Journal of

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

An Evaluation Approach of Machine Tool Characteristics with Adaptive Prediction

Takashi Matsumura, Hiroaki Sekiguchi, and Eiji Usui

Department of Mechanical 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, optimization, operr2tionplannirl2g, scheduling

1. Introduction to compare machine tool characteristics that have effects on

tool wear and surface roughness. It is shown that the presented
Machine tool characteristics such as stiffness, thermal approach is effective in evaluating machine tool characteris-
deformation, and vibration have an influence on cutting tics and their effects on the optimum cutting conditions and
processes. It is, therefore, important to evaluate the machining schedule.
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 2. Adaptive prediction
is the influence of machine tool elements and structure on
machine tool characteristics. Machine tool manufacturers Adaptive prediction, as shown in Figure 1, enables us to
investigate this point to design machine tool. Then many predict cutting processes by analysis and neural network.
studies have been made on the evaluation of machine tool Analytical prediction needs parameters which are dependent on
structure [l-3]. On the other hand, machine shop needs the material property; and network prediction needs weight
information how to use machine tool. Another point, parameters between each unit connected. The parameters stand
therefore, is the influence of machine tool characteristics on for machining characteristics given by the combination of
cutting processes such as tool wear, surface finish, and chatter cutting tool, workpiece, and machine tool. If the parameters
vibration. If the influence is identified, machine tools can be are accurate, predicted process should agree with practical
used efficiently. Evaluation of machine tool characteristics, process. The parameters, therefore, are determined to reduce
therefore, is required in shop floor. Since cutting processes are prediction error, difference between predicted process and
given by the combination of workpiece, cutting tool, and practical one. If once the parameters can be obtained in a few
machine tool, it is difficult to evaluate machine tool operations, cutting processes in several operations can be
characteristics separately. Furthermore, the characteristics, predicted by analysis and neural network. Since machine tool
which are dependent on the machining history of machine characteristics have an influence on cutting processes as
tool, differ with machine tools. As a result, although many described later, adaptive prediction is carried out on each
studies [4-61 have been made on operation planning and machine tool. As a result, the prediction using the parameters
machining scheduling, there are few attempts with considering can be adapted to practical process on each machine tool. Each
the characteristics. This paper presents an approach that can machine tool, then, has an original data base, where the
evaluate the influence of machine tool characteristics on parameters are stored.
cutting processes using adaptive prediction. Adaptive Figure 2 shows adaptive prediction of tool wear and surface
prediction is carried out on two machine tools independently roughness [7]. This paper discusses maximum surface

0924.0136/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

PII 0924-0136(96)02450-8
 T. Matsumura et al./Joumal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-447 441

where C and L are wear characteristic constants; VBO is initial

wear offset [7]; V is cutting speed; and ys is relief angle.
Normal stress ofand temperature /+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 cuttings with same effective shear angle I$ and
effective rake angle cx. The model defined by chip flow
direction vc is determined to minimize cutting energy. The
Fig. 1 Adaptive prediction
energy, which is the sum of shear energy and frictional
roughness under steady cutting process without chatter energy on rake face of tool, can be calculated using
vibration. Surface roughness is dependent on flank wear and orthogonal cutting data as shown in Table 1. Three
groovingwear. Tool wear and surface roughness, therefore, can components of cutting force can be predicted on the basis
be predicted simultaneously. Flank wear can be predicted by of the cutting model. An example of the results of cutting
analysis; and grooving wear and surface roughness can be force prediction, cutting model and three components of
predicted by neural network. cutting force, are shown in Table 2.
(b)Stress distribution for the cutting model can be given as
2.1. Adaptive prediction of flank wear shown in Figure 3. Shear stress on shear plane rs is
assumed to be uniform distribution; and frictional stress tl
Flank wear process v,(T) with machining time T can be increases linearly from the chip leaving point to the
predicted analytically [8], using following equations with cutting edge.
flank wear rate dVB/dT : (c) Stress of and temperature tlfon flank wear land can be given
by iterative calculation with Equation (2). Heat sources arc
vim = VBO + T (dVB i dT) dT (1)
I0 distributed on shear plane, rake face, and flank face. 4 rt,
dV~/dT=C.V.afexp(-a.:ef);tany, (2) and frictional stress on flank face tr are given for

Neural network for

predicting surface

(relative intensity of
units, 1 output unit)

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

Fig. 2 Adaptive prediction of tool wear and surface roughness

 T. Matsumura et al/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-447

Table 2
Results of energy approach
Chip flow angle % 20.13 deg
Effective rake angle -6.40 deg
Effective shear angle ; 20.60 deg
Friction angle B 35.85 deg
Tool-chip contact length I, 1.588 mm
Shear velocity Ys 223 m/min
Chip velocity Vc 79.0 m/min
Principal component FH 507N
Feed component Fv 349N
Radial component FT 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- 1.471) rad
/? = enp (-0.04OV - 1.522 X 103,1 +0597n f0.037) rad
zs = exp(O.O091/-2.011 X 102tI +0.414o-i-4.045)X9.8 MPa
I,= tzexp (- 0.096P 5.255 X 103c1 ~ 0.504crS 2.797) mm

Work Tool
Thermal conductivity W/(m . K) 46.05 67.0
Specific heat J@s . K) 502 398
Density kg/m 3 Fig. 4 Cutting temperature distribution calculated by FDM
784 1120 Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2. The width of
4, shear angle; B, friction angle on tool face; zs shear stress on lank wear land is 0.2mm. Thermal constants in Table 1 are
shear plane; and $, tool-chip contact length; V, cutting speed; used.
tl undeformed chtp thickness
of the width of wear land can be calculated by the following
estimating heat generation. 4 is assumed to be equal to equations:

normal stress af For the given wear land, finite difference 2

m-l
method gives temperature distribution with a presumed El= 2
I=1
(3)
distribution of 7 The wear rate, then, can be calculated at
the arbitrary position of wear land by Equation (2), where C
and a are assumed in adaptation described later. zr is (4)
Ez=~&
modified to make the wear rate constant over the flank wear
land. As a result, 7 (= 7 ) and t$ can be obtained. Figure 4
shows cutting temperature distribution, a cross section in where subscript prnc in Equation (3) and (4) indicates practical
the center of depth of cut. value. The parameters can be adjusted to minimize E1 and E2 by
The parameters C, h and VBO can be adapted to practical sequential minimax search [ll].
process in the following way. For IIZ (> 2 ) measured wear data, Constants C and A. can be stored for the combination of
the prediction error EI of wear rate and the prediction error Ez workpiece and tool material, because Equation (2) can give the
 T. Matsumura et al.lJournal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-447 443

flank wear rate for any cutting conditions and tool geometry. The network for predicting surface roughness has the
Initial wear offset VBOvaries with cutting conditions, tool, and following input information:
workpiece. Initial wear offsets, therefore, can be stored in the (a) Cutting speed
form of neural network, in which cutting conditions and tool (b) Affinity between tool and workpiece, which can be given
geometry are input information and V,, is that of output. The by relative intensity of Fe-K, on rake face measured with
network is built up for the combination of workpiece and tool EPMA [7].
material. (c) Chip discontinuity, which can be evaluated by chip strain.
Chip strain can be calculated in the prediction of cutting
2.2. Adaptive prediction of surface roughness force.
(d) Built-up edge formation, which can be evaluated by average
In the network prediction, neural networks shown in Figure temperature around cutting edge.
2 associate surface roughness and grooving wear in a given (e) Width of flank wear land, which can be predicted as
operation with machining results obtained before. mentioned in the previous section. Contact condition
In the neural network, the information propagates from between flank face and workpiece can be evaluated.
input layer (1st layer) to output layer (3rd layer), through (f) Theoretical roughness R,, considering tool wear. The
hidden layer (2nd layer). The input to i th unit in the k th layer, equation, presented by Solaja [13], is approximated by the
ni k, is given as: following equation:

‘ll,k= tC “z,~,k x "j,k - 11 + t~,k (5) R,, = f2 i 8H + (V, ~ Vi) tan y. (f < 2H sin C,) (9)
J

where wijkI I is the weight betweenj th unit in (k-l) th layer and wheref is feed rate; R, Ye, and C, are nose radius, end relief
i th unit in the k th layer; ujkml (u,,,J is the output of j (i )th unit angle, and end cutting angle of tool; Vs and VB’ are size of
in the k-l (k )th layer; and tik is the threshold value associated grooving wear and that of flank wear land on front cutting
with the i th unit in the k th layer. The output of a given unit is edge respectively. Being assumed to be equal to flank wear
assumed to be a sigmoid function of the input and can be on side cutting edge, VB’ can be predicted as mentioned in
expressed as: the previous section. Grooving wear, however, cannot be
predicted analytically. Another neural network, therefore,
u
‘.k = f@l.k) = { 1 + ex;( - ll,,k)j can be used for the prediction as shown in Figure 2. The
information of input layer units is cutting conditions, tool
Corresponding to the output (0.0 <f&J < 1.0) of output layer geometry, and grooving wear size (Vs)r at the time T
unit, surface roughness and grooving wear rate are related to considered; and that of output layer unit is grooving wear
the range from 0.0 to 1.0. rate dV#T. Grooving wear size (Vs)l.+dr at T+dT can be
The parameters to be adapted are the weight parameters
obtained by following equation:
between each unit connected in the networks. In adaptive
process, they are trained by back propagation [12]. For I th (V,),+dT=(VS)T+(dVsidT)‘dT (10)
data, predicted data Zpredr is compared to the practical data
Grooving wear size (VslrtdT is used for the next prediction
z prnc , I and then the error E of m data is calculated as follows:
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
Back propagation adjusts the weights and the threshold in wear land and size of grooving wear. Surface roughness,
Equation (5) using gradient information to minimize the error therefore, can be predicted for every machining time after the
E as follows: prediction of flank wear and grooving wear.

09 3. Evaluation of machine tool characteristics

An evaluation approach of machine tool characteristics is

presented to realize efficient machining operation. In adaptive
where c( and pare the step sizes in adjustment. In the adaptive prediction, the parameters used for the prediction are adjusted
prediction by neural network, the network can be trained in SO that predicted processes agree with practical ones. Giving
short time by optimizing a and p. The parameters a and p are the prediction of cutting processes, the parameters stand for
adjusted to maximize the decrease of the prediction error in machining characteristics in this discussion. Machine tool
training because step size parameters have a large influence on characteristics can he evaluated as follows:
convergence of the error. (1) Adaptive prediction is carried out on each machine tool to
444 T. Matsumura et al./Joumal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440-447

Table 3 0.20 mm
Machine tool data

Lathe A Lithe B
Allowance
Maximum machining diameter cpl80 @lO
Maximum machining length 280 600

Spindle
Power AC5.5 kw AC%5 kw
Revolution 112~4OOrpm 20-3600rpm 0.10
100 200 300 100 200 300
Cutting speed m/min Cutting speed m/min
Weight 2300kgf 3200kgf
(a) Lathe A (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

i 8 Lathe A Measured
5 ) :: Lathe B Measured
Y -.-. - Lathe A Predicted
5 - Lathe B Predicted
ii I
0 _.
0 0
0 5 10 15 100 200 300
Cutting time min Cutting speed m/min Cutting speed m/min
(a) Lathe A (b) Lathe B
Fig. 5 Prediction of flank wear
Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2. 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. Flank wear processes predicted on two machine tools after
(2) The system shown in Figure 2 predicts cutting processes the adaptation of the parameters are shown in Figure 5.
using the parameters adapted. The predicted processes Predicted processes agree with practical processes, and those
show us the effects of machine tool characteristics on results confirm that the parameters can be adapted very well. In
cutting processes. the results, machine tool characteristics have a large influence
(3) The effects of machine tool characteristics on machining on initial flank wear. On the other hand, they have little
operations can be evaluated by operation planning and influence on flank wear rate. Figure 6 shows initial wear
machining scheduling using the results of adaptive offsets adapted on each machine tool with cutting speed and
prediction. Though operation planning and machining feed rate. There is a large difference in initial wear offset with
scheduling vary with planning conditions such as running cutting conditions. Figure 7 shows flank wear predicted with
cost, the evaluation of machine tool characteristics gives cutting speed and feed rate at ten minutes machining. The
us good guidelines for usage of machine tools. 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
3.1. Effects of mnchine tool chrncteristics on cutting lathe B, however, is sensitive to cutting speed in high speed
processes area.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show grooving wear and surface
Two NC lathes, as shown in Table 3, are examined to roughness with cutting time respectively. The network of
identify their machine tool characteristics with the same grooving wear prediction for each machine tool has been
workpiece and tool. Adaptive prediction can adapt wear adapted to 2508 machining data. The network of surface
characteristic constants, initial wear offsets, and weight roughness prediction for lathe A has been adapted to 712 data;
parameters of the networks to six practical operations on each and that for lathe B has been adapted to 658 data. The results in
machine tool independently. Machine tool characteristics, these figures verify that adaptive prediction can adapt the
therefore, can be acquired in the form of the parameters. weight parameters of networks to practical processes very
 T. Matsumura et al/Journal of Materials Processing Technology 62 (1996) 440--447 445

mm
0.20 0.20

w Lathe A Measured
0 Lathe B Measured
-.-__ Lathe A Predicted
- Lathe B Predicted
0.10 0.10
100 200 300
100 200 300
10 15 Cutting speed m/min Cutting speed m/min
CSting time min
(a) Lathe A (b) Lathe B
Fig. 8 Prediction of grooving wear
Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2. Fig. 10 Prediction of grooving wear at 10 minutes machining
s Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2, where cutting
speed and feed rate are variable.
w
0.20
:
E
a

Lathe A
Measured
n Lathe B
Measured
-.-._ Lathe A
Predicted
- Lathe B
Predicted
/ 0.10
10 100 200 300 100 200 300
C%ting time min Cutting speed m/min Cutting speed m/min
Fig. 9 Prediction of surface roughness (a) Lathe A (b) Lathe B
Cutting conditions are same as in Table 2.
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 cannot be changed during the operation.
wear and surface roughness with cutting speed and feed rate, at (c) Three positions on the turret can be assigned to turning
ten minutes machining. The effects of machine tool tools used in the operation (j&,=3) according to the
characteristics on grooving wear and surface roughness are less number of tool used in other operations.
than those on initial flank wear, The results also enable us to Tolerable maximum values of flank wear V,,, and surface
understand that both of the processes on lathe Aare worse than
roughness U&J,, are given as shown in Table 4. For cutting
those on lathe B. Adaptive prediction, then, proves to be
speed and feed rate, tool life Tlir, can be given when either
effective in identifying the machine tool characteristics
accurately, even if the difference of machining process is flank wear or surface roughness predicted exceeds its tolerable
little. value. For Nproducts machined with a cutting edge, machining
cost E,(N)can be expressed as the sum of actual cutting cost,

3.2. Effect of machine tool characteristics on operation exchange costs of tool and workpiece, and tool price C,:
planning
E,(N) = C, N. T, +C, T, +C, N * T, + C, (11)
The effect of machine tool characteristics on the optimum
where 7’, is cutting time for one product; C, is running cost; Ti
cutting conditions that minimize machining cost is discussed
and T, are time for tool index and that for work exchange
in the operation planning. Each lathe machines N,,, bar type
respectively. When Np products are machined during tool life
products sequentially in the turning operation shown in Table
4. The constraints of the operation are as follows: T)+, the number of tools Tnum used for machining all the
(a) Depth of cut is constant and products are finished with one products (N,,,) can be calculated as follows:
feed cutting along the length of workpiece. Tool material
and its shape are fixed. N,, 1 N, (N,=k. N,,)
(b) Tool life for tool exchange cycle and cutting conditions T ,mm = (12)
(int)(N,,,l NJ + 1 (N, f k. N,,)
 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 CT $/min 1
Price of tool C, $/edge 5
Time for tool index Ti min 1
Time for tool setting Td min 5
Time for work setting T, min 1
Number of position assigned T set 3
to tool on turret
0.10 0.10
Number of work NW 300 100 200 300 100 200 300
Length of workpiece 44 - 50.0 Cutting speed m/min Cutting speed mlmin
Diameter of workpiece % - 50.0 (a) Lathe A (b) Lathe 3
Tolerable maximum flank wear vBmnv - 0.14
Fig, 12 Effect of machine tool characteristics on machining cost
Tolerable maximum surface roughness (R,,,,Y),,m,x pm 14 Planning conditions and cutting conditions are shown in Table 4.

Cutting conditions
Material cut 0.45% carbon steel with increase ductility of workpiece material; and the decrease
Tool material Carbide tool P20 of feed rate makes theoretical roughness and cutting force
Tool geometry (-5,-5,5,5,15,15,0.8) down. The decrease of feed rate also compensates for excessive
Cutting speed V m/min to be optimized flank wear in the machining on lathe A when cutting speed is
Feed rate f mm/rev to be optimized
high.
Depth of cut dmm 1.0
Lubrication dry
3.3. Eflect of machine tool chnmcteristics on machining
scheduling

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

Machine tool characteristics have an influence on machining
total machining cost I$[, then, can be given by the following
scheduling because machining time and cost in the optimum
equation: cutting conditions differ with machine tools. Using the results
of operation planning, machining scheduling can assign six
E&l = (int)(N, i NP) E,(N,) jobs, as shown in Table 5, to two machine tools to minimize
(N,, = k NP) the makespan F,,,, in the shop floor, and order them under the
+ CAT,,,,,, i Ts,,) Tci
rule of Largest Processing Time (LPT) ordering. Figure 13 (a)
&II= GnW, ’ N,J E,@‘J (13)
shows the scheduling with considering the difference of
+ W’;)+ CAT,,,,,n ! T,,,) Td (N,zk. NP) machine tool characteristics, and each job is machined in the
optimum cutting conditions for each machine tool. Figure (b)
Ni = N,, - (int)(N, i NJ N,
and (c) show the results on the assumption that there is no
i
difference between machine tool characteristics of lathe A and
where T, is time for tool mounting on the turret and tool those of lathe B. All jobs on lathe A and B are machined in the
offsets setting. In this way, machining costs can be calculated optimum cutting conditions derived from the characteristics of
for any cutting conditions, and then the optimum cutting lathe A in Figure (b); and the result derived from the
conditions that give the minimum cost can be acquired. characteristics of lathe B is shown in Figure (c). Makespan
Machining costs calculated with cutting speed and feed F mRr and total cost in Figure (a) are less than those of Figure
rate for each lathe are shown in Figure 12, where hole circle (b) and (c). It is shown that machining scheduling is efficient
shows the optimum cutting conditions that give the minimum with considering the difference of machine tool characteris-
cost. There is the difference between Figure (a) and (b) in the tics.
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, 4. Conclusion
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 An evaluation approach of machine tool characteristics is
difference of machine tool characteristics for surface presentedwith adaptive prediction. Adaptive prediction of tool
roughness. The characteristics of lathe A give worse surface wear and surface roughness is carried out on two machine tools
roughness than those of lathe B, as shown in Figure 11. The in the same operations. Cutting conditions and machining
increase of cutting speed, therefore, makes cutting force down 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
Job 1 Job 2 Job 3 Job 4 Job 5 Job 6
Workpiece length mm 30.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 70.0 70.0
Workpiece diameter mm 50.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 100.0
Number of product 600 600 400 850 700 200
Tolerable maximum flank wear mm 0.16 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.18
Tolerable maximum surface roughness pm 12.0 14.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 16.0

F max:2506 min, Cost:$692.46 may be summarized as follows:

(l)Adaptive prediction can identify the machine tool
Lathe A characteristics that have effects on tool wear and surface
Job 5 Job 2 Job 3
roughness.
i (2)The presented approach shows us quantitatively that
machine tool characteristics have effects on the optimum
Lathe B Job 4 Job 1 Job E; cutting conditions and machining schedule.
,,,, ,,,, ,, /,I, I (3)The evaluation approach proves to be effective in carrying
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 out the operation planning and machining scheduling with
Machining time min considering machine tool characteristics.
(a) Each job is machined in the optimum conditions for each
machine tool.

F max:2563 min, CostS10.68 Reference

[l] M. Rahman, M.A. Mansur, and K.H. Chua, Annals of the
CIRP,42,1(1993)437.
Lathe A Job 4 Job 5 [2] M. Week, Annals of the CIRP, 43, 1 (1994) 345.
[3] J.Mou, Trans. of the NAMRlof SME, 22 (1994) 241.
[4] W.W. Gilbert, Machining Theory and Practice, American
Lathe B Job 2 Job 1 Society of Metals (1950) 465.
Job 3 Job 8
[S]Brewer, R. C., Trans. of the ASME, 80 (1958) 1479.
, I, I,, I, , I ,‘, , ,
[6]K. Okushima, and K. Hitomi, J. of the Japan Society of
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Precision Engineering, 30, 6 (1964) 458. (In Japanese)
Machining time min
[7]T. Matsumura, T. Obikawa, T. Shirakashi, and E. Usui,
(b) AI1 jobs are machined in the optimum conditions for lathe A Trans. of the NAMRIof SME, 21 (1993) 359.
[8]E. Usui, T. Shirakashi, and T. Kitagawa, Wear, 100 (1984)
F max:2534 min, Cost:$596.98 129.
[9] E. Usui, A. Hirota, and M. Masuko, Journal of Engineering
for Inrlustry, Trans. of the ASME, 100 (1978) 222.
Lathe A Job 2 : Job 1 Job 3 Job [lo] E. Usui, and A. Hirota, Journal of Engineering fol
I
Industry, Trans. of the ASME, 100 (1978) 229.
[ll] Jacoby, S. L. S., Kowalik, J. S., and Pizzo, J. T.,
Lathe B Job 4 Job 5 Iterative Methods for Nonlinear Optimization Problem,
1, ,,,l ,,,I,,,,i,,, I,j
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.
(translated in Japanese by Sekine, T., Baifukan, Tokyo,
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Machining time min 1976).
[l?,] Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research
(c) AI1 jobs are machined in the optimum conditions for lathe B. Group, Parallel Distributed Processing, MIT Press,
Fig. 13 Effect of machine tool characteristics on machining Cambridge, MA, 1986
scheduling with Gantt chart [13]V. Solaja, Wear, 2 (1958) 40.