A novel material removal prediction method based on acoustic sensing and ensemble XGBoost learning algorithm for robotic belt grinding of Inconel 718

  • Kaiyuan Gao
  • Huabin ChenEmail author
  • Xiaoqiang Zhang
  • XuKai Ren
  • Junqi Chen
  • Xiaoqi ChenEmail author


High-performance component manufacturing has increasing needs of robotic grinding process that can achieve accurate material removal. This article proposes a novel material removal model for robotic belt grinding of Inconel 718 based on acoustic sensing and machine learning. The sound signal is collected online by an audio sensor during the grinding process. A novel method to identify the idle running period and eliminate noise is developed using discrete wavelet decomposition (DWD) and fast Fourier transformation (FFT). Statistical features are extracted from each clean acoustic signal segment to better represent and quantify grinding process. A new k-fold eXtreme Gradient Boosting (k-fold-XGBoost) algorithm after training and optimization is integrated into the material removal (MR) model. The test results indicate that the values forecasted by the model are consistent with the measured values. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of material removal evaluated by the model is 4.373%, which shows a better performance than the reported results which are in the range of 6.4 to 8.72%. In comparison with other prediction models, such as optimally pruned extreme learning machine and random forest and support vector regression, k-fold-XGBoost model shows superior results for the same datasets. It can be concluded that the proposed method based on acoustic signal and the ensemble learning model is effective in predicting the material removal despite the complicated grinding environment.


Material removal Acoustic signal Belt grinding Wavelet XGBoost Learning algorithm 



This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2018YFC0310400) and Guangzhou Municipal Innovative Manufacturing Research Program, China, [NO.SD0500544].


  1. 1.
    Brinksmeier E, Heinzel C, Wittmann M (1999) Friction, cooling and lubrication in grinding. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 48:581–598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kopac J, Krajnik P (2006) High-performance grinding-a review. J Mater Process Technol 175:278–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wegener K, Hoffmeister HW, Karpuschewski B, Kuster F, Hahmann WC, Rabiey M (2011) Conditioning and monitoring of grinding wheels. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 60:757–777. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiaoqi C, Zhiming G, Han H (2000) Development of robotic system for 3D profile grinding and polishing (Vol 12). SIMTech Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang H, Gong ZM, Chen XQ, Zhou L (2003) SMART robotic system for 3D profile turbine vane airfoil repair. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21:275–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akca E, Gürsel A (2015) A review on superalloys and IN718 nickel-based INCONEL superalloy. Periodicals Eng Nat Sci (PEN) 3(1)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dudzinski D, Devillez A, Moufki A, Larrouquère D, Zerrouki V, Vigneau J (2004) A review of developments towards dry and high speed machining of Inconel 718 alloy. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:439–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thakur A, Gangopadhyay S (2016) State-of-the-art in surface integrity in machining of nickel-based super alloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 100:25–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammann G (2013) Modellierung des Abtragsverhaltens elastischer, robotergeführter Schleifwerkzeuge, vol 123. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang X, Kuhlenkötter B, Kneupner K (2005) An efficient method for solving the Signorini problem in the simulation of free-form surfaces produced by belt grinding. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:641–648. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jin XL, Zhang LC (2012) A statistical model for material removal prediction in polishing. Wear 274–275:203–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preston FW (1927) The theory and design of plate glass polishing machines. J Glas Technol 11:214–256Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jo W, Lee S, Kim H, Lee T, Lee S (2016) A study of material removal characteristics by friction monitoring system of sapphire wafer in single side DMP. J Korean Soc Tribol Lubr Eng 32:56–60Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang X, Cabaravdic M, Kneupner K, Kuhlenkoetter B (2004) Real-time simulation of robot controlled belt grinding processes of sculptured surfaces. Int J Adv Robot Syst 1:109–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cabaravdic M, Kuhlenkötter B (2005) Bandschleifprozesse optimieren. Metalloberfläche 59:44–47Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ren X, Cabaravdic M, Zhang X, Kuhlenkötter B (2007) A local process model for simulation of robotic belt grinding. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:962–970. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ren X, Kuhlenkötter B (2008) Real-time simulation and visualization of robotic belt grinding processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:1090–1099. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takata S, Ahn JH, Miki M, Miyao Y, Sata T (1986) A sound monitoring system for fault detection of machine and machining states. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 35:289–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu MC, Wan BS (2013) Study of high-frequency sound signals for tool wear monitoring in micromilling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66:1785–1792. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng K (ed) (2008) Machining dynamics: fundamentals, applications and practices. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin Y-K, Wu B-F, Chen C-M (2018) Characterization of grinding wheel condition by acoustic emission signals. 2018 Int Conf Syst Sci Eng 1–6.
  22. 22.
    Souza RVCG, Rocha CA, Marchi M et al (2014) Tool condition monitoring dressing using vibration signals and neural networks models. Proc XX Braz Congr Autom 20:1026–1033Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Susič E, Grabec I (2000) Characterization of the grinding process by acoustic emission. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:225–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wuest T, Weimer D, Irgens C, Thoben KD (2016) Machine learning in manufacturing: advantages, challenges, and applications. Prod Manuf Res 4:23–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ak R, Helu MM, Rachuri S (2015) Ensemble neural network model for predicting the energy consumption of a milling machine. In ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. V004T05A056-V004T05A056). American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carbonneau R, Laframboise K, Vahidov R (2008) Application of machine learning techniques for supply chain demand forecasting. Eur J Oper Res 184:1140–1154. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhong G, Kang M, Yang S (2017) Precision obtained using an artificial neural network for predicting the material removal rate in ultrasonic machining. Appl Sci 7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shen J, Pei ZJ, Lee ES (2008) Support vector fuzzy adaptive network in the modelling of material removal rate in rotary ultrasonic machining. J Manuf Sci Eng 130:041005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen J, Chen H, Xu J, Wang J, Zhang X, Chen X (2018) Acoustic signal-based tool condition monitoring in belt grinding of nickel-based superalloys using RF classifier and MLR algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 98(1–4):859–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang X, Chen H, Xu J, Song X, Wang J, Chen X (2018) A novel sound-based belt condition monitoring method for robotic grinding using optimally pruned extreme learning machine. J Mater Process Technol 260:9–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang X, Kneupner K, Kuhlenk B (2006) A new force distribution calculation model for high-quality production processes. 726–732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Teti R, Jemielniak K, O’Donnell G, Dornfeld D (2010) Advanced monitoring of machining operations. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59:717–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yao Z, Mei D, Chen Z (2010) On-line chatter detection and identification based on wavelet and support vector machine. J Mater Process Technol 210:713–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Salgado DR, Alonso FJ (2007) An approach based on current and sound signals for in-process tool wear monitoring. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:2140–2152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Terchi A, Au YHJ (2001) Acoustic emission signal processing. Meas Control 34:240–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zeng H, Chen X (2002) Acoustic emission sensing and signal processing for machining monitoring and control. In: Advanced Automation Techniques in Adaptive Material Processing. World Sci, pp 91–124Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grosse CU, Finck F, Kurz JH, Reinhardt HW (2004) Improvements of AE technique using wavelet algorithms, coherence functions and automatic data analysis. Constr Build Mater 18:203–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kwak JS (2006) Application of wavelet transform technique to detect tool failure in turning operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:1078–1083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xiaoli L (1999) On-line detection of the breakage of small diameter drills using current signature wavelet transform. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:157–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 29:1189–1232MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, pp 785–794Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chu W, Keerthi SS (2007) Support vector ordinal regression. Neural Comput 19(3):792–815MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Svetnik V, Liaw A, Tong C, Culberson JC, Sheridan RP, Feuston BP (2003) Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43:1947–1958. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wei H, Peng C, Gao H, Wang X, Wang X (2019) On establishment and validation of a new predictive model for material removal in abrasive flow machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 138:66–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    He QW, Yang X, Wu XH, Qu XT, Zhao J (2017) Research on material removal of belt polishing for blade complex surface. In: Current Trends in Computer Science and Mechanical Automation Vol. 2. Sciendo Migration, pp 319–333Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai Key Laboratory of Materials Laser Processing and Modification, School of Materials Science and EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Manufacturing Futures Research Institute, Faculty of Science, Engineering and TechnologySwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations