Fig 1.
Actual and SEM images of (a,b) PMMA and (c,d) Almond shell powder.
Scale bar = 10 µm for SEM images.
Fig 2.
(a) FDM 3D Printer (b) 3D-printed specimens.
Fig 3.
(a) SEM image of pure PMMA showing a relatively smooth surface with the presence of a microcrack, attributed to its brittle nature and residual stresses.
(b) SEM image of Almond Shell-PMMA composite illustrating uniform dispersion of almond shell particles embedded in the matrix. (c) FTIR spectroscopic analysis of the investigated polymer matrix composite.
Fig 4.
(a) Force (N) vs. Indentation depth (mm) plot in case of hardness test and (b) SEM image of sample after hardness test.
Fig 5.
(a) Compressive stress (MPa) vs. strain graph with cylindrical sample for compressive test and (b) SEM image of sample after compressive test.
Fig 6.
(a) Tensile stress vs. strain graph for the Almond Shell-PMMA composite, demonstrating its mechanical response under tensile loading.
(b) SEM image of the fractured tensile specimen highlighting the effects of almond shell reinforcement.
Fig 7.
(a) Flexural stress vs. strain graph for the Almond Shell-PMMA composite, showcasing its performance under bending loads.
(b) SEM image of the fractured surface after the flexural test, displaying the influence of almond shell incorporation on the composite’s microstructure.
Fig 8.
(a) Wear test samples (b) SEM image of samples after wear test.
Fig 9.
Variation of wear rate with respect to (a) Sliding speed (rpm) and (b) Sliding distance (m).
Fig 10.
Variation of COF with respect to (a) Sliding speed (rpm) and (b) Sliding distance (m).
Table 1.
Intermittent wear rate and COF values at representative test points.
Fig 11.
A hybrid integration of the optimization techniques used in this study.
Table 2.
Design of Experiments (DOE) – Box-Behnken Design (BBD).
Fig 12.
Residual plots for (a) Surface Roughness (Ra), (b) Cutting Force, and (c) Material Removal Rate (MRR).
Fig 13.
Error distribution histograms of (a) Surface Roughness (Ra), (b) Cutting Force, and (c) Material Removal Rate (MRR).
Fig 14.
Surface Roughness (Ra) profile vs. Machining Parameters for all 27 samples.
Fig 15.
Cutting Force Profile vs. Machining parameters for all 27 samples.
Fig 16.
Material Removal Rate (MRR) Profile vs. Process Conditions for all 27 samples.
Table 3.
ANOVA for Surface Roughness (Ra).
Table 4.
ANOVA for Cutting Force.
Table 5.
ANOVA for Material Removal Rate (MRR).