Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the ( a ) face turning geometry and force components, ( b ) cutting tool, and ( c ) the (111)Ge turned surfaces with the regions of increased brittle fracture along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions marked by highlights More

Fig. 2 Sections of the diamond cubic lattice structure produced with VESTA software [ 12 ]: ( a ) a lattice unit delimited by the (111) plane, ( b ) – ( c ) section of a (111) Ge plane with respect to each cutting direction More

Fig. 3 Representative measured cutting forces during face turning of the (111)Ge for a range of feedrates. Details of one region are shown on right where fluctuations in the force correspond to the cutting tool entering and exiting the regions where brittle fracture increases. More

Fig. 4 ( a ) Measured average forces during face turning of (111)Ge as a function of feedrate and maximum chip thickness. The error bars represent the maximum and minimum force for a full turn of the specimen and ( b ) resultant force angle calculated from the average value of the thrust and cutti... More

Fig. 5 Top view surface topography of the (111)Ge surfaces turned with a range of feedrates along the < 11 2 ¯ > and < 2 1 ¯ 1 ¯ > cutting directions. The scan area is 50 × 50 µ m 2 for all feedrates. The height scale is 50 nm for f = 0.5 µ ... More

Fig. 6 Areal surface roughness (Sa) of the (111)Ge surfaces turned with a range of feedrates along the < 11 2 ¯ > and < 2 1 ¯ 1 ¯ > cutting directions More

Fig. 7 A typical Raman spectrum of the (111)Ge surface turned with f = 0.5 µ m/rev along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions More

Fig. 8 Average and standard deviation of ( a ) the Raman mode FWHM and ( b ) residual stress measured from the shifts in Raman mode peak position for the (111)Ge surfaces turned with a range of feedrates along the < 11 2 ¯ > and < 2 1 ¯ 1 ¯ > cut... More

Fig. 9 Force applied to the Berkovich indenter plotted against penetration depth for the surfaces turned with a feedrate of ( a ), ( c ) 0.5 µ m/rev and ( b ), ( d ) 9 µ m/rev. Arrows denote the observed pop-ins. More

Fig. 10 Force applied to the Berkovich indenter plotted against penetration depth for the surfaces turned with a feedrate of 1 µ m/rev along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions. The indentations were performed at a maximum force of ( a ) 5 mN and ( b ) 6 mN. Arrows denote the ... More

Fig. 11 Post-indentation top view AFM scans of the Berkovich residual impressions on the surfaces turned with a feedrate of 1 µ m/rev along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions. The height scale of the surface topography image is 50 nm. More

Fig. 12 Average and standard deviation of ( a ) elastic modulus, ( b ) contact stiffness, and ( c ) hardness of the (111)Ge surfaces turned with a range of feedrates along the < 11 2 ¯ > and < 2 1 ¯ 1 ¯ > cutting directions More

Fig. 13 Force applied to the cube corner indenter plotted against penetration depth for the surfaces turned with a feedrate of ( a ) 0.5 µ m/rev and ( b ) 9 µ m/rev along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions More

Fig. 14 Post-indentation SEM scans of the cube corner residual impressions on the surfaces turned along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions. An SEM image of the residual impression from the Berkovich indentation on the surface turned with a feedrate of 0.5 µ m/rev is also show... More

Fig. 15 Average and standard deviation of indentation fracture toughness of the (111)Ge surfaces turned with a range of feedrates along the < 11 2 ¯ > cutting directions More

Fig. 1 The relationship between melt pool characteristics and generated porosity, including the classification boundary variation when process conditions vary More

Fig. 2 Learning processes of ( a ) traditional learning and ( b ) transfer learning More

Fig. 3 Workflow diagram of the proposed method More