International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

Using neural networks to predict bending angle of sheet metal formed by laser
P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin
*

Department of Power Mechanical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC Received 14 June 1999; received in revised form 1 October 1999; accepted 12 November 1999

Abstract In this paper, three supervised neural networks are used to estimate bending angles formed by a laser. Inputs to these neural networks are known forming parameters such as spot diameter, scan speed, laser power, and workpiece geometries including thickness and length of sheet metal workpiece. For comparison, regression models are also used to estimate bending angle. Verication experiments are then conducted to evaluate the performance of these models. It is shown that the radial basis function neural network model is superior to other models in predicting bending angle. The volume energy model is better than the line energy model in angle prediction. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Laser forming; Neural network; Bending angle

1. Introduction Sheet metal forming is a very efcient and highly developed process for high output production situations. However, the cost and time associated with the manufacturing, alteration or adjustment of tooling are considerable and may be prohibitive in prototyping or one-off production. This is an area where laser forming may offer a solution by providing a technique which enables forming to be carried out without the need of hard tooling. The mechanism of laser forming is considerably complex. Vollertsen and Geiger [1] and Kermanidis et al. [2] used a nite element method and a nite difference method to estimate the bending angle formed by a laser. In general, using these methods requires long computing time. Vollertsen [3], Vollertsen and Rodle [4], and Kao [5] proposed analytical models to predict bending angle. However, these analytical models are generally established based on over-simplied conditions.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-3-5742-920; fax: +886-3-5722-840. E-mail address: sclin@pme.nthu.edu.tw (S.C. Lin).

0890-6955/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 1 1 - X

1186

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

Scully [6], Geiger [7], Geiger et al. [8], and Yau et al. [9] suggested that the bending angle could be expressed as a function of the line energy. The line energy is dened as the ratio between the laser power and the scan speed. However, the change in bending angle may also result from some other factors. In order to predict bending angle accurately, parameters with signicant effects on bending angle should all be taken into account. Recently, the application of neural networks has attracted great interest. Superior learning, noise suppression, and parallel computation abilities are major advantages of the neural network method [10]. In this paper, three supervised neural networks are used to estimate bending angles. In the beginning of this paper, the structure and operation of these models are presented. Experiments are then conducted and the data collected are used to train these neural networks. Additional experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of these models. Finally, conclusions are made. 2. Back propagation neural networks In this paper, three supervised neural networks are used to estimate bending angles formed by a laser. The rst one is a back propagation model using a hyperbolic tangent function as the activation function (BPHTF); the second is a back propagation model using a logistic function as the activation function (BPLF); and the last one is a radial basis function neural network (RBFN). The back propagation type neural network is very popular, especially in the area of in-process monitoring. This is because the structure and operation of the back propagation type neural networks are simple. Therefore, the back propagation type neural network is adopted in this research. The general back propagation network is depicted in Fig. 1. It is composed of many simple processing neurons operating in parallel. The structure includes three layers: an input layer, a

Fig. 1.

The general architecture of a neural network.

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

1187

hidden layer, and an output layer. All neurons are fully connective between layers. The architecture of each individual neuron is shown in Fig. 2. The operation of the neural network models can be divided into two main phases: forward computing and backward learning. 2.1. Forward computing The input patterns applied to the neurons of the rst layer are just a stimulus to the network. On the other hand, there is no computation in the input layer. As depicted in Fig. 2, each neuron in the hidden layer determines a net input value based on all its input connections. The net input is calculated by summing the input values multiplied by their corresponding weight. Once the net input is calculated, it is converted to an activation value. The weight on the connection from the ith neuron in the forward layer to the jth neuron is indicated as wij. The output value Yj of neuron j is computed by the following equations:
n

netj
i 0

wij xi

(1) (2)

Yj fact(netj )

where netj is the linear combination of each of the xi values multiplied by wij; n is the number of inputs to the jth neuron; fact is the activation function of neuron j. In this paper, activation functions of back propagation used in the hidden and output layers are hyperbolic tangent function (BPHTF) and logistic function (BPLF) [11]. The value Yj is propagated through each upper layer until an output value of the output layer is generated. 2.2. Backward learning The generated output of the network is compared to the desired output, and an error is computed for each output neuron. The error vector E between desired values and the output value of the network is dened as

Fig. 2. The architecture of an individual neuron for BPN.

1188

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

E [e1,e2,,ej ,,ek] ej 1 (Y Yj )2 2 j

(3) (4)

where Y is the desired value of the jth output neuron; Yj is the output value of the jth output neuj ron. Errors are then transmitted backward from the output layer to each neuron in the forward layer. The process repeats layer by layer. Connection weights are updated by each neuron to cause the network to converge. This process is named the backward learning rule (or delta rule). The delta rule is a data-adaptive technique for deriving a least-square-error solution. The interconnection weights in the network are determined so that the error, E, is minimized. Weights are adjusted using the gradient information as wij h E awprev wij wij (5) (6)

wnew wprev

The learning rate, h, is a constant between 0 and 1. The momentum constant, a, is usually set to something between 0.1 and 1.

3. Radial basis function neural networks The structure and operation of the radial basis function network (RBFN) [11] is quite similar to that of the back propagation neural network, but the RBFN has some additional advantages such as rapid learning, and less error. Therefore, the radial basis function network is also adopted in this research. The structure of the radial basis function network is the same as that of the back propagation neural network as depicted in Fig. 1. The architecture of each individual neuron for the radial basis function network is shown in Fig. 3. There are no connection weights between the input layer and the hidden layer. The output of the ith neuron in the hidden layer is di Ri(x) Ri( x ui /s2) i (7) where x is a multidimensional input vector; ui is a vector with the same dimension as x; s2 is i the variance of the ith radial basis function; and Ri() is the ith radial basis function with a single maximum at the origin. Typically, Ri() is a Gaussian function and can be represented as: Ri(x) exp xui 2s2 i
2

(8)

The nal output is the weighted sum of the output value associated with each neuro in the hidden layer:

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

1189

Fig. 3.
H H

The architecture of an individual neuron for RBFN.

Yj
i 1

wij di
i 1

wij Ri(x)

(9)

In the backward learning process, the values of ui, and si and interconnection weights between the hidden layer and the output layer are determined so that the error, E, is minimized. These values are adjusted using the gradient information as ui si h E auprev ui E a sprev si (10) (11) (12)

wnew (Ytj Yj )1Ytj Y j

1190

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

4. Experimental setup and experimental design In order to establish models to predict bending angle of sheet metal formed during the laser forming process, a series of experiments are conducted. These experiments are conducted with three levels of scan speeds, three levels of laser powers, three levels of length of workpiece, two levels of thickness of workpiece, and two levels of the spot diameter of the laser beam. Parameter levels used in these experiments are shown in Table 1. The workpiece material used in these tests is 304 stainless steel. For a higher absorption of the laser beam, specimens are coated with carbon graphite powder. Experimental set-up for these tests is depicted in Fig. 4. These tests are carried out on a FANUC CO2 laser with a maximum output power of 1 kW. The CO2 laser operating in continuous wave (CW) mode with a TEM00 energy distribution is used. TEM stand for Transverse ElectroMagnetic [12]. TEM00 has a Gaussian shaped energy distribution and provides maximum energy intensity in the middle of the laser beam. The bending angles of the specimens are measured using the laser displacement sensor Keyence LB 1001. 5. Results and discussions Statistical analysis is used to study the effects of laser forming parameters on bending angle and to identify factors that have signicant effects on bending angle. ANOVA (analysis of variance) is employed to quantify and verify the effects of these forming parameters on bending angle. Results of ANOVA are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, it is found that the main effects of power, scan speed, spot diameter, thickness of workpiece, and length of workpiece on bending angle are signicant within the range studied. Interaction effects of these parameters are also signicant. 5.1. Neural network approach Factors that have signicant effects on bending angle are used as inputs of neural networks. They are laser power, scan speed, spot diameter, thickness of workpiece, and length of workpiece. The only output is estimated bending angle. In order to prevent the saturation of the activation function, the data used to train neural networks are normalized before used. In this paper, only one hidden layer is used in these neural networks. The learning rate and
Table 1 Parameter levels used in training experiments Scan velocity (mm/min) Power of laser (W) Spot diameter of laser (mm) Thickness of workpiece (mm) Length of workpiece (mm) Width of workpiece (mm) 1000, 3000, 5000 100, 300, 500 0.5, 1.0 1.0, 1.5 30, 60, 90 60

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

1191

Fig. 4. Experimental setup.

momentum constant are adequately increased when the root mean square error (RMSE) of this epoch is smaller than that of the previous epoch [13]. Conversely, the learning constants are adequately decreased when the RMSE of this epoch is larger than that of the previous epoch. Fig. 5 shows the effect of the number of neurons in the hidden layer on the root mean square error. The training epoch for each neural network is 5000. It is shown that the training error is minimized when 4, 7 and 10 neurons are used for BPHTF, BPLF, and RBFN, respectively. Therefore, these neural models with minimum errors are adopted for further study. Fig. 6 shows the convergence of the error of these models during the learning process. It is shown that the RBFN is superior to the other two models in learning. Bending angle estimated using these neural networks and those measured experimentally are shown in Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 7, bending angles estimated using these models are scattered around the line, and the average error is 0.0136, 0.0233, and 0.0366 for RBFN, BPLF, and BPHTF, respectively. The maximum error is 0.0473, 0.0985, and 0.1556 for RBFN, BPLF, and BPHTF, respectively.

1192

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

Table 2 ANOVA results of experiment for bending angle Factors Spot diameter Thickness Length Power Scan speed Spot diameterthickness Spot diameterlength Spot diameterspeed Spot diameterpower Thicknesspower Thicknessspeed Thicknesslength Lengthspeed Lengthpower Powerspeed Error Total
a

Degree of freedom 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 75 108

Sum of square 0.4684 1.2666 0.0627 7.0355 5.9447 0.0766 0.0090 0.0056 0.2838 0.0008 0.0419 0.0549 0.0118 0.0170 1.0922 0.1139 16.4855

Mean square 0.4684 1.2666 0.0314 3.5178 2.9723 0.0766 0.0045 0.0028 0.1419 0.0004 0.2074 0.0275 0.0030 0.0043 0.2730 0.0018

F0a 308.4* 833.8* 20.6* 2315.8* 1956.7* 50.4* 3.0* 1.9 93.4* 0.3 136.6* 18.1* 1.9 2.8* 179.7*

F0=(Mean squareparameter)/(mean squareerror).

Fig. 5.

Effects of the number of neurons in the hidden layer on the root mean square error.

5.2. Regression model Scully [6], Geiger [7], Geiger et al. [8], and Yau et al. [9] suggested that the bending angle could be expressed as a function of the line energy. Fig. 8 shows the relationship between the bending angle and the line energy for the experimental data. The least square estimation is used to determine the model for bending angle, a, as a function of line energy, p/v. The model is represented by the following equation:

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

1193

Fig. 6.

The RMSE of neural networks during 5000 epochs.

Fig. 7.

Bending angle estimated using neural networks versus bending angle measured experimentally.

0.0047 3.7556

p p 2.5968 n n

R2 0.8158

(13)

where R is the correlation coefcient, and the units for a, p, and n are degree, W, and mm/min, respectively.

1194

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

Fig. 8. The relationship between the bending angle and the line energy for the experimental data.

It should be noticed that previous experimental results show that the bending angle is also affected by some other factors such as spot diameter, thickness of workpiece, and length of workpiece. It is believed that these parameters with signicant effects on bending angle should be taken into account when establishing models to estimate the bending angle. Therefore, it is proposed to model bending angle as a function of volume energy instead of line energy. The volume energy is dened as the ratio of the laser power and the product of scan speed, spot diameter and thickness of workpiece. Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the bending angle and the volume energy for the experimental data. The least square estimation is used to determine the model for bending angle, a, as a function of volume energy, p/(vdt). The model is represented by the following equation:

Fig. 9. The relationship between the bending angle and the volume energy for the experimental data.

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

1195

a 0.0121 2.9116

p p 1.4255 ndt ndt

R2 0.9055

(14)

where the units for d and t are mm. By comparing Figs. 8 and 9, it is shown that the volume energy model is better than the line energy model in estimating bending angles. The average error is around 0.0937 and 0.1367 for volume energy and line energy, respectively. The maximum error is around 0.3542 and 0.4658 for volume energy and line energy, respectively. 6. Verication experiments In order to verify the feasibility of the proposed models, additional experiments are conducted. The forming conditions for these experimental tests are all listed in Table 3. Table 4 lists bending angles measured experimentally and those estimated via neural networks and regression models. The maximum error and average error for using neural networks and the regression model to predict bending angles are also listed Table 4. Fig. 10 shows bending angles estimated using the regression model and neural networks versus those measured experimentally. Examining these results, the following observations can be drawn. 1. The RBFN is superior to other models in predicting bending angle. The maximum error for the RBFN is only 0.0687 while the error for BPLF, BPHTF, line energy model, and volume energy model is 0.3162, 0.3457, 0.4015, and 0.2722, respectively. The average error for the RBFN is only 0.0266 while that for BPLF, BPHTF, line energy model, and volume energy model is 0.0996, 0.1010, 0.1608, and 0.1064, respectively.
Table 3 Forming conditions for verication experiments Test No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Diameter (mm) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Thickness (mm) 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Length (mm) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Power (W) 200 200 400 400 200 200 400 400 200 200 400 400 200 200 400 400 Speed (mm/min) 2000 4000 2000 4000 2000 4000 2000 4000 2000 4000 2000 4000 2000 4000 2000 4000

1196

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

Table 4 Bending angle measured experimentally and those estimated via neural networks and regression models Test No. Measured () RBFN () BPHTF () BPLF () Line energy () Volume energy () 0.5374 0.2890 0.9487 0.5374 0.3750 0.1999 0.6872 0.3750 0.2890 0.1541 0.5374 0.2890 0.1999 0.1076 0.3750 0.1999 0.2722 0.1064

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Max. error Average error

0.514 0.401 0.728 0.679 0.361 0.152 0.415 0.176 0.297 0.258 0.384 0.462 0.198 0.129 0.241 0.124

0.5827 0.3525 0.7158 0.6840 0.3276 0.1595 0.3920 0.2267 0.3059 0.2185 0.3756 0.4742 0.1682 0.0895 0.2793 0.124 0.0687 0.0266

0.4986 0.2778 0.9451 0.5454 0.2790 0.0927 0.5655 0.2215 0.2972 0.2027 0.7297 0.4976 0.1947 0.0771 0.4444 0.2179 0.3457 0.1010

0.4770 0.2536 0.9434 0.5379 0.2454 0.0977 0.4867 0.1957 0.2685 0.1714 0.7002 0.4709 0.1644 0.0795 0.4215 0.2117 0.3162 0.0996

0.3449 0.1766 0.6425 0.3449 0.3449 0.1766 0.6425 0.3449 0.3449 0.1766 0.6425 0.3449 0.3449 0.1766 0.6425 0.3449 0.4015 0.1608

Fig. 10. Bending angle estimated using neural network and regression models versus bending angle measured experimentally.

2. The average error for the volume energy model is about the same as that for BPLF and BPHTF, while the maximum error for the volume energy model is smaller than that for BPLF and BPHTF. The volume energy model is also proved to be better than the line energy model in bending angle prediction.

P.J. Cheng, S.C. Lin / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 11851197

1197

7. Conclusions In this paper, three supervised neural networks are used to estimate bending angles formed by laser. Inputs to these neural networks are known forming parameters such as spot diameter, scan speed, laser power, and workpiece geometries including thickness and length of sheet metal workpiece. For comparison, regression models are also used to estimate bending angle. The performance of these models is evaluated and the results compared experimentally. It is shown that the RBFN is superior to other models in predicting bending angle. The volume energy model is also proved to be better than the line energy model in angle prediction. The average error for the volume energy model is about the same as that for BPLF and BPHTF, while the maximum error for the volume energy model is smaller than that for BPLF and BPHTF. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, Republic of China through Grant No. NSC 87-2212-E-007-031. References
[1] F. Vollertsen, M. Geiger, W.M. Li, FDM- and FEM-simulation of laser forming: a comparative study, in: Advanced Technology of Plasticity, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technology of Plasticity, 1993, pp. 17931798. [2] Th.B. Kermanidis, A.K. Kyrsanidi, S.G. Pantelakis, Numerical simulation of the laser forming process in metallic sheet metals, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Methods and Experimental Measurements for Surface Treatment Effects, 1997, pp. 307316. [3] F. Vollertsen, An analytical model for laser bending, Lasers in Engineering 2 (1994) 261276. [4] F. Vollertsen, M. Rodle, Model for the temperature gradient mechanism of laser bending, Laser Assisted Net Shape Engineering Proceedings of the LANE 1 (1994) 371378. [5] M.T. Kao, Elementary study of laser sheet forming of single curvature, Master Thesis of Department of Power Mechanical Engineering, Tsing Hua University, 1996. [6] K. Scully, Laser line heating, Journal of Ship Production 3 (4) (1987) 237246. [7] M. Geiger, F. Vollertsen, G. Deinzer, Flexible straightening of car body shells by laser forming, in: Sheet Metal and Stamping Symping Symposium SAE Special Publication, no. 944 SAE, 1993, pp. 3744. [8] M. Geiger, H. Arnet, F. Vollertsen, Laser forming, Manufacturing Systems 24 (1) (1995) 4347. [9] C.L. Yau, K.C. Chan, W.B. Lee, Laser bending of leadframe materials, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 82 (1998) 117121. [10] L. Fausett, Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Inc, New York, 1994. [11] J.S.R. Jang, C.T. Sun, E. Mizutani, Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft Computing: A Computational Approach to Learning and Machine Intelligence, Prentice-Hall, Inc, New York, 1997. [12] G. Berkhahn, CO2 Laser Fabricating Machine ToolsTheir Numbers in Use and Practical Uses in Sheet Metal Fabrication, Technical Paper MS89-552, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1989. [13] J.M. Zurada, Introduction to Articial Neural Systems, West Publishing Co, 1992.