Tool Wear Prediction Approach for Turning Operations Based on General Regression Neural Network (GRNN) Technique

  • E. A. Almeshaiei
  • S. E. Oraby
  • M. A. Mahmoud
Conference paper


Detection of tool failure is very important in automated manufacturing. Recent trends, being towards mostly unmanned automated machining systems and consistent system operations, need reliable on-line monitoring processes. A proper on-line cutting tool condition monitoring system is essential for deciding when to change the tool. Many methods have been attempted in this connection. Recently, artificial neural networks have been tried for this purpose because of their inherent simplicity and reasonably quick data-processing capability. The present work investigates the feasibility of using general regression neural networks (GRNN) for estimating the level of the nose wear on the cutting edge. Experimental data of different force components, as well as corresponding nose wear values and the three controlling cutting parameters (speed, feed, and depth of cut) are used to train the neural networks. The technique shows close matching of estimation of nose wear and directly measured wear value. Results indicated the need for inclusion of six input parameters (speed, feed, depth, and three force components) in order to get better prediction capability. However, some parameters, such as feeding and radial force components, have shown higher impact than others (power force component). Therefore, it is possible that the trained neural networks can accurately assess tool wear on-line using an appropriate system.


Tool Wear Force Component Scaling Function General Regression Neural Network Smoothing Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dimla JR DE, Lister PM and 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., 30(29), 1219–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dimla JR DE, Lister PM and Leighton NJ, (1998) Automatic Tool State Identification in a Metal Turning Operation using MLP Neural Networks and Multivariate Process Parameters, Int. J. Mach. Tools & Manuf., 38(4), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Luo T, Lu W, Krishnamurthy K and McMillan B, (1998) A Neural Network Approach for Force and Contour Error Control in Multi-Dimensional End Milling Operations, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 38(10-11), 1343–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stone R and Krishnamurthy K, (1996) A Neural Network Thrust Force Controller to Minimize Delimitation During Drilling of graphic-Epoxy Laminates, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 36(9), 985–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yeh Zong-Mu, Tarang Y. S. and Nian C. Y., (1995) A Self-Organizing Neural Fuzzy Logic Controller for Turning Operations, Int. J. Mac. Tools Manuf., 35(10), 1363–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shang-Liang Chen and Jen YW, (2000) Data Fusion Neural Network for Tool Condition Monitoring in CNC Milling Machining, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact., 40(3), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin CS. and Ting JC., (1996) Drill Wear Monitoring using Neural Networks, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 36(4), 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das S, Roy R, and Chattopadhyay AB, (1996) Evaluation of Wear Turning Carbide Inserts using Neural Networks, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 36(7), 789–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim TY, Woo J, Shin D and Kim J, (1999) Indirect Cutting Force Measurement in Multi-Axis Simultaneous NC Milling processes, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 39(11), 1717–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raj KH, Sharma RS, Srivastava S and Patvardhar C, (2000) Modeling of Manufacturing Processes with ANNs for Intelligent Manufacturing, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 40(6), 851–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheffer C, Kratz H, Heyns PS, and Klocke F, (2003) Development of a Tool Wear-Monitoring System for Hard Turning, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 43, 973–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammerstrom D, (July 1993) Working with Neural Networks, IEEE Spectrum, 46–53.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Specht DF, (1991) A General Regression Neural Network. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 2(6), 568–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuroshell 2 manual, (1996) Ward Systems Group Inc., Frederick, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg DE, (1989) Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreyszig E, (1993) Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Seventh Edition, Wiley, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oraby SE and Hayhurst DR, (1991) Development of Models for Tool Wear Force Relationships in Metal Cutting, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 33(2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. A. Almeshaiei
    • 1
  • S. E. Oraby
    • 1
  • M. A. Mahmoud
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Technological Studies, PAAETShuwaikhKuwait

Personalised recommendations