Casing. Aeronautical Manufacturing
6
7 Technology21:56-61+66. DOI:10.16080/j.issn1671-833x.2017.21.062.
8
9 [2] Kusiak A. (2017). Smart manufacturing must embrace big data. Nature
10
11 544(7648):23-25. DOI:10.1038/544023a.
12
13 [3] V. Richter-Trummer,D. Koch,A. Witte... & P. M. S. T. Castro. (2013). Methodology
14
15 for prediction of distortion of workpieces manufactured by high speed machining
16
17 based on an accurate through-the-thickness residual stress determination. The
18
19 International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology(9-12).
20
21 DOI:10.1007/s00170-013-4828-x.
22
23 [4] Huang, Xiaoming,Sun, Jie & Li, Jianfeng. (2015). Effect of Initial Residual Stress
24
25 and Machining-Induced Residual Stress on the Deformation of Aluminium Alloy
26
27 Plate. Journal of Mechanical Engineering61(2):131-137. DOI:10.5545/sv-
28
29 jme.2014.1897.
30
31 [5] Jian-guang Li & Shu-qi Wang. (2017). Distortion caused by residual stresses in
32
33
34
machining aeronautical aluminum alloy parts: recent advances. The International
35
36
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology(1-4). DOI:10.1007/s00170-016-
37
38 9066-6.
39
40 [6] P. J. ARRAZOLA, T. OZEL, D. UMBRELLO, et al. (2013). Recent advances in
41
42 modelling of metal machining processes. CIRP Annals62(2):695-718. DOI:10.10
43
44 16/j.cirp.2013.05.006.
45
46 [7] Liu Simeng, Shao Xiaodong, Wang Dou. (2016). Machining deformation
47
48 simulation method of thin-wailed deep cavity parts based on dynamics analysis.
49
50 Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems(10):2294-2304. DOI:10.13196/
51
52 j.cims.2016.10.003.
53
54 [8] Changqing Liu,Yingguang Li & Weiming Shen.(2018).A real time machining error
55
56 compensation method based on dynamic features for cutting force induced elastic
57
58 deformation in flank milling. Machining Science and Technology(5):1-21.
59
60
61 33
62
63
64
65
 DOI:10.1080/10910344.2017.1402933. 1-21.
1
2
3
[9] O.J. Bakker,T.N. Papastathis,A.A. Popov & S.M. Ratchev.(2013).Active fixturing:
4
5
literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Production
6
7 Research(11): 3171–3190. DOI:10.1080/00207543.2012.695893.
8
9 [10] Oscar Gonzalo,Jose Mari Seara,Enrique Guruceta... & Johannes Thoelen.(2017).A
10
11 method to minimize the workpiece deformation using a concept of intelligent
12
13 fixture. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing(dec.):209-218.
14
15 DOI:10.1016/j.rcim.2017.04.005.
16
17 [11] Deng H , Melkote S N . (2006). Determination of minimum clamping forces for
18
19 dynamically stable fixturing. International Journal of Machine Tools &
20
21 Manufacture(7 - 8): 847 - 857. DOI:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.040.
22
23 [12] Tang Z T, Yu T, Xu L Q, et al. (2013). Machining deformation prediction for frame
24
25 components considering multifactor coupling effects. International Journal of
26
27 Advanced Manufacturing Technology (1-4):187-196. DOI:10.1007/s00170-012-
28
29 4718-7.
30
31 [13] Dongil Shin & Yoon Young Kim. (2020). Data-driven approach for a one-
32
33
34
dimensional thin-walled beam analysis. Computers and Structures(C).
35
36
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruc.2020.106207.
37
38 [14] Zhiwei Zhao,Yingguang Li,Changqing Liu & James Gao. (2020). On-line part
39
40 deformation prediction based on deep learning. Journal of Intelligent
41
42 Manufacturing(3). DOI:10.1007/s10845-019-01465-0.
43
44 [15] R. Guiassa & J.R.R. Mayer. (2011). Predictive compliance based model for
45
46 compensation in multi-pass milling by on-machine probing. CIRP Annals -
47
48 Manufacturing Technology(1) :391-394. DOI:10.1016/j.cirp.2011.03.123.
49
50 [16] Wang Xinzhi,Bi Qingzhen,Zhu Limin & Ding Han.(2018).Improved forecasting
51
52 compensatory control to guarantee the remaining wall thickness for pocket milling
53
54 of a large thin-walled part. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
55
56 Technology(5-8):1677-1688. DOI:10.1007/s00170-016-9785-8.
57
58 [17] Li Enming,Zhou Jingtao,Yang Changsen,Zhao Jianhua,Li Zeyu,Zhang Shusheng
59
60
61 34
62
63
64
65
 & Wang Mingwei.(2023).Part machining deformation prediction based on spatial-
1
2
3
temporal correlation learning of geometry and cutting loads. Journal of
4
5
Manufacturing Processes(92): 397-411. DOI:10.1016/J.JMAPRO.2023.02.042.
6
7 [18] Wenping Mou. (2020). Key Technologies on Data-Driven Real Time Prediction of
8
9 Tool Wear for NC Machining. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
10
11 DOI:10.27239/d.cnki.gnhhu.2020.002563.
12
13 [19] Liu Changqing,Li Yingguang,Huang Chong,Zhao Yujie & Zhao Zhiwei.(2023).A
14
15 meta-reinforcement learning method by incorporating simulation and real data for
16
17 machining deformation control of finishing process. International Journal of
18
19 Production Research(4):1114-1128. DOI:10.1080/00207543.2022.2027041.
20
21 [20] Wan Peng, Li Yingguang, Hua Jiaqi, Liu Changqing. (2022). Accurate Prediction
22
23 Method of Tool Wear Under Varying Cutting Conditions Based on Meta Learning
24
25 and PINN. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics(3):387-
26
27 396. DOI:10.16356/j.1005-2615.2022.03.004.
28
29 [21] Wang Mingwei,Zhang Huibin,Liu Lei,Zhou Jingtao,Yao Lu,Ma Xin & Wang
30
31 Manxian.(2022).Unbalance Prediction of Low Pressure Rotor Based on
32
33
34
Mechanism and Data Fusion. Machines(10) : 936. DOI:10.3390/MACHINES
35
36
10100936.
37
38 [22] Zhang Huibin,Wang Mingwei,Deng Wei,Zhao Jianhua,Zhou Jingtao,Ma Xin... &
39
40 Wang Manxian.(2022).Semi-Physical Simulation Optimization Method for Bolt
41
42 Tightening Process Based on Reinforcement Learning. Machines(8) : 637.
43
44 DOI:10.3390/MACHINES10080637.
45
46 [23] Zhang Huibin,Wang Mingwei,Li Zhiang,Zhou Jingtao,Zhang Kexin,Ma Xin &
47
48 Wang Manxian.(2022).Semi-Physical Simulation of Fan Rotor Assembly Process
49
50 Optimization for Unbalance Based on Reinforcement Learning. Aerospace(7) : 342.
51
52 DOI:10.3390/AEROSPACE9070342.
53
54 [24] Bao Jinsong, Li Zhiqiang, Xiang Qian, et al. (2018). The Modeling, Evolutionary
55
56 and Application of Quasi-physical Virtual Assembly. Journal of Mechanical
57
58 Engineering(11):61-69. DOI:10.3901/JME.2018.11.061.
59
60
61 35
62
63
64
65
 [25] Chen Z, Yue C, Xu Y, et al. (2023). An analytical machining deformation model of
1
2
3
H-section multi-frame beam integral components. Journal of Materials Processing
4
5
Technology (314). DOI:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.117907.
6
7 [26] Xu Bingye, Liu Xinsheng. (2010). The application of elastic-plastic mechanics.
8
9 Tsinghua University Press , Beijing.
10
11 [27] Zhou Dongxu. (2021). Research on Motion Planning Method of Robotic Arm
12
13 Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning. China University of Mining and
14
15 Technology. DOI:10.27624/d.cnki.gzkbu.2021.000075.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 36
62
63
64
65