4.5 Article

Modeling of cutting parameters in turning of PEEK composite using artificial neural networks and adaptive-neural fuzzy inference systems

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/08927057211013070

关键词

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK); Artificial Neural Networks (ANN); Adaptive-Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS); Turning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and its composites are widely used in various industries. This study employed Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and the Adaptive-Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) to predict cutting forces during the machining of PEEK with different reinforcements. The experimental results showed that both ANN and ANFIS models provided accurate predictions of cutting forces.
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and its composites are commonly used in the industry. Materials with PEEK are widely used in aeronautical, automotive, mechanical, medical, robotic and biomechanical applications due to superior properties, such as high-temperature work, better chemical resistance, lightweight, good absorbance of energy and high strength. To enhance the tribological and mechanical properties of unreinforced PEEK, short fibers are added to the matrix. In this study, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and the Adaptive-Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) are employed to predict the cutting forces during the machining operation of unreinforced and reinforced PEEK with30 v/v% carbon fiber and 30 v/v% glass fiber machining. The cutting speed, feed rate, material type, and cutting tools are defined as input parameters, and the cutting force is defined as the system output. The experimental results and test results that are predicted using the ANN and ANFIS models are compared in terms of the coefficient of determination (R-2) and mean absolute percentage error. The test results reveal that the ANFIS and ANN models provide good prediction accuracy and are convenient for predicting the cutting forces in the turning operation of PEEK.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据