Journal of

Materials
Processing
Technology
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-447

An Evaluation Approach of Machine Tool Characteristics with Adaptive Prediction

Department

of Mechanical

Takashi Matsumura, Hiroaki Sekiguchi, and Eiji Usui

Engineering,
Tokyo Denki University, 2-2 K&da Nishiki-cho,

Chiyoda-ku,

Tokyo, 101, JAPAN!

Abstract
Machine tool characteristics such as stiffness and vibration have a large influence on cutting processes. This paper presents an
evaluation approach of machine tool characteristics with adaptive prediction. Adaptive prediction can predict tool wear and surface
roughness by analysis and neural network, and adapt the parameters used for the prediction to practical processes. Machine tool
characteristics of two machine tools can be evaluated by the processes that are predicted using the parameters acquired in the same
operations. The effects of machine tool characteristics on the optimum cutting conditions and machining scheduling are shown with
the results of adaptive prediction.
Key words: tool wear, surface rough7ze.c.r,flzachiile tool, neural network,

1. Introduction
Machine tool characteristics
such as stiffness, thermal
deformation,
and vibration
have an influence
on cutting
processes.
It is, therefore,
important
to evaluate the
characteristics as well as machine tool specifications
such as
power and kinematical accuracy in machining operation. There
are two points of view of the machine tool characteristics. One
is the influence of machine tool elements and structure on
machine tool characteristics.
Machine tool manufacturers
investigate
this point to design machine tool. Then many
studies have been made on the evaluation of machine tool
structure [l-3]. On the other hand, machine shop needs the
information
how to use machine
tool. Another
point,
therefore, is the influence of machine tool characteristics
on
cutting processes such as tool wear, surface finish, and chatter
vibration. If the influence is identified, machine tools can be
used efficiently.
Evaluation
of machine tool characteristics,
therefore, is required in shop floor. Since cutting processes are
given by the combination
of workpiece,
cutting tool, and
machine tool, it is difficult
to evaluate machine tool
characteristics
separately. Furthermore,
the characteristics,
which are dependent on the machining
history of machine
tool, differ with machine tools. As a result, although many
studies [4-61 have been made on operation
planning
and
machining scheduling, there are few attempts with considering
the characteristics.
This paper presents an approach that can
evaluate the influence
of machine tool characteristics
on
cutting
processes
using
adaptive
prediction.
Adaptive
prediction is carried out on two machine tools independently
0924.0136/96/$15.00
PII

0924-0136(96)02450-8

0 1996 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

optimization,

operr2tionplannirl2g,

to compare machine
tool wear and surface
approach is effective
tics and their effects
machining schedule.

2. Adaptive

scheduling

tool characteristics that have effects on

roughness. It is shown that the presented
in evaluating machine tool characterison the optimum cutting conditions and

prediction

Adaptive prediction, as shown in Figure 1, enables us to

predict cutting processes by analysis and neural network.
Analytical prediction needs parameters which are dependent on
material property;
and network prediction
needs weight
parameters between each unit connected. The parameters stand
for machining
characteristics given by the combination
of
cutting tool, workpiece, and machine tool. If the parameters
are accurate, predicted process should agree with practical
process. The parameters, therefore, are determined to reduce
prediction
error, difference between predicted process and
practical one. If once the parameters can be obtained in a few
operations,
cutting processes in several operations can be
predicted by analysis and neural network. Since machine tool
characteristics
have an influence on cutting processes as
described later, adaptive prediction
is carried out on each
machine tool. As a result, the prediction using the parameters
can be adapted to practical process on each machine tool. Each
machine tool, then, has an original
data base, where the
parameters are stored.
Figure 2 shows adaptive prediction of tool wear and surface
roughness
[7]. This paper discusses maximum
surface

T. Matsumura

et al./Joumal

of Materials

Processing

Technology

62 (1996)

where C and L are wear characteristic

wear offset

[7];

441

440-447

V is cutting

constants;

VBO is initial

speed; and ys is relief

Normal stress ofand temperature

angle.

/+on flank wear land can be

given with cutting force and cutting temperature in the

following way:
(a) Cutting force in the machining with single-point
tool can
be calculated by energy approach [9-lo]. Three dimensional
cutting process in Figure 3 is interpreted as a piling up of
orthogonal

Fig. 1 Adaptive

prediction

roughness
under steady cutting process without
chatter
vibration.
Surface roughness is dependent on flank wear and
groovingwear.
Tool wear and surface roughness, therefore, can
be predicted simultaneously.
Flank wear can be predicted by
analysis; and grooving
wear and surface roughness can be
predicted by neural network.
2.1. Adaptive

prediction

with same effective

effective

rake angle

direction

vc is determined

cx. The model defined

in Figure

v,(T)

with machining

predicted analytically
[8], using
flank wear rate dVB/dT :

following

time T can be
equations

with

increases linearly
cutting edge.
by iterative

= VBO +

calculation

(1)

distributed

(2)

and frictional

distribution;

from the

(c) Stress of and temperature

T (dVB i dT) dT
I0
dV~/dT=C.V.afexp(-a.:ef);tany,
vim

to minimize

by chip flow

cutting energy. The

3. Shear stress on shear plane

assumed to be uniform
Flank wear process

shear angle I$ and

energy, which is the sum of shear energy and frictional

energy on rake face of tool, can be calculated using
orthogonal
cutting data as shown in Table 1. Three
components of cutting force can be predicted on the basis
of the cutting model. An example of the results of cutting
force prediction,
cutting model and three components of
cutting force, are shown in Table 2.
(b)Stress distribution
for the cutting model can be given as
shown

of flank wear

cuttings

chip

and frictional
leaving

point

stress

I _ 1 Chip discontinuity
{chip strain) .
I>
r
Built-up edge
* (average temperature
around cutting edge)

of tool wear and surface roughness

to the

with Equation (2). Heat sources arc

on flank

face

tr are given

units, 1 output unit)

-i

Fig. 2 Adaptive prediction

stress tl

on shear plane, rake face, and flank face. 4 rt,

(relative intensity of

ttmg temperature

is

tlfon flank wear land can be given

Neural network for

predicting surface

.I

rs

for

T. Matsumura

et al/Journal

of Materials

Processing

Technology

62 (1996)

440-447

Table 2
Results of energy approach
Chip flow angle
Effective rake angle
Effective shear angle
Friction angle
Tool-chip contact length
Shear velocity
Chip velocity
Principal component
Feed component
Radial component

;
B
I,
Ys
Vc
FH

Fv
FT

20.13 deg

-6.40 deg
20.60 deg
35.85 deg
1.588 mm
223 m/min
79.0 m/min

507N
349N
277N

Cutting conditions: material cut, 0.45% carbon steel;

tool, carbide P20 (-5,-5,5,5,15,15,0.8);
cutting
speed, 200 m/min; depth of cut, 1.0 mm; feed rate,
0.2 mm/rev; lubrication. dry.

Fig. 3 Three dimensional

cutting model and stress distributions

Table 1
Orthogonal cutting data and thermal constants
Work: 0.45% carbon steel, Tool: carbide P20
4 = e?cp(

0.0731/+ 1.458 X 103r1 +0.78Oa-

/? = enp (-0.04OV

- 1.522 X 103,1 +0597n

zs = exp(O.O091/-2.011
I,=

tzexp

(-

1.471) rad
f0.037)

X 102tI +0.414o-i-4.045)X9.8

rad
MPa

0.096P 5.255 X 103c1 ~ 0.504crS 2.797) mm

Thermal conductivity
Specific heat
Density

W/(m . K)

J@s . K)
kg/m 3

Work

Tool

46.05
502

67.0

784

1120

398
Fig. 4 Cutting temperature distribution calculated by FDM
Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2. The width of
lank wear land is 0.2mm. Thermal constants in Table 1 are
used.

4, shear angle; B, friction angle on tool face; zs shear stress on

shear plane; and $, tool-chip contact length; V, cutting speed;
tl undeformed chtp thickness
estimating

heat generation.

4 is assumed to be equal to

normal stress af For the given wear land, finite

method

gives

temperature

distribution

with

difference
a presumed

distribution

of 7 The wear rate, then, can be calculated at

the arbitrary

position

El=

m-l
2

I=1

(3)

of wear land by Equation (2), where C

and a are assumed in adaptation described later. zr is

modified to make the wear rate constant over the flank wear
land. As a result,

of the width of wear land can be calculated by the following

equations:

7 (= 7 ) and t$ can be obtained.

shows cutting temperature

the center of depth of cut.

distribution,

Ez=~&

(4)

Figure 4

a cross section

in

where subscript prnc in Equation (3) and (4) indicates practical

value. The parameters can be adjusted to minimize E1 and E2 by

The parameters C, h and VBO can be adapted to practical

process in the following
way. For IIZ (> 2 ) measured wear data,
the prediction error EI of wear rate and the prediction error Ez

sequential minimax search [ll].

Constants C and A. can be stored for the combination
of
workpiece and tool material, because Equation (2) can give the

T. Matsumura et

al.lJournal

of

Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-447

flank wear rate for any cutting conditions and tool geometry.
Initial wear offset VBOvaries with cutting conditions, tool, and
workpiece. Initial wear offsets, therefore, can be stored in the
form of neural network, in which cutting conditions and tool
geometry are input information
and V,, is that of output. The
network is built up for the combination
material.
2.2. Adaptive

prediction

of surface

of workpiece

and tool

roughness

In the network prediction, neural networks shown in Figure

2 associate surface roughness and grooving
wear in a given
operation with machining results obtained before.
In the neural network, the information
propagates from
input layer (1st layer) to output layer (3rd layer), through
hidden layer (2nd layer). The input to i th unit in the k th layer,
ni k, is given as:
ll,k= tC z,~,k x
J

"j,k

- 11 + t~,k

(5)

where wijk
I I is the weight betweenj th unit in (k-l) th layer and
i th unit in the k th layer; ujkml (u,,,J is the output of j (i )th unit
in the k-l (k )th layer; and tik is the threshold value associated
with the i th unit in the k th layer. The output of a given unit is
assumed to be a sigmoid function of the input and can be
expressed as:
u

.k = f@l.k)

Corresponding

= { 1 + ex;(

- ll,,k)j

to the output (0.0 <f&J

< 1.0) of output layer

unit, surface roughness and grooving wear rate are related to

the range from 0.0 to 1.0.
The parameters to be adapted are the weight parameters
between each unit connected in the networks. In adaptive
process, they are trained by back propagation
[12]. For I th
data, predicted data Zpredr is compared to the practical data
z prnc , I and then the error E of m data is calculated as follows:

Back propagation
adjusts the weights
Equation (5) using gradient information
E as follows:

and the threshold in

to minimize the error

09

where c( and pare the step sizes in adjustment. In the adaptive

prediction by neural network, the network can be trained in
short time by optimizing
a and p. The parameters a and p are
adjusted to maximize the decrease of the prediction
error in
training because step size parameters have a large influence on
convergence of the error.

443

The network for predicting

surface roughness has the
following
input information:
(a) Cutting speed
(b) Affinity between tool and workpiece, which can be given
by relative intensity of Fe-K, on rake face measured with
EPMA [7].
(c) Chip discontinuity,
which can be evaluated by chip strain.
Chip strain can be calculated in the prediction of cutting
force.
(d) Built-up edge formation, which can be evaluated by average
temperature around cutting edge.
(e) Width of flank wear land, which can be predicted as
mentioned in the previous section. Contact condition
between flank face and workpiece can be evaluated.
(f) Theoretical
roughness
R,, considering
tool wear. The
equation, presented by Solaja [13], is approximated by the
following
equation:
R,, = f2

i 8H + (V,

Vi) tan y.

(f < 2H sin C,)

(9)

wheref is feed rate; R, Ye, and C, are nose radius, end relief
angle, and end cutting angle of tool; Vs and VB are size of
grooving wear and that of flank wear land on front cutting
edge respectively. Being assumed to be equal to flank wear
on side cutting edge, VB can be predicted as mentioned in
the previous section. Grooving wear, however, cannot be
predicted analytically.
Another neural network, therefore,
can be used for the prediction as shown in Figure 2. The
information
of input layer units is cutting conditions,
tool
geometry, and grooving
wear size (Vs)r at the time T
considered; and that of output layer unit is grooving
wear
rate dV#T.
Grooving wear size (Vs)l.+dr at T+dT can be
obtained

by following

equation:

(V,),+dT=(VS)T+(dVsidT)dT

(10)

Grooving wear size (VslrtdT is used for the next prediction

of wear rate after time increment dT.
Surface roughness is the time-dependent
process because
input information
of the network includes the width of flank
wear land and size of grooving
wear. Surface roughness,
therefore, can be predicted for every machining time after the
prediction of flank wear and grooving wear.

3. Evaluation

of machine

tool

characteristics

An evaluation approach of machine tool characteristics is

presented to realize efficient machining operation. In adaptive
prediction, the parameters used for the prediction are adjusted
SO that predicted
processes agree with practical ones. Giving
the prediction of cutting processes, the parameters stand for
machining
characteristics in this discussion. Machine tool
characteristics can he evaluated as follows:
(1) Adaptive prediction is carried out on each machine tool to

444

T. Matsumura

of Materials

et al./Joumal

Processing

Table 3
Machine tool data

Allowance
Maximum machining
Maximum machining

Technology

62 (1996)

mm

0.20

Lathe A

Lithe B

cpl80
280

@lO
600

diameter
length

Spindle
Power
Revolution

AC5.5 kw
112~4OOrpm

AC%5 kw
20-3600rpm

2300kgf

3200kgf

Weight

0.10
100

200

Cutting speed
(a)

440-447

300

100

m/min

200

Cutting speed

Lathe A

300

m/min

(b) Lathe B

Fig. 6 Initial wear offset adapted

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2, where cutting
speed and feed rate are variable.
mm

.20

5
Y
5
ii

-.-.
-

::

Lathe
Lathe
- Lathe
Lathe

Cutting

time

A
B
A
B

Measured
Measured
Predicted
Predicted
I
10
min

15

Fig. 5 Prediction of flank wear

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2.

Effects

of

mnchine

tool

chrncteristics

0
100

200

Cutting speed m/min

(a) Lathe A

300

Cutting speed

m/min

(b) Lathe B

Fig. 7 Prediction of flank wear at 10 minutes machining

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2, where cutting
speed and feed rate are variable.

get the parameters used for the prediction.

(2) The system shown in Figure 2 predicts cutting processes
using the parameters adapted. The predicted processes
show us the effects of machine tool characteristics
on
cutting processes.
(3) The effects of machine tool characteristics on machining
operations
can be evaluated by operation planning
and
machining
scheduling
using the results of adaptive
prediction.
Though operation
planning
and machining
scheduling vary with planning conditions such as running
cost, the evaluation of machine tool characteristics gives
us good guidelines for usage of machine tools.
3.1.

_.

on

cutting

processes

Two NC lathes, as shown in Table 3, are examined to

identify their machine tool characteristics
with the same
workpiece
and tool. Adaptive
prediction
can adapt wear
characteristic
constants, initial wear offsets,
and weight
parameters of the networks to six practical operations on each
machine tool independently.
Machine tool characteristics,
therefore, can be acquired in the form of the parameters.

Flank wear processes predicted on two machine tools after

the adaptation of the parameters are shown in Figure 5.
Predicted processes agree with practical processes, and those
results confirm that the parameters can be adapted very well. In
the results, machine tool characteristics have a large influence
on initial
flank wear. On the other hand, they have little
influence on flank wear rate. Figure 6 shows initial wear
offsets adapted on each machine tool with cutting speed and
feed rate. There is a large difference in initial wear offset with
cutting conditions.
Figure 7 shows flank wear predicted with
cutting speed and feed rate at ten minutes machining.
The
width of flank wear on lathe B is less than that on lathe A
when cutting speed and feed rate are low. Flank wear process on
lathe B, however, is sensitive to cutting speed in high speed
area.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show grooving
wear and surface
roughness with cutting time respectively.
The network of
grooving
wear prediction
for each machine tool has been
adapted to 2508 machining
data. The network of surface
roughness prediction for lathe A has been adapted to 712 data;
and that for lathe B has been adapted to 658 data. The results in
these figures verify that adaptive prediction can adapt the
weight parameters of networks to practical processes very

T. Matsumura

et al/Journal

of Materials

Processing

Technology

62 (1996)

Lathe
Lathe
Lathe
Lathe

CSting

A
B
A
B

15

0.10
100

200

Cutting

300

speed

0.10
100

300

200

Cutting speed

m/min

Lathe A

(a)

Fig. 8 Prediction of grooving wear

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2.
s

m/min

(b) Lathe B

Fig. 10 Prediction of grooving wear at 10 minutes machining

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2, where cutting
speed and feed rate are variable.
w

0.20

:
E
a

n
-.-._
-

Lathe
Lathe
Lathe
Lathe

C%ting

A
B
A
B

Measured
Measured
Predicted
Predicted
/
10
time min

0.10

100

(a)

of machine

tool

characteristics

100

300

200

Cutting

m/min

speed

300

m/min

(b) Lathe B

Lathe A

Fig. 11 Prediction of surface roughness at 10 minutes machining

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2, where cutting speed
and feed rate are variable.

well. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the prediction of grooving

wear and surface roughness with cutting speed and feed rate, at
ten minutes machining.
The effects of machine tool
characteristics on grooving wear and surface roughness are less
than those on initial flank wear, The results also enable us to
understand that both of the processes on lathe Aare worse than
those on lathe B. Adaptive prediction,
then, proves to be
effective in identifying
the machine tool characteristics
accurately, even if the difference of machining
process is
little.
Effect

200

Cutting speed

Fig. 9 Prediction of surface roughness

Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2.

3.2.

mm

Measured
Measured
Predicted
Predicted

10
min

time

445

0.20

0.20

w
0
-.-__
-

440--447

on

operation

cannot be changed during the operation.

(c) Three positions
on the turret can be assigned to turning
tools used in the operation
(j&,=3)
according
to the
number of tool used in other operations.
Tolerable maximum values of flank wear V,,, and surface
are given as shown in Table 4. For cutting
roughness U&J,,
speed and feed rate, tool

life Tlir, can be given

when either

flank wear or surface roughness predicted exceeds its tolerable

value. For Nproducts machined with a cutting edge, machining
cost E,(N)can be expressed as the sum of actual cutting
cost,
exchange costs of tool and workpiece,

and tool price C,:

planning
E,(N)

The effect of machine tool characteristics on the optimum

cutting conditions that minimize machining cost is discussed
in the operation planning.
Each lathe machines N,,, bar type
products sequentially in the turning operation shown in Table
4. The constraints of the operation are as follows:
(a) Depth of cut is constant and products are finished with one
feed cutting along the length of workpiece. Tool material
and its shape are fixed.
(b) Tool life for tool exchange cycle and cutting conditions

= C,

N.

T, +C,

T, +C,

N * T, + C,

where 7, is cutting time for one product;

and T, are time for tool index
respectively.
T)+,

(11)

C, is running

and that for work exchange

When Np products are machined

the number

of tools

Tnum

cost; Ti

during tool life

used for machining

all the

products (N,,,) can be calculated as follows:

T ,mm =

(N,=k.

N,, 1 N,
(int)(N,,,l

NJ

+ 1

(N,

N,,)
f k. N,,)

(12)

446

T. Matsumura

et al./Journal

of Materials

Processing

Technology

62 (1996)

440-447

Table 4
Planning conditions and cutting conditions
Planning conditions
Running cost
Price of tool
Time for tool index
Time for tool setting
Time for work setting
Number of position assigned
to tool on turret
Number of work
Length of workpiece
Diameter of workpiece
Tolerable maximum flank wear
Tolerable maximum surface roughness
Cutting conditions
Material cut
Tool material
Tool geometry
Cutting speed
Feed rate
Depth of cut
Lubrication

where (int)(...)
total machining

CT
C,
Ti
Td

$/min
$/edge
min
min
T, min

1
5
1
5
1
3

T set

NW
44 % vBmnv
(R,,,,Y),,m,x

pm

300
50.0
50.0
0.14
14

0.45% carbon steel

Carbide tool P20
(-5,-5,5,5,15,15,0.8)
to be optimized
to be optimized
1.0
dry

V m/min
f mm/rev
dmm

E&l = (int)(N, i NP) E,(N,)

GnW,

N,J

(N,, = k NP)

+ W;)+
Ni = N,, - (int)(N,

E,@J

CAT,,,,,n ! T,,,)
i NJ

(13)
Td

(N,zk.

NP)

N,

i
where T,

is time for tool

mounting

300

0.10
100

300

200

Cutting speed

m/min

mlmin

(b) Lathe 3

(a) Lathe A

Fig, 12 Effect of machine tool characteristics on machining cost

Planning conditions and cutting conditions are shown in Table 4.

3.3. Eflect
scheduling

equation:

&II=

200

Cutting speed

with increase ductility of workpiece material; and the decrease

of feed rate makes theoretical
roughness and cutting force
down. The decrease of feed rate also compensates for excessive
flank wear in the machining on lathe A when cutting speed is
high.

is the integer part of (...), and k is integer. The

cost I$[, then, can be given by the following

+ CAT,,,,,, i Ts,,) Tci

0.10
100

on the turret and tool

offsets setting. In this way, machining costs can be calculated

for any cutting conditions,
and then the optimum cutting
conditions that give the minimum cost can be acquired.
Machining
costs calculated with cutting speed and feed
rate for each lathe are shown in Figure 12, where hole circle
shows the optimum cutting conditions that give the minimum
cost. There is the difference between Figure (a) and (b) in the
contour line of cost; and the optimum cutting conditions and
the minimum cost differ with machine tools. Compared with
the optimum cutting conditions in the machining on lathe B,
the optimum cutting speed is higher and the feed rate is lower
in the machining on lathe A. This result is mainly due to the
difference
of machine
tool characteristics
for surface
roughness. The characteristics of lathe A give worse surface
roughness than those of lathe B, as shown in Figure 11. The
increase of cutting speed, therefore, makes cutting force down

of

machine

tool

chnmcteristics

on machining

Machine tool characteristics have an influence on machining

scheduling because machining time and cost in the optimum
cutting conditions differ with machine tools. Using the results
of operation planning,
machining scheduling can assign six
jobs, as shown in Table 5, to two machine tools to minimize
the makespan F,,,, in the shop floor, and order them under the
rule of Largest Processing Time (LPT) ordering. Figure 13 (a)
with considering
the difference of
shows the scheduling
machine tool characteristics, and each job is machined in the
optimum cutting conditions for each machine tool. Figure (b)
and (c) show the results on the assumption that there is no
difference between machine tool characteristics of lathe A and
those of lathe B. All jobs on lathe A and B are machined in the
optimum cutting conditions derived from the characteristics of
lathe A in Figure (b); and the result derived from the
characteristics of lathe B is shown in Figure (c). Makespan
F mRr and total cost in Figure (a) are less than those of Figure
(b) and (c). It is shown that machining scheduling is efficient
with considering
the difference of machine tool characteristics.

4. Conclusion
An evaluation approach of machine tool characteristics is
presentedwith adaptive prediction. Adaptive prediction of tool
wear and surface roughness is carried out on two machine tools
in the same operations.
Cutting conditions
and machining
scheduling are optimized on each machine tool. The results

T. Marsumura et al.iJournal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-1147

447

Table 5
Job information
Workpiece length
mm
Workpiece diameter
mm
Number of product
Tolerable maximum flank wear
mm
Tolerable maximum surface roughness pm
F max:2506

Lathe

min,

Job 5

Job 1

Job 2

Job 3

30.0
50.0
600

30.0
100.0

50.0
50.0

0.16

600
0.12

400
0.14

12.0

14.0

14.0

Cost:$692.46

Job 2

Job 4

Job 3

,,,,
0

Job 1
,,,,

Job E;

,,
/,I,
1000
1500
2000
2500
Machining time
min

500

50.0
100.0

Job 5

Job 6

850

70.0
50.0
700

70.0
100.0
200

0.16
12.0

0.14

12.0

0.18
16.0

may be summarized as follows:

(l)Adaptive
prediction
can identify
the machine
tool
characteristics that have effects on tool wear and surface
roughness.
(2)The presented approach
shows us quantitatively
that
machine tool characteristics
have effects on the optimum
cutting conditions and machining schedule.
(3)The evaluation approach proves to be effective in carrying
out the operation planning and machining scheduling with
considering machine tool characteristics.

i
Lathe

Job 4

(a) Each job is machined in the optimum conditions for each

machine tool.
F

Lathe

max:2563

min,

Reference
[l] M. Rahman,

CostS10.68

Job 4

Job 5

Job 2
,

Job 1
I,

500

Job 3 Job 8

I,,
I,
, I ,,
1000
1500
2000
Machining
time min

2500

(b) AI1 jobs are machined in the optimum conditions for lathe A
F max:2534
Lathe

Job 2

min,

Job 1

Cost:$596.98
Job 3 Job

Lathe

and K.H. Chua, Annals

of the

M. Week, Annals of the CIRP, 43, 1 (1994)

345.
J.Mou, Trans. of the NAMRlof
SME, 22 (1994) 241.
[4] W.W. Gilbert, Machining
Theory and Practice, American
Society of Metals (1950) 465.
[S]Brewer, R. C., Trans. of the ASME, 80 (1958)
1479.
[6]K. Okushima, and K. Hitomi, J. of the Japan Society of
Precision Engineering,
30, 6 (1964) 458. (In Japanese)
[7]T. Matsumura, T. Obikawa, T. Shirakashi,
and E. Usui,
Trans. of the NAMRIof SME, 21 (1993) 359.
[8]E. Usui, T. Shirakashi, and T. Kitagawa, Wear, 100 (1984)
129.
[9] E. Usui, A. Hirota, and M. Masuko, Journal of Engineering
for Inrlustry, Trans. of the ASME, 100 (1978) 222.
[lo] E. Usui, and A. Hirota, Journal of Engineering
fol
Industry, Trans. of the ASME, 100 (1978) 229.
[ll] Jacoby, S. L. S., Kowalik,
J. S., and Pizzo, J. T.,
Iterative Methods for Nonlinear Optimization
Problem,
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.
(translated in Japanese by Sekine, T., Baifukan, Tokyo,
1976).
[l?,] Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research
Group, Parallel
Distributed
Processing,
MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1986
[13]V. Solaja, Wear, 2 (1958) 40.
[2]

[3]

Lathe

M.A. Mansur,

CIRP,42,1(1993)437.

Job 4
1,

500

,,,l

Job 5
,,,I,,,,i,,,

1000
1500
2000
Machining
time min

I,j

2500

(c) AI1 jobs are machined in the optimum conditions for lathe B.
Fig. 13 Effect of machine tool characteristics on machining
scheduling with Gantt chart