Figure 2.3 plan view of a conventional turning process with feed marks or lead angel. If the feed is larger than 2t,sinC, (Case I in Figure 2.5), the ideal peak-to- finishing it is approximately Figure 3.3 ANFIS architecture for a two-input Sugeno fuzzy model. For explain this model simply, we have assumed only two rules, and two ANFIS architecture is shown in Figure 3.3. Five network layers are used by Table 3.1 Measured Ra in microns (training data set) Table 3.2 Measured Ra in microns (testing data set) Figure 3.4 loading the training data set Figure 3.8 Fuzzy rules properties Figure 3.10 Training error curve of modeling Ra for trimf using 100 epochs. Figure 3.13 Training error curve of modeling Ra for gaussmf using 100 Figure 3.14 Training error curve of modeling Ra for pimf using 100 epochs. Figure 3.15 Training error curve of modeling Ra for dsigmf using 100 epochs. Training Error Figure 3.16 Training error curve of modeling Ra for psigmf using 100 epochs. Training Error - The difference between two sigmoid memberships function (dsigmf) gives a Figure 3.19 Initial and final membership function of depth of cut. Figure 3.21 The rule viewer of fuzzy toolbox of Matlab program of modeling Ra. Figure 4.1 ProLight2000 CNC end milling machine. Figure 4.2 Stylus-based profilometer. Figure 4.6 Strain distributions using finite element simulation Figure 4.9 The end milling dynamometer Figure 4.10 Assembly drawing of the milling dynamometer. Table 4.1 parts list of the milling dynamometer. Table 5.1 Measured feed force and normal force (training data set) Table 5.2 Measured feed force and normal force (testing data set) Figure 5.2 Training error curve of modeling Ra for trapmf using 100 epochs. Figure 5.5 Training error curve of modeling Ra for pimf using 100 epochs. Figure 5.6 Training error curve of modeling Ra for dsigmf using 100 epochs. Figure 5.8 Initial and final membership function of normal force. Figure 6.1 The variation of surface roughness against speed at different feed Figure 6.2 The variation of surface roughness against speed at different feed Figure 6.3 The variation of surface roughness against speed at different feed Figure 6.4 The variation of surface roughness against feed rate at different Figure 6.5 The variation of surface roughness against feed rate at different Figure 6.6 The variation of surface roughness against feed rate at different speed for depth of cut = 0.7 mm Figure 6.6 The variation of surface roughness against feed rate at different Figure 6.7 The variation of surface roughness against speed and feed rate for depth of cut = 0.3 mm Figure 6.7 The variation of surface roughness against speed and feed rate for Figure 6.9 the variation of surface roughness against speed and feed rate for depth of cut = 0.7 mm Figure 6.9 the variation of surface roughness against speed and feed rate for Figure 6.10 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 50 mm/min Figure 6.10 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut at Figure 6.11 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut at Figure 6.12 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut at ‘igure 6.13 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut a different speed for feed rate = 200 mm/min Figure 6.13 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut at Figure 6.14 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut j different speed for feed rate = 250 mm/min Figure 6.14 The variation of surface roughness against depth of cut at Figure 6.16 The variation of feed force against speed at different feed rate for Figure 6.17 The variation of feed force against speed at different feed rate for depth of cut = 0.5 mm. Figure 6.17 The variation of feed force against speed at different feed rate for Figure 6.18 The variation of feed force against speed at different feed rate for Figure 6.20 The variation of normal force against speed at different feed rate for depth of cut = 0.5 mm. Figure 6.20 The variation of normal force against speed at different feed rate Figure 6.21 The variation of normal force against speed at different feed rate for depth of cut = 0.7 mm. Figure 6.21 The variation of normal force against speed at different feed rate Figure 6.22 The variation of feed force against feed rate at different speed for Figure 6.23 The variation of feed force against feed rate at different speed for Figure 6.24 The variation of feed force against feed rate at different speed for depth of cut = 0.7 mm. Figure 6.24 The variation of feed force against feed rate at different speed for Figure 6.26 The variation of normal force against feed rate at different speed for danth of cut —0.5 mm. Figure 6.26 The variation of normal force against feed rate at different speed Figure 6.27 The variation of normal force against feed rate at different speed Figure 6.28 The variation of feed force against rotational speed and feed rate for depth of cut = 0.3 mm. Figure 6.28 The variation of feed force against rotational speed and feed ra Figure 6.29 The variation of feed force against rotational speed and feed rate for depth of cut = 0.5 mm. Figure 6.31 The variation of normal force against rotational speed and feed rate for depth of cut = 0.3 mm. Figure 6.32 The variation of normal force against rotational speed and feed rate for depth of cut = 0.5 mm. Figure 6.32 The variation of normal force against rotational speed and feed Figure 6.34 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed Figure 6.35 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 100 mm/min. Figure 6.35 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed Figure 6.36 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 150 mm/min. Figure 6.36 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed Figure 6.37 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed Figure 6.38 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed fan Fnanand natn — JRN mm/min Figure 6.38 The variation of feed force against depth of cut at different speed Figure 6.39 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 50 mm/min. Figure 6.39 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different Figure 6.40 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different Figure 6.41 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 150 mm/min. Figure 6.41 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different Figure 6.42 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 200 mm/min. Figure 6.42 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different Figure 6.43 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different speed for feed rate = 250 mm/min. Figure 6.43 The variation of normal force against depth of cut at different Figure 6.44 The variation of feed force against rotational speed and dept of cut for feed rate = 150 mm/min. Figure 6.44 The variation of feed force against rotational speed and dept of Figure 6.45 The variation of normal force against rotational speed and depth of cut for feed rate = 150 mm/min. Figure 6.47 Measured Ra versus predicted Ra Table 6.1 Comparison of measured Ra and predicted Ra. Figure 2 Elements and resultant unevenness of surface: | - shape flaw; 2 - Figure 3 The average roughness, Ra. Figure 5 Three surfaces all have the same Ra and similar shapes of the Figure 6 The maximum height of the profile, Rt Where Rvi is the depth of the deepest valley in the i-th sample length and Rtt is Figure 7 Roughness height, Rz(ISO) depth within a sampling length, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 Third highest peaks to third lowest valley height The parameter R3zi is the height from the third highest peak to the third lowest R3zi - Third Highest Peak to Third Lowest Valley Height order to be counted, as shown in Figure 9. line. A peak must cross above the upper threshold and below the lower threshold 1 Figure 10 Peak count versus threshold for a ground surface and a turned surface parameter shows no stability. For the turned surface there is a bit of flattening out Figure 12 Mean spacing, Sm parameter such as Ra is probably not adequate to characterize the quality of th Figure 15 Physical Significance of the bearing ratio curve of a surface lies at a given height) as shown in Figure 15. a profile lies above a certain height (compared to the ADF which tells how much down from the mean line of the roughness profile. Figure 20 Gaussian probability scales
