This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

ELSEVIER

PII:

SO954-1810(97)00011-3

0 1997 Elsevier Science Limited Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0954-1810/98/$19.00

**Artificial intelligence approaches to determination of CNC machining parameters in manufacturing: a review
**

Kyung Sam Park & Soung Hie Kim*

Graduate School of Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 207-43 Choengryangri, Dongdaemun, Seoul, Korea

(Received 1 March 1995; in revised version 13 May 1996; accepted 5 February

1997)

In Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machining, determining optimum or appropriate cutting parameters can minimize machining errors such as tool breakage, tool deflection and tool wear, thus yielding a high productivity or minimum cost. There have been a number of attempts to determine the machining parameters through off-line adjustment or on-line adaptive control. These attempts use many different kinds of techniques: CAD-based approaches, Operations Research approaches, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches. After describing an overview of these approaches, we will focus on reviewing AI-based techniques for providing a better understanding of these techniques in machining control. AI-based methods fall into three categories: knowledge-based expert systems approach, neural networks approach and probabilistic inference approach. In particular, recent research interests mainly tend to develop on-line or real-time expert systems for adapting machining parameters. The use of AI techniques would be valuable for the purpose. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Limited.

Key words: CNC

machining, machining parameter, system, neural network, influence diagram.

knowledge-based

expert

1 INTRODUCTION Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machining is widely used in mold/die industries and airframe component manufacturing, because of its suitability for high accuracy in machining complicated parts.’ In the CNC machining, determining optimal cutting conditions or parameters under the given machining situation is difficult in practice. Conventional way for selecting these conditions such as cutting speed and feedrate, has been based upon data from machining handbooks and/or on the experience and knowledge on the part of programmer. The selected parameters,

in most cases, are extremely conservative to protect excessive matching errors from tool failures such as tool deflection, wear, breakage, etc. As a result, the metal

Consequently, the conservative cutting conditions assuming a constant depth and width of cut do not perform high productivity. To overcome such a problem, the machining parameters should be adjusted according to the current in-process part geometry. The objective of this paper is to review prior work on determining machining parameters in order to give a better understanding to researchers and practitioners in machining domain, since we have not found any publication on the survey. In particular, we will focus on examining Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based methods. In the next section, we describe an overview of related work that attempts to select an optimal machining parameters, and present AI-based approaches in the subsequent sections.

removal rate is low because of the conservative machining parameters. As frequently encountered in complex surface machining, the geometry of the piece prevents a constant depth and

use of such 2 AN OVERVIEW or free-formed part or workwidth of cut. Recently, there have been several attempts to determine the optimal machining parameters from off-line adjustment or on-line adaptive control, thus the part programmer does not have to spend time and effort to

127

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

In addition. An advantage of this model is easily obtained even though geometry of cutting tool is complicated such as ball-end mill. Operations Research (OR) approaches. f. feedrate (mm/tooth). it is first needed to represent the part geometry for CMS.+ Computer Machining Simulation chining Process Models I Fig. Figure 1 shows a conceptual framework for simulation and optimization of machining. ‘J~J’ The above models will play a role of constraints in optimizing machining parameters. thus it does not provide the instantaneous cutting force that is necessary for estimating the tool failures. analytical process models for the prediction of cutting force have been studied.e. FC = ald2f a3dn4waS..5 Most CAD-based approaches belong to the offline adjustment. cutting force and tool wear are calculated through computer machining simulation (CMS) using information on NC-code with initial machining parameters. an optimum machining parameter for each tool motion is achieved by maximizing the metal removal rate (MRR) without violating machining constraints. These attempts are categorized as CAD-based approaches. where V. Based on the process models. Soung Hie Kim calculate their optimal values. cutting force and tool wear models. or both can be added to the NC-code. a difficulty may exist in using such analytic models in practice because of their high computational complexity. Furthermore.). Using the results. NC-code and tool configuration. An example of machining process model based on a multiplicative model is given by Cutting Force (N). Hence. note that too high cutting speed can not be selected since the tool life is largely due to the cutting speed. . 1. d and w are. However. cutting force and tool wear) and the machining conditions in a specific tool and workpiece. Machining process models The multiplicative model can be generated from statistically planned machining tests (see Ref. this method can calculate only average cutting force. 11).7~8110V17 their and application to on-line feedrate adjustment in end milling has been found in Ref. and width of cut (mm). A pape?’ has proposed a method of feedrate adjustment using a swept volume generation technique based on solid modeling. either low feedrate or high cutting speed. 6. More detailed description on Z-buffer model and its application to control and monitoring of machining can be found in the literature. The basic concept of optimizing machining parameters is that when the cutting force is too large at the large depth and width of cut. However.1 CAD-based approaches The off-line approach uses machining process models. Computer machining simulation The machining process models represent the relationships between the machining responses (i. it is reported the accuracy of the models is quite good. cutting speed (mm/min).‘3 2. The main objective of CMS for determining machining parameters is to compute the maximum depth of cut (d) and width of cut (w) for each tool motion from given part geometry. and AI approaches. These models can be built by prior knowledge obtained from field and laboratory experiments. Tool Life (min. Z-buffer model is a form of discrete nonparametric representation in which the Z-values of the surface are given at grid points on the XY-plane. CMS of in-process workpiece can be realized as a Boolean subtraction of the space occupied by the tool movement along the tool path from initial part geometry. and oi and J3i are the model parameters. Advantages of these methods are that they are easy and effective in practical applications. However. depth of cut (mm). respectively. TL = blvb2f b3db4wb5. based on a prior knowledge gathered from off-line experiments.128 Kyung Sam Park.22’23 Machining parameter optimization Based on the CMS and the machining process models. Why compute the maximum point? The reason is machining error from the tool failures is mostly occurred at the maximum point. tool shape and workpiece geometry. A framework for simulation and optimizaiton of CNC machining. feedrate (f ) and cutting speed (v) are determined in the ( /. Solid modeling’8>‘912’ Z-buffer techniques22>23have or been used to model workpiece geometry for CMS.

Each approach is described in the next subsequent sections. The MRR is expressed as MRR = kvfdw. 27. Solving Model 2 is more complex because the model have multiple objectives and conflicting between the objectives (a mathematical representation and the solution method for Model 2 appear in Ref. 27).FC .5 Once taking natural logarithms in Model 1. Thus.. tool conditions. however. etc. it is converted into the standard linear programming (LP) form. are minimum and maximum allowable values of V. An advantage of these methods can provide a reference model. A description of sensing devises is not presented in this paper. Reaction to machining conditions by tool wear. where k = n/(rD). without CMS. see Refs 25.2 Operations research approaches Of course. tool temperature and acoustic emission. 2. praticularly when occurring an abnormal machining due to unpredictable variables such as unknown material properties. which we categorize into knowledge-based expert systems approach.. There have been a number of studies on the application of AI techniques to on-line control.. refer to Refs 4.. HP is expressed based on the FC as HP = c . i. loading 3 KNOWLEDGE-BASED APPROACH 3. the model without describing full mathematical form can be expressed as follows: Model 2: Maximize {MMR} Minimize {surface roughness} Minimize {machining cost} subject to the constraints of Model 1. A typical research is found in Ref. 26).24 2. HP 5 HPr. For increasing the productivity. where c is 0. the spindle horsepower where HP represents (Nmm/min) as a constraint for the machine capacity.in 5 v 5 vmax and unloading and tool changes to replace worn-out or damaged tools.. main research interest of OR approaches is to minimize global machining cost by considering multiple criteria related to machining.Determination of CNC machining parameters 129 optimization module. On surface roughness. Note that the information of temperature and acoustic emission can not be used in offline methods using CMS. n is the number of tooth. the following components or techniques are required: (1) sensing devises.’ A mathematical model for such problem can be formulated as follows: Model 1: Maximize MRR = kvfdw subject to v. According to the research. and costs associated with machine idle time. One of the most important factors for successive on-line control is the execution time with respect to machining control or determining optimal machining parameters.1 An overview EXPERT SYSTEMS Knowledge-Based Expert Systems (KBES) are intelligent computer programs that capture the specific . the use of the above LP technique can be viewed as an OR approach. However. thus which problem is to solve a multiple criteria optimization problem (for an overview of the multiple criteria optimization problem..2y3 The factors of measuring machining cost per workpiece are cost of tool. For the description. due to setup. and D the diameter of the tool. AI approaches offer a possible technique in order to handle the problems (2) and (3).. Well-known sensor information is listed as cutting force. These methods should be used for off-line adjustment because of the restriction of computational time. because execution time of these systems are generally too long as compared with the reaction time required for the machining control. (2) representing the information from the sensor. MRR has to be maximized while maintaining an allowable load fluctuation on the cutting tool in spite of variations in depth of cut and width of cut. particularly if the knowledge base becomes very complex.3 Artificial intelligence approaches The on-line approach is an attempt to automatically adapt and optimize the machining parameters based on sensor information on machining responses in real time.041 as a constant. FC I JG. 16. and (3) optimizing machining parameters. a simplistic adaptation of AI techniques to machining control would be inadequate.. TLmin I TL 5 TL. These information. For on-line control. However. respectively. the LP problem can be solved by using a general algorithm referred to as the Simplex method. cost of cutting. neural networks approach and probabilistic inference approach. a general model because an exhaustive consideration on selecting machining parameters is involved. and I’min and Vmax. machine breakdowns and other failures must be carried out within seconds or milliseconds to guarantee the safety and reliability of the machining process.e.. tool wear. there are two methods of its measuring: root-to-crest roughness and roughness average. can play very important role in machining control or adapting machining parameters.v.

2. The type of knowledge representation that is appropriate in a given situation depends on what sort of knowledge is being represented and how it is to be applied. IF (antecedent) THEN (consequence). etc..’ Recent research on machining control using KBES techniques has been found in Refs 31. neural computing is both distributed and associative in knowledge representation. 3. semantic nets. and a sensor data acquisition and processing module.e. many techniques for knowledge representation have been developed. it is necessary that an adaptive control algorithm that uses the recursive adaptive model and the constraint rules is developed. and in Ref. With the KBES technique. rather than an adaptive control with optimization. production rules. . A KBES structure for machining control. 3. unlike traditional expert systems where knowledge is made explicit. i.130 Kyung Sam Park. The KBES can capture causal and inferential knowledge about machining processes to provide expert-level recommendations during decisionmaking processes and hence are valuable aids to machining operators who face increasingly complex tasks. In particular.1 An overview Neural networks differ in various ways from conventional expert systems to traditional computing. objective such as MRR. machining stop. simply stated ACC. Knowledge Base Fig. The knowledge base can provide near-optimal machining control with experimental data. 2. Many other network learning rules have been inverted also in Ref. In time-critical machining control applications. Second. neural nets generate their own knowledge by learning from domain examples. and so on. multi-layer neural nets which register in their hidden layers important features of the knowledge domain. 32 a production rule representation is applied such as shown in the above paragraph. Soung Hie Kim knowledge of a particular domain and mimic the problem-solving strategies of human experts to provide recommendations?8-3o They represent a new problemsolving paradigm that utilizes many techniques developed from AI research. To achieve the near-optimal machining parameters and machining control such as tool change. 31 a framebased scheme is used. 34. frames. 4 NEURAL NETWORKS APPROACH 4. Among the KBES approaches to machining control. e. an inference engine. on-line control with the KBES is an adaptive control of satisfying machining constraints.33 The distributed and associative nature of neural net leads to a reasonable response even when presented with incomplete or previously unseen input. in Ref. Supervised learning is achieved through the learning rule which adapts the connection weights of the network in response to the inputs and the desired output pairs. the constraint rules can be expressed as shown in Fig. it is imperative the knowledge representation scheme is efficient.2 Structure of KBES for adaptive control A structure of the KBES approach for machining control is shown in Fig.g. This means that neural nets can easily make the knowledge base by learning. The inference engine drives the system and interfaces with the knowledge base and hence supplies advice to the user and an explanation to justify the system’s line of reasoning. First. 32. and they do not require additional knowledge acquisition processes which require enormous time and efforts in the expert systems. ACO. the aim of ACC systems is that the machining parameters are adjusted to their maximum possible values given the constraints of the machining process. For example. The reasons are as follows. Strictly speaking. The methods for inference can be modeled as rules. In KBES. machining control decisions using the sensor information can be made to maintain the machining parameters within critical constraints. for instance. Whereas AC0 systems seek to adjust machining parameters in a direction that optimize a predefined performance index. In the next subsection. we will describe a KBES framework for machining control and present an example of simple production rules for the determination of machining parameters. It consists of three modules: a knowledge base..

\) AND (speed ? speed. 38. 4. temperature and acoustic emission.b) (speed (feed = feed Rule 6: IF ((FC[k] THEN Rule 7: IF THEN -z FC[k]. there are several techniques for reprerelationship: senting the input-output multiple regression (see Section 2. In machining domain.>J) Fig.. from sensor.ERR .> .1).. Let us consider a trained neural net with n input PEs and m output PEs.. and the neural network (see next subsection). where input variables are machining parameters such as feedrate and cutting speed and output variables are signals from sensors such as cutting force. cutting force and horsepower)...g. be actual and desired output of the ith output PE.w2. Then.... neural net knowledge-base acquired during the learning phase can subsequently be used for determining optimal machining parameters. The aim of learning is to establish a generalized mapping between the input and output.J) : FC[k]“J (feed = feed + 0 01 unti! FC[k] feedforward neural net with one hidden layer is shown in Fig..J machinmg AND operatmn) (feed 1 feed”.. A neural net structure for representing knowledge. given machining constraints on the network outputs. 4. For k of the m output nodes. neural nets can possess abilities to learn from experience and to use the knowledge gathered during the learning process to optimize the machining control.”)) sensor *I AND Change tool if necessary) : Temperature (Stop the machining operation Rule 5: IF ((FC[k] /* FC[k]-Cuttmg THEN J FC[k]J AND (feedm” c feed)) ‘1 Force at axis 0 01 until AND k.1) ERR = 5 i=l Rule n: IF ((FC[k] THEN (Stop :’ FC[k]. i. a two-layer (di . Furthermore. As a learning rule. feed=Feedrate FC[k] L FC[kJ. where note that this statement is a supervised learning.k PEs. An example of rules for adapting machining parameters.36). The number of hidden PEs must be large enough to form a decision region that is as complex as required by the given problem. machining . This section deals with a supervised learning approach (see Refs 35..\) AND (feed < feed.2 Learning phase For building machining knowledge base.y..J) (speed = speed + 0 02 until FC[k] ((FC[k] -’ F(‘[k]. tool wear. 4..ai)2/2. the di is the maximum allowable outputs of the PEs (e.Temp. output layer Hidden layer Input layer Fig.. threshold values..?.J speed. in most cases.. and on the other hand is small enough that the generalization ability remains good. This rule aims at minimizing the global error of the system by adjusting the learning parameters. can use this hidden knowledge to generate non-trivial generalizations.. k=x. the di represent the desired outputs of the PEs. The learning parameters are the connection weights and the PE’s parameters..Determination of CNC machining parameters 131 Rulesfor Finding MachiningSituation: Rule 1: IF (NOT /* Acstic THEN (A&c.e. 3.\) AND < FC’[k]. MRR. and ever PE sums its weighted inputs and passes through some kind of transfer function such as linear or sigmoid functions. whereas for the remaining m . the system can usually be driven to the global minimum or to the desired accuracy with an appropriate choice of hidden PEs. where MRR represents metal removal rate (see Section 2. the group method of data handling. Experience is represented by inputoutput data.. Rumelhart and McClelland33 have developed the generalized delta rule called backpropagation algorithm that is basically a gradient method. Let ai and dip respectively. However. For unsupervised learning approaches refer to Refs 37.. 4. then the objective of optimal control phase is to determine an appropriate machining parameter that optimizes a performance index. a performance index PI is defined by PI = w1 .J (t‘eed I feed”.. The backpropagation algorithm does not always find global minimum but may stop at a local minimum. In addition.3 Optimal control phase Assuming that a neural network has been trained by the procedure mentioned previously... Each node or processing element (PE) in every layer is fully connected to other PE in the proceeding layer. ‘: Acstic of Acoustic c AcsticJ) etmss~?n from AND sensor */ tool If necessary) = Intensity (Stop the machining operatmn Change Rule 2: IF (NOT I* Temp THEN (Temp nil” < Temp from . A study4 has reported that the neural network is the most effective method for tool wear identification through a comparative analysis among the above techniques.

cutting speed) reveals a variables whose value is chosen by the decision maker. numerical level. utilities of the decision maker. It should be noted that influence diagrams on the topological level do not need a mathematical or probabilistic basis to justify themselves. This algorithm consists of the valuepreserving translations. In the CNC machining. and probability distributions from prior information by experiments are assessed numerically for each node.. node removal and arc reversals. Machining optimization problem is to find the n inputs.132 Kyung Sam Park. which is circular shape. tool wear. which correspond to the rollback procedure in decision tree models. and the arcs or arrows identifies conditional influences or functional relations between the nodes. The knowledge representation using influence diagrams can be viewed from three hierarchical levels: topological. i=k+l...ai > 0.45 For more detailed description on applied influence diagrams to machining monitoring and control. The nature of the influences is specified at the functional level and further quantified at the numerical level. Shown in Fig. acoustic emission). the rectangular-shaped decision node (e...g. We particularly focused on reviewing Fig. cutting force.g. 5 PROBABILISTIC INFERENCE APPROACH Agogino et a1. di . metal removal rate) represents the objective to be maximized in expectation by the decision analysis. The solution method of this constrained minimization problem can be found in Ref. and w1 and w2 are constants that represent the relative importance of ERR and MRR. 35. .n.m.. A direct solution procedure to automate influence diagrams has been proposed in Refs 40-42. denoted by pi. first-principle knowledge and experimental data for the wide range of sensors possible for in-process monitoring and control. The use of multiple sensors reduces the sensitivity of the system to any specific sensor’s drawbacks.39~44 Knowledge of the interrelationships between variables is represented in a compact graphical and numerical framework which identifies the critical variables and explicitly reveals any conditional independence between them.43 have proposed an influence diagram as a framework for integrating machining operator’s expertise. see Ref. represents uncertain or certain states (e. the nodes in the diagram represent the key variables in the system being modeled.. From the discussion in the preceding two paragraphs. The chance node.g. At the final level. Their influences are justified by mathematical or probabilistic representation at the functional level.39 At the topological or relational level.. functional and numerical level. 5. influence diagram is defined by an acyclic directed-graph G = (N. and the diamond-shaped value node (e. Once a complete influence diagram is generated. examples of key variables are machining parameters and machining responses from sensor 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS This paper presented a survey of prior studies on determining an optimal machining parameter and machining control... A) with A c N x N: It contains three types of nodes in the node set N. the diagram is manipulated and evaluated for determining the optimal decision strategy. feedrate. Soung Hie Kim information. that minimize PI subject to the following constraints: Pmini I Pi I Pmaqr i= 1 . An influence diagram for determining machining parameters. 5 is a simple example of an influence diagram for machining optimization. Influence diagram has been developed for representing complex decision problems based on incomplete and uncertain information from a variety of sources.. 43. The non-deterministic or probabilistic nature of the inference problem and noisy sensor data is handled by operations with Bayesian probability.

and Kutner. Dept. W. American Society for Metals. Black.E. 38) based on unsupervised or competitive learning rules.. E. A. 104.. Williams.. DeGarmo. I. 14. 1989. H. 1995. Observe that the difference that underlies AI approaches is only the style of knowledge base being represented in the system and its reasoning (or inference) for machining optimization and control. Mantyla. 1982. H. Metals Park. New York. 2. and efficiency refers to their practical applicability. 1982. pp.. Geometric modeling for swept volume of moving solids.. mechanical and material data of cutting tool and workpiece). G. Ohio. such as machining constraints... of Industrial Engineering.. M. K.. K. 1988. 1979. K. although their knowledge representation styles are different. P. 1984. 159. Among them. 193-220. ZEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. and Lindberg. 1985. neural networks and probabilistic inference approaches.17. and Cook. St?(l). 63. 11. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry. 15. Bhattacharya.272-278. Irwin Inc. 10. 32) and frame-based techniques (see Ref. J.. DeVor. 563-572. Tipnis. W. 31).. E. and Wang. 8. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research.. 32(2). The prior knowledge can be elicited from data of machining handbooks (e. N.. Solid modeling for optimizing metal . R. 1991. 1985. DeVor. The probabilistic approach uses an influence diagram model (see Ref. Kline. If the above statement is true.711-714.. The prediction of surface accuracy in end milling. There may be some factors for measuring efficiency in quantitative or qualitative manner. A. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. S. Wang. K. A. 425-428. for example. 17. S. Materials and Processes in Manufacturing. M. 8. Homewood. 16. K. L. 429-629. Marcel Dekker. Tlusty. we prefer a knowledge representation scheme in which reaction time is less sensitive as the size of the knowledge base increases. Annals of CZRP. reaction to machining failures and unfavorable machining has to be made within seconds or milliseconds to guarantee the safety and reliability of the machining process. P.. W. 6. machinability data (i. and Garrison. P. 5. That is: The KBES approach uses a knowledge base such as production rules (see Ref. J. Kline. G. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry. 7-22. C. A. see Ref. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 43) with a probabilistic reasoning engine. All AI approaches mentioned in this paper may be sufficient for representing a machining knowledge. R. 4. easy for naive user and reaction time. A. Dynamics of cutting forces in end milling. Martellotti. and Kegg... reaction time would be the most important factor in real-time machining control systems.. 36) based on supervised learning rules or self-organization network model (see Refs 37. K. R. what kind of knowledge representation technique is better than the others in a time-critical machining control system? This paper can not give an answer for this question. In this point of view. An empirical study of strategies for integrating sensor information in machining. Machinability Testing and Utilization of Machining Data. 1975. The general or conceptual guidelines are efficiency and sufficiency. with an inference engine. Chryssolouris. S.. Thompson. Korea. 111. Balakrishnan. R. In Encyclopedia of Microcomputers. S. Park. Wasserman. V. 14) or the experience and knowledge of the part programmer. Materials/Metalworking Technology Series. In building an intelligent machining control system. R. Inc. Annals of the CZRP. 19. R. 1983.. 1970. A.. R. Y. An analysis of the milling process. The neural networks approach uses a feedforward network model (see Refs 35. C.. W. Y. E. Fusell. the most important criteria becomes efficiency. P. E. W.166. Computer Control of Manufacturing Systems. and based upon the prior knowledge from machining experiments in field and laboratory.... An Introduction to Solid Modeling. W. E. Use of AI-based approaches for determining CNC machining parameters in manufacturing. P. 1976.. 1986. Proceedings of the Fourth NAMRC. and Experimental Design. 1. Computer Science Press Inc. Mathematically modeled machining data for adaptive control of end milling operations. J. MacMillan Publishing Co.e. 1941. Faria-Gonzalez and Ham. and Kohser.92. Chandiramani. Neter. 1964. T.. McGraw-Hill Co. B. These approaches are commonly based on the sensor information of machining responses in real time. Investigation on the nature of surface finish and its variation with cutting speed. Tlusty. The prediction of cutting forces in end milling with application to cornering cut.. Regression analysis for predicting surface finish and its application in the determination of optimum machining conditions. 1989. K. 13. M. thesis. pp.. eds A.e. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression. A critical review of sensors for unmanded machining. New York. 1. 1983. Wang. Apart from the sufhciency. M. 677-700. Annals of the CZRP. 107. New York. Illinois. L. J. 12. J. Kent and J. 18. and Dervries. ASME Jounal of Engineering for Industry. 22(l).. M. The problem in order to address this question is a promising further research issue.. etc. (eds). Namely. Analysis of Variance. 3. and Srinivasan. 6.g. Analysis of Cutting Force in Ball-End Milling Process (in Korean). An investigation of the end milling process under varying machining conditions. G. KBES. Sequential estimation of machinability parameters for adaptive optimization of machinability data base systems. 9. Park. because there have not been a comparative analysis among the AI approaches. 24(l). and Domroese.. H. M. 20. 27-36.. Tipnis. Koren.86. and Kim. R. ASME Journal of Engineering for Zndustry. 134-140. Buescher. There have not been a specified guideline for the choice of a knowledge representation scheme. without an additional inference engine. and Shareef. and MacNeil.Determination of CNC machining parameters 133 AI-based methods for on-line adaptive control. a principle problem is how to represent knowledge in a way that is suitable for a particular machining domain. V. where sufficiency means that the precision of the predictions we obtain meets our requirements. F. and Andrews. 7. 279-286. i.

R. F. A. 1991. R. R. 1984. 1984. Billatos. monitoring and control of mechanical systems. and Sata.. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory. Y. 23. Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCZN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. 871-882. M. 606-618. 42. Burke. R. 36. optimization for intelligent machining. 19(2). Rege. Q. (eds). 101-105. 37(5).. Menlo Park.. Buchanan. N. D. CA. 10(6). S. 7(l).. and Dornfeld. and Schneider. 805-8 18. G. Influence Diagrams. D. B. Matheson. 1988. 1990. eds R. Reading MA. Man. A. B. 1988. Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology. 1993. Real-time NC end milling. 4-22. W. Man. 26. 34. Cambridge. 1. Srinivas. 31. Knowledge-Based Expert Systems for Manufacturing. 1986. 27. Jerard. and Cybernetics. Computer Graphics. and Application. 43. 4(2). Rangwala.. Annuls of CZRP. S. Dornfeld. Multiple sensor expert system for diagnostic reasoning. 29. 35. Evaluating influence diagrams. 1989. T. 1989. manufacturing systems: a Transactions on Systems. 402-414. A. Howard. J.. M. New York. R. and Smith. 57-65. D. Soung Hie Kim removal of three-dimensional 21. 22(3). 39. B. 1983. Knowledge-based . Probabilistic diagrams.. 129-136. Operations Research. 1988. L. S. T. Lu. 22. Annuls of the CZRP. D. A.. 464475. P. Bunn. Addison-Wesley. Lippmann. Reading MA. 30. and Deviprasad. John Wiley & Sons.. 589-604. Burke. Inui. (eds). Journal of Manufacturing Systems. E. Topological framework for representing and solving probabilistic inference problems in expert systems.. Man... An Introduction to Operations Research. A.. New York. 25. 1990. 44. 33. 2(2).. 1986. and Sinha. New York. 38(l). 36. Takata. 1987. Journal of shaded NC milling display.. ZIE Transactions. Computation. IEEE Transactions on ASSP. T. R. 28. IEEE Transactions on Systems. MIT Press. 37. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. inference and influence 41. L. 417-420. 299-314. R. 39(l). E. 1990. 38. Oliver. S. Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. and Haimes. and Agogino. 40. Agogino. 559-563. M.. Competitive learning based approaches to tool-wear identification. Geometric simulation of numerical control machining. Operations Research.. 20(3). An interactive multiple criteria approach for parameter selection in metal cutting. 24. and Lenat. V. D. Elbestawi. John Wiley & Sons. 15-20. A. New York. I. C-Y. J. An unsupervised approach to tool wear identification. Operations Research. and Cybernetics. V. 32. R. An introduction to computing with neural nets.. Malakooti. 165-185.. Vol. Building Expert Systems. New York. E.. 20(4). Neural network sensor fusion for tool condition monitoring. Rumelhart. Steuer. and Shortliffe.. 1983. Strategic Decision Group. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1984. New York. J.. A. J. Influence diagrams. Liu. 15-157.Kyung Sam Park. H. Shachter. Taha. A cutting simulation system for machinability evaluation using a workpiece model. K.. and McClelland. IEEE Transactions on Systems. Howard and J. Tsai.. 18(3). R. Manufacturing Systems. D. 1986. control in adaptive computer Knowledge-based IEEE case study. Vol. Learning and optimization of machining operations using computing abilities of neural networks. and Matheson. L. K. S.. M. 1986.. A. and Cybernetics. Hayes-Roth. Y. Man. L. 1986. Chankong. M. and Drysdale. and Cybernetics. Applied Decision Analysis. 1992. Waterman. A. E.. A. MacMillan Publishing Co. IEEE Transactions on Systems. I. North Holland. 2. 1988. R. S. 1982.. Lingarkar.. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. M. Addison-Wesley. Shachter. 1988. 45. Proceedings of ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference. J. Hook. In The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis. H... M. 34. Parallel Distributed Processing. C. B. and Tseng. and Komanduri.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Predictive Models for Drillin-g Thrust and Torque - A Comparison of Three Flankby Nguyen Danh Tuyen
- Advanced Machining Processby Nauman Khan
- Wavelet Neural Network and Wavenet Performance Evaluation in Hydrodynamic Force Prediction due to Waves on Vertical Cylindersby SEP-Publisher
- cruid unitby Yashodhara Yman

- The Industrial Electronics Handbook, Sec - Bogdan M. Wilamowski
- The Industrial Electronics Handbook,2n Edition(2011)BBS
- The Industrial Electronics Handbook 2nd Ed.
- Modern Machine Shop 262180-MAR 2014
- New Microsoft Office Word Document
- 3 Axis Surface Machining
- Artificial Intelligence in Computer Forensic
- K-KL1-7-C0016-F.pdf
- Machining
- Formal Style.pdf
- 33333
- Supasit NCSU PhD
- Chess Pieces Manufacturing Description Part2
- CENTUM VP
- s5
- 13974 Java Neural
- Predictive Models for Drillin-g Thrust and Torque - A Comparison of Three Flank
- Advanced Machining Process
- Wavelet Neural Network and Wavenet Performance Evaluation in Hydrodynamic Force Prediction due to Waves on Vertical Cylinders
- cruid unit
- On the Relationships between Generative Encodings, Regularity, and Learning Abilities when Evolving Plastic Artificial Neural Networks
- tmp78EB
- Australia
- Elements of Artificial Neural Networks
- Network
- Rr411301 Neural Networks Fuzzy Logic Control
- A 04401001013
- CHAPTER 2
- Dynamic Scenarios Detection with the use of Neural Networks
- ijrte0206121124
- AI in CNC machining