Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering

Prediction of performance characteristics in hard turning using RSM, ANN and GA

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number:

Full Title: Prediction of performance characteristics in hard turning using RSM, ANN and GA

Article Type: Review Paper

Section/Category: Manufacturing Process

Funding Information:

Abstract: Nowadays, because of the severe competitiveness, manufacturers are confronted with
very complicated optimization problems, where the requirements of quality, time, and
cost minimization must be satisfied. Therefore, efficient optimization and modeling
techniques are very much needed. The present work comes firstly to compare between
the efficiency of multiple regression models and artificial neural networks (ANN)
models of performance characteristics i.e. surface roughness and cutting forces in hard
turning of AISI H11 steel with CBN tool. Then, ANN based-models were integrated in
genetic algorithm (GA) for multi-objective optimization. The target is to establish the
effect of models precision on the optimization results. The outcomes of this study
reveal that a significant improvement is obtained in prediction capability when adopting
ANN modeling technique. Moreover, the optimal settings of cutting conditions such as
cutting speed, depth of cut, feed rare, and workpiece hardness are determined for best
quality products and for maximal productivity. The confirmation test indicates that the
association between ANN-based models and GA optimization is effectively able to
predict surface roughness value lesser than the experimental data.

Corresponding Author: HAMZA BENSOUILAH

University of 8 Mai 1945 Guelma, Algeria
ALGERIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: University of 8 Mai 1945 Guelma, Algeria

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Ikhlas Meddour

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Ikhlas Meddour

Hamdi Aouici

HAMZA BENSOUILAH

Mohamed Athmane Yallese

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Author Comments: Mister the Scientific Secretary of the journal « Journal of the Brazilian society of
mechanical sciences and engineering »; The article entitled: Prediction of performance
characteristics in hard turning using RSM, ANN and GA, is sent to you in attached file
in order to be reviewed and possible publication in your journal.
This article has not been published elsewhere and it has not been submitted
simultaneously for publication elsewhere. To this end, we kindly request to you assure
us the good reception.
Faithfully yours

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript Prediction of performance
caracteristics-MEDDOUR IKHLAS.docx
Click here to view linked References

Prediction of performance characteristics in hard turning

1
2 using RSM, ANN and GA
3
4
5 Ikhlas Meddour 1,2
1
6 Mechanics and Structures Research Laboratory (LMS), May 8th 1945 University, P.O. Box 401,
7 24000 Guelma, Algeria
8 2
9 ENST-ex CT Siège DG. SNVI, Route Nationale N° 5 Z. I., 16012 Rouiba, Algeria
10
11
12 Hamdi Aouici 1, 2
1
13 Mechanics and Structures Research Laboratory (LMS), May 8th 1945 University, P.O. Box 401,
14 24000 Guelma, Algeria
15 2
16 ENST-ex CT Siège DG. SNVI, Route Nationale N° 5 Z. I., 16012 Rouiba, Algeria
17
18
19 Hamza Bensouilah 1
1
20 Mechanics and Structures Research Laboratory (LMS), May 8th 1945 University, P.O. Box 401,
21 24000 Guelma, Algeria
22
23
24 Mohamed Athmane Yallese 1
25 1
26 Mechanics and Structures Research Laboratory (LMS), May 8th 1945 University, P.O. Box 401,
27 24000 Guelma, Algeria
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 *Corresponding author: Hamza BENSOUILAH
35
36
37 Contact e-mail: hamzabensouilah52@gmail.com
38
39
40 Tel.: +213 659 268 630 ; Fax: +213 37 21 58 50
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Abstract:
1
2 Nowadays, because of the severe competitiveness, manufacturers are confronted with very
3
4 complicated optimization problems, where the requirements of quality, time, and cost minimization
5
6 must be satisfied. Therefore, efficient optimization and modeling techniques are very much needed.
7
8 The present work comes firstly to compare between the efficiency of multiple regression models
9
10 and artificial neural networks (ANN) models of performance characteristics i.e. surface roughness
11 and cutting forces in hard turning of AISI H11 steel with CBN tool. Then, ANN based-models were
12
13 integrated in genetic algorithm (GA) for multi-objective optimization. The target is to establish the
14
15 effect of models precision on the optimization results. The outcomes of this study reveal that a
16
17 significant improvement is obtained in prediction capability when adopting ANN modeling
18
19 technique. Moreover, the optimal settings of cutting conditions such as cutting speed, depth of cut,
20
21 feed rare, and workpiece hardness are determined for best quality products and for maximal
22 productivity. The confirmation test indicates that the association between ANN-based models and
23
24 GA optimization is effectively able to predict surface roughness value lesser than the experimental
25
26 data.
27
28
29
30
31
Keywords Hard turning· Genetic algorithm· RSM· ANN· Optimization
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 Introduction
Optimization problems are very frequent in different economic domains, especially, in the industrial
1
2 field, where they have a great importance. The optimization problem is mathematically defined as
3
4 the research of the optimum (minimum or maximum) for a given function, known as objective
5
6 function. The resolution of the problem is easy when the objective function and constraints are
7
8 expressed linearly. Conversely, it is more complicated when the objective function is not linear, due
9
10 to the relationship between the response and the parameters, or when many contradictory objectives
11 are considered simultaneously. Therefore, the multi-objective optimization is based on the research
12
13 of the compromised solution which satisfies, as well as possible, the different objectives. The
14
15 predictive models, along with optimum machining conditions, can be used in Computer-Aided
16
17 Process Planning (CAPP), and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) [1].
18
19 Concerning metal cutting processes, many approaches exist in the literature for solving the
20
21 optimization problems. The desirability function approach, appropriate to response surface
22 methodology RSM, is one of these approaches. It was applied in numerous studies. Recently, [2 -4]
23
24 used it to define the optimal machining parameters for multiple responses optimization, namely
25
26 surface roughness criteria and cutting forces, generated in hard turning process. Jeang [5] used RSM
27
28 to find optimal mean and tolerance values corresponding to maximum process capability index
29
30 (PCI) i.e. lower production cost and high quality product. Compared to the previous PCI, the new
31
32
developed PCI was able to consider both of the economical and the qualitative aspects of the
33 process. The RSM is advantageous as regard to cost and time in investigating cutting process
34
35 parameters and their interactions [6]. It provides a significant amount of information from a limited
36
37 number of experiments [7]. The investigation is done by testing the statistical significance of the
38
39 RSM-based model, model terms, and lack of fit, and by the virtue of 3D response surface plots.
40
41 Paiva et al. [8] combined between response surface methodology (RSM) and principal component
42
43
analysis (PCA) to find optimal cutting parameters in hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. The
44 considered objectives were tool life, processing cost per piece, cutting time, total turning cycle time,
45
46 surface roughness and the material removing rate. On the other hand, the use of RSM is not
47
48 recommended for solving the optimization problems if inputs are not discrete or when constraints
49
50 functions are used [7]. Furthermore, the RSM-based models are not suitable for highly complex and
51
52 non-linear processes [9].
53
As a result, Artificial Intelligent (AI)-based models, as artificial neuron network models, are the
54
55 issue of recent works [10]. This alternative consumes lesser time with the guarantee of higher
56
57 accuracy [11]. In order to get much fair use of hard turning process, Ozel and Karpat [12] applied
58
59 neural network modeling to predict surface roughness and tool flank wear in finish hard turning.
60
61 However, they had to develop regression models to establish process specific parameters. They
62
63
64
65
 indicated that it is preferable to model each response separately with its own ANN architecture.
According to Palanisamy et al. [13] the accuracy of the model increases with the increase of number
1
2 of the neurons of the hidden layer. Also, the authors indicated that the artificial neural network
3
4 (ANN) models for predicting tool wear, in the milling of AISI 1020 steel, are more accurate than
5
6 regression mathematical models. For investigating the surface roughness of the turned free
7
8 machining steel, Davim et al. [9] used 3D surface plots generated by ANN model. They related the
9
10 use of artificial neural network (ANN) to the non-linear relationships between surface roughness
11 and cutting conditions. Similarly, Gaitonde et al. [14] used the ANN modeling to study the effect of
12
13 tool material, cutting speed, feed rate, and machining time on specific cutting force, surface
14
15 roughness, and tool wear in hard turning of AISI D2 cold work tool steel. They developed three
16
17 separate ANN models with one hidden layer. Lin et al. [15] adopted an abductive network models
18
19 for surface roughness and cutting force in turning of S55C high carbon steel. This network
20
21 paradigm has the ability to reach the optimal architecture automatically by using predicted square
22 error (PSE) criterion. The results of the abductive network models were much better than the
23
24 multiple regression models.
25
26 Other researchers applied the Artificial Intelligence (AI) for cutting process monitoring as the work
27
28 of Scheffer et al. [16]. They developed a method for on-line tool wear prediction in hard turning,
29
30 which is based on force monitoring. In this context, Dimla and Lister [17] proposed a modular tool
31
32
for monitoring tool wear. The developed MLP neural network was able to classify tree wear types
33 and their various combinations. Sick [18] tested three networks typologies, namely Multilayer
34
35 Perceptrons (MLP), Time-Delay Neural Networks (TDNN), and Multilayer Perceptrons with a
36
37 sliding window (MLP-sw), for on-line tool wear monitoring. They disclosed that Time-Delay
38
39 Neural Network (TDNN) is the most efficient.
40
41 About genetic algorithm, it is one of the non-traditional optimization techniques which is useful for
42
43
machining optimization [19]. It is appropriate not only for general optimization problems, but also
44 in indifferent and unconventional optimization problems [20].This approach was used by Sardiñas
45
46 et al.[21] for multi-objective optimization in turning operations. They found out optimal cutting
47
48 depth, feed rate and cutting speed by taking into consideration tool life and operation time. Oktem
49
50 et al. [22] combined between ANN models and genetic algorithm to establish the best cutting
51
52 parameters leading to minimum surface roughness in end milling of 7075-T6 aluminum. The same
53
technique was used by Razfar and Zadeh [19]to obtain the best cutting parameters selection
54
55 corresponding to minimum surface roughness and delamination factor in end milling of glass fiber
56
57 reinforced plastics (GFRP). They revealed that the predicted values were very close to the
58
59 experimental ones. Zain et al. [23] revealed that GA optimization has given a lesser value of surface
60
61 roughness than the ANN model and the experimental data.
62
63
64
65
 From the above reviewed literature, it is obvious that the ANN modeling is very suitable technique
in cutting process as well as GA optimization. This paper describes the application of those
1
2 techniques in case of hard turning of AISI H11 steel with CBN 7020 tool. The aim is to establish
3
4 the optimal cutting conditions corresponding to different objectives. Furthermore, this study is
5
6 extended to compare between the obtained results and those obtained by RSM.
7
8 2 Experimental details and techniques
9
10
11 2.1 Equipments
12
13 Hard turning tests are carried out on bars of AISI H11 hot work steel by using SN40C universal
14
15 lathe with 6.6 kW spindle power. A three-axial dynamometer (Kistler 9257B) is mounted on the
16
17 tool holder in order to measure the cutting forces. The single point cutting tests are carried out at
18 feed rates of 0.08, 0.12, and 0.16 mm/rev, cutting speeds of 120, 180, and 240 m/min, depth of cuts
19
20 of 0.15, 0.3, and 0.45 mm, and workpiece harnesses of 40, 45, and 50HRC (Rockwell hardness).
21
22 Those levels are combined according to Box–Behnken Design (BBD), counting at total 29 runs
23
24 (Table 1).The cubic boron nitride (CBN 7020) cutting tool is used. It is composed from 57% of
25
26 CBN and 35% of Ti (C, N). The ISO geometry of the insert is SNGA12 04 08 S01020. It is fastened
27
28 to a tool holder having ISO designation of PSBNR 2525 M12. This type of tool holder is especially
29 characterized by a negative rake angle (γ= −6), which provides more rigidity and accuracy in hard
30
31 turning process. The arithmetic mean of surface roughness (Ra) is measured by a MitutoyoSurftest
32
33 201. The schematic illustration of the experimental investigation is given in Fig. 1.
34
35 2.2 ANN modeling
36
37
38 Artificial neural network (ANN) technique is based on the learning process, which is inspired from
39
40
the human brain behavior. This technique has found a large area of application because of its
41 capability to solve very complex problems, especially in manufacturing as it was mentioned in the
42
43 literature review section. However, to get faire use of this technique, it is essential to determine the
44
45 network type which must be adequate to the considered problem, the network architecture, and the
46
47 network training parameters.
48
49 In the present study, a multilayer feed-forward ANN paradigm is used to model surface roughness
50
51
and cutting force components. To determine the ANN structure, 4 nodes are chosen for the input
52 layer that corresponds to the cutting parameters variables number, the output layer contains only
53
54 one node because each response is modeled separately. For the hidden layer, the nodes were
55
56 increased incrementally till the number of 10. As a result, the adopted structure is 4-10-1. Figure 2
57
58 represents the ANN structure for surface roughness model.
59
60 The inputs of the hidden layer nodes are given as follow:
61
62
63
64
65
 𝐻𝑗 (𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡) = ∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑃𝑖 𝑤𝑗𝑖 + 𝑏𝑗 (1)

1 where:
2
3 Pi : values of cutting speed, depth of cut, feed rate, and workpiece hardness.
4
5 wji:weight between the input layer and the hidden layer.
6
7 bj: biases of the hidden nodes (j = 1,…,n).
8
9 For the hidden layer, the tangent hyperbolic transfer function is chosen among many existing
10
11 transfer functions. According to Kalman and Kwasny[24], training the network with the tangent
12
13 hyperbolic function is more rapid and better than training with the sigmoidal transfer function. Also,
14
15 it makes the network more sensitive to the connections weights changes comparing to the logistic
16
17
sigmoid function [25]. The outputs of the hidden layer nodes are written as follow:
18
19 𝐻𝑗 (𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡) = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑔ℎ(∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑃𝑖 𝑤𝑗𝑖 + 𝑏𝑗 ) (2)
20
21
22 The output layer contains only one node which has a linear transfer function, the output of this node
23 is given as follow:
24
25
26 𝑂𝑢𝑡 = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝐻𝑗 (𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡) 𝑤0𝑗 + 𝑏0 (3)
27
28
29 w0j: weight between the hidden layer and the output layer.
30
31 b0: bias of the output node
32
33 The largest portion of the experimental data, presented in Table 1, is used for the network training
34
35 and the rest is used for model validation. The back propagation algorithm based on gradient descent
36
37 rule is adopted for the network training. The principal of this algorithm is based on the
38 minimization of the mean square error (MSE) between the network outputs and the corresponding
39
40 experimental values of the data set successively. The mean square error is calculated by using the
41
42 equation (4):
43
44
1
45 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑟 = 2 (𝐷𝑟 − 𝑂𝑟 )2 (4)
46
47
48 Where: Dr is the experimental value corresponding to run number r, and Or is the value obtained by
49
50 the network.
51
52 The minimization is done by adjusting the weights from the output layer to the input one by using
53
54 the following equations:
55
56 For the bias of the output node and the weights between the hidden layer and the output layer;
57
58 ∂𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑟
59 𝑏0(𝑛+1) = 𝑏0(𝑛) − 𝜂 (5)
∂b0
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ∂𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑟
𝑤0𝑗(𝑛+1) = 𝑤0𝑗(𝑛) − 𝜂 (6)
∂w0j

1
2
For the biases of the hidden nodes and the weights between the input layer and the hidden layer;
3
4
∂𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑟
5 𝑏𝑗(𝑛+1) = 𝑏𝑗(𝑛) − 𝜂 (7)
∂bj
6
7
∂𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑟
8 𝑤𝑗𝑖(𝑛+1) = 𝑤𝑗𝑖(𝑛) − 𝜂 (8)
9 ∂wji
10
11
12 Where: η is the learning rate.
13
14 The direction of the weight update is determined by the sign of the derivative.
15 The process is iteratively repeated till a defined value of performance function is reached. The
16
17 performance function is the mean sum of squares errors for all the data set, presented by equation 9:
18
1
19 𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 𝑁 ∑𝑁
𝑟=1(𝐷𝑟 − 𝑂𝑟 )
2
(9)
20
21
22
The JMP 10 software is used for network training and validation. The learning rate η is set at 0.1,
23 and the maximum number of iterations is set at 100. The same ANN architecture and training
24
25 parameters are adopted for surface roughness and cutting force components models, except the
26
27 learning rate η is set as 0.01 for the tangential force.
28
29
30 2.3 Genetic algorithm optimization
31
32 Genetic algorithm method simulates the natural selection of the biological information, which will
33
34 be transferred from parents to children. GA belongs to evolutionary computation techniques, where
35
36 the search of the optimal solution is done in adaptative populations, created iteratively [26]. The
37 genetic algorithm starts by generating an initial population which is well dispersed and satisfies
38
39 limits and constraints. A number of pairs among this population are selected to be the parents of the
40
41 next generation. The selection of individuals is based on their probability to be near to the optimal
42
43 value of the associated criterion, which is the minimal value of the fitness function. For this reason,
44
45 fitness values of all individuals are calculated from the fitness function. Then, two descendants are
46
47 created by combining two parents using crossover rule for a fraction of the population. The rest is
48 modified from parents to children by applying an arbitrary change using mutation rule. The
49
50 optimization process, presented in Fig. 3, is carried out by using GA toolbox of MATLAB 7.8
51
52 R2009a software [27].
53
54  GA parameters setting
55
56 The specifications of the genetic algorithm, available in GA toolbox (MATLAB 7.8 R2009a) [27],
57
58
used to solve the multiple responses optimization (Fx, Fy, Fz, Ra and MRR) are summarized as
59 follow:
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Bounds
They are the down and up limits of factors variations, given as follow:
1
2 120 ≤Vc ≤ 240
3
4 0.08 ≤ f ≤ 0.16
5
6 0.15 ≤ ap ≤ 0.45
7
8 40 ≤ H ≤ 50
9
10 Population size
11
12 The number (n) of individuals which forms each generation is set at 1000. Real value encoding is
13
14 used for each individual. The population can be represented as in Fig. 4.
15
16 Selection rule
17 A roulette wheel rule is used to select individuals to be parents for the next generation. The
18
19 occupied section area by each individual in the roulette wheel is proportional to its probability. The
20
21 probability of each individual is obtained by dividing its fitness value by the sum of all population
22
23 individuals’ fitness values.
24
25 Crossover function
26
27 Heuristic function is used to determine the crossover point, when to parents are combined (Fig. 5).
28 It enables to create children (C1) near to the parent (P1) having the better fitness value by using the
29
30 following expression:
31
32 C1  P2  R  P1  P2  (10)
33
34 With R is a parameter ratio set at 1.2.
35
36 Crossover fraction
37
38 Crossover fraction is set at 0.8. It represents the ratio of the population used in crossover
39
40 combination, with the exception of the two elite children. The elite children are copied directly to
41 the new population.
42
43
44 Mutation function
45
46 Adaptive feasible function is used to change parent to a child. The direction is adapted by
47 considering the last generation results and constraints.
48
49
50 Fitness function
51
52 The multi-objective optimization problem is simplified to a single objective function by weighting
53
method. The principal of this method is to associate a weighting coefficient for each objective
54
55 function and minimize the weighted sum of the objectives [28]. The fitness function is written as
56
57 follow:
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Ra Fx Fy Fz ( 1  MRR )
fitnessfunction  wRa  wF x  wF y  wF z  wMRR
Ramax Fx max Fy Fz max MRRmax
1 max
2
3 (11)
4
5
6 Where:
7
8 wi : the importance given to response ( i ).
9
10
Ra, Fx, Fy, Fz: the developed models for performance characteristics.
11 The material removal rate is calculated by the following equation:
12
13 MRR  Vc  f  ap (12)
14
15 Iterations stopping
16
17 To stop the algorithm, the maximum number of generations is set at 100. Also, the algorithm stops
18
19 if no improvement is registered for the optimal solution along a number of generations, which is set
20
21 at 50.
22
23
3 Results and discussion
24 3.1 Regression equations
25
26 The use of RSM resulted to the regression equations of the response factors. For all the responses,
27
28 the experimental data, given in Table 1, were well fitted by the quadratic models. The developed
29
30 models of surface roughness (Ra), feed force (Fx), thrust force (Fy), and tangential force (Fz) in
31
32 terms of cutting conditions and their corresponding coefficients of correlation (R²) are written
33
34
respectively as follow:
35
36 RaRSM  9.872  0.0106Vc  2.758 f  0.409ap  0.496H  0.0334Vc  f
37
38  1.11110 3Vc  ap  2.416  10 4 Vc  H  14.583 f  ap  0.337 f  H
39
40  0.01334ap  H  1.14310 5Vc2  20.364 f 2  2.829ap 2  5.596H 2
41
42
43 (13)
44
45
46 The coefficient of correlation for surface roughness model is equal to 0.914.
47
48 FxRSM  605.064  1.237Vc  182.867 f  1719.057ap  31.705H  0.0198Vc  f
49
50  2.030Vc  ap  8.4 10 3Vc  H  67083 f  ap  4.15 f  H  30.756ap  H
51
52  3.955 10 3Vc2  377.135 f 2  476.07ap 2  0.42H 2
53
54 (14)
55
56
The coefficient of correlation for feed force model is equal to 0.821.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Fy RSM  5421 .406  4.194 Vc  2737 .7 f  1922 .746 ap  249 .924 H  1.945Vc  f
 1.642 Vc  ap  0.0365 Vc  H  2047 .916 f  ap  46 .225 f  H
1
2  25 .28 ap  H  8.676  10  3Vc 2  4534 .32 f 2  22 .559 ap 2  2.961 H 2
3
4
5 (15)
6
7 The coefficient of correlation for thrust force model is equal to 0.857.
8
9 Fz RSM  1963 .62  0.426 Vc  1952 .79 f  1952 .79 ap  109 .311 H  2.609 Vc  f
10
11
 5.116 Vc  ap  0.0247 Vc  H  1645 .833 f  ap  29 .487 f  H  19 .37 ap  H
12
13
 6.877  10  3Vc 2  4313 .07 f 2  14 .374 ap 2  1.382 H 2
14
15 (16)
16
17 The coefficient of correlation for thrust force model is equal to 0.864.
18
19 3.2 ANN models
20
21 Table 2 represents the ANN models architectures of surface roughness and cutting force
22
23 components, and their corresponding numbers of runs used for training and validation sets. The
24
25
correlation coefficient is given for each set. This coefficient reflects how well the total variation of
26 the experimental data is explained by the developed model. It is found for all training and validation
27
28 sets, that the correlation coefficients are almost 1, which means that excellent correlations exist
29
30 between the experimental results and the ANN developed models.
31
32 However, it is essential to catch deviation between predicted values and the experimental data. For
33
34 this reason, the plots of residuals versus predicted values of both training and validation sets for
35
surface roughness, feed force, thrust force, and tangential force models are drawn in Figures 6a-b,
36
37 7a-b, 8a-b, and 9a-b, respectively. It can be seen that the majority of residuals are distributed very
38
39 close to the zero lines, except for few points, where the highest percentage error does not exceed
40
41 4.1%, 18.9%, 22.2%, and 10.7% for surface roughness, feed force, thrust force, and tangential force
42
43 models respectively. Those maximum values of deviations correspond to the center points runs of
44
45 the BBD, where the same cutting conditions are used.
46
47 3.3 Comparison between ANN and RSM models
48
49 Table 3 summarizes the results of quadratic regression and artificial neuron network modeling of
50
51 the technological parameters. Generally, according to the correlation coefficients, the models are
52
53 good and can be used to predict surface roughness and cutting forces. However, it is noticed that the
54
55 ANN models have correlation coefficients much better than RSM models. For surface roughness,
56
57 feed force, thrust force, and tangential force models, the correlation coefficients are improved from
58
59
(0.914, 0.821, 0.857 and 0.864) to (0.996, 0.981, 0.974 and 0.986) for the training sets and (0.996,
60 0.996, 0.991 and 0.976) for the validation sets respectively.
61
62
63
64
65
 3D surface plots generated by both RSM and ANN approaches for each response are superimposed
on Figures 10a, 11a, 12a, and 13a respectively. Besides, in order to get a better view, the
1
2 experimental values are drawn only with ANN 3D surface plots in Figures 10b, 11b, 12b, and 13b.
3
4 The purpose is not to investigate the effects of cutting parameters and workpiece hardness on the
5
6 responses, but is to well illustrate the comparison between RSM and ANN models efficiency. Those
7
8 Figures show clearly that the ANN models are able to fit much better the experimental data,
9
10 whatever the non linearity is.
11 Furthermore, the precision gained by the ANN models over RSM models, calculated by using
12
13 equation (17), is presented in figure 14. For the majority of the experimental runs, it is seen that
14
15 important benefit of precision is provided by the ANN models.
16
17 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 (%) = 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝐴𝑁𝑁 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 − 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑅𝑆𝑀 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 (17)
18
𝑦𝑖,𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 −𝑦𝑖,𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
19 Where: 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 = | | ∗ 100 (18)
20 𝑦𝑖,𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
21
22 4 Optimization results
23
24 It was deduced from the previous section that the developed models using ANN approach are more
25
26 accurate than those developed by RSM. Therefore, the GA optimization is done by adopting the
27
28 ANN models of surface roughness and cutting force components, whereas, the material removal
29
30 rate is calculated from equation (13). The results for two different cases are summarized in Table 4.
31
a) Case one: when the target of the manufacturer is to obtain products with high quality, the
32
33 largest weight value is given to surface roughness, which allows finding out optimal machining
34
35 conditions leading to minimum surface roughness.
36
37 b) Case two: when the target of the manufacturer is to increase productivity, the largest weight
38
39 value is attributed to maximal removal rate, which allows determining machining conditions
40
41 corresponding to maximal MRR.
42 It is possible to perform optimization for other weights setting that correspond to the variable
43
44 industrial requirements, with the condition that the sum of all weights is equal to 1.
45
46 To check the genetic algorithm parameters setting, the evolution of the best fitness value and the
47
48 average distance between individuals versus generations are respectively drawn in Figures 15a and
49
50 15b. It is observed from Fig. 15a that the best fitness values decrease rapidly and the algorithm
51
52 converge to the best fitness value at generation 5. After this, no more improvement is observed.
53 Furthermore, Fig. 15b reveals that from generation 14 the average distance between individuals is 0,
54
55 which means that all population individuals still have the same fitness values till the stall of the
56
57 algorithm at generation 51. The average distance between individuals plot allows also verifying
58
59 diversity of the generated population when the algorithm is initialized. According to Fig. 15b, there
60
61 is a good diversity for this algorithm setting.
62
63
64
65
 Table 5 represents a comparison between minimal experimental value of surface roughness and
those predicted by desirability function approach [4] and GA optimization. It is found that GA
1
2 optimization has the capability to provide the minimum surface roughness value.
3
4
5 5 Confirmation test
6
7 The confirmation test result for the optimal cutting conditions, obtained by GA optimization, is
8
9 shown in Table 6. The percentage error of 3.22% indicates that a slight divergence exists between
10
11
the experimental value of surface roughness and the predicted one. Consequently, the adopted
12 approach can be used efficiently for predicting cutting speed, depth of cut, feed rate, and workpiece
13
14 hardness leading to minimum surface roughness value.
15
16
17 6 Conclusion
18
19 In this paper, which has an economic interest, the optimization of the cutting conditions in hard
20
21 turning of AISI H11steel has been detailed beside ANN modeling. Relatively, a large number of
22
23
objectives, namely surface roughness, cutting force components, and material removal rate were
24 considered simultaneously by using genetic algorithm approach. The outcomes of this study are as
25
26 follows.
27
28  According to the statistical results, the ANN-based models are much more efficient for
29
30 predicting surface roughness and cutting force components than RSM-based models.
31
32  3D surface plots allowed visualizing how well the ANN models fit the highly non linearity of
33
34 the experimental results compared to RSM-based models.
35
36
 GA optimization resulted to the determination of the optimal cutting conditions of Vc= 199.3
37 m/min, f = 0.08 mm/rev, ap = 0.15mm, and H = 40.00 HRC, corresponding to the minimal
38
39 surface roughness value of 0.31 μm, which is lesser than the values of the experimental data and
40
41 lesser than the value predicted by desirability function approach. Also, the optimal setting of
42
43 cutting conditions corresponding to higher productivity was defined.
44
45  The validation test proved that GA optimization based on ANN models is very efficient for
46
47 predicting optimal cutting conditions. That is to say, the optimization results depend on a robust
48 association between accurate models and efficient optimization approach.
49
50 References
51
52
53 1. Suresh PVS, Venkateswara Rao P, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic algorithmic approach for
54 optimization of surface roughness prediction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42: 675–680
55
56 2. Meddour I, Yallese MA, Khattabi R, Elbah M, Boulanouar L (2014) Investigation and modeling
57
58 of cutting forces and surface roughness when hard turning of AISI 52100 steel with mixed
59
60 ceramic tool: cutting conditions optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77:1387–1399
61
62
63
64
65
 3. Elbah M, Yallese MA, Aouici H, Mabrouki T, Rigal JF (2013) Comparative assessment of
wiper and conventional ceramic tools on surface roughness in hard turning AISI 4140 steel.
1
2 Measurement 46:3041–3056
3
4 4. Aouici H, Yallese MA, Chaoui K, Mabrouki T, Rigal J-F (2012) Analysis of surface roughness
5
6 and cutting force components in hard turning with CBN tool: Prediction model and cutting
7
8 conditions optimization. Measurement 45:344–353
9
10 5. Jeang A. (2015) Robust product design and process planning in using process capability
11 analysis. J Intell Manuf 26:459–470
12
13 6. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Figueira L, Davim JP (2009) Machinability investigations in hard
14
15 turning of AISI D2 cold work tool steel with conventional and wiper ceramic inserts. Int J
16
17 Refract Metals Hard Mater 27:754–763
18
19 7. Bouacha K, Yallese MA, Khamel S, Belhadi S (2014) Analysis and optimization of hard turning
20
21 operation using cubic boron nitride tool. Int. J Refract Metals Hard Mater 45:160–178
22 8. Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Balestrassi PP (2007) A multivariate hybrid approach applied to AISI
23
24 52100 hardened steel turning optimization. J Mater Process Technol 189 (1–3): 26–35
25
26 9. Davim JP, Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR (2008) Investigations into the effect of cutting conditions
27
28 on surface roughness in turning of free machining steel by ANN models. J Mater Process
29
30 Technol 205:16–23
31
32
10. Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2010) Prediction of surface roughness in the end milling
33 machining using Artificial Neural Network. Expert Systems Appl 37(2): 1755–1768
34
35 11. Muthukrishnan N, Davim JP (2009) Optimization of machining parameters of Al/SiC-MMC
36
37 with ANOVA and ANN analysis. J Mater Process Technol 209:225–232
38
39 12. Ozel T, Karpat Y (2005) Predictive modeling of surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning
40
41 using regression and neural networks. Int J Machine Tools Manuf 45:467–479
42
43
13. Palanisamy P, Rajendran I, Shanmugasundaram S. (2008) Prediction of tool wear using
44 regression and ANN models in end-milling operation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 37:29–41
45
46 14. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Figueira L, Davim JP (2011) Performance comparison of
47
48 conventional and wiper ceramic inserts in hard turning through artificial neural network
49
50 modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 52:101–114
51
52 15. Lin WS, Lee BY, Wu CL (2001) Modeling the surface roughness and cutting force for turning.
53
J Mater Process Technol 108 286-293
54
55 16. Scheffer C, Kratz H, Heyns PS, Klocke F (2003) Development of a tool wear-monitoring
56
57 system for hard turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:973–985
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 17. Dimla Sr D.E., Lister P.M. (2000) On-line metal cutting tool condition monitoring. II: tool-state
classification using multi-layer perceptron neural networks. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:769–
1
2 781
3
4 18. Sick B (1998) On-Line Tool Wear Monitoring in Turning Using Neural Networks. Neural
5
6 Comput Appl 7:356–366
7
8 19. Razfar MR, M R Zanjani Zadeh (2009) Optimum damage and surface roughness prediction in
9
10 end milling glass fibre-reinforced plastics, using neural network and genetic algorithm. Proc
11 IMechE 223 Part B: J Eng Manuf 223: 653
12
13 20. D’Addona DM, Teti R (2013) Genetic algorithm-based optimization of cutting parameters in
14
15 turning processes. Procedia CIRP 7 323–328
16
17 21. Sardiñas RQ, Santana MR, Brindis EA (2006) Genetic algorithm-based multi-objective
18
19 optimization of cutting parameters in turning processes. Eng Appl Artif Intell 19(2) 127–133
20
21 22. Oktem H, Erzurumlu T, Erzincanli F, (2006) Prediction of minimum surface roughness in end
22 milling mold parts using neural network and genetic algorithm. Mater Design 27:735–744
23
24 23. Zain AM, Haron H, Qasem SN, Sharif S (2012) Regression and ANN models for estimating
25
26 minimum value of machining performance. Applied Math Model 36:1477–1492
27
28 24. Kalman BL, Kwasny SC (1992) Why Tanh: Choosing a sigmoidal function. Procee Int Joint
29
30 Conference on Neural Network, Baltimore 4:578–581
31
32
25. Wang W (2006) Stochasticity, nonlinearity and forecasting of stream flow processes. PhD
33 Thesis. Delft University
34
35 26. Sivanandam SN, Deepa SN (2008) Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. ISBN 978-3-540-
36
37 73189-4 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
38
39 27. Matlab 7.8 R2009a user manual, Genetic algorithm toolbox. Copyright 1984-2009 The Math
40
41 Works, Inc.
42
43
28. Miettinen K (1999) Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
44 Boston, Massachusetts
45
46
47
48
49
50 Tables list
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
15
16
17
18
19
20 Table 1 Experimental, RSM, and ANN modeling results of performance characteristics
21
22 Run Vc f ap H Fxexp FxRSM FxANN Fyexp FyRSM FyANN Fzexp Fz RSM FzANN Raexp RaRSM RaANN MRR
(m/min) (mm/rev) (mm) (HRC) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (μm) (μm) (μm) (cm3/min)
23 1
24 180 0.16 0.3 40 111.81 105.44 111.58 241.2 237.85 251.28 177.14 168.02 180.48 0.79 0.72 0.79 8.64
25 2 180 0.08 0.3 40 90.81 82.88 78.70 160.47 156.85 181.25 122.83 111.6 118.48 0.39 0.36 0.39 4.32
26 3 240 0.08 0.3 45 45.19 77.83 45.31 122.07 168.89 121.94 112.07 140.46 108.93 0.42 0.43 0.42 5.76
27 4 120 0.08 0.3 45 81.60 83.05 81.31 178.13 177.71 178.19 123.02 134.91 126.68 0.49 0.53 0.49 2.88
28
29 5 120 0.12 0.3 40 105.15 114.09 106.34 221.66 241.38 221.34 161.55 167.54 174.76 0.52 0.51 0.52 4.32
30 6 180 0.12 0.3 45 87.66 78.92 78.92 181.97 166.07 165.18 157.10 153.94 151.59 0.60 0.60 0.60 6.48
31 7 120 0.12 0.45 45 153.31 164.19 152.52 263.51 255.19 264.12 261.61 280.27 260.20 0.48 0.47 0.49 6.48
32
33 8 180 0.16 0.3 50 100.31 96.44 99.41 334.67 319.34 334.43 285.01 263.37 282.00 0.47 0.5 0.47 8.64
34 9 180 0.16 0.45 45 147.22 141.02 147.56 247.77 226.31 247.51 252.08 243.06 246.31 0.74 0.78 0.74 12.96
35 10 180 0.12 0.45 40 166.95 168.02 167.52 228.22 243.08 228.44 222.92 213.27 226.72 0.43 0.46 0.43 9.72
36
37 11 180 0.08 0.15 45 44.15 37.83 43.8 99.71 94.74 99.85 59.76 70.12 68.57 0.61 0.54 0.61 2.16
38 12 240 0.16 0.3 45 79.28 102.15 78.88 176.27 222.07 176.23 176.51 196.15 181.35 0.83 0.82 0.83 11.52
39 13 180 0.12 0.3 45 76.15 78.92 78.92 176.39 166.07 165.18 161.37 153.94 151.59 0.61 0.60 0.60 6.48
40
14 240 0.12 0.15 45 102.78 80.1 102.03 178.59 167.97 178.69 220.10 168.57 224.18 0.50 0.51 0.52 4.32
41
42 15 180 0.12 0.3 45 66.33 78.92 78.92 135.42 166.07 165.18 147.03 153.94 151.59 0.61 0.60 0.60 6.48
43 16 180 0.08 0.3 50 75.99 70.55 84.54 290.92 275.32 291.33 207.11 183.36 210.07 0.34 0.41 0.34 4.32
44
17 180 0.12 0.15 50 55.15 78.40 55.73 243.48 274.00 243.29 150.93 192.11 166.43 0.36 0.36 0.36 3.24
45
46 18 120 0.12 0.15 45 41.13 48.68 40.24 148.13 156.56 147.69 86.80 83.45 92.06 0.42 0.47 0.42 2.16
47 19 120 0.12 0.3 50 118.87 98.38 118.84 337.38 319.42 337.98 302.28 265.94 294.93 0.37 0.28 0.38 4.32
48
20 180 0.08 0.45 45 130.40 115.99 131.23 210.59 188.38 210.14 170.75 155.09 159.44 0.40 0.38 0.40 6.48
49
50 21 180 0.12 0.45 50 83.21 111.22 83.26 240.63 305.14 240.55 222.58 267.78 234.98 0.35 0.36 0.35 9.72
51 22 120 0.16 0.3 45 115.50 107.18 115.72 251.00 249.56 250.03 212.51 215.66 202.39 0.58 0.60 0.58 5.76
52
23 180 0.16 0.15 45 59.36 61.25 58.59 186.04 181.82 204.24 101.59 118.59 97.55 0.60 0.59 0.60 4.32
53
54 24 180 0.12 0.3 45 83.02 78.92 78.92 169.89 166.07 165.18 159.17 153.94 151.59 0.58 0.60 0.60 6.48
55 25 180 0.12 0.15 40 46.62 42.93 46.34 155.23 136.10 155.58 93.16 79.50 89.57 0.40 0.42 0.40 3.24
56
26 240 0.12 0.3 50 119.75 98.29 119.03 369.35 323.20 369.24 248.78 244.12 241.66 0.50 0.48 0.50 8.64
57
58 27 240 0.12 0.3 40 95.95 103.92 96.27 209.75 201.28 192.49 137.72 175.4 134.35 0.36 0.42 0.36 8.64
59 28 240 0.12 0.45 45 141.86 122.51 141.70 234.84 207.46 234.68 210.72 181.2 223.81 0.60 0.55 0.60 12.96
60
29 180 0.12 0.3 45 81.42 78.92 78.92 166.66 166.07 165.18 145.01 153.94 151.59 0.62 0.60 0.60 6.48
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Table 2 Correlation coefficients (R²)of ANN models
5 Training set Validation set
6 Response Structure
7 Number of runs R² Number of runs R²
8 Ra 4-10-1 23 0.996 6 0.996
9
Fx 4-10-1 24 0.981 5 0.996
10
11 Fy 4-10-1 24 0.974 5 0.991
12 Fz 4-10-1 23 0.986 6 0.976
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Table 3 Comparison between RSM and ANN models
26
27 Correlation coefficient R²
28 Model RSM ANN Training set ANN Validation set
29
Ra = f (Vc, ap, f, H) 0.914 0.996 0.996
30
31 Fx = f (Vc, ap, f, H) 0.821 0.981 0.996
32 Fy = f (Vc, ap, f, H) 0.857 0.974 0.991
33
34 Fz = f (Vc, ap, f, H) 0.864 0.986 0.976
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 16
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5 Table 4 Optimization results for performance characteristics
6
7 Target Weights Optimal cutting conditions Performance characteristics
8 Vc, f, ap, H, Fx, Fy, Fz, MRR, Ra,
9 wRa wFx wFy wFz wMRR m/min mm/rev mm HRC N N N cm3/min μm
10 Quality 9/20 3/20 3/20 3/20 2/20 199.3 0.08 0.15 40.00 51.3 123.3 72.8 2.40 0.31
11
12 Productivity 2/20 3/20 3/20 3/20 9/20 239.9 0.16 0.45 48.91 121.3 299.9 253.3 17.27 0.73
13
14
15
16
17 Table 5 Minimal value of surface roughness
18
Surface roughness Ra (μm)
19
20 Minimal value of Predicted by desirability Predicted by GA
21 experimental data function approach [4]
22 0.34 0.34 0.31
23
24
25
26
27
28 Table 6 Validation tests for GA optimization
29
30 Optimal cutting conditions Surface roughness Ra (μm)
31 Vc, ap, f, H, Error
32 Predicted Experimental
m/min mm mm/rev HRC %
33
199.3 0.08 0.15 40.00 0.31 0.32 3.22
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 17
63
64
65
 Figures list

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Workpiece
8
9
10 Cuttingtool
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Fig.1 Schematic illustration of the experimental investigation
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Fig.2 Structure of surface roughness ANN model
59
60
61
62 18
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Yes
10 Output results
11
12
13
14
No
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Fig. 3 Genetic algorithm process
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 1st
43 individual1
44
45
46 2nd individual
47
48
49 nth individual
50
51
52
53 Fig. 4 Initial population
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 19
63
64
65
 P1 C1
1 Pair of Pair of
2 parents children
3 P2 C2
4
5
6
7 Crossover point
8
9
10 Fig.5 Combination between parents to obtain children.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Fig.6 Residuals versus predicted values of surface roughness ANN model: a) training set, b) validation set
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 Fig.7 Residuals versus predicted values of feed force ANN model: a) training set, b) validation set
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 20
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Fig.8 Residuals versus predicted values of thrust force ANN model: a) training set, b) validation set
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Fig.9 Residuals versus predicted values of tangential force ANN model: a) training set, b) validation set
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 Ra ANN Ra ANN
37 Ra RSM Ra Experimental
38
39 0.8 0.8
40
41 0.7 0.7
42
43 0.6 0.6
Ra (µm)

Ra (µm)

44
45 0.5 0.5
46
47 0.4 0.4
48
49
50
0.45 0.45
51 0.38 0.16 0.38 0.16
52 0.30 0.14 0.30 0.14
53 0.12 0.12
0.22 0.1 0.22 0.10
54 ap (mm) 0.15 0.08 b) ap (mm) 0.15 0.08
a) f (mm/rev) f (mm/rev)
55
56
57 Fig.10 Effect of feed rate and depth of cut on surface roughness (Vc= 180 m/min, H=45 HRC)
58
59
60
61
62 21
63
64
65
 Fx ANN Fx ANN
Fx RSM Fx Experimental
1
2
3 120 120
4
5 100 100
6
7 80 80
Fx (N)

Fx (N)
8
9 60 60
10
11 40 40
12
13 20 20
14
0.16 0.16
15 0.14 240 0.14 240
16 0.12 210 0.12 210
17 180 180
0.10 150 0.10 150
18 f (mm/rev) 0.08 120 f (mm/rev) 0.08 120
a) Vc (m/min) b) Vc (m/min)
19
20
21 Fig.11 Effect of cutting speed and feed rate on feed force (ap = 0.30 mm, H = 45 HRC)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Fy ANN Fy ANN
29 Fy RSM Fy Experimental
30
31
300 300
32
33
34 250 250
35
Fy (N)

Fy (N)

36
200 200
37
38
39 150 150
40
41
42 100 100
43 0.45 0.45
44 0.38 50 0.38 50
45 0.30 48 0.30 48
46 46
46 0.22 44 0.22 44
42 42
47 ap (mm) 0.15 40 ap (mm) 0.15 40
a) H (HRC) b) H (HRC)
48
49
50 Fig.12 Effect of workpiece hardness and depth of cut on thrust force (Vc = 180 m/min, f = 0.12 mm/rev)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 22
63
64
65
 1
Fz ANN Fz ANN
2
Fz RSM Fz Experimental
3
4
5 220 220
6
200 200
7
8 180 180
9
Fz (N)

Fz (N)
10 160 160
11 140
140
12
13 120 120
14
15 100 100
16 0.45 0.16
17 0.38 240 0.14 240
18 0.30 210 0.12 210
180 180
19 0.22 150 0.10 150
20 f (mm/rev) 0.15 120 f (mm/rev) 0.08 120
a) Vc (m/min) b) Vc (m/min)
21
22
23 Fig.13 Effect of cutting speed and feed rate on tangential force (ap= 0.30 mm, H=45 HRC)
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 Fig.14 Precision gained by ANN models over RSM models.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 23
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 a)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 b)
34
35
36
37
38 Fig.15 a) Evolution of the best fitness value, b) average distance between individuals versus generations for
39 GA optimization based on ANN models
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 24
63
64
65