Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmansys

Technical Paper

Online non-contact surface nish measurement in machining using

graph theory-based image analysis
M. Samie Tootooni a , Chenang Liu b , David Roberson b , Ryan Donovan a , Prahalad K. Rao c, ,
Zhenyu (James) Kong b , Satish T.S. Bukkapatnam d
a
Department of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902, United States
b
Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States
c
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0526, United States
d
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work addresses the following open research question: what non-contact measurement techniques
Received 14 January 2016 and analytical approaches are required to assess the surface nish of a workpiece in situ during con-
Received in revised form ventional machining without stopping the machine tool? The goal is to track variations in surface nish
19 September 2016
during conventional machining without stopping the machine tool so that quick compensatory action
Accepted 19 September 2016
can be taken in case of a process drift. In pursuit of this goal, the objective of this work is non-contact,
Available online 27 October 2016
vision-based online measurement of surface nish in a conventional machining operation, such as out-
side diameter (OD) turning on a lathe. To realize the foregoing objective, algebraic graph theoretic image
Keywords:
Non-contact surface measurement
processing is used. The approach is based on converting an image of a surface into an unweighted and
In situ surface nish measurement undirected network graph. The graph theoretic invariant, Fiedler number (2 ), is estimated, and sub-
Machining sequently invoked as a discriminant of workpiece surface roughness. The advantage of the proposed
Algebraic graph theory approach is that it eschews complex image ltering and segmentation steps. The central hypothesis is
that the graph-based topological quantier Fiedler number (2 ) estimates surface nish in a conventional
machining operation with accuracy Sa 2 m (arithmetic average areal surface roughness, m) when
Sa is in the range of 1-10 m. This hypothesis is tested on conventional cylindrical (outside diameter)
turning of shafts by using an optical imaging setup (CCD camera) incorporated into a lathe machine.
Through statistical modeling it is demonstrated that the Fiedler number (2 ) tracks surface nish varia-
tions in situ for steel and aluminum alloy shafts (4340 and 6061 grades, respectively) in near real-time
with a maximum error of approximately Sa 2 m. This measurement error was veried to be within
15% of the actual measured surface nish. Tests were also carried out under three different rotational
speeds (0 rpm, 45 rpm, 245 rpm); and the approach was consequently attested to be robust to rotational
speeds. The computational time for estimating the surface nish from this approach was assessed to be
within tenth of a second, thus validating its practical applicability.
2016 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction lathe. This objective is realized by applying algebraic graph theo-

1.1. Objective
The goal of this work is to track variations in surface nish during
conventional machining without stopping the machine tool so that
quick compensatory action can be taken in case of a process drift.
The specic research objective is non-contact, vision-based, online
measurement of surface nish of a workpiece in a conventional
machining operation, such as outside diameter (OD) turning on a
Corresponding author. Tel.: 402-472-3458.
E-mail address: rao@unl.edu (P.K. Rao).
retic analysis to online images of the surface of a turned workpiece
acquired with an in situ CCD camera. The hypothesis tested is that
the graph-based topological quantier Fiedler number (2 ) esti-
mates surface nish in a conventional machining operation with
accuracy Sa 2 m. In conventional machining operations (milling,
turning) the workpiece surface nish is typically in the range of
(Sa) 0.510 m [1]. As will be explained in Section 1.3, laser scat-
tering and speckle techniques are not amenable for this range of
surface nish typical to conventional machining [2,3]. Accordingly,
this paper addresses the following open research question: what
non-contact measurement techniques and analytical approaches
are required to assess the surface nish of a workpiece in situ during
conventional machining without stopping the machine tool?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.09.007
0278-6125/ 2016 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276
1.2. Signicance and novelty
Surface nish is consequential to the functional integrity of engi-
neering components as it inuences critical performance-related
aspects, such as wear, fatigue, thermal behavior, lubrication, service
life, among others [4,5]. Furthermore, quantication of surfaces n-
ish is not only vital for quality assurance purposes, but also valuable
for tracking the performance of the manufacturing process [6,7].
Therefore, it is practically expedient to devise online approaches for
detecting surface nish variations of components during their man-
ufacture, so that timely compensatory action can be taken when the
process drifts out of control.
The prevalent norm is to assess the surface nish post-
machining using a stylus-based or optical measurement technique.
Consequently, there is little opportunity to capture and correct pro-
cess anomalies through contact-based approaches. To alleviate this
bottleneck, in this work, a high frame rate (15 fps), ve megapixel
(2448 2048) CCD camera was used to gauge the surface quality of
a workpiece during machining on a lathe (Section 5). The camera
acquires surface images of the workpiece online (without stop-
ping the machine). Subsequent analysis of these surface images2
using the algebraic graph theoretic approach proposed in this work
affords assessment of surface nish in near real-time; the delay
due to computation is less than tenth of a second, the estimated
arithmetic mean surface nish (Sa) is within 2 m of the actual
surface nish measured ofine using optical prolometry. Perti-
nently, the approach does not predicate that the machine must
come to a stop; indeed it is shown through experimentation on
different materials that the approach is robust to rotational speed.
Hence, the presented approach is capable of assessing the surface
nish through direct, image-based measurement in conventional
machining online and in situ.
1.3. Research challenges limitations of the state-of-the-art
In situ surface nish assessment is a challenging proposition,
particularly more so for conventional machining than for precision
surfaces. In conventional machining, the feed marks are known to
determine much of the surface roughness [1]. Accordingly, quanti-
tative relationships have been developed to connect the feed and
tool geometry with surface roughness Ra [17]. However, vari-
ous process anomalies including seizures, built-up edge and tool
wear can severely compromise the accuracy of such an estimate.
Therefore in situ estimation is highly desirable [38]. In this context,
high-resolution optical techniques, such as laser light scattering
and laser speckle techniques are limited by the wavelength of vis-
ible light. Laser light scattering and speckle techniques are not
physically capable of measuring surfaces whose root mean square
roughness (i.e., Rq, Sq) is greater than the wavelength of light
(400700 nanometers, nm) [2,3]. The typical roughness range (Sa,
Sq) for conventional machining processes (turning, milling, shap-
ing, drilling) is generally between 0.5 and 10 micrometers (m) [1].
Therefore, optical methods, such as laser speckle, reectance, and
ellipsometry, are more suitable for measurement of precision, sub-
micron (<1 m) and ultraprecision (<50 nm) surface nish, akin to
those obtained from ultraprecision polishing and diamond turning.
A succinct review of the challenges in non-contact estimation of
surface nish in conventional machining is presented by Gupta and
Raman [8].
For instance, Fig. 1 shows the capabilities of different surface
metrology techniques contingent on the amplitude to spacing ratio
(H/D ratio) of the surface features. The H/D ratio of conventional tur-
ning, as annotated in Fig. 1, is in the region of 0.10.01; it is evident
that light scattering and interference microscopy are not feasible
in conventional machining [4,9]. This is because, the amplitude of
a typical conventional turned surface is in the region of 110 m
267
Fig. 1. Capabilities of different measurement techniques, vis--vis the amplitude
and wavelength of features; after De Chiffre et al. and Schwenke et al. [4,9]. The
amplitude of a typical conventional turned surface is in the region of 110 m (akin
to root mean square roughness, Sq), whilst the wavelength (spacing) is in the range
of 10500 m (akin to distance of feed marks in turning).
(akin to root mean square roughness, Sq), whilst the wavelength
(spacing) is in the range of 10500 m (akin to distance of feed
marks in turning).
Furthermore, given their complexity, it is intractable to incor-
porate sophisticated techniques, such as scanning electron and
interference microscopy techniques into a conventional machining
setup, where the relatively harsh operating conditions (vibration,
chips, fumes coolant splashes) may damage the precision elements.
Consequently, non-contact in situ assessment of surface morphol-
ogy in conventional machining remains an open research problem.
To address this gap, researchers use indirect, temporal sensor-
based techniques, namely, vibration, force, acoustic emissions,
among others, for online assessment of surface quality [10,11]. The
present work uses images as opposed to temporal sensor signals,
which is a direct surface nish inspection approach; it therefore
has the potential to bridge the prevalent shortcoming in in situ
monitoring of conventional machining operations.
The novel contribution of this work is in using image-based
algebraic graph theoretic topological invariants, namely, Fiedler
number (2 ), to track surface nish variations online in machining.
This paper is organized as follows: a brief review of the litera-
ture related to the area of online surface nish in conventional
machining is presented in Section 2; the graph theoretic approach
for quantication of surface quality is elucidated in Section 3; the
approach is demonstrated using numerically generated surfaces in
Section 4, as well as experimentally acquired images of turned sur-
faces in Section 5; and nally, the conclusions are summarized in
Section 6.
2. A brief review of the related research
In the context of online surface roughness measurement in
machining, Kurada and Bradley [12], and more recently, Lu [13]
have published comprehensive review articles. Based on these
review articles, it is observed that the most commonly examined
surface roughness range was between 0.10 m and 4.0 m (Sa, Sq),
with another common range being from 2 m to 16 m (Sa, Sq).
The previous research with a wider roughness ranges show a pos-
sible lack of precision for distinguishing 12 m changes. Another
conspicuous shortcoming in the existing literature is the predomi-
nance of stationary workpiece conditions; research has not been
268 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276
extensively dedicated for rotating/non-stationary scenarios as
done in this work.
Herewith the existing literature on optical methods for sur-
face nish estimation of machined workpieces, specically those
that utilized computer vision as the core method of acquisition
and analysis, is briey reviewed. Computer vision techniques focus
on obtaining image features that can be directly or indirectly cor-
related to the quality of the surface being examined. The most
common method of surface quality estimation is to obtain gray-
level information from the image, and then to use this value (or a
derived feature) as a direct correlation with surface roughness as
evidence in Refs. [1420].
For instance, Kiran et al. [14] used a CCD camera to capture the
gray intensity distribution of surfaces obtained from different pro-
cesses, namely, as grinding, milling, sandblasting, and shaping. The
variance of the intensity histogram was correlated with surface
roughness (Ra) of these surfaces. More recently, Kumar et al. [17]
used an intensity interpolation approach to enhance the image of
conventional machined surfaces from a CCD camera, and subse-
quently, extract a gray-scale feature (which the authors termed as
Ga ). Kamguem et al. [21] describe a similar gray level image pixel
analysis technique for estimating the surface roughness of a sta-
tionary turned workpieces; the approach has error in the range of
918% for prole surface roughness (Ra) in the range of 225 m.
Several works utilize neural networks or complex polynomial
models for the construction of a prediction algorithm as described
by Lee et al. [22,23]. For instance, Chang et al. used features derived
through the Fourier or Wavelet transform of the image [24]. While
fractal mapping and wavelet decomposition of surfaces have been
proposed to quantify multi-scale aspects of surface morphology,
these methods often entail estimation of statistics over several
length scales, and are computationally intensive and time con-
suming [25]. The graph theoretic approach proposed in this work
overcomes these challenges as it is a computationally efcient,
non-contact surface nish measurement technique, which does not
require sifting through length scales. As representative examples
of image-based surface roughness monitoring, approaches were
developed by Gupta and Raman [8], Tsai et al. [26] and Chang and
Ravathur [24].
Gupta and Raman [8] used a HeNe 5 mW laser light source
to illuminate a rotating pre-machined workpiece (140 rpm and
285 rpm) with surface nish (Ra) in the range of 30120 m, whose
reection is captured by a CCD camera. Various features, such as
mean intensity, rms intensity, among others were extracted from
the resulting gray image. These features were in turn correlated
with the actual surface nish in terms of a multiple regression
model, with accuracy (R2 ) approaching 95%. The delay time for the
approach was not specied.
Although their non-contact image-based methodology was
able to estimate surface characteristics, the work of Gupta and
Raman [8] has two drawbacks. First, the surface roughness range
(30120 m) studied by Gupta and Raman [8] is outside the typi-
cal range of surface roughness in conventional turning (110 m).
Another downside of their work is in the intricate laser-based setup
which requires several ne adjustments, particularly, of the laser
strobing parameters, and location on a vibration-free table.
Tsai et al. [26] used the Fourier transform of the image in con-
junction with a neural network for steel specimens with roughness
of 6.3100 m and 1.650 m, respectively. Chang and Ravathur
[24] utilized features extracted from the wavelet transform of the
image for use in regression modeling of the surface roughness;
they considered shaped, ground, and polished steel surfaces. Not all
roughness values were explicitly listed, however, and the shaped
steel specimens varied from 2 m to 15 m. The response time of
Tsai et al.s [26] method is reported to be 2 s, while the computa-
tion delay of Chang and Ravathurs [24] method is unspecied.
Applying wavelet transform by Chang and Ravathur [24] and
neural network by Tsai et al. [26] requires determination of basis
functions (Chang and Ravathur used a Daubechies basis wavelet
decomposition) and a network structure in advance, respectively.
The graph theoretic approach described in this paper does not need
any such pre-dened entity. Furthermore, these two works mea-
sure the surface roughness of a stationary workpiece in shaping
[24,26], grinding, polishing [24], and milling [26] processes while
the focus of this work is on surface roughness measurement of
both stationary and non-stationary (online) workpiece rotating on
a lathe.
It is evident that very few prior studies report in situ assess-
ment of surfaces machined using turning. In contrast, the proposed
method also demonstrates a potential for real-time, in-process
implementation. The most notable differences between this work
and existing successful prediction methods are: (i) reasonable
alignment with surface nish ranges (110 m) observed in a prac-
tical conventional machining application; (ii) a relatively precise
resolution (Sa 12 m) for estimation; and (iii) estimation of
surface nish for a rotating workpiece, i.e., without stopping the
machine.
3. Graph-theoretic representation and quantication of
surface morphology
Algebraic graph theoretic approaches have been previously used
to describe topological relationships in images [27]. For example,
the eigen spectra of graphs is used for segmenting (partitioning) an
image based on brightness, texture, and color of pixels [27]. How-
ever, algebraic graph theoretic image processing techniques are
primarily intended toward clustering or segmenting graphs recon-
structed from images, which are inhomogeneous in appearance.
In contrast, machined surfaces are typically homogenous, i.e., the
various morphological features, such as tool feed marks, are dis-
tributed uniformly over the surface. The homogenous morphology
of machined surfaces encountered in machining presents an oppor-
tunity for applying the graph theoretic approach; this homogeneity
assumption is an essential assumption in this work.
The two phased approach depicted in Fig. 2 used to realize graph
theoretic representation and subsequent quantication of ultrapre-
cision surface morphology from optical micrograph images. Before
proceeding, it is noted that the efcacy of the presented approach
is contingent on optical image quality. Therefore, the reliability of
results is intrinsically tied to imaging conditions, such as focus,
lighting, ltering, and other environmental aspects. Accordingly,
in the turning experiments described in this work, care is taken
to maintain consistent imaging conditions. For instance, in the
machining case study described in Section 5, the lighting and cam-
era exposure conditions are maintained identical across all tests.
3.1. Phase 1: graph representation of optical images scanned
using a laser interferometer
Let IMN be the matrix representation of a M N pixels optical
image of a turned surface. The image is aligned such that the feed
marks appear column-wise, as shown in Fig. 3. Due to homogeneity
of feature distribution in machining (see Fig. 9), each row of I may
Fig. 2. Overview of the methodology for graph theoretic quantication of surface
morphology.
 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276
Fig. 3. A portion of the turned workpiece experimentally obtained in this work. The
pixel rows are taken across the feed marks.
be treated to be the vertex (or node) of the undirected graph G (V,
E) with nodes (vertices) V and edges E [28]. From the M rows of I
vectors F(I) , I = {1, 2, . . . M} are constructed, which are row vectors
of image pixel values. The pairwise comparison metrics wij between
F(I) are computed using a kernel function [27].
wij = (Fi , Fj )i, j I.
These row-wise pixel comparisons are critical for facilitating
analysis of homogeneous surfaces as they allow inclusion of fea-
tures up to a length of N pixels scales; and consequently, the
computation complexity reduces from a bi-quadratic O(M2 N2 )
to quadratic O(M2 ) number. Next a threshold function  is applied
which converts wij into binary form,
(wij ) = wij = (0, 1)
It is reiterated that the row-wise pixels are taken in a manner
to cut across the feed marks, as shown in Fig. 3. This is necessary
to capture and compare the difference in surface texture due to
spacing of the feedmarks across the workpiece.
The binary symmetric similarity matrix S = [wij ] represents the
graph G with only those nodes satisfying the threshold condition
set in Eq. (2) being connected, i.e., if an edge exists between any
two nodes i and j i, j I then wij = 1, else wij = 0.
The topology of G inculcates the effect of multi-scale features
simultaneously without the need to sift through different length
scales as typically required in wavelet decomposition and fractal
mapping. The topology of the graph G is dependent on the nature
of the kernel () and threshold () functions. In this work the
following radial basis kernel and threshold function pairs are used,
 
||Fi Fj ||2
I2
wij = (Fi , Fj ) = e i, j I, I = (1. . .M).
 
= ||Fi Fj ||2
 4. Simulation of 3D surface proles with varying surface
1, wij r
(wij ) = wij =
0. wij > r
M M
wij
where r = i=1 i=1
and where I is the standard deviation of
M2
the elements in the Euclidean distance matrix . The Radial Basis
Kernel is chosen because it smoothens the pairwise comparisons
wij = (Fi , Fj ) in the (0,1] interval, as evident from the following
limit: lim wij = 1 and lim wij = 0. This smoothening negates
Fi Fj 0 Fi Fj
the effect of noise to a modest degree, and was suitable for grayscale
images in the existing literature [27].
Typically, the threshold function  in Eq. (2) is a heuristic, man-
ually tuned entity or a so-called hard threshold i.e., a threshold
(r) is selected by the user. In the graph segmentation literature,
researchers customarily select such hard threshold (r) [2931]. The
269
threshold (r) is used to make the similarity matrix S sparse and
binary. This signicantly reduces the computational complexity,
particularly the eigen decompositions. To the best of the authors
knowledge, there is no closed form solution that optimizes for r.
One of the advantages of this work is that,  is a Heaviside step
function for which the threshold (r) is set equal to the average of wij ,
i=1 j=1
wij
i.e., r = M M
, which relaxes the selection of the threshold,
M2
because, the threshold can be adaptively estimated contingent on
the input image, as opposed to selecting a heuristically determined
number. The emphasis of the subsequent section is to identify a
parameter for quantifying the topology of the graph G. Such quan-
tiers of network topology can be obtained from the Laplacian Eigen
Spectrum of the graph G as described in Section 3.2 [28,30].
3.2. Phase 2: quantication of surface morphology using graph
theoretic topological invariants
First the degree di of a node i is computed, which is a count of
the number of edges that are incident upon the node, and obtain
(1)
the diagonal degree matrix D structured from di ,

j=M
di = wij i, j I, (4)
j=1
D def diag(d1 , . . ., dM ). (5)
Next, the normalized Laplacian L of the graph G is dened,
(2)
L def D(1/2) (D S) D(1/2) . (6)
L is analogous to Kirchhoff matrix encountered in electrical
networks [32]. Thereafter, the eigen spectrum of L is computed
as,
Lv =  v. (7)
Noting that L is symmetric positive semidenite matrix, i.e.,
L 0, its eigenvalues ( ) are non-negative, and bounded between
0 and 2, i.e., 0 i 2. The smallest non-zero eigenvalue (2 ) is
termed the Fiedler number and the corresponding eigenvector (v2 )
as the Fiedler vector [28,33]. Barring pathological scenarios, the
Fiedler number is bounded as follows, 0 < 2 < 1 [28]. In the forth-
coming sections, it is validated using numerically generated, as well
as experimentally acquired machined (cylindrical OD turning) sur-
faces that the graph theoretic topological invariant Fiedler number
(2 ) can track surface nish variations. The mathematical implica-
tions of the Fiedler number (2 ) and why it is able to distinguish
subtle surface variations are explained in the authors recent pub-
lications [34].
(3)
roughness
The graph theoretic approach is demonstrated using articially
generated surfaces, which are aligned closely with experimen-
tal investigations of this work (Section 5). The research question
is to examine whether the Fiedler number is capable of detec-
ting changes in surface roughness (Sa, Sq). In this study, 3D
rough surfaces are generated with known root mean square sur-
face roughness (Sq). The surfaces have Gaussian distributed peak
heights (Fig. 4); the surfaces are obtained using an FFT-based
approach [35]. The Sq is varied from 3 m to 30 m, in integer steps
of 3 m, to emulate the typical surface roughness range of conven-
tional machining processes, such as turning, milling, shaping [1];
representative examples are shown in Fig. 4. Given the inherent
nature of the FFT algorithm used for surface generation [35], it is
noted that average surface roughness (Sa) cannot be controlled,
270 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276

Fig. 4. Three representative surfaces with underlying random Gaussian distribution with different surface roughness (Sq and Sa).

however, the Sa was directly proportional to Sq, as exemplied in number can detect changes in surface roughness with a resolution
Fig. 4. of 3 m (Sq). The results from this study are closely corrobo-
In order to estimate the Fiedler number, the top view, akin to an rated by experimental results discussed in the subsequent section
optical image of the generated surfaces, (Fig. 4, bottom row) is used (Section 5).
for analysis; viz., the input image I in Eq. (1). For each of the 10 lev-
els of surface roughness, 75 surfaces and accompanying images are
5. Practical implementation
obtained, and subsequently analyzed using the Radial Basis Kernel
function delineated in Eq. (3). The resulting Fiedler number vs. sur-
5.1. Experimental setup and in situ image acquisition
face roughness (Sq) trend is graphed in Fig. 5. The Fiedler number
decreases with increase in surface roughness, however, the trend
The aim of this study is to apply the presented graph theoretic
is not linear.
approach for in situ measurement of surface nish in a conventional
Next, it is statistically veried whether the difference in (mean)
cylindrical machining (turning) operation. The experimental setup
Fiedler number is signicant with respect to surface nish. For this
used to acquire images of the workpiece in situ during turning is
purpose Tukeys statistical pairwise comparison test was used, the
shown in Fig. 7. These images are used for estimating the surface
results from which are visually depicted in Fig. 6 [36]. Based on
roughness of the workpiece in near real-time via the Fiedler number
the Tukey test results, it reasonable to conclude that the Fiedler
(2 ). In other words, each image (I) of the workpiece surface serves
as input to the graph theoretic approach, and culminates in a Fiedler
number (2 ) following the process delineated in Eqs. (1)(7). The
experimental setup is depicted in Fig. 7(a) and (b).

Fig. 5. Fiedler number vs. surface roughness (Sq) of articially generated 3D sur- Fig. 6. p-Values for the pair-wise differences using Tukeys method. A lower p-value,

faces. The error bars are 1(/ n) in length (n = 75, and  is the pooled standard typically, p-val. 0.05 indicates there is a statistically signicant difference in Fiedler
deviation). number between two comparisons.
 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276
Table 1
Workpiece conditions (segments) as per descending order of surface roughness (Sa) used in this work.
AISI 4340 alloy steel shaft 6061 aluminum alloy shaft
Roughness (Sa) (m) Roughness (Sa) (m)
23.22 17.4
19.21 9.86
15.18 12.51
10.08 8.71
6.96 5.17
4.5 3.48
3.37 1.7
2.77 0.85
2.16 0.52
Fig. 7. (a) and (b) Two views of on the benchtop lathe-based test bed showing the
CCD camera mounted on the underside of the workpiece. The stand-off distance
between the workpiece shown (1 in. aluminum 6061 shaft) and camera is approx-
imately 0.5 in. This distance can be varied using more expensive telescopic lenses;
the setup shown above uses a xed focal length lens (f = 12 mm).
As shown in Fig. 7, a pilot test bed was set up on a Leblond
manual geared lathe. The shafts machined were of two different
materials, namely, a 1.2 in. (30.4 mm) 4340 alloy steel shaft, and
a 1 in. (25.4 mm) 6061 aluminum alloy shaft. The image acqui-
sition system consisted of a compact instrumentation imaging
lens (12 mm xed focal length) attached to a CCD camera (Point
Grey Grasshopper3 GS3-U3-50S5C). The camera has a resolution
of 2448 2048 (5 megapixel) resolution. A diffuse white LED light
source (Advanced Illumination) was used; the intensity of this light
source is close to 20,000 lux. The LED light source was positioned
on the far end of the tool carriage. The angle of the illumination
was adjusted such that the least amount of glare was cast upon
the workpiece. Fig. 7(a) and (b) illustrates the manner in which the
camera was positioned. The camera is located on the bottom side
of the tool carriage, and images are taken as the carriage moves
along the longitudinal feed direction (toward the headstock, neg-
ative Z direction in the lathe coordinate convention). Essentially,
these tests emulate a cylindrical (OD) turning scenario.
These shafts were machined by turning with a dead center as
shown in Fig. 7 using a carbide insert.1 The machining is done at a
1
Grade: KTI50 Insert Shape & Angle: Triangular 60 , Tool Material: Coated Car-
bide, Relief Angle: 0 Insert IC: in. Insert Radius: 1/64 in.
271
Feed (in/rev) (mm/rev) Segment label
0.0200 (0.5 mm/rev) 9 (roughest)
0.0180 (0.45 mm/rev) 8
0.0160 (0.40 mm/rev) 7
0.0130 (0.325 mm/rev) 6
0.0100 (0.250 mm/rev) 5
0.0080 (0.20 mm/rev) 4
0.0057 (0.1425 mm/rev) 3
0.0036 (0.09 mm/rev) 2
0.0018 (0.045 mm/rev) 1 (smoothest)
cutting speed of 256 rpm and the depth of cut is set as 0.0250 in.
(0.625 mm). Keeping this setting constant, nine roughness levels
along the length were achieved by varying the feed, as shown in
Table 1. Each segment reported in Table 1 is a 1 in. long (25 mm)
contiguous portion. For verication purposes, the surface rough-
ness for each segment was measured ofine by a Wyko NT1100
non-contact optical surface proler. For each type of shaft, three
sample locations from each segment were measured with the opti-
cal proler. The average of these three measurements for each
segment is shown in Table 1.
To eliminate the effect of fumes, chips, and coolant, the shafts
were pre-machined; i.e., the images are acquired when no cutting
takes place. However, for acquiring the images, the machine head-
stock is varied under three different rotation speeds (states): static
(0 rpm), at the minimum possible speed on the lathe (45 rpm), and
the actual speed at which the workpieces are machined (256 rpm)
to examine the effect the rotational speed on the images for calcu-
lating the Fiedler numbers (2 ). In order to extend this work to true
production scenarios, a pneumatic xture will be used to continu-
ously clear away debris, moreover, the camera lens will be enclosed
in a clear quartz window to protect from coolant splashes.
The standoff distance of the camera from workpiece, the angle
in which the image is acquired, and lighting are critical parameters.
These were xed so that the highest possible image quality (high
resolution, minimum glare) was obtained; these conditions remain
xed throughout the test. Likewise, camera parameters, such as
exposure time and framerate are also consequential to image qual-
ity, these were maintained at the maximum limit (66 ms and 15 fps,
respectively). For each segment on the workpiece 25 images were
Fig. 8. (Left) Cropping image of a sample location of the rst area. The nal
cropped images are approximately 3 mm 1.5 mm (600 pixels in length 300 pixel
in breadth, as annotated). (Right) An illustration of one cropped sample from each
segment of the AISI 4340 alloy steel shaft.
272 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276

Fig. 9. Representative images of the nine sections for the Al 6061 workpiece. The units for surface roughness (Ra) are in micrometers (m), the feed is in inch per revolution;
the feed is exactly reproduced from the machine tool. The surface roughness increases proportional to the feed rate.

captured from slightly different locations, thereafter the camera is pixel (3 mm 1.5 mm) image, the total computation time2 for the
translated to the subsequent segment. Representative images from Fiedler number is approximately 0.05 s (i.e., less than a tenth of a
the CCD camera are shown in Fig. 9. second). The computation time for cropping the image is vanish-
ingly small (less than 1 ms) due to build in functions in Matlab. Thus
indicating suitability of the method for real-time applications. Thus
5.2. Image preprocessing
a measurement delay of approximately 1/10th s is associated with
detecting a process drift. To compensate for the process drift, a cor-
Due to the reective nature of metal surfaces, optical glare
rective loop will be necessary. Such a corrective control loop will
and diffusion are unavoidable. Hence, only certain portions of the
add two more types of delays, namely, decision and control action
image are usable for analysis. In addition, the curvature of the
delays. Completing the control loop is part of the future work of
workpiece distorts the feed mark as noted in Fig. 8. The graph
this research.
theoretic image analysis procedure ideally requires a at surface,
The results are presented in Fig. 11. A clear decreasing, albeit
entailing that cropping and rotation of the image are needed to
nonlinear, trend can be recognized from Fig. 11; the Fiedler num-
produce a nal image with parallel feed marks and uniform illumi-
ber decreases with increasing surface roughness. This result bears
nation.
a noteworthy resemblance to the numerical case study with 3D
The curvature and glare area as well as dark area are contin-
surfaces described in Section 4, where the (nonlinear) decrease
gent on the workpiece diameter, hence, cropping of the image
in Fiedler number with increase in surface roughness was rst
is required to select an evenly illuminated portion of the image,
depicted in Fig. 5. Pertinently, the trends observed in Fig. 11 are
and the rotation angle needed to achieve near-vertical feed marks.
found to be robust to the rotational speed.
These preprocessed images will serve as inputs to the graph the-
The Fiedler number vs. Sa trend is however not unambiguous in
oretic algorithm (matrix IMN ) in Eq. (1). Therefore, the cropped
the last three segments, namely, segments 7, 8 and 9, as observed
area should be large enough to be representative of the surface
from Fig. 11. This is because the inordinately high cutting feed used
morphology of the part. On the other hand, if the cropped area
for obtaining the high surface roughness in segments 7, 8, and 9,
is very large, more noise (such as glare-affected, dark/obscured,
leads to surface imperfections, such as cracks, adhered chip residue
or curvature prone areas) will be introduced. Hence, the location
from built-up-edge as shown in Fig. 12(a). These imperfections vio-
and size of the crop are heuristically chosen and done once for a
late the homogeneity assumption (see Section 3). Furthermore, the
given diameter of the workpiece, and remain xed thereafter. The
surface roughness obtained in these segments (7, 8, and 9) is sub-
cropping parameters were estimated ofine after an initial set of
stantially outside the typical surface nish ranges (see Fig. 12(b))
data were acquired. In a practical scenario, these parameters will be
observed in practice (0.510 m).
calibrated ofine. Representative images obtained for the Al 6061
Continuing with the analysis, Tukeys pairwise statistical com-
shaft obtained after post-processing are shown in Fig. 9. The corre-
parison tests are conducted to test the hypothesis whether there
sponding ofine measurement of the surface nish using the optical
is a signicant difference in Fiedler number (2 ) with respect to
prolometer data is shown in Fig. 10.
different segments on the workpiece. The results from Tukeys pair-
wise comparison test (p-values) are shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b) for
5.3. Fiedler number calculation and estimation of surface the AISI 4340 alloy steel and 6061 aluminum alloy shafts, in every
roughness experimental rotational speed, respectively.
For the AISI 4340 alloy steel shaft, the Fiedler number is
The Fiedler numbers calculated from these images were cor- able to distinguish the difference between 31 of the 36 pair-
related with the surface roughness (Sa) using a regression model. wise comparisons of surface nish segments at 5% level of
Approximately 25 images were acquired for each of the nine seg-
ments demarcated on the workpiece, in all close to 225 images
were acquired. The computation time for the Fiedler number (2 ) 2
Run on a Dell Latitude E5540 Laptop with Intel CoreTM i7-4600U CPU @
is contingent on the size of the input image. For a 600 pixel 300 2.70 GHz Processor.
 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276 273

Fig. 10. Representative data from the optical prolometer (Wyko NT1100) for the nine sections of the Al 6061 workpiece. Note the surface imperfections in segments 7, 8,
and 9.

Fig. 11. Fiedler number (2 ) vs. segment (Ra value). The error bars are 1(/ n) in length from the mean Fiedler number (2 ), n is the number of replications for each feed
rate condition (n = 25). (a) Result for the three experimental machine states of the AISI 4340 alloy steel shaft. (b) Result for the three experimental machine states of the 6061
aluminum alloy shaft.

signicance (), i.e., p-value < 0.05 = . Likewise, for the 6061 alu-
minum shaft, the Fiedler number is statistically signicant for
28 (for static and 45 rpm states) and 29 (for 256 rpm state)
out of 36 pairwise comparisons. These results attest the via-
bility of the graph theoretic approach for in situ surface nish
measurement.
Next, the trends observed in Fig. 11 are quantied using a non-
linear regression model. Segments 7, 8, and 9 are excluded from this
model due to reasons noted earlier. The aim is to obtain a surface
roughness reading from an image, given the shaft size and extracted
Fiedler number (2 ). The regression model in this work takes the
following general form,
= a2 + b +
Sa (8)
2 + c
where a, b, and c are different parameters, which are contingent
on the shaft material, shaft turning speed, camera setting, and esti-
mated a priori from based on experimental data; is the model
prediction error; and 2 is the Fiedler number estimated for the
image. The LHS of Eq. (8) Sa is the estimated surface roughness.
Eq. (8) is a typical single-degree rational regression model, and is
one of the common ways to capture nonlinear trends, such as those
observed in Fig. 11.
274 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276

Fig. 12. The surface imperfections evident in segment 9 (machined at a feed of 0.5 mm/rev) for the Al 6061 workpiece. (a) Optical micrograph image; (b) data obtained from
the optical prolometer (Wyko NT1100) showing the effect of surface imperfections.

This model was chosen given its simplicity; a more complicated
exponential or higher order parametric model, or black-box model,
such as a neural network may be used for higher accuracy. However,
using such complex modeling approaches hinders tractable appli-
cation from a practical computational time perspective. Given its
simple algebraic nature, the time for estimating the surface rough-
ness (Sa), once the Fiedler number (2 ) is estimated from Eq. (8), is
vanishingly small (less than three signicant decimal places).
The model parameters are determined based on ofine analy-
sis. For each case, about 65% of the data (80 images) are used to
estimate parameters a, b, and c from Eq. (8) and (35)% (40 images)
are applied for validation. The results from the analysis are sum-
marized in Table 2 for the AISI 4340 alloy steel and 6061 aluminum
alloy, respectively for the three different states. From this result, it
is further evident that the Fiedler number correlates closely with
the observed surface nish.

Fig. 13. Results from Tukeys pairwise statistical test conducted to assess statistical difference (p-value) in Fiedler number with respect to different segments (Ra and Rq
values). The values reported are statistical signicance, p-value. A p-value less than the signicance level implies a statistically relevant difference; is typically set at 0.05.
(a) Results for the AISI 4330 alloy steel shaft (31 out of 36 comparisons are statistically different at = 0.05). (b) Results for the 6061 aluminum alloy shaft 28 (29 for 256 rpm
state) out of 36 comparisons are statistically different at = 0.05.
 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276 275

Table 2
Parameters estimate, the models t, and summary of the results for the AISI 4340 alloy steel and 6061 aluminum alloy in the three different turning speeds.

Condition Parameter a Parameter b Parameter c Squared error (validation result, 40 images)

4340 0 rpm 0.3959 0.9598 0.4807 0.009

4340 45 rpm 0.3008 0.9846 0.4719 0.015
4340 256 rpm 0.5445 1.369 0.4213 0.154
6061 0 rpm 1.829 1.735 0.4382 0.497
6061 45 rpm 0.6666 0.7872 0.4866 0.076
6061 256 rpm 2.746 2.591 0.3767 1.008

Fig. 14. Estimated vs. measured arithmetic mean surface roughness (Sa) for different headstock rpm. (a) Results for the AISI 4340 steel shaft. (b) Results for the Al 6061 shaft.
Barring one instance the estimated surface roughness error is within 2 m of the actual.

The estimated surface roughness Sa and the actual (measured)
surface roughness from the prolometer using the test data are jux-
taposed in Fig. 14, from where it is evident that, barring one instance
in Fig. 14(a) for the high dynamic speed (256 rpm), the majority of
the data points indicate that the surface nish is estimated with
an accuracy of Sa 12 m. This translates to less than 15% overall
estimation error. This inference attests to the validity of the central
hypothesis of this research made in Section 1.1.
6. Conclusions
The graph theoretic topological invariant Fiedler number (2 )
was proposed to measure surface nish of turned shafts in situ using
a CCD camera setup. First, the approach was tested in a simula-
tion study where 3D surface proles with surface roughness (Sq) in
the range of 330 m were numerically generated (Section 4). The
Fiedler number (2 ) showed an increasing trend, albeit nonlinear,
with decrease in surface roughness.
Next, machining (OD turning) experiments were conducted on
a lathe. Two shafts, one AISI 4340 steel, and the other Al 6061,
were machined (OD turning) on a lathe with feed varying between
45 m/rev and 500 m/rev to obtain different magnitude of surface
roughness (average surface roughness, Sa roughly between 1 m
and 20 m) under three different conditions along their length at
256 rpm cutting speed, and 625 m depth of cut with a carbide
cutting tool. Thereafter, images of the different areas of the shaft
were taken using the CCD camera, rst when the machine is static
(0 rpm) and two other speeds, namely, 45 rpm and 256 rpm.
Subsequently, the Fiedler number was estimated in less than
tenth of a second, and correlated with ofine surface rough-
ness measurements in a rational regression setting. The difference
between actual surface roughness and that estimated from the
Fiedler number was less than 15%; the error in terms of arithmetic
mean average surface roughness (Sa) is 2 m, when Sa is in the
range of 110 m. Thus, the approach was found robust to rota-
tional speed, and it does not require the machine to be stopped. As
part of ongoing research the focus is on completing the process
correction loop by integrating a closed-loop controller. Further-
more, the authors are investigating the applicability of graph theo-
retic methods for evaluation of free-form surface geometries [37].
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the help of the machinists at the Har-
ris Manufacturing Lab at Virginia Tech Mr. Phillip Ratcliff, Mr.
Randy Waldron, Mr. W. Randall Monk, Mr. Kelly Snidow, and Mr.
Joe Linkous; and the machinists and technicians at the Watson
School, Binghamton University: Mr. Victor Fiori, Mr. Robert Pulz,
Mr. David Richner, and Mr. Robert Mess. The authors thank the
three anonymous reviewers for their time, patience, and construc-
tive comments which have doubtlessly improved upon the rigor
of this work. One of the authors (S. Bukkapatnam) acknowledges
support from the National Science Foundation for this research via
Award Number - CMMI 1432914.
References
[1] DeGarmo E, Black JT, Kosher R. Material and processing in manufacturing. New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 2003.
[2] Bennett JM. Recent developments in surface roughness characterization. Meas
Sci Technol 1992;3:1119.
[3] Vorburger T, Teague E. Optical techniques for on-line measurement of surface
topography. Precis Eng 1981;3:6183.
[4] De Chiffre L, Kunzmann H, Peggs G, Lucca D. Surfaces in precision engi-
neering, microengineering and nanotechnology. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol
2003;52:56177.
[5] Jiang X. Precision surface measurement. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng
Sci 2012;370:4089114.
[6] Jiang X, Scott PJ, Whitehouse DJ, Blunt L. Paradigm shifts in surface metrol-
ogy. Part 2: the current shift. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci
2007;463:207199.
[7] Jiang X, Scott PJ, Whitehouse DJ, Blunt L. Paradigm shifts in surface metrol-
ogy. Part 1: historical philosophy. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci
2007;463:204970.
[8] Gupta M, Raman S. Machine vision assisted characterization of machined sur-
faces. Int J Product Res 2001;39:75984.
[9] Schwenke H, Neuschaefer-Rube U, Pfeifer T, Kunzmann H. Optical methods for
dimensional metrology in production engineering. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol
2002;51:68599.
276 M.S. Tootooni et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 41 (2016) 266276
[10] Rao P, Bukkapatnam S, Beyca O, Kong Z, Komanduri R. Real-time identica-
tion of incipient surface morphology variations in ultra-precision machining
process. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 2014;136:021008.
[11] Liang SY, Hecker RL, Landers RG. Machining process monitoring and control:
the state-of-the-art. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 2004;126:297310.
[12] Kurada S, Bradley C. A review of machine vision sensors for tool condition
monitoring. Comput Ind 1997;34:5572.
[13] Lu C. Study on prediction of surface quality in machining process. J Mater
Process Technol 2008;205:43950.
[14] Kiran MB, Ramamoorthy B, Radhakrishnan V. Evaluation of surface roughness
by vision system. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1998;38:68590.
[15] Gadelmawla ES. A vision system for surface roughness characterization using
the gray level co-occurrence matrix. NDT & E Int 2004;37:57788.
[16] Khalifa O, Densibali A, Faris W. Image processing for chatter identication in
machining processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2006;31:4439.
[17] Kumar R, Kulashekar P, Dhanasekar B, Ramamoorthy B. Application of digital
image magnication for surface roughness evaluation using machine vision.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2005;45:22834.
[18] Zhisheng Z, Zixin C, Jinfei S, Ruhong M, Fang J. A neural network-based machine
vision method for surface roughness measurement. In: International confer-
ence on mechatronics and automation. 2009. p. 32937.
[19] Dutta S, Kanwat A, Pal SK, Sen R. Correlation study of tool ank wear with
machined surface texture in end milling. Measurement 2013;46:424960.
[20] Chen Z, Xu F. Application of gray level co-occurrence matrix method in
characterization of cylindrical grinding surface roughness. Appl Mech Mater
2014;433:2113.
[21] Kamguem R, Tahan SA, Songmene V. Evaluation of machined part sur-
face roughness using image texture gradient factor. Int J Precis Eng Manuf
2013;14:18390.
[22] Lee BY, Juan H, Yu SF. A study of computer vision for measuring surface rough-
ness in the turning process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2002;19:295301.
[23] Lee BY, Yu SF, Juan H. The model of surface roughness inspection by vision
system in turning. Mechatronics 2004;14:12941.
[24] Chang SI, Ravathur JS. Computer vision based non-contact surface roughness
assessment using wavelet transform and response surface methodology. Qual
Eng 2005;17:43551.
[25] Jiang X, Scott P, Whitehouse DJ. Wavelets and their applications for surface
metrology. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2008;57:5558.
[26] Tsai D-M, Chen J-J, Chen J-F. A vision system for surface roughness assessment
using neural networks. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1998;14:41222.
[27] Shi J, Malik J. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal
Mach Intell 2000;22:888905.
[28] Chung FRK. Spectral graph theory. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Soci-
ety; 1997.
[29] Nascimento MC, De Carvalho AC. Spectral methods for graph clustering a
survey. Eur J Oper Res 2011;211:22131.
[30] Von Luxburg U. A tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat Comput
2007;17:395416.
[31] Schaeffer SE. Graph clustering. Comput Sci Rev 2007;1:2764.
[32] Mohar B. The Laplacian spectrum of graphs. Graph Theory Comb Appl
1991;2:87198.
[33] Fiedler M. Algebraic connectivity of graphs. Czechoslov Math J
1973;23:298305.
[34] Rao PK, Beyca OF, Kong Z, Bukkaptanam ST, Case KE, Komanduri R. A
graph theoretic approach for quantication of surface morphology and its
application to chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process. IIE Trans
2015;47:1088111.
[35] Wu J-J. Simulation of rough surfaces with FFT. Tribol Int 2000;33:4758.
[36] Montgomery DC. Introduction to statistical quality control. John Wiley & Sons;
2008.
[37] Rao P, Kong Z, Kunc V, Smith R, Love L, Duty C. Assessment of dimen-
sional integrity and spatial defect localization in additive manufacturing (AM)
using spectral graph theory (SGT). ASME Trans J Manuf Sci Eng 2015;138:
05100719.
[38] Cheng C, Wang Z, Hung W, Bukkapatnam STS. Proceedia Manufacturing, 1;
2015. p. 60718, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.044.