Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
DOI 10.1007/s00170-009-2191-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A review of machining monitoring systems based
on artificial intelligence process models
Jose Vicente Abellan-Nebot ·
Fernando Romero Subirón
Received: 12 October 2008 / Accepted: 24 June 2009 / Published online: 29 July 2009
© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009
Abstract Many machining monitoring systems based
on artificial intelligence (AI) process models have been
successfully developed in the past for optimising, pre-
dicting or controlling machining processes. In general,
these monitoring systems present important differences
among them, and there are no clear guidelines for
their implementation. In order to present a generic
view of machining monitoring systems and facilitate
their implementation, this paper reviews six key issues
involved in the development of intelligent machining
systems: (1) the different sensor systems applied to
monitor machining processes, (2) the most effective
signal processing techniques, (3) the most frequent sen-
sory features applied in modelling machining processes,
(4) the sensory feature selection and extraction meth-
ods for using relevant sensory information, (5) the
design of experiments required to model a machining
operation with the minimum amount of experimental
data and (6) the main characteristics of several artifi-
cial intelligence techniques to facilitate their applica-
tion/selection.
Keywords Machining monitoring systems · Artificial
intelligence · Sensor systems · Sensory features ·
Design of experiments
J. V. Abellan-Nebot (B) · F. Romero Subirón
Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Design,
Universitat Jaume I, Av. de Vicent Sos Baynat s/n.,
12071 Castellón, Spain
e-mail: abellan@esid.uji.es
F. Romero Subirón
e-mail: fromero@esid.uji.es
1 Introduction
Manufacturing enterprises currently have to cope with
growing demands for increased product quality, greater
product variability, shorter product life-cycles, reduced
cost, and global competition [1]. In the field of ma-
chining, manufacturers are turning increasingly more
often to automation as an effective way to meet these
demands. A key issue for an unattended and automated
machining system is the development of reliable and
robust monitoring systems. Research issues in monitor-
ing machining systems based on artificial intelligence
(AI) process models cover several topics, such as sensor
system selection [1, 2], multi-sensor and sensor-fusion
systems [1, 3, 4], signal processing and sensory feature
selection/extraction [5, 6], design of experiments [7, 8]
and AI techniques to model the process [1, 9]. In
spite of the intensive research being carried out in this
field, there is still no clear methodology for developing
machining monitoring systems that allows machining
processes to be optimised, predicted or controlled. Fur-
thermore, many of the research studies presented in
the literature seem to be contradictory. For example,
Haber [10] reported that acoustic emission (AE) sen-
sors attached in the soft vice jaws were more sensi-
tive than those attached in the spindle, whereas Lan
[11] reported a higher sensitivity of AE sensors in the
spindle quill. These contradictions may be explained by
the fact that designing machining monitoring systems is
a process-oriented problem where the selection of the
sensor system, sensory features and the modelling ap-
proach are closely related to the specific characteristics
of the machining process.
238
In order to overcome the lack of a global view in
the development of intelligent monitoring systems for
machining, this paper reviews the main parts of these
monitoring systems and includes the most relevant as-
pects from previous research works presented in the
literature. To limit the scope of the study, the review is
restricted to monitoring systems applied to the predic-
tion of part accuracy and cutting-tool wear diagnosis.
The paper is divided as follows: First, a generic meth-
odology is described, which covers all the main steps
involved in developing an intelligent monitoring system
for machining. Then, the different sensors applied in
machining monitoring systems are reviewed, with spe-
cial attention to their use in both single and sensor-
fusion systems in the literature and their advantages
and drawbacks. Signal processing concepts allowing the
signal to be acquired correctly are then examined, and a
sensory-feature generation module is also presented to
describe the signal while taking into account most of the
sensory features presented in the literature. In the next
step, the paper outlines the possible methods that can
be employed to select or extract the most meaningful
features which will be used for modelling the machining
process. Then, the common design of experiments car-
ried out in the literature to acquire data for modelling
purposes is reviewed, and a generic methodology to
conduct the experimentation with a minimal number
of runs is described. Finally, the last section discusses
the AI techniques applied in machining monitoring
systems and their advantages and drawbacks as regards
facilitating their selection according to the monitoring
purpose.
2 Methodology overview
According to the literature, a generic methodology for
developing an intelligent monitoring system for ma-
chining is composed of six key issues:
1. Sensors: Which sensors are to be applied? The cut-
ting process can be characterised by a variety of
physical quantities. Appropriate sensors such as
dynamometers, AE sensors, accelerometers, cur-
rent/power sensors, thermistors, etc., transform a
physical quantity into the corresponding electrical
signals. It is important to take into account the
reliability of each sensor, the cost, its intrusive na-
ture, and its application in order to select the most
appropriate sensor system for a given monitoring
purpose.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
2. Signal processing: How to acquire and process
sensor signals? Signal processing can be more or
less complex, consisting in amplifying and filtering
(with analogical low-pass, band-pass, or high-pass
filters) the signals. Sample frequency limitations of
acquisition boards must be taken into account to
avoid aliasing. In addition, digital signal processing
through digital filters and signal segmentation op-
erations has to be considered to be able to acquire
the part of the signal which is of interest.
3. Feature generation: Which features could describe
the signal adequately? The sensor signal has to be
transformed into features that could describe the
signal adequately. Many different features from
the time domain, frequency domain and wavelet
domain can be used for this purpose.
4. Feature selection/extraction: Which of the gener-
ated features are the most meaningful? In order to
develop robust and reliable models for monitoring,
it is necessary to use the most meaningful features
which best describe the machining process. Feature
selection and feature extraction are two methods
which allow the most useful sensory features to be
defined.
5. Process knowledge model
(a) Design of experiments: Which design of ex-
periments is required to model the process
accurately enough? Experimental runs in ma-
chining for modelling purposes are both eco-
nomically costly and time-consuming, so an
effective design of experiments is mandatory
to enable monitoring systems to be applied in
industry.
(b) AI technique: Which AI technique has to
be applied to model the process? Monitor-
ing systems require reliable models which are
able to learn complex non-linear relation-
ships between process performance variables
and process variables in machining. An ad-
equate selection of the AI technique is cru-
cial to develop reliable machining models.
This selection depends mainly on the num-
ber of experimental samples, the stochastic
nature of the process, the desired model ac-
curacy, the explicit or implicit nature of the
model and the previous knowledge of the
process.
Figure 1 shows the generic methodology to de-
velop an intelligent monitoring system for machining
processes.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257 239

WORKPIECE
TOOL

Physical
quantities

Sensors
-Dynamometer
-Accelerometer
-Acoustic Emission Which sensors are
-Current sensor to be applied?
-Others

Signals

Signal Processing
-Amplification
-Conditioning
-Analogical filtering How to acquire
-Digital filtering and process
-Segmentation sensor signals?
Amplified and
filtered Signals

Feature generation
-Time Domain: RMS,Average,…
-Frequency domain: Single harmonic, PDS,… Which features
could describe
-Wavelet domain: Wavelets,...
the signal?
Features
Generated
Which design of
experiments is
required to model the
process accurately
Design of Exp. AI technique Feature selection/
-Experimental limitations -Experimental limitations
enough?
-Model knowledge
extraction
-Model knowledge
Which artificial -DoE designs (full factorial, -AI techniques (ANN,Fuzzy,Neuro- -Variable ranking Which are the
intelligence technique fractional, Taguchi’s array, fuzzy,Bayesian,HMM, etc..): -Subset features selection most meaningful
has to be applied to Surface Response Surface) advantages and drawbacks -PCA features?
model the process?
DoE and AI Features
Selected Selected/extracted

Process Knowledge Model

Diagnosis / Prediction /
Prognostics

Fig. 1 Generic methodology to develop intelligent monitoring system for machining processes

3 Selection of the sensor system
Integration of sensors for process monitoring and con-
trol has become a technology which is expected to have
a major impact on manufacturing in the coming years
[2]. There are two different methods for monitoring the
machining process in order to predict part accuracy and
diagnose cutting-tool state: direct and indirect methods.
Direct methods consist of laser, optical, and ultra-sonic
sensors which provide a direct measurement [12, 13].
These methods are still very expensive and difficult
to apply in the machining process environment [3]. In
contrast, indirect methods are more economical sys-
tems for monitoring machining processes and are based
on sensors which infer the machining state by sensing
cutting forces, vibrations, temperatures, current con-
sumption, etc. Basically, four sensors have been widely
applied to monitor machining systems: dynamome-
ters, accelerometers, AE sensors and current sensors.
Figure 2, adapted from [3], shows the relative frequency
of usage of these sensors in machining monitoring
systems. The sub-sections that follow review their use
240
100
100
Relative Frequency of usage
90
80
70
60 51
50 35
40
30 21
20
10
0
Dynamometer Accelerometer Acoustic Current sensor
Emission sensor
Fig. 2 Frequency of sensor usage related to machining monitor-
ing systems adapted from [3]
to monitor machining systems, with special attention
paid to monitoring part accuracy (surface roughness
and geometric quality) and cutting-tool condition (tool
wear and tool breakage).
3.1 Dynamometers
In the world of machining, cutting force is considered to
be the variable that best describes the cutting process
[14]. The information gleaned from the force pattern
can be used to evaluate the quality and geometric
profile of the cutting surface [15]. Hence, cutting-force
monitoring is frequently used to diagnose/predict both
tool condition [5, 16–18] and part accuracy [7, 8, 19, 20].
Tool wear can be easily detected as it occurs because
friction forces increase considerably when the cutting
tool edge loses its ability to cut. However, the in-
crease in cutting force due to tool wear is strongly
dependent on other cutting conditions together with
the type of wear, cutting material, work material, etc.
Experimentally, Jemielniak [21] showed that, when the
dominant form of tool wear is flank wear, the increase
in feed force and passive force is higher than when
the dominant form is crater wear. Furthermore, crater
wear changes the cutting-tool geometry, thus varying
the components of the cutting forces [5]. In his review
of the state-of-the-art of monitoring, Liang [1] found
that feed and radial forces are more sensitive to tool
wear than the cutting force. On the other hand, when
a substantial breakage of the insert occurs, there is
an instant increase followed by a drop in the cutting
forces. The magnitude of this decrement is dependent
on a reduction in the cross-section of the uncut chip
due to the partial breakage. Oscillatory responses and
peaks in the pattern of the cutting force pattern are also
commonly used as features to detect overloads and the
danger of tool breakage or damage to the workpiece.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
Cutting forces are also monitored to improve part ac-
curacy. In fact, cutting forces can also be related to sur-
face roughness since phenomena such as un-deformed
chip formation and the built-up edge may be dependent
on cutting forces. Additionally, cutting-tool deflections
due to cutting forces reduce part accuracy in the sense
that there is a deviation of the actual cutting-tool path
29
away from the nominal one. Dynamometers can also be
applied for chatter detection, since chatter frequency
is often much higher than cutting-force frequency. In
Others cases where the bandwidth of dynamometers may not
be able to cover chatter frequencies or where the inertia
of the workpiece and fixtures may significantly reduce
the bandwidth of the measurement, other sensors like
AE sensors may be more effective in chatter detection
[2]. However, the high cost of multi-axis dynamome-
ters, their intrusive nature in production environments,
their lack of overload protection in case of collision and
their limited frequency response make it very difficult
to apply them in industry [21–23].
3.2 Accelerometers
Vibration monitoring is mainly applied for prediction
of surface roughness since surface roughness is the su-
perposition of the feed per tooth mark and the displace-
ments of the cutting-tool due to vibrations apart from
other factors [24, 25]. This fact has been particularly
proved in turning applications [24, 26–28], whereas, in
milling operations, vibrations are less correlated with
surface roughness due to the non-continuous cutting
nature of the process and the runout effects [29]. Di-
rection of the vibration measurements has to be taken
into account for part accuracy prediction since vibra-
tion generates undesired displacements of the cutting
tool. Chen [25] studied the effective sensor location of
the accelerometers in turning operations and reported
that the strongest vibration signal is not necessarily
the most useful for determining surface roughness. In
his experimentation, the Y direction (cutting speed
direction) received fewer vibration signals but it was
found to be the most significant; the Z direction (feed
force direction), on the other hand, received the most
vibrations, but they were less significant.
Vibration monitoring has also been applied in the
diagnosis of cutting-tool wear since vibration ampli-
tude usually varies during machining as a result of the
progressive flank wear. When machining is conducted
with a new cutting tool, the contact between tool and
workpiece is restricted to almost a line of contact. It
therefore offers a small amount of resistance to the
oscillations of the tool and the workpiece and gener-
ates vibrations. However, as flank wear-land progresses
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
with machining time, the larger contact area increases
the amount of workpiece material being deformed elas-
tically, and thus increases the frictional damping and
reduces vibrations. If flank wear exceeds a certain
threshold, the stronger excitation caused by the larger
cutting force becomes dominant, with a consequent
increase in vibration [5]. Dimla [30] reported a correla-
tion between vibration signal features and cutting-tool
wear, and also identified a correlation between high
tool wear and certain resonant peak frequencies.
Vibration signal analysis has also been applied to the
detection of cutting-tool breakage, as this is reflected in
cutting forces and therefore in cutting vibrations. Chen
[23] implemented a real-time method of tool breakage
detection with a four-flute end mill sensing vibration
signals. The same author also reported how the ratio
between the first and second harmonics of the cutting
frequency varies when a cutting insert is broken. After
being validated experimentally, it was then possible to
define a threshold to detect tool breakage. Compared
to other in-process methods, such as those that em-
ploy dynamometers and AE sensors, this system was
reliable, low-cost, and easy to set up, although it was
limited to non-chatter processes.
Although the use of vibration sensors has been suc-
cessfully applied to the monitoring of machining sys-
tems, in fact, there are a number of practical problems
involved in monitoring the vibration level to assess tool
condition or part accuracy [4]:
– The machining speed should remain within a spe-
cific range.
– The amplitude of the signal decreases with an in-
crease in the distance of the sensor from the cutting
edge.
– Mounting the sensor close to the cutting location
increases the variability of the signal.
– Chip formation could strike the accelerometer and
damage it or cause it to misread the vibration.
Furthermore, vibration signals may not be as accu-
rate or reliable as other signals such as dynamometer
or AE signals [4]. For example, Ertekin [5] tested
the robustness of different sensor signal features from
dynamometers, AE sensors and accelerometers using
three different types of material. His results revealed
that dynamometer and AE signal features are more
robust than vibration signals for surface roughness pre-
diction and dimensional accuracy estimation. However,
monitoring systems based on accelerometers have the
advantages of simplicity and low cost.
241
3.3 Acoustic emission sensors
AE is the energy released in the form of mechanical
vibration from a material (tool, workpiece, machine
body) as it undergoes stress. Such stress may be gener-
ated by chip deformation and fracture, friction between
chip, workpiece and tool, tool breakage, flexible defor-
mation of machine structures and thermal reactions of
materials [2]. AE derived from metal cutting consists of
continuous and transient signals, which have distinctly
different characteristics. Continuous signals are asso-
ciated with shearing in the primary zone and wear on
the tool face and flank, while burst or transient signals
result from either tool fracture or chip breakage [31].
Common sources of AE in metal-cutting processes are
[5]: (a) deformation in the shear zone, (b) deformation
and sliding friction at the chip-tool interface, (c) sliding
friction at the tool flank–workpiece interface and (d)
the breaking of chips and their impact on the cutting
tool or workpiece.
The frequency spectrum of AE typically spans the
kilohertz to megahertz range (usually 10 kHz–10 MHz),
and AE sensors usually work in these ranges [2]. The
main advantage of AE is that the frequency range of its
signals is much higher than that of machine vibrations
and environmental noises, and that it is not intrusive in
cutting operations [31]. However, the lack of physical
understanding of the AE signal and its sensitivity to
sensor location and cutting parameters remain difficult
issues that continue to hinder the application of this
technology in machining monitoring systems [1]. Sensi-
tivity to sensor location was studied by Haber [10] and
Lan [11]. Haber proved that an AE sensor attached
in the soft vice jaws was more sensitive than a similar
one attached to the main spindle for cutting-tool wear
diagnosis, whereas Lan found higher sensitivity in the
spindle quill. Therefore, choosing a suitable position
in which to place the AE sensors in order to sense
sufficient AE signals is a necessary but contentious
matter, and it requires an understanding of the AE
transmission path [30]. AE sensors are inexpensive and
easy to install, but they have to be carefully calibrated,
and the range of cutting operations has to be tested
to tune the gain in the buffer amplifier so as to avoid
sensor overload, which greatly distorts the signal [32].
AE signals have been mainly applied to the di-
agnosis of cutting-tool wear [33] and tool breakage
detection [34]. Although some research works have
recommended the use of AE sensors instead of dyna-
mometers for tool-wear diagnosis [35], other researches
argue that the use of AE sensors as an indicator of tool
wear is inappropriate because they are more sensitive
to noise and variations in cutting conditions than to the
242
condition of the tool itself [36], and that they are only
suitable as an additional sensor to increase reliability.
On the other hand, AE sensors are well suited to the
detection of cutting-tool breakage, since a large amount
of AE is generated during tool breakage and fracture
[34]. An interesting review of various issues in AE
monitoring can be found in [31], where AE generation,
classification and signal correction, signal processing
methodologies and tool-wear estimation methods using
AE sensors are all reviewed.
3.4 Current and power sensors
Motor armature current is proportional to the torque
a DC motor produces, which is, in turn, proportional
to the cutting forces. Therefore, current measurement
can be used to sense the machining forces indirectly.
Current sensors are nonlinear sensors which require
compensation or complicated calibration [2]. These
sensors have a limited sensing bandwidth due to the
inertia of the motor rotor, which acts as a low-pass
filter. Therefore, high-frequency components of cutting
force are difficult to observe, and they are suitable only
for detecting slow events or when a fast response is
not essential [22]. On the other hand, power sensors
measure the spindle or axis drive power, which is pro-
portional to current consumption, and its limitations
are basically similar to those of current sensors. Stein
and Wang [37] studied the characteristics of an AC
induction-drive spindle system. By doing so, their aim
was to establish the capability of monitoring spindle
power consumption as a way of providing an indication
of cutting torque and therefore, indirectly, of tool con-
dition. A concern identified by the authors was that the
bandwidth of the spindle motor servo imposes limiting
factors to the combination of spindle speed and number
Table 1 Typical single-sensor machining monitoring systems
Sensor Cost Intrusive nature Signal reliabilitya
Dynamometer
  
Accelerometer
  
AE
  
Current/Power sensor
   Tool breakage detection
Most common applications highlighted in bold
a Signal reliability for machining modelling purposes
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
of cutting edges on the tool. A tool monitoring system
developed by Jones and Wu [38] continually measured
the spindle power consumption. The method required
the execution of a series of preliminary cuts, the results
from which were then used to establish thresholds. The
power consumed during the subsequent cutting process
was then simply compared with the thresholds and a
tool monitoring alarm set if one was exceeded. A major
limitation of this type of system is that the thresholds
will vary greatly as the cutting conditions vary. Even
a mere change in the radial or axial depth of cut
would require the trial cuts to be repeated. Although
these sensors are not as accurate as dynamometers,
they are economical, easy to install (as they require no
significant wiring), and are both good to be applied as
complementary information for diagnosing tool wear
[39] and detecting tool breakage [3, 15, 40, 41].
Table 1 summarises the different sensors applied in
single sensor machining monitoring systems and the
main application of each one. Some references and the
advantages and drawbacks of each sensor in terms of
cost, intrusive nature and reliability are also provided.
3.5 Other sensors
Other sensors for monitoring machining processes are
temperature sensors, optical sensors and ultrasonic sen-
sors, among others. Temperature sensors applied in
machining are thermocouples, thermal resistant ele-
ments, semiconductor elements, thermopiles and other
types of thermal elements [2]. The measurement of the
temperature in the cutting zone can be a good indicator
of the cutting process since the temperature varies as
the tool wears due to changes in the tool geometry and
its ability to cut [42]. Furthermore, cutting temperature
influences chip formation and the generation of surface
Main application References
Tool wear diagnosis [14, 17]
Tool breakage detection [18]
Surface roughness prediction [7, 8, 19]
Dimensional part accuracy prediction [19, 20]
Surface roughness prediction [24, 26–29]
Tool wear diagnosis [30]
Tool breakage detection [34]
Tool wear diagnosis [33]
Tool wear diagnosis [40, 41]
[52]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257 243

roughness [42, 43] and accelerates tool wear, increasing
diffusion and weakening the tool. However, accurate
cutting temperature monitoring is rather complicated,
and it is usually monitored by average temperatures
around the cutting tool with an important loss of infor-
mation. Common optical sensors are based on a beam
of light that is reflected from the machined surface in
the specular direction and whose intensity can be corre-
lated with the surface quality [44]. Other optical sensors
such as machine vision systems are based on a light
source to illuminate the surface and to acquire an image
by a digital system. The digitised data are then used
with a correlation chart to monitor the actual roughness
values [45] or the cutting-tool condition [4]. Optical
techniques present some limitations to their in-process
use since optical measurements can be affected by
the harsh machining environment (cutting fluids, chips,
etc.). Ultrasonic sensors have been applied to provide a
surface profile measurement [46]. The ultrasonic sensor
is positioned with a non-normal incidence angle above
the surface, and the sensor sends out an ultrasonic
pulse to the surface and measures the amplitude of the
returned signal. The data are then correlated with data
from a stylus profilometer, and a model is obtained.
3.6 Sensor fusion concepts
Single signals have been used extensively to monitor
machining processes. However, the sensitivity and the
noise rejection of the sensed signals can change with
cutting conditions such as machining parameters, tool
wear, machine stiffness, workpiece material properties,
etc. Therefore, in order to increase the reliability of
sensor information under varying conditions and to
avoid uncertainty, it is useful to use several sensor
signals instead of just one single sensor signal. Sensor
fusion refers to the use of more than one sensor signal
in a complementary manner to provide a more robust
prediction of one or more machining attributes [2].
Therefore, multiple sensors with non-complementary
measurements define a multi-sensor monitoring system
but not a sensor fusion system, and several features
extracted from a single signal are not considered to
be multi-sensing or sensor fusion [47]. The success of
sensor fusion depends on which types of signals are
good candidates for a given machining outcome and
which extracted features and in which way they must be
complemented [1]. For example, using a dynamometer
and a current sensor cannot be considered a sensor
fusion system since a current sensor provides the same
information as the dynamometer but with less accu-
racy [39]. Cutting forces and vibration measurements
at tooth-pass frequency are also closely related, and
they may not be adequate for sensor fusion, whereas
cutting forces and AE are less correlated and can be
used effectively as complementary information [3, 5].
Sensor fusion systems require algorithms to combine
and fuse the sensor information. In general, two main
approaches are usually applied for sensor fusion [16]:
(1) statistical approaches and (2) AI approaches. Sta-
tistical approaches relate sensor data to machining
process variables through multi-variable regressions,
thus defining a statistical process model. AI approaches
use complex non-linear models such as neural networks
(NN) or Bayesian networks (BN) to relate sensor data
to machining process variables, thus defining an AI

Table 2 Sensor fusion Typical sensor fusion systems

systems applied in machining
processes Sensors Fusion methodology Application References
Current sensor, AE BN Tool wear diagnosis [22]
Current sensor, accelerometer BN Tool wear diagnosis [48]
BN Surface roughness prediction [48]
Accelerometer, AE NN Tool wear diagnosis [49]
Accelerometer, vision system NN Tool wear diagnosis [4]
Dynamometer, AE – Tool breakage detection [53]
NN Tool wear diagnosis [9]
Dynamometer, AE, NN Surface roughness prediction [19]
accelerometer NN Tool wear diagnosis [10, 50]
Dynamometer, accelerometer NN Tool wear diagnosis [16, 51]
NN Surface roughness prediction [54]
NN Prediction of dimensional [54]
part accuracy
Dynamometer, thermistors NN Prediction of dimensional [20]
part accuracy
Dynamometer, accelerometer, NN Tool wear diagnosis [39]
spindle current, voltage sensor,
sound pressure level
244
process model. Interesting research works on sensor
fusion systems based on AI approaches can be found
for different purposes, such as tool wear diagnosis
[4, 9, 10, 16, 22, 39, 48–52], tool breakage detection
[53], surface roughness prediction [19, 48, 54] and pre-
diction of dimensional part accuracy [20, 54]. Table 2
summarises these works, paying special attention to the
sensors applied and the fusion methodology.
4 Signal processing
An appropriate signal processing strategy is manda-
tory before selecting/extracting sensory features due to
the high levels of mechanical, electrical and acoustic
noises in industrial environments [39]. In general, in-
telligent monitoring systems for machining apply the
signal processing scheme shown in Fig. 3. The general
signal processing scheme is made up of five steps:
1. Analogical filtering and signal sampling. The sen-
sor signal is filtered to keep the signal within the
range of the frequency response of the sensor,
suppress high frequency noise or continuous bi-
ases and prevent signal distortion during signal
acquisition due to aliasing. The Nyquist–Shannon
sampling theorem asserts that the uniformly spaced
discrete samples are a complete representation of
the signal if its bandwidth is less than half the
sampling rate. Then, the sufficient condition for
the ability for exact reconstruction from samples
at a uniform sampling rate is fs > 2B, where B is
the signal bandwidth. If the sampling condition is
not satisfied, then frequencies will overlap, that is,
frequencies above half the sampling rate will be
reconstructed and appear as frequencies below half
the sampling rate. The resulting distortion is called
aliasing. The reconstructed signal is said to be an
alias of the original signal, in the sense that it has
the same set of sample values. In order to prevent
Step 1: Analogical filtering Step 5: Feature selection/extraction
-Frequency sensor response
-Sample frequency (anti-aliasing)
-Amplification and conditioning
SIGNAL
PROCESSING
SCHEME
Step 2: Digital filtering
-Frequency range of interest
Step 3: Segmentation
-Signal range of interest
-Only time domain analysis
Fig. 3 Generic signal processing scheme
2.
3.
4.
-Feature selection: Variable ranking,
forward/backward elimination, GA
-Feature extraction: PCA
Step 4: Feature generation
-Time domain: RMS, peak, mean, etc..
-Frequency domain: harmonics, PSD, etc..
-Wavelet domain: wavelets, etc..
5.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
or reduce aliasing, sampling rate can be increased
or an anti-aliasing filter may be applied to restrict
the bandwidth of the signal.
Digital filtering. After sampling and with the signal
in a digital format, digital filtering is performed to
keep the sensor information which best correlates
with the performance process variable of interest.
For example, this may involve filtering the cutting-
force signal so as to be able to study only the sig-
nals at the tooth-pass frequency, which are closely
related to the cutting-tool wear and cutting mecha-
nism [10]. In many applications, it can also be inter-
esting to filter the acquired signal in order to pre-
vent high frequency noises and signal oscillations
due to transient mechanical events, like breaking
of a built-up edge, local variation in hardness over
the workpiece, etc. Ghosh [39] tested an important
improvement in the tool-wear estimation model
using a third-order Butterworth low-pass filter on
the acquired cutting-force signals. Jemielniak [21]
also applied a digital filtering process on the cutting
forces in order to improve the reliability of the tool-
wear diagnosis model.
Signal segmentation. As a third step, an optional
signal segmentation may be performed to extract
the signal information when the cutting-tool is actu-
ally removing metal in a steady state, since only this
part of the signal contains information about tool-
wear condition and surface roughness generation.
However, this segmentation prevents the resulting
signal from being analysed in the frequency and
wavelet domain. Segmentation is thus limited to a
posterior analysis in the time domain such as peak
value, root mean square, mean value, etc. Some
considerations should be taken into account during
segmentation. For example, as pointed out by Dong
[14], it is preferable to analyse the signal within
one spindle rotation instead of one tooth period, in
order to reduce the influence of runout. Figure 4
shows an example of a signal segmentation applied
in [39].
Feature generation. The fourth step consists of a
feature generation module, which transforms the
digital signal into several signal features called
descriptors or features. Different methods have
been applied for feature generation in the time,
frequency and wavelet domains. Section 5 briefly
describes this step.
Feature selection/extraction. After generating the
features, one can obtain many different descriptors
from different sensor signals, and so, a feature
selection or extraction procedure is required. The
selected or extracted features should be the most
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
Force (N)
No of samples
Force (N)
Force (N)
No of samples x 104 No of samples
Fig. 4 Example of a segmentation signal process adapted from
[39]. Segmentation performed every tooth period
relevant descriptors, which may lead to simpler
prediction models and more reliable monitoring
systems. In general, most of the research studies
published in machining monitoring systems usu-
ally present a direct feature selection, mainly in-
volving root mean squares features [32, 39, 55],
mean values [10, 32, 50] or harmonic signal values
[9, 16, 27]. However, a complete methodology to
design monitoring systems requires a feature selec-
tion/extraction algorithm in order to use the most
relevant features [14]. Section 6 briefly reviews sev-
eral methods designed for this purpose.
5 Sensor signal features generation
The subsections that follow briefly describe the most
usual descriptors applied in monitoring machining sys-
tems according to the sensor system used.
5.1 Descriptors for cutting-force signals
Average and root mean square (RMS) values of cutting
forces are simple and effective features that have been
tested in the past for both tool wear and part accuracy
monitoring systems [5, 10, 39, 50]. Force ratios can
also be used to predict tool wear since they present a
certain pattern as the tool wears. For instance, the feed-
force to cutting-force ratio was found to be sensitive
to flank wear in [56]. Dontamsetti and Fischer [57]
reported that RMS values of the vertical component
of the cutting force (Fz ) remain fairly constant dur-
ing milling, and therefore, the RMS values of cutting-
force components in the X and Y directions (Fx , F y )
or a ratio of both components is a better descrip-
245
tor for modelling machining processes. Benardos [8]
also reported similar conclusions, and it was confirmed
experimentally that the X components of cutting forces
were the most significant descriptors for surface rough-
ness modelling. Haber [10] reported that the best per-
formance for tool-condition monitoring was obtained
experimentally through the mean and peak descriptors
from cutting-force and vibration signals. Ertekin [5]
analysed average and RMS values of cutting forces in
the X and Y directions and discarded average values
due to their being meaningless for tool-wear diagnosis.
Furthermore, RMS values were shown to be closely
related to the wear process. In his research, he proved
that the increase in F y was mostly due to the flank wear
of the tool, whereas the decrease in Fx was mainly due
to built-up edge generation and crater wear on the rake
face of the tool.
Power spectral amplitudes at the cutter-tooth fre-
quency of cutting-force signals were found to be very
sensitive to progressive tool wear, and in [5, 10], they
were recommended as suitable sensory features for
monitoring progressive tool wear. Dong [14] presented
an extensive study of several features for monitoring
the cutting-tool condition based on cutting forces. All
the features examined had been applied previously in
several research studies, in both the time (average,
RMS, skew, kurtosis, standard deviation, peak, ratios)
and the frequency domains (total harmonic power).
5.2 Descriptors for vibration signals
An increase in cutting energy generated due to flank
wear should give rise to an increase in vibration mag-
nitude, which can be detected by the RMS or the
mean of the signal [4, 29]. Haber [10] applied both
mean and peak values of vibration signals for tool-
condition monitoring. Dimla [30] analysed the corre-
lation of vibration signal features to cutting-tool wear
in both the time and the frequency domains during
turning operations. Time domain features were deemed
to be more sensitive to the cutting condition than tool
wear, whereas certain peak values in the frequency
domain correlated well with the measured wear val-
ues. Abouelatta [27] studied the influence of single
harmonics and the power spectral density (PSD) for
surface roughness prediction, and several empirical
models based on multivariate regression were devel-
oped. Chen [23] applied three sensor-signal features
to model tool condition, namely: the average, vari-
ance and single harmonic from vibration signals. Other
features resulting from sensory feature combinations
(summation, product, division, etc.) were also applied
for tool-wear modelling. Ertekin [5] analysed the RMS
246 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257

of X and Y vibrations and their single harmonics. Al-
Habaibeh [49] analysed both workpiece and spindle
vibrations in the X, Y and Z directions using different
features such as wavelet analysis, average value, stan-
dard deviation, power value, kurtosis value, harmon-
ics frequency and skew value. Kuo [50] analysed five
harmonic values of vibration signals in the frequency
domain and the signal average in the time domain.
5.3 Descriptors for acoustic emission signals
The majority of AE monitoring applications have relied
on the RMS value of AE signals [31]. Strong correla-
tion of the AE RMS to tool wear was presented by
Moriwaki and Tobito [58], where features such as mean
variance and the coefficient of RMS were related to
tool wear. Several features of AE signals were stud-
ied in [32] for tool-wear monitoring, including average
signal value; the standard deviation of the absolute
value of the raw signal; the power of the AE signal in
specific frequency ranges and over its entire spectrum;
the average value and the standard deviation of the
RMS signal; the burst rate, which is the number of
times the RMS signal exceeds pre-set thresholds per
second; the burst width, which is the percentage of time
it remains above each threshold and the pulse rate,
which is equivalent to the burst rate but is applied to
the raw signal. Of all these features, the ones that were
most correlated with tool wear were the average of the
RMS signal, the power of the signal in a specific high
frequency range, the average of the signal value, the
burst rate and the pulse rate. As all of them except the
burst rate were highly correlated, just one of them was
enough to describe tool wear.

Table 3 Significant descriptors applied for modelling machining operations

Signal Ref. Time domain Frequency domain Wavelet domain
Rms Peak Mean Std Skew Kurt. Var. AR TDA H ratios Single H PSD RMS Peak
Cutting [39] 
forces [10]   
[14]       
[16]  
[7] 
[5]  
[9] 
[49]      
[50]  
[8] 
Vibrations [10]   
[4] 
[27]  
[16]   
[23] 
[30]  
[5]  
[29] 
[49]      
[50]  
Current [39] 
power [34] 
[41] 
[40] 
[55] 
Acoustic [5] 
emission [10]   
[9]   
[49]      
[50]  
[58] 
[32]    
[36]  
[60] 
[34] 
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
Table 4 Common descriptors and equations
Descriptor Equation
N
j=1 x j
Average x̄ = N RMS
N
j=1 (x j − x̄)
2
Variance N−1
1 N
i=1 (xi −x̄)3
Skewness 1
N
N
(N i=1 (xi − x̄)
2 )3/2
Peak max(xi ), i = 1, . . . , N
Single harmonic FFT analysis: fi ith harmonic
Time-domain averaging “See [41]”
xi , i =, 1, . . . , N sampled sensor data, p regressors
Haber [10] reported in his research that the mean
and peak values of neither of the AE signals revealed a
clear transition from a new to a worn tool. Ravindra
et al. [36] used a time series modelling technique to
extract parameters from AE signals acquired during
turning. Autoregressive (AR) parameters and power
density were taken as features for successfully mon-
itoring the tool wear condition. Kamarthi et al. [59]
dealt with the representational and analysis issues of
AE signals in turning processes. The effectiveness of
the wavelet representation of AE signals was studied
in the context of the flank-wear estimation problem in
turning processes. Accurate flank-wear estimation indi-
cated that the wavelet transform representation of AE
signals was very effective in extracting the AE features
that were sensitive to gradually increasing flank wear.
Li [60] applied a wavelet transform to decompose AE
signals into different frequency bands in the time do-
main. The RMS values extracted from the decomposed
signal for each frequency band were used as monitoring
features for tool wear. Li extended his work in [34],
where the wavelet domain was analysed in both AE
and spindle current signals for tool breakage detection.
Tool breakage detection was defined by comparing
the signal wavelet coefficients with wavelet coefficient
thresholds.
5.4 Descriptors for current or power signals
Current and power signals have been analysed mainly
in the time domain due to their limited sensing band-
width. Ghosh et al. [39] only selected the simplest
features in the time domain to ensure feasibility of
real-time implementation. Features such as peak val-
ues, standard deviation, mean and RMS values were
analysed for tool-wear estimation in milling. Kim [55]
developed an in-process tool-fracture monitoring sys-
tem based on the spindle current signal. The dynamic
cutting-force variation in a face milling process was
247
Descriptor Equation
 
n
1
n
2
i=1 xi

1 N
Standard deviation N−1 i=1 (xi − x̄)2
1  N
i=1 (xi − x̄)
4
Kurtosis N
1 N −3
(N i=1 (x i − x̄) 2 )2
AR models a1 xi−1 + · · · + a p xi− p , i = p + 1, . . . , N
fi
Harmonic ratio fj i = j, i, j = 1, . . . , n harmonics
Wavelet “See [34]”
measured indirectly using a spindle motor current sen-
sor. The cutting force was correctly represented by
the spindle current RMS value in rough face milling
operations and the tool fracture was well distinguished
from cutter run-out and transient cutting. Li [41] also
presented a system for detecting tool flute breakage
in end milling using feed-motor current signatures.
Li applied the time-domain averaging (TDA) method
to decompose the compound repeated current signal
into a periodic signal and a residual component. It
was found that the amplitude of the residual compo-
nent fluctuates severely when flute breakage occurs.
Therefore, the mean of the residual components of the
feed-motor current was used as a feature of tool flute
breakage detection. Lee [40] monitored the AC motor
currents of the feed-drive system and applied a first-
order AR model, which provided a good indication
of tool breakage using an analysis of the difference
between the predicted and the actual motor currents.
The wavelet domain has also been analysed in current
signals for tool-breakage detection. Li [34] developed
a tool breakage monitoring system using both AE and
current signals in the wavelet domain. Tool break-
age detection was performed by comparing the signal
wavelet coefficients with wavelet coefficient thresholds.
5.5 Summary of descriptors
Table 3 summarises the relevant descriptors applied in
different machining monitoring systems. The equations
of some of these descriptors are also shown in Table 4.
6 Feature selection/extraction
The large number of sensor features reported in the
literature for modelling and monitoring machining sys-
tems makes it necessary to find out which feature com-
binations are the most significant and reliable for a
248
specific monitoring purpose. Intuitively, it is difficult
to estimate which features are more sensitive to part-
accuracy prediction or tool-wear diagnosis, as the effec-
tiveness of the features is affected by various factors,
such us machine-tool characteristics, material proper-
ties, lubrication, workholding, location of the sensors,
signal-to-noise ratios of the data acquisition system, etc.
Therefore, a systematic approach to reducing the num-
ber of features to be used provides valuable guidance
for the successful development of reliable and robust
machining monitoring systems.
There are two methods for feature reduction: feature
selection and feature extraction. The goal of feature
selection methodologies is to find k of the d features
that give the most information and to discard the other
(d − k) features. On the other hand, feature extraction
methodologies try to find a new set of k features that
are a combination of the original d features. Figure 5
shows an example of feature selection/extraction pro-
cedures. In general, the benefits of applying a feature
selection/extraction methodology to develop monitor-
ing systems can be defined as follows [61]:
– Reduced feature inputs tend to yield easier process
knowledge models by means of less complex learn-
ing algorithms.
– Simpler models are more robust on small datasets.
– Simpler models have less variance; in other words,
they vary less depending on the particulars of a
sample, including noise, outliers, and so forth.
– When data can be explained with fewer features,
one gets a better idea about the process that under-
lies the data, which allows knowledge extraction.
– When data can be represented in a few dimensions
without loss of information, they can be plotted
and analysed visually to determine structure and
outliers.
Fig. 5 Example of feature
selection/extraction. Feature Descriptors
selection only selects a
subgroup of the initial
features, whereas feature
extraction transforms a group
of features into another one
through a linear combination X=
H ratios
Single H
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
6.1 Feature selection
Feature selection algorithms typically fall into two cat-
egories: feature ranking and subset selection. Feature
ranking uses a metric to rank the features and elimi-
nates all features that do not achieve an adequate score.
The advantages of this algorithm are its simplicity,
scalability, and high degree of empirical success [6].
Computationally, it is efficient since it requires only
the computation of n scores, where n is the number
of features. Typically, sensor feature selection has been
conducted through a correlation index ranking, in order
to use the features that are most correlated with the
variable of interest. The application of this method can
be found in [49, 62].
On the other hand, subset selection searches the
set of possible features for the optimal subset. The
common approaches applied for subset selection are
forward selection, backward elimination and genetic
algorithms. In forward selection, the algorithm starts
with no variables and adds them one by one, at each
step adding the one that decreases the prediction error
of the model the most until further addition does not
decrease the error (or decreases it only slightly). In
backward elimination, it starts with all the variables
and removes them one by one, at each step removing
the one that increases the error only slightly, until
any further removal increases the error significantly. In
either case, the error should be checked on a validation
set other than the training set in order to test the
generalisation accuracy. With more features, there is
generally a lower training error, but not necessarily
a lower validation error. Research works that have
applied forward or backward algorithms can be found
in [5, 7]. Genetic algorithms (GA) have also been used
as a search algorithm to select the best feature subset.
Due to the high computational cost, GA becomes a
Feature Selection (Ranking or Subset)
Peak
Skew
RMS
RMS
Mean Kurt.
Peak Var.
Xsignificant = Std Xnon-significant =
Mean AR
H ratios
Std TDA
Single H
Skew PSD
Kurt. ...
Var.
AR Feature Extraction (PCA)
TDA
PSD New Descriptor =
... a x RMS + b x Mean
RMS
Mean
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
reasonably efficient method of feature selection when
there is a high dimensional feature space [63]. Other
approaches have been applied to feature selection but
without a theoretical base to prove its effectiveness.
For example, Azouzi [19] applied orthogonal arrays
from Taguchi’s design of experiments to test different
sensor feature combinations for surface-roughness and
part-accuracy prediction. In these orthogonal arrays,
different NN structures, sensory features and cutting
parameters were considered in order to select the op-
timal combination of these factors for modelling pur-
poses. Although this methodology chooses the best
factor combination, it is not clear whether the selected
subset of sensor features is the best or not, since not
all interactions between sensor features are included in
the orthogonal array. Kuo [50] studied the use of force,
vibration and AE sensors independently, and trained
different NN models to diagnose tool wear with fixed
sensor features in the time domain and the frequency
domain. The performance of the NN model was used
to select the sensor candidates and the domain to be
used (time, frequency or both). This methodology can
be seen as a kind of variable ranking, and its main draw-
back is that the interactions between sensor features,
which might provide better NN model performance, are
not studied. The feature selection approach offers some
advantages with respect to feature extraction [64]: (1)
after a set of features has been selected, non-selected
features will no longer be used; (2) to collect new data,
only collection of the selected features is necessary,
which may reduce computational costs and (3) the
physical meaning of each selected feature is retained.
6.2 Feature extraction
Compared with the feature selection approach, the
feature extraction approach has a higher degree of
freedom in finding the set of the most significant fea-
tures [64]. The objective of feature extraction is to
preserve as much of the relevant information as pos-
sible by removing redundant or irrelevant information
in acquired sensory signals. The main feature extrac-
tion technique is principal component analysis (PCA),
which has been widely used in system identification
and dimensionality reduction in dynamic systems. It is
also an efficient approach for extracting features from
sensory signals acquired from multiple sensors [65].
In general, multiple sensory signals can be viewed as
a high-dimensional multivariate random matrix com-
posed of several vectors formed by different sensory
signals. It is not feasible to input the above-mentioned
matrix to the prediction model without any feature ex-
traction or dimensionality reduction procedure because
249
of the curse of dimensionality and the high degree of
correlation between vectors. By implementing PCA,
the complexity of modelling processes can be reduced
and new feature vectors can be reconstructed. PCA
transforms a number of correlated sensory features into
new uncorrelated features (or principal components),
thus reducing the complexity of modelling processes.
In general, the multiple sensory signals S P×N may be
represented as a matrix with N samples acquired from
P sensors. In order to remove irrelevant or redundant
information from acquired signals, an orthogonal linear
transformation is introduced to convert the original
matrix S into a new space denoted by aT S, where
a = (a1 , a2 , · · · , a p )T . To preserve the greater part of
the variation in data set S, the orthogonal vector a is
chosen to maximise the variance of the projections aT S,
estimated by Var(aT S) = aT  S a, where  S is the co-
variance matrix of S. Hence, the optimisation problem
outlined above is defined as maximising aT  S a with re-
spect to the constraint aT a = 1. The optimisation prob-
lem can be solved by using Lagrange multipliers, and
the corresponding Lagrange function is constructed as
L(a, λ) = aT  S a − λ(aT a − 1), (1)
where λ is the Lagrange multiplier. The solution of
this problem derives into a typical eigenvector problem,
where a is the eigenvector of the symmetrical matrix
S with corresponding eigenvalue λ. These eigenvectors
refer to the principal components and represent the
directions of greatest variance in the multiple sensory
signals. In practice, some eigenvalues make little con-
tribution to variance and may be discarded. The leading
k components that better explain the variance, up to a
certain percentage, can then be taken into account [61].
When λi are sorted in descending order, the proportion
of variance explained (%VE) by the k principal compo-
nents is
λ1 + λ2 + · · · + λk
%VE = (2)
λ1 + λ2 + · · · + λk + · · · + λ p
If the dimensions are highly correlated, there will be a
small number of eigenvectors with large eigenvalues, k
will be much smaller than p and a large reduction in
dimensionality may be attained. If the dimensions are
not correlated, k will be as large as p and there is no
gain through PCA. If the variances of the original sen-
sor features vary considerably, they affect the direction
of the principal components more than the correlations,
and so a common normalisation procedure for pre-
processing the data is required before using PCA. The
features transformed by the principal components are
applied directly to model the process, with an impor-
250
Table 5 Several research Ref. Modelling technique
works on monitoring
machining systems with
feature selection/extraction [5] Multiple regression
[62] Multiple regression
[49] NN
[7] Multiple regression
[19] NN
Ra surface roughness,
Dim dimensional deviation [65] Support vector machines
tant reduction in dimensionality that may improve the
robustness and reliability of the monitoring system.
However, the new features do not provide a physical
explanation of the system. Table 5 shows several re-
search works on monitoring machining systems where
feature selection/extraction methods were applied.
7 Design of experiments
While machining experimentation is costly and time-
consuming, it is important to carry out effective ex-
periments with few runs in order to find out the most
relevant factors for a certain machining performance
variable. In the past, various methods have been used to
quantify the impact of machining parameters (cutting
speed, depth of cut, feed, etc.) and process variables (vi-
brations, tool wear, temperatures, etc.) on part quality
and cutting-tool state. All these methods include some
kind of design of experiments (DoE) that quantifies
the effects of a finite number of parameters through
a systematic methodology. In general, four methodolo-
gies are applied in DoE: full factorial designs, fractional
factorial designs, Taguchi’s orthogonal arrays, and re-
sponse surface designs.
A DoE with every possible combination of all the
input factors is called a full factorial design. A common
full factorial design is one with all input factors set at
two levels each, which define a cube in k dimensions,
where k is the number of factors being studied. This
two-level full factorial design requires 2k experimental
runs and makes it possible to know all the main effects
and factor interactions. However, as the number of fac-
tors increases, the number of runs required also grows
rapidly, and this is unfeasible from a time and resource
point of view. In order to minimise experimentation, a
fractional factorial experiment can be conducted.
A fractional factorial design is a variation of the basic
full factorial design in which only a subset of the runs is
performed. These designs collect data from a specific
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
Feature selection/ Monitoring Features selected/
extraction technique application extracted
Forward elimination Ra and Dim RMS forces
and AE signals
Variable ranking Ra Average vibration
Variable ranking Tool wear Features from AE
and vibrations
Forward/backward elim. Ra Average forces
Orthogonal arrays Ra and Dim Feed and radial
average forces
PCA Tool wear Average forces
subset of all possible vertices of the cube and require
2k−q runs, where q is chosen according to the de-
sired design resolution. Fractional factorial designs can
determine which factors and their combinations have
significant effects on the response variable; however,
they deal with confounding terms [66]. Confounding
occurs when only the summation of several effects can
be estimated, not the effects separately. Which effects
are confounded is defined by the experimental design
resolution. Resolution III designs confound the main
effects with two-factor interactions. Resolution IV de-
signs confound no main effects with two-factor interac-
tions, but two-factor interactions are aliased with each
other. For resolution V designs, no main effect or two-
factor interaction is aliased with any other main effect
or two-factor interaction, but two-factor interactions
are aliased with three-factor interactions.
Taguchi’s orthogonal arrays are similar to fractional
factorial designs, but they apply new concepts to pa-
rameter design and tolerance design [67]. In Taguchi’s
arrays, the factors are divided in two groups: control
factors whose levels may be controlled in both the labo-
ratory and in actual production and error factors whose
levels may be controlled in the laboratory but not in
production. A Taguchi’s array can be used to determine
which levels of the control factors have little impact on
the performance variable. On the other hand, Taguchi’s
arrays can also be applied to determine, based on a loss
or cost function, which variables have critical tolerances
that need to be tightened for better performance.
The previous DoE methods are basically procedures
to determine the significance of each factor in a sys-
tem, and they do not formulate any kind of model. A
response surface design is another DoE method which
investigates how important factors affect the response
of an experiment. It also leads to the development of
first- and second-order polynomial models that include
the parameters under consideration and their statistical
significance.
Table 6 shows some research works where a DoE
was conducted for modelling the machining process.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257 251

Table 6 Designs of Reference Factors and levels per factor DoE Purpose
experiments conducted in the
literature for modelling [68] s: 4, f : 8, d: 3 Full factorial Ra prediction in end milling
purposes [29] s: 4, f : 4, d: 3 Full factorial Ra prediction in end milling
[62] s: 3, f : 6, d: 2 Full factorial Ra prediction in turning
[54] Vc : 2, f : 2, d: 2, Co: 2, Le: 2 Full factorial Ra prediction in turning
Dimensional deviation in turning
[69] s: 3, f : 3, W: 2 Full factorial Tool wear diagnosis in face milling
s spindle speed, f feed speed, [8] Vc : 3, f : 3, d: 3, W: 2, Co: 2, En: 2 Taguchi’s array Ra prediction in face milling
d depth of cut, r nose radius, [70] s: 3, f : 3, d: 3, W: uncontrolled, Taguchi’s array Ra prediction in end milling
Co coolant, W wear,
Te: uncontrolled
Le length, En engagement,
[71] s: 3, f : 3, d: 3, r: 3 Response surface Ra prediction in turning
Te temperature, Ra surface
roughness modelling

The table shows research works based on full facto-
rial designs [29, 54, 62, 68, 69], Taguchi’s orthogonal
arrays [8, 70] and response surface designs [71].
7.1 A generic methodology for DoE in machining
monitoring systems
According to the literature review, a generic DoE
orthogonal design of k − n factors is carried
out. The Taguchi’s design is selected accord-
ing to the expected effects of each significant
variable with respect to the variable of interest.
DoE for k factors

STEP 1
methodology for developing machining monitoring sys- Screening:
Fractional factorial design
tems can be proposed in order to minimise the exper- 2k-pIV
imental efforts and increase the effectiveness of DoE

STEP 2
Normal Probability Effects Plot:
methods. The methodology is presented in Fig. 6, and it n factors are non-significative

is divided into six steps as follows:

Are highly
– Step 1: First, the k factors that may affect the per- NO probably the
quadratic effects?
formance variable of interest that is to be modelled.
NO
With these factors, a screening DoE is performed YES

STEP 3
Is n > p?
to discard those factors which do not affect the
variable of interest. The screening design is a 2k− p YES
k-p k-n
k− p Projection to 2 Projection to 2 Taguchi’s orthogonal design
fractional factorial design of resolution IV (2IV ), H IV or V
H
Full factorial k-n factors

where k is the number of factors to be analysed and

p is defined in order to get a IV resolution [66]. Add center points
This screening experiment allows the information
about all the main effects to be captured, whereas

STEP 4
YES
two-factor interactions are aliased with each other. Lack of fit?
As one can consider the sparsity-of-effects principle
Add axial points
in machining operations, the system will usually NO Central Composite Design

be dominated by the main effects and low-order

interactions. Three-factor interactions or higher are Training an AI model
STEP 5

(75% experimental data)

usually negligible.
– Step 2: After conducting the screening experiment, Validating the AI model
normal probability plots are drawn to assess the (25% experimental data)

significance of the main effects, the n variables

YES
which are not relevant in the next experiments Is the AI model Successful AI
accurate enough? model
being discarded.
STEP 6

– Step 3: After identifying the significant variables, NO

two paths can be followed according to the previous Add experimental

replicates
knowledge of the process.
– (a) If the presence of quadratic or higher ef- Fig. 6 Generic methodology for DoE in machining monitoring
fects is assumed in the process, a Taguchi’s systems
252
Therefore, if a factor is expected to have a
quadratic effect on the variable of interest, at
least three levels should be considered in the
Taguchi’s design for this factor. To select the
most adequate orthogonal array, it is necessary
to count the degrees of freedom (DOFs) of the
factors included in the study [67]. The Taguchi’s
array must equal or exceed the DOFs required
by the experiment. The DOFs are defined as:
• DOF of a factor: (number of levels of the
factor)-1
• DOF of a column in a Taguchi’s array:
(number of levels in the column)-1
• DOF of an array: total DOFs of all columns
in the array
• DOF of an experiment: (total number of
ex-periments)-1
As an example, consider a system where four
two-level factors and one four-level factor are
analysed. This system requires a Taguchi’s ar-
ray with seven or more DOFs, since four two-
level factors have four DOFs, one DOF per
two-level factor, and a four-level factor has
three DOFs. An L-8 array is a Taguchi’s array
with seven columns where each column is used
for two-level factors. Therefore, an L-8 array
has seven DOFs and can be used to analyse the
system with four two-level factors and one four-
level factor.
Once the array has been selected, the factors
and interactions are assigned to the columns of
the orthogonal design. The assignment should
take into consideration which factors and in-
teractions are interesting to analyse, and which
ones can be confounded. Which columns rep-
resent each factor and interaction and which
interactions or factors are confounded is given
by the linear graphs of each Taguchi’s array. If
it is not possible to assign all the desired factors
and interactions without confounding, then the
experimentation requires more DOFs and a
higher orthogonal array should be selected.
– (b) If the presence of cubic or higher effects
is negligible, the previous screening DoE is
k− p
projected from the initial 2IV to a full factorial
k− p
2k−n or a fractional 2 H with H = IV or V
depending on the initial number of insignificant
factors.
– Step 4: If, in the previous step, the DoE to be
conducted is the projection of the initial screening
design, additional experimental runs in the centre
points of the design have to be added in order
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
to ensure that quadratic or higher effects are not
significant. If the central points that are added do
not report a lack of fit, the DoE conducted would
be appropriate. If this is not the case, axial points
on the DoE have to be added, so that the final
DoE would be equal to a central composite design
(CCD). By conducting the runs for the CCD, the
quadratic effects can be evaluated.
– Step 5: After conducting the final DoE (Taguchi’s
array, fractional factorial design or CCD) with at
least three replicates for each experiment, the train-
ing of the AI model is conducted according to
the AI technique selected. For this purpose, the
experimental data are divided into two sets: the
training set with 75% of the experimental data and
the validating set with the other 25%, care being
taken to ensure that at least one replication of each
experimental run is included within the validating
data set. During training, the trained model may
inform the user about the possible presence of
spurious data that might be caused by errors in
data collection. In order to discard such spurious
data and to conduct a new replicate, normality tests
should be applied.
– Step 6: The trained AI model is validated with the
validating data and the model error is analysed. If
the accuracy of the model is sufficient, the AI model
to be used for monitoring purposes has been learnt.
Otherwise, additional experimental replications are
needed to increase the training data set and the
accuracy of the AI model.
8 Selection of AI techniques
Conducting a correct DoE may make it possible to
fit a regression model relatively well using cutting pa-
rameters as regressors. However, the use of indirect
measurements such as cutting forces, vibrations or AE
measurements can provide additional information
which can be used in a more complex and accurate
model. In this context, several AI techniques have been
widely used in the past for surface roughness prediction
and the diagnosis of tool wear. The main AI tech-
niques applied for modelling and monitoring machining
systems are artificial neural networks (ANN) [39, 54,
72], expert systems called fuzzy logic systems [26] and
the AI technique that results from the hybridisation
of these two techniques, called neuro-fuzzy inference
systems [73, 74]. Other AI approaches such as BN
[22, 48], hidden Markov models [69, 75], evolutionary
algorithms [76, 77] or support vector machines [78]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
4%
12%
ANN ( 59%)
10%
Fuzzy (15%)
15% 59% Neuro−fuzzy (10%)
Bayesian Networks (4%)
Others (12%)
Fig. 7 Frequency of usage of AI approaches in intelligent ma-
chining systems according to the references found in the research
platform ISI-Web of knowledge from 2002 to 2007
have been less widely used, although they are gaining
popularity in recent works. Figure 7 shows the AI
approaches applied in machining monitoring systems
according to the references found in the research plat-
form ISI-Web of knowledge from 2002 to 2007.
8.1 AI recommended applications
Although AI techniques can be successfully applied to
monitoring machining systems, a specific AI technique
may be recommended according to the monitoring
purpose, the experimental data set for modelling the
process, the previous knowledge of the process and
so forth. Hence, a general set of guidelines to select
the most appropriate AI technique according to its
advantages and drawbacks is proposed as follows:
– ANN: applications where the purpose is not to
extract knowledge, and there is no previous knowl-
edge of the process (or if there is previous knowl-
edge, this knowledge is not intended to be added to
the model). Applications where high-accuracy pre-
diction is required. Applications where there is no
extrapolation and a good generalisation is required.
Applications where the experimental data set is
composed of a medium/high number of samples,
since the data set is usually divided for training,
testing and validating. Applications where only pre-
diction or diagnosis is required and the inverse
problem, such as the selection of cutting parame-
ters to ensure a certain value of machining per-
formance, is not considered. In general, ANNs are
well-suited for accurate surface roughness predic-
tion, cutting-tool flank wear prediction and cutting-
tool state diagnosis.
– Fuzzy inference systems: applications where there
is enough knowledge from the process and this
knowledge is intended to be added into the
model. Applications where the understanding of
the process prevails over the accuracy of the model.
Applications where extrapolation can occur and
253
the general process behaviour is expected to be
smooth. Applications where the experimental data
set consists of a low/medium number of samples,
since part of the model is developed using previous
knowledge. Applications where the inverse prob-
lem has to be solved apart from specific variable
prediction. In general, fuzzy inference systems are
used for surface roughness prediction, cutting-tool
flank wear prediction and cutting parameter selec-
tion for optimal surface roughness.
– Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems: applica-
tions where the aim is to add previous knowledge
and also to extract hidden knowledge from ex-
perimental data in rule-form. Applications where
the ability of extrapolation and generalisation is
required. Applications with a moderate accuracy
requirement. Applications where the experimen-
tal data set is composed of a medium number of
samples. Applications where the inverse problem
has to be solved. Since neuro-fuzzy systems are a
hybridisation of ANN and fuzzy systems, the rec-
ommended applications are similar to both ANN
and fuzzy applications.
– BN: applications where the aim is to add previous
knowledge and also to extract hidden knowledge
from experimental data in the form of causal rela-
tionships and probabilities. Applications where low
accuracy prediction but a high degree of reliability
are required. Applications where the system that is
modelled has a highly stochastic behaviour and the
prediction reported by the model is given with an
expected uncertainty level. Applications where the
experimental data set is composed of a large/very
large number of samples depending on the variable
discretisation ranges and the expected accuracy.
Applications where prediction/diagnosis and the
inverse problem for cutting parameter selection are
required. BN is recommended in highly stochastic
machining processes for cutting-tool diagnosis, pre-
diction of part accuracy and the selection of cutting
parameters in order to meet part specifications.
In addition to the recommended application of each
AI technique, several drawbacks and advantages which
may facilitate the selection of a particular AI approach
are also presented in Fig. 8.
8.2 Periodic model verification
A machining monitoring system should be periodically
verified in order to detect changes in the machining per-
formance. Due to changes in machining operation, the
machining model learnt by AI techniques may have to
254 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257

NEURAL NETWORKS NEURO-FUZZY MODELS

Drawbacks: No clear guidelines on how to design neural
nets; Lack of physical meaning; Low extrapolation
capability; Trial and error procedures to find neural network
parameters.
Advantages: Model can be obtained without previous
knowledge; NN can learn patterns in a noisy environment
or with incomplete data; Good generalisation capability
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPROACH
FUZZY LOGIC SELECTION
Drawbacks: Do not have much learning capability;
Generalisation capability is poor compared with NN; No
standard methods to transform human knowledge into fuzzy
models; Inputs limited.
Drawbacks: Many parameters to be learnt or
defined by the user; Usual contradictory learnt
rules; Inputs limited.
Advantages: Combines fuzzy systems and NN
It can be applied with or without previous
process knowledge; Tolerant of imprecise data;
Good extrapolation and generalisation capability.
BAYESIAN NETWORKS
Drawbacks: High quantity of experimental data
is required; High computational cost; Variable
discretisation is required and depends on network
reliability and accuracy.

Advantages: Tolerant of imprecise data; Easy to understand Advantages: Adequate for modelling stochastic
since it is based on natural language; Models can be built on systems; The model presents the causal relationships
top of the experience of experts; Good extrapolation between variables; Let fuse prior knowledge by fixing
capability well-known causal relationships.

Fig. 8 Summary of advantages and drawbacks of the main AI approaches applied in intelligent machining

be re-trained in order to be adapted to a new machining where f(α/2,n1 −1,n2 −1) is the value of the F distribution
process. Two statistical tests have to be conducted to with n1 − 1 and n2 − 1 DOFs at a significance level
infer whether the present machining process conditions of α.
are statistically equivalent to the previous ones where The null and alternative hypotheses for the two-
the monitoring system was implemented, i.e. the equal sample t test are defined as:
variance test and the two-sample t test. The equal vari-
ance test checks whether the present prediction error H0 : μ1 = μ2
has a variance that is statistically equal to that from the
Ha : μ1 = μ2
prediction error obtained after the monitoring system
was implemented. On the other hand, the two-sample t and the two-sample t test statistic is:
test checks whether the mean of the present prediction
error is statistically equal to that obtained after the Ȳ1 − Ȳ2
monitoring system was set up [79]. The results of both T= (5)
tests indicate whether, statistically speaking, there is s21 /n1 + s22 /n2
any change in the machining process behaviour, and
then whether the monitoring machining system can still where Ȳ1 and Ȳ2 are the sample means. The null hy-
be applied or it requires a re-training process. pothesis that the two means are equal is rejected if:
The null and alternative hypotheses for the equal
variance test are defined as follows: T < −t(α/2,v) or T > t(α/2,v) , (6)

H0 : σ12 = σ22 where T > t(α/2,v) is the value of the t distribution with
v DOFs at a significance level of α, where:
Ha : σ12 = σ22
(s21 /n1 + s22 /n2 )2
v= (7)
and the equal variance test statistic is: (s21 /n1 )2 /(n1 − 1) + (s22 /n2 )2 /(n2 − 1)

s21
F0 = (3)
s22 9 Conclusions

which has a similar distribution to a F distribution with
n1 − 1 and n2 − 1 DOFs in the numerator and denom-
inator, respectively, where n1 and n2 are the sample
size. The variables s21 and s22 define the variances of each
sample. hypothesis, which means the two samples have
the same variance, is rejected if:
F0 < f(1−α/2,n1 −1,n2 −1) or F0 > f(α/2,n1 −1,n2 −1) ,
Many machining monitoring systems based on AI
process models have been developed in the past for op-
timising, predicting or controlling machining processes.
All research works present different methodologies
without showing clear guidelines or key issues for the
development of intelligent machining systems. In order
to overcome the lack of a global view on how to de-
(4) velop machining monitoring systems based on AI mod-
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
els, this paper has presented a generic methodology
which reviews the main parts of a machining monitoring
system and includes the most relevant aspects from
previous machining monitoring systems presented in
the literature. The paper has reviewed: (1) the different
sensor systems applied to the monitoring of machin-
ing processes, (2) the most effective signal processing
techniques, (3) the frequent sensory features applied in
modelling machining processes, (4) the sensory feature
extraction methods for using the relevant sensory in-
formation, (5) the DoE required to model a machining
operation with minimum experimental data and (6)
the main characteristics of several AI techniques to
facilitate their application/selection.
Acknowledgements This work has been partially supported by
Fundació Caixa-Castelló under the research project 07I006.44/1.
References
1. Liang SY, Hecker RL, Landers RG (2004) Machining process
monitoring and control: the state-of-the-art. J Manuf Sci E-T
ASME 126:297–310
2. Zhou Y, Orban P, Nikumb S (1995) Sensors for intelligent
machining-a research and application survey. In: Systems,
man and cybernetics IEEE international conference on in-
telligent systems for the 21st century, vol 2, pp 1005–1010
3. Cho DW, Leeb SJ, Chu CN (1999) The state of machin-
ing process monitoring research in Korea. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 39:1697–1715
4. Bahr B, Motavalli S, Arfi T (1997) Sensor fusion for moni-
toring machine tool conditions. Int J Comput Integr Manuf
10:314–323
5. Ertekin YM, Kwon Y, Tseng TL (2003) Identification of
common sensory features for the control of CNC milling op-
erations under varying cutting conditions. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 43:897–904
6. Guyon I, Elisseeff A (2003) An introduction to variable and
feature selection. J Mach Learn Res 3:1157–1182
7. Zhang JZ, Chen JC (2007) The development of an in-process
surface roughness adaptive control system in end milling op-
erations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31:877–887
8. Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2002) Prediction of sur-
face roughness in CNC face milling using neural networks
and Taguchi’s design of experiments. Robot Comput Integr
Manuf 18:343–354
9. Niu YM, Wong YS, Hong GS (1998) An intelligent sensor
system approach for reliable tool flank wear recognition. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol 14:77–84
10. Haber RE, Jimenez JE, Peres CR, Alique JR (2004) An
investigation of tool-wear monitoring in a high-speed machin-
ing process. Sens Actuators A-Phys 116:539–545
11. Lan MS, Dornfeld DA (1982) Experimental studies of tool
wear via acoustic emission analysis. In: Proceedings of the
10th NAMRC, SME, pp 305–311
12. Wong YS, Nee AYC, Li XQ, Reisdorf C (1997) Tool condi-
tion monitoring using laser scatter pattern. J Mater Process
Technol 63:205–210
255
13. Kurada S, Bradley C (1997) A machine vision system for tool
wear assessment. Tribol Int 30:295–304
14. Dong JF, Subrahmanyam KVR, Wong YS, Hong GS,
Mohanty AR (2006) Bayesian-inference-based neural net-
works for tool wear estimation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
30:797–807
15. Haber RE, Haber RH, Alique JR, Ros S (2002) Ap-
plication of knowledge-based systems for supervision and
control of machining processes. In: Handbook of software en-
gineering and knowledge engineering, vol 2. World Scientific,
Singapore, pp 673–710
16. Chen SL, Jen YW (2000) Data fusion neural network for tool
condition monitoring in CNC milling machining. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 40:381–400
17. Liu YM, Wang CJ (1999) Neural network based adaptive
control and optimisation in the milling process. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 15:791–795
18. Altintas Y (1988) In-process detection of tool breakages us-
ing time-series monitoring of cutting forces. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 28:157–172
19. Azouzi R, Guillot M (1997) On-line prediction of surface
finish and dimensional deviation in turning using neural net-
work based sensor fusion. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 37:1201–
1217
20. Ouafi AE, Guillot M, Bedrouni A (2000) Accuracy enhance-
ment of multi-axis CNC machines through on-line neurocom-
pensation. J Intell Manuf 11:535–545
21. Jemielniak K, Kosmol J (1995) Tool and process
monitoring—state of art and future prospects. In: Scientific
papers of the institute of mechanical engineering and
automation of the Technical University of Wroclaw, vol 61,
pp 90–112
22. Dey S, Stori JA (2005) A Bayesian network approach to root
cause diagnosis of process variations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
45:75–91
23. Chen JC, Chen WL (1999) A tool breakage detection system
using an accelerometer sensor. J Intell Manuf 10:187–197
24. Jang DY, Choi YG, Kim HG, Hsiao A (1996) Study of the
correlation between surface roughness and cutting vibrations
to develop an on-line roughness measuring technique in hard
turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 36:453–464
25. Chen JC, Huang LH, Lan AX, Lee S (1999) Analysis of an ef-
fective sensing location for an in-process surface recognition
system in turning operations. J Ind Technol 15:1–6
26. Abburi NR, Dixit US (2006) A knowledge-based system for
the prediction of surface roughness in turning process. Robot
Comput Integr Manuf 22:363–372
27. Abouelatta OB, Madl J (2001) Surface roughness prediction
based on cutting parameters and tool vibrations in turning
operations. J Mater Process Technol 118:269–277
28. Lee SS, Chen JC (2003) On-line surface roughness recogni-
tion system using artificial neural networks system in turning
operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 22:498–509
29. Tsai YH, Chen JC, Lou SJ (1999) An in-process surface
recognition system based on neural networks in end milling
cutting operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:583–605
30. Dimla DE (2002) The correlation of vibration signal features
to cutting tool wear in a metal turning operation. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 19:705–713
31. Li XL (2002) A brief review: acoustic emission method for
tool wear monitoring during turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
42:157–165
32. Jemielniak K (2000) Some aspects of AE application in tool
condition monitoring. Ultrasonics 38:604–608
33. Li XL, Yuan ZJ (1998) Tool wear monitoring with wavelet
packet transform fuzzy clustering method. Wear 219:145–154
256
34. Li XL, Dong S, Yuan ZJ (1999) Discrete wavelet trans-
form for tool breakage monitoring. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
39:1935–1944
35. Blum T, Inasaki I (1990) A study on acoustic emission from
the orthogonal cutting process. Trans ASME J Eng Ind
112:203–211
36. Ravindra HV, Srinivasa YG, Krishnamurthy R (1997) Acous-
tic emission for tool condition monitoring in metal cutting.
Wear 212:78–84
37. Stein JL, Wang CH (1990) Analysis of power monitoring on
Ac induction drive systems. J Dyn Syst Meas Control Trans
ASME 112:239–248
38. Jones J, Wu Y (1996) Cutting tool’s power consumption mea-
sured. US Patent, US 5-587-931
39. Ghosh N, Ravi YB, Patra A, Mukhopadhyay S, Paul S,
Mohanty AR, Chattopadhyay AB (2007) Estimation of tool
wear during CNC milling using neural network-based sensor
fusion. Mech Syst Signal Process 21:466–479
40. Lee JM, Choi DK, Kim J, Chu CN (1995) Real-time tool
breakage monitoring for NC milling process. CIRP Ann—
Manuf Technol 44:59–62
41. Li XL (2001) Detection of tool flute breakage in end milling
using feed-motor current signatures. IEEE-ASME Trans
Mechatron 6:491–498
42. Choudhury SK, Bartarya G (2003) Role of temperature and
surface finish in predicting tool wear using neural network
and design of experiments. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:747–
753
43. Sreejith PS, Ngoi BKA (2000) Dry machining: machining of
the future. J Mater Process Technol 101:287–291
44. Hoy D, Yu F (1991) Surface quality assessment using
computer vision methods. J Mater Process Technol 28:265–
274
45. Lee BY, Tarng YS (2001) Surface roughness inspection by
computer vision in turning operations. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 41:1251–1263
46. Coker SA, Shin YC (1996) In-process control of surface
roughness due to tool wear using a new ultrasonic system. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 36:411–422
47. Dimla DE, Lister PM, Leighton NJ (1997) Neural network
solutions to the tool condition monitoring problem in metal
cutting—a critical review of methods. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 37:1219–1241
48. Abellan JV, Morales-Menéndez R, Vallejo AJ, Rodriguez C
(2006) Surface roughness and cutting tool-wear diagnosis
based on Bayesian networks. In: Sixth IFAC symposium on
fault detection, supervision and safety of technical processes,
pp 439–444
49. Al-Habaibeh A, Gindy N (2000) A new approach for sys-
tematic design of condition monitoring systems for milling
processes. J Mater Process Technol 107:243–251
50. Kuo RJ, Cohen PH (1999) Multi-sensor integration for on-
line tool wear estimation through radial basis function net-
works and fuzzy neural network. Neural Netw 12:355–370
51. Yoon SI, Lee SS, Kim HS (1995) Tool wear monitoring in
milling operation using ART2 neural network. J Korean Soc
Precis Eng 12:120–129
52. Li X, Dong S, Venuvinod PK (2000) Hybrid learning for tool
wear monitoring. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 16:303–307
53. Maeng MJ, Cho SS, Chung JK (1997) Tool fracture detec-
tion in end milling using cutting force and acoustic emission
propagated through cutting fluid. J Korean Soc Precis Eng
14:163–170
54. Risbood KA, Dixit US, Sahasrabudhe AD (2003) Prediction
of surface roughness and dimensional deviation by measur-
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
ing cutting forces and vibrations in turning process. J Mater
Process Technol 132:203–214
55. Kim GD, Chu CN (2001) In-process tool fracture monitoring
in face milling using spindle motor current and tool fracture
index. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:383–389
56. Yao Y, Fang XD, Arndt G (1990) Comprehensive tool wear
estimation in finish-machining via multivariate time-series
analysis of 3-D cutting forces. Ann CIRP 39:57–60
57. Dontamsetti SK, Fischer GW (1988) Factors affecting sur-
face roughness in finish turning of gray cast iron. Adv Mater
Manuf Process 3:689–725
58. Moriwaki T, Tobito M (1990) A new approach to automatic
detection of life of coated tool based on acoustic-emission
measurement. J Eng Ind-Trans ASME 112:212–218
59. Kamarthi SV, Kumara SRT, Cohen PH (2000) Flank wear
estimation in turning through wavelet representation of
acoustic emission signals. J Manuf Sci E-T ASME 122:
12–19
60. Li XL, Yao YX, Yuan ZJ (1997) On-line tool condition mon-
itoring system with wavelet fuzzy neural network. J Intell
Manuf 8:271–276
61. Alpaydin E (2004) Introduction to machine learning. MIT,
Cambridge
62. Kirby E, Zhang Z, Chen JC (2004) Development of an
accelerometer-based surface roughness prediction system in
turning operations using multiple regression techniques. J Ind
Technol 20:1–8
63. Jack LB, Nandi AK (2000) Genetic algorithms for feature
selection in machine condition monitoring with vibration sig-
nals. IEE Proc-Vis Imag Signal Process 147:205–212
64. Thawonmas R, Abe S (1997) A novel approach to feature
selection based on analysis of class regions. IEEE Trans Syst
Man Cybern Part B-Cybern 27:196–207
65. Shi DF, Gindy NN (2007) Tool wear predictive model based
on least squares support vector machines. Mech Syst Signal
Process 21:1799–1814
66. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments,
5th edn. Wiley, New York
67. Roy RK (2001) Design of experiments using the Taguchi
approach. Wiley, New York
68. Zhang JZ, Chen JC (2007) The development of an in-process
surface roughness adaptive control system in end milling op-
erations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31:877–887
69. Vallejo AG, Nolazco-Flores JA, Morales-Menendez R, Sucar
LE, Rodriguez CA (2005) Tool-wear monitoring based on
continuous hidden Markov models. Lect Notes Comput Sci
3773:880–890
70. Zhang JZ, Chen JC, Kirby ED (2007) Surface roughness
optimization in an end-milling operation using the Taguchi
design method. J Mater Process Technol 184:233–239
71. Suresh PVS, Rao PV, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic algo-
rithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness pre-
diction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:675–680
72. Kohli A, Dixit US (2005) A neural-network-based method-
ology for the prediction of surface roughness in a turning
process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25:118–129
73. Dweiri F, Al-Jarrah M, Al-Wedyan H (2003) Fuzzy surface
roughness modeling of CNC down milling of alumic-79. J
Mater Process Technol 133:266–275
74. Lo SP (2003) An adaptive-network based fuzzy inference
system for prediction of workpiece surface roughness in end
milling. J Mater Process Technol 142:665–675
75. Wang LT, Mehrabi MG, Kannatey-Asibu E (2002) Hid-
den markov model-based tool wear monitoring in turning. J
Manuf Sci E-T ASME 124:651–658
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:237–257
76. Colak O, Kurbanoglu C, Kayacan MC (2007) Milling surface
roughness prediction using evolutionary programming meth-
ods. Mater Des 28:657–666
77. Brezocnik M, Kovacic M, Ficko M (2004) Prediction of sur-
face roughness with genetic programming. J Mater Process
Technol 157–158:28–36
257
78. Cho S, Asfour S, Onar A, Kaundinya N (2005) Tool breakage
detection using support vector machine learning in a milling
process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:241–249
79. NIST/SEMATECH (2006) NIST/SEMATECH e-handbook
of statistical methods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/
handbook/. Accessed 20 May 2009