Determining surface roughness of machining process types using a hybrid algorithm based on time series analysis and wavelet transform

  • Masoud Pour


In this paper, the surface roughness of the machined workpieces are estimated using a hybrid algorithm based on time series analysis and wavelet transform and differences between contact method with this method are presented. The suggested method is based on the exact recognition of the surface dynamic properties in lapping, external grinding, flat grinding, turning, and horizontal milling processes using the largest Lyapunov exponent parameter in time series analysis. This method has the unique ability to reduce image noise and remove image curvature which are produced due to reflection of light or surface geometric curvature in the mentioned machining process. Also, in order to select the appropriate length of the captured images and increasing accuracy of estimating the surface roughness, the image entropy criterion in image processing is used. The results show that the estimated surface roughness are considerably close to the measured surface roughness by the contact method.


Machining process Surface roughness Wavelet transform Time series analysis The largest Lyapunov exponent 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by Quchan University of Technology (grant number 95/5029).


  1. 1.
    Vesselenyi T, Dzitac I, Dzitac S, Vaida V (2008) Surface roughness image analysis using quasi-fractal characteristics and fuzzy clustering methods. Int J Comp Commun Control III(3):304–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prabhu S, Karthik Saran S, Majumder D, Teja PVS (2015) A review on applications of image processing in inspection of cutting tool surfaces. Appl Mech Mat 766–767:635–642Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fadare DA, Oni AO (2009) Development and application of a machine vision system for measurement of tool wear. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 4(4):42–49Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demircioglu P, Durakbasa MN (2011) Investigations on machined metal surfaces through the stylus type and optical 3D instruments and their mathematical modeling with the help of statistical techniques. Measurement 44(4):611–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durakbasa MN et al (2011) The factors affecting surface roughness measurements of the machined flat and spherical surface structures—the geometry and the precision of the surface. Measurement 44(10):1986–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramapriya S., Srivatsa S. K., Estimation of surface roughness parameter using wavelets based feature extraction. IJCSNS Int J Comp Sci Netw Secur, (2008), VOL.8, pp. 282–288Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Luk, V. Huynh (1987) A vision system for in-process surface quality assessment. Proceedings of the Vision, SME Conference, Detroit, Michigan, pp.12–43Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lu RS, Yun Tian G (2006) On-line measurement of surface roughness by laser light scattering. Meas Sci Technol 17(6):1496–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    WS Hunko, V Chandrasekaran (2015) Matlab image processing as a viable tool to study low surface roughness, Proceedings of the ASME Int Mech Eng Congress and Exp, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nammi S, Ramamoorthy B (2014) Effect of surface lay in the surface roughness evaluation using machine vision. Optik Intern J Light Electron Optics 125(15):3954–3960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    OM Koura (2015) Applicability of image processing for evaluation of surface roughness. IOSR Journal of Engineering, Vol. 05, pp 01–08Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grzesik W, Brol S (2009) Wavelet and fractal approach to surface roughness characterization after finish turning of different workpiece materials. J Mater Process Technol 209(5):2522–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M Samie Tootooni, C Liu, D Roberson, R Donovan, PK Rao, ZJ Kong, STS Bukkapatnam (2016) Online non-contact surface finish measurement in machining using graph theory-based image analysis. J Manuf Syst, vol. 41, pp.266–276Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shahabi HH, Ratnam MM (2010) Prediction of surface roughness and dimensional deviation of workpiece in turning: a machine vision approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 48(1-4):213–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gadelmawla ES (2004) A vision system for surface roughness characterization using the gray level co-occurrence matrix. NDT & E Int 37(7):577–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramapriya S., Srivatsa S. K., Estimation of surface roughness parameter using wavelets based feature extraction, IJCSNS Int J Compu Sci Netw Secur, (2008), VOL.8 , pp. 282–288Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pour M (2016) Simultaneous application of time series analysis and wavelet transform for determining surface roughness of the ground workpieces. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 85(5-8):1793–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mallat S (1989) Theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11(7):674–693CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsai D, Hsiao B (2001) Automatic surface inspection using wavelet reconstruction. Pattern Recogn 34(6):1285–1305CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiran MB, Ramamoorthy B, Radhakrishnan V (1998) Evaluation of surface roughness by vision system. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38(5-6):685–690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shahabi HH, Ratman MM (2009) Noncontact roughness measurement of turned parts using machine vision. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46(1-4):275–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Srivatsa T, Ravi Keerthi C, Srinivas HK, Umbar R, Madhusudhan T (2016) Surface roughness evaluation of turned surfaces using wavelet packet transform. Imperial J Interdisciplinary Res (ijir) 2(6):978–988Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xue-wu Z, Yan-quiong D, Yan-yun L, Ai-ye S, Rui-yu L (2011) A vision inspection system for the surface defects of strongly reflected metal based on multi-class SVM. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5930–5939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    K Stępień, W Makiela, A Stoić, I Samardžić. Defining the criteria to select the wavelet type for the assessment of surface quality, doi:
  25. 25.
    Haralick R, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3(6):610–621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    L Min, L Gao, X Zhang, Z Wang (2014) Surface roughness measurement based on image texture analysis, The 7th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, pp. 514–519Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    SJ Badashah, P. Subbaiah (2012) Surface roughness prediction with denoising using wavelet filter. Int J Adv Eng Technol, pp 168–177Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ravi Keerthi C, Srinivasa Pai P, Vishwanatha JS (2014) Wavelet transform based recognition of machined surfaces using computer vision. Appl Mech Mater 592–594:801–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Samtaş G (2014) Measurement and evaluation of surface roughness based on optic system using image processing and artificial neural network. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Duparré A, Ferre-Borrull J, Gliech S, Notni G, Steinert J and Bennett J M 2002 Surface characterization techniques for determining the root-mean-square roughness and power spectral densities of optical components. Appl. Opt.41154Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krolczyk GM, Maruda RW, Nieslony P, Wieczorowski M (2016) Surface morphology analysis of duplex stainless steel (DSS) in clean production using the power spectral density. Measurement 94:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kubiak KJ, Bigerelle M, Mathia TG, Dubois A, Dubar L (2014) Dynamic evolution of interface roughness during friction and wear processes. Scanning 36:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Majumdar A, Bhushan B (1990) Role of fractal geometry in roughness characterisation and contact mechanics of surface. J Tri ASME 112:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vandenberg S, Osborne CF (1992) Digital image processing techniques, fractal dimensionality and scale-space applied to surface roughness. Wear 159:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    J.J. Gagnepain, C. Roques-Carmes, Fractal approach to two-dimensional and three-dimensional surface roughness, (1986), 109, 119–126Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jiang Z, Wang H, Fei B (2001) Research into application of fractal geometry in characterising machined surfaces. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 41:2179–2185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kamguem R, Tahan SA, Songmene V (2013) Evaluation of machined part surface roughness using image texture gradient factor. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 14(2):183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nieslony, Krolczyk GM, Zak K, Maruda RW, Legutko S (2016) Comparative assessment of the mechanical and electromagnetic surfaces of explosively clad Ti–steel plates after drilling process. Precision Eng xxx:xxx–xxxGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Leach R, Weckenmann A, Coupland J, Hartmann W (2014) Interpreting theprobe-surface interaction of surface measuring instruments, or what is asurface? Surf Topogr: Metrol Prop 2:035001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Merola M, Ruggiero A, De Mattia JS, Affatato S (2016) On the tribological behavior of retrieved hip femoral heads affected by metallic debris. A comparative investigation by stylus and optical profilometer for a new roughness measurement protocol. Measurement 90:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Han JG, Ren WX, Sun ZS (2005) Wavelet packet based damage identification of beam structures. Int J Solids Struct 4:6610–6627CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zawada-Tomkiewicz A (2010) Estimation of surface roughness parameter based on machined surface image. Metrol Meas Syst. XVII(3):493–504Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Z. Wang, A.C. Bovik (2002) A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, no. 9/3, pp. 81–84Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Danesh M, Khalili K, Ohadi AR (2014) Determination of cutting tool vibration level using wavelet transorm and haralic features in surface image of work piece. J Solid Fluid Mech 3:47–57 (In Persian)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morala-Argüello P, Barreiro J, Alegre E (2012) A evaluation of surface roughness classes by computer vision using wavelet transform in the frequency domain. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    B. Y. Lee; Y. S. Tang 2001 Surface roughness inspection by computer vision in turning operations. International Journal of Machine tools and Manufacture, Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    B. Julitta, M. Vallverdu, U. S.P. Melia, N. Tupaika, M. Jospin, E. W. Jensen, M. M. R. F. Struys, H. E. M. Vereecke, P. Caminal (2011) Auto-mutual information function of the EEG as a measure of depth of anesthesia, 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS, Boston, Massachusetts USA, August 30 - SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Frazier C, Kockelman KM (2004) Chaos theory and transportation systems: instructive example. Transp Res Record: J Transp Res Board 1897:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cao L (1997) Practical method for determining the minimum embedding dimension of a scalar time series. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 110:43–50CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    B. Henry, N. Lovell, F. Camacho (2000) Nonlinear dynamics time series analysis. In: Nonlinear biomedical signal processing, Vol. 2, Dynamic Analysis and Modeling, Wiley-IEEE Press, pp.20–21Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Krolczyk GM, Krolczyk JB, Maruda RW, Legutko S, Tomaszewski M (2016) Metrological changes in surface morphology of high-strength steels in manufacturing processes. Measurement 88:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringQuchan University of TechnologyQuchanIran

Personalised recommendations