<TEXT N="B01038269.02">
<BODY>
<DIV1>
<P><PB REF="00000001.tif" SEQ="00000001" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="TPG" CNF="873" N="">
Progress Report No. 2
DEVELOPMENT OF TEST METHODS
TO EVALUATE "MM" GRINDING WHEELS
R. E. McKEE
Associate Professor of Production Engineering
Project 2190-1
MACKLIN COMPANY
JACKSON, MICHIGAN
June, 1954
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000002.tif" SEQ="00000002" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="875" N="1">
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE * UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DEVELOPMENT OF TEST METHODS TO
EVALUATE "MM" GRINDING WHEELS
This report covers the results of tests developed in evaluating
the performance of "MM" as compared with diamond wheels in accordance with
the original discussions between Messrs. Franklin and Lane, Prof. Boston,
and the writer. It is divided into five main parts: (1) conditions of test
machine, wheel speed, table traverse feed, depth of cut, work material, and
surface finish measurement, (2) testing procedures, (3) definitions of terms,
(4) discussion of results, and (5)- conclusions.
I. CONDITIONS OF TEST
Machine: The machine used was a Cincinnati No. 2 tool and cutter
grinder, representing a type commonly used in tool rooms, grinding departments, etc.
Wheel Speed: The measured spindle speed of the machine was 4000
revolutions per minute, representing 6280 feet per minute on the 6-inchdiameter "MM" wheels, and 3660 feet per minute on the 3.5-inch- diameter
diamond wheel.
Table Traverse Feed: The table on the tool and cutter grinder was
hand-fed, and the number of traverses per test was held constant at 20 with
no allowance for spark-out.
Depth of Cut: The depth of cut was held constant at 1/4 of.001
inch (0.00025 in.) per traverse. This is normal practice in the grinding
Of carbides.
Work Material: The 1/2-inch square tool bit were obtained from
Carboloy department of General Electric in three grade specifications:
78B, 883, and 831. The 78B is a steel-cutting grade generally known for
its toughness. The 883 grade is used in the machining of cast iron and
non-ferrous materials because of its high resistance to wear combined with
toughness. The 831 grade is a wear-resisting grde for high-speed, finishing
cuts where close tolerance is a requirement.
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000003.tif" SEQ="00000003" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="878" N="2">
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE * UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Surface-Finish Measurement: The surface-finish measurements were
obtained with a Profilometer, manufactured by Micrometrical of Ann Arbor,
Michigan. The values obtained represent the average of three readings taken
on the ground end surface of the tool bit.
II. TESTING PROCEDURES
The wheels were mounted on standard adaptors and diamond-trued with
a 0.25-wgt octahedron diamond tool. The 1/2-inch-square tool bits were held
in a V-bloc, assembled in a standard swivel tool-grinder vise and subjected
to grinding on the end by traversing across the face of the wheel. This
type of operation is similar to the cup-wheel setup on a vertical-spindle
surface grinder.
After truing the wheel with a diamohd tool, 20 successive cuts were
made with an infeed of 0.00025 inch per traverse for a total infeed of 0.005
inch per test. Measurements of the tool length were observed to an accuracy
of 0.0001 inch before and after the test to determine the volume of metal
removal. The amount of wheel wear was obtained by measuring the width of
land wear under a binocular microscope with filar lens. Tool chipping and
heat effects were observed in a binocular microscope. Surface-finish readings were made with a Profilometer in microinches, rms.
III. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Volume of Metal Removal (Vm) - Cubic inches of metal removed during the
grinding operation.
Volume of Wheel Wear (Vw) - Cubic inches of wheel wear obtained by measuring the area of wheel wear and multiplying by the wheel circumference.
Volume Ratio (Vm/Vw.) - The ratio of metal removal to wheel wear is an index
to efficiency of the operation. Objectively it is desirable to
obtain high metal removal with low wheel wear.
Surface Finish - The value in microinches, rms, as obtained by a diamond
stylus that originates a minute electric current which is indicated on a milliammeter, calibrated in microinches.
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000004.tif" SEQ="00000004" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="876" N="3">
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE * UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the volume of metal removal for each of
the wheels on Carboloy 78B, 831, and 883, respectively. The 80OB (diamond)
wheel shows the highest metal removal in all cases with the C60I8V5 and
CI80H5VMM wheels giving nearly the same performance on 78B only (Fig. 1).
The 180B (diamond) wheel was selected at random from a supply in the tool
crib and does not represent a specific recommendation. The 831 and 883
carbide materials produced lesser amounts of metal removal on all of the
silicon carbide wheels as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 4 is a summary of the tests on the three carbide tool materials. It is a composite of figures 1, 2, and 3, showing that the C1OOH5VMM
and C120H5VMM wheels gave relatively low metal removal on all materials and
that the C60I8V5 and Cl80H5VMM wheels compare with the diamond wheel when
used on Carboloy: 78B only.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the volume of wheel wear when grinding
each of the carbide materials. The volume of wheel wear on the diamond
wheel was almost too small to be measured as compared to the silicon carbide
wheels. The results are not consistent for the silicon carbide wheels on
the various materials, but one obvious deduction is that the volume of
wheel removal is relatively high in two of three cases as compared to the
performance of the diamond wheel in all three cases.
Figure 8 is a composite of the results shown in Figures 5, 6, and
7. It combines the three curves in one figure to show the relative values
of silicon carbide-wheel wear to that of a diamond wheel. In general, the
diamond-wheel wear averages approximately 0.002 cubic irnch per test, whereas
the silicon carbide wheels average from approximately 0.048 cu. in. for the
C180H5VMM to 0.122 cu. in. for the C601I8V5.
Figures 9, 10, and 11 show the surface-finish measurements in micrinches, rms, across and parallel to the grinding marks on the Carboloy 78B,
831, and 883 respectively. Figure 9 showsthe 180B (diamond), C60I8V5 and
ClOOH5VMM to be approximately equal in the roughness of surface finish at
4 to 8 microinches, rms. The C120H5VMM and C180H5VMM wheels show 10 to 12
and 11.5 to 18.5, respectively. There is an indication of poorer quality
surface finish with a decrease in grain size of the VMM wheels. Figure 10
shows nearly identical performances for the 180B (diamond) and C60I8V5 wheels
on the 851 carbide, and higher numbers of surface finish for all of the VMM
wheels* Figure 11 gives about the same trend shown in Figures 9 and 10,
except that the measurements across the feed marks are more widely separated
from those parallel to the marks, indicating a tendency toward grooving of
the tool face.
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000005.tif" SEQ="00000005" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="874" N="4">
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE * UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Figure 12 is a composite of all the surface-finish curves shown in
Figures 9, 10, and 11l The 180B diamond and C60I8V5 are quite similar in
their ability to produce good surface quality (by'measurement). The C1OOH5
VIM, C120H5VMM, and C180H5VMM wheels give variable results depending on the
material, but are definitely higher in the surface-finish readings than the
preceding wheels.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The 180B diamond wheel showed the best results in all phases of
the testing, ie,, volume of metal removed, volume of wheel wear, volume
ratio, and surface finish.
The use of different tools result in different ratings for the
silicon carbide wheels in comparison with the diamond. It was noted that
the silicon carbide wheel that gave the best comparison in one part of a
tool test (e.g., column of metal removed) did not give an equally good
result in another part of the tool test (wheel wear). Nor did the wheel
giving a good result with one tool material give an equally good result
for the same phase of another tool-material test.
The C180H5VMM wheel gave the best average results when using the
Carboloy 78B tool material. Although it had second highest rate of wheel
wear among the carbides wheels, it did give the best metal-removal rate
and had the sharpest edges on the tool used with it. Thermal cracking on
the tool was very slight and it actually showed a truer picture of the
whee-l's ability to finish a surface in that the glazing effect upon the
tool face was reduced. This meant higher readings from the Profilometer,
but the readings are perhaps more valid than those of the other carbide
wheels.
There was no single wheel that could be considered the best in thie
tests using the Carboloy 831 tool. The C180H5VMM wheel had the best metal
removal rate, but its ability to produce surface quality at the end of the
test was so poor that it greatly offset the wheel's cutting rate on this
tool material. The C120H5VMM wheel gave the best volume ratio, which would
tend to show a better balance between metal removal and wheel wear. Its
metal removal rate was second lowest, which was offset by its low rate of
wheel wear to give it a rather good volume ratio.
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000006.tif" SEQ="00000006" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="875" N="5">
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE ~ UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
The C120H5VMM and C180H5VMM wheels showed evidence of giving the
be s t results when using the Carboloy 883 tool. The former wheel showed
the best metal-removal rate, while the latter gave a much lower wheel wear.
Both had better then average surface characteristics with only slightly
chipped edges and few thermal cracks.
The results of the tests show that further experimentation with
the 78B carbide tool is desired. Further variation in wheel characteristics would allow more information to be considered in comparing the
Macklin wheels with the standard diamond grinding wheels.
Table I shows the comparison of the diamond wheel to the silicon
carbide wheels when using Carboloy 78B tool material. The C180H5VMM wheel
compared most favorably to the diamond wheel in volume of metal removed.
The C120H5VNM wheel compared favorably to the diamond in wheel wear. The
C120OH5VMM wheel had the best volume ratio in comparison to the diamond
180B. The surface finish of the C100H5VMM wheel gave better results "with
the finish marks" than did the diamond wheel. "Across finish" on the
C60I8V5 was also better than that of the diamond. Glazed surface conditions
were the actual reasons for better readings on the C100H5VMM and C6018V5
wheels. The diamond wheel gave better surface qualities, sharper edges,
and cleaner appearances (without evidence of thermal cracking under the
microscope) in all comparisons.
Using the diamond wheel as a base (100%) a range comparsion indicates the following results:
In volume of metal removed the range- for the carbide wheels
is 21 to 94% of the diamond's volume of metal removed. Wheel
wear for the carbide material ranges for 1400 to 10,700% of the
diamond wheel. Volume ratio was.27 to 1.36% of the diamond. In
surface quality, the range was 64.3 to 164% for with and, 71.4
to 264% for across the feed marks.
All silicon carbide wheels showed evidence of thermal cracks
and some chipping at the edges of the tool as compared to the surfaces produced by the diamond wheel.
Table II shows the comparison of the diamond wheel to the silicon
carbide wheels when using the Carboloy 831 tool material. In volume of
metal removed,, the C60I8V5 and C120H5VMM were the best in comparison to the
180B diamond wheel. The C120H5VMM wheel showed the least wheel wear of the
silicon carbide wheels, but this was still considerably greater than that
of the diamond wheel. Volume ratios were considerably lower than that of
the diamond and were grouped close together. The C180H5VMM showed the best
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000007.tif" SEQ="00000007" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="865" N="6">
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE * UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
volume ratio, but this was only 0.017% of the diamond's volume ratio. The
surface-finish tests of the C60I8V5 wheel compared very closely across and
were exactly the same with the feed marks as those of the diamond. This
again was not due to actual quality similarities of the surfaces, but rather
to the glazed condition of the surface of the C60I8V5 wheel. With the diamond again as a base (100%), the range of the SLlicon carbides in volume of
metal removed was 30.9 to 67% of the diamond's rate of metal removal. Wheel
wear was 2,867 to 19,367% of the diamond and the volume ratio 0.004 to
0.017%. The range for surface finish was 100 to 575% for "with"land 88.9
to 66.7% for "across" the feed marks.
Again all silicon carbides showed thermal cracks and chipping at the
surface edges under the miscroscope. The use of the 831 tool with the
C180H5VMM resulted in rather extensive chipping which started after the
third pass of the tool was made.
Table III compares the diamond wheel to the silicon carbide wheels
when a Carboloy 883 tool material was used. The C12OH5VMM wheel gave the
best results of the silicon carbides'in metal removal. The C180H5VMM had
the least wheel wear but was 332% more than that of the diamond. Volume
ratios were again much lower than that of the diamond with the C180H5VMM
volume ratio being the best, but only 3.9% of the diamond's volume ratio.
The C60o8V5 and the C120H5VMM wheels had better surface readings than that
of the diamond in "with" readings. The C60I8V5, C100H5VMM and the C120H5
VMM wheels had equal or better surface finish readings than that; of the
diamond across the feed marks. However, in both "with" and "aCross" readings, the diamond wheel again produced a cleaner and smoother surface, the
lower values shown for silicon carbides wheels had glazed surfaces. All
tools used with the silicon carbide wheels had chipped edges and scratched
surfaces while the tool ground by the diamond wheel had sharp edges and
cleanly cut surfaces.
Using the same base of 100% for the diamond wheel,ranges were:
11.8 to 20.6% in volume of metal removal, 332 to 4316% in wheel wear,
0.413 to 359%9 in volume ratio, 60 to 167%5 in surface finish with and 55
to 155% in surface finish across the feed marks.
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000008.tif" SEQ="00000008" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="843" N="7">
Table I
Wheel Speed 180B Diamond 3660 FPM
SiC, o 6280 FPM
Work Infeed 0.00025 inch per traverse
Number of Traverses 20
Tool Material Carboloy 78B
Metal Removal Wheel Wear Volume Ratio Surface Finish
Wheels (Cubic inches) (Cubic inches) Vm (Microinches) Surface Condition
Vm Vw Vr V; With Across
Diamond 180B.0017.00076 2.237 7 7 Smooth, clean surface,
Sharp edges
Burned end, Thermal
C 60 18 V5.00135.0824.0164 45 5 cracks, Slightly
chipped edges
Slightly burned surface,
C100 H5 VMM.0004.0657.0061 5 8 scratches, 1 medium-sized
crack, Slightly chipped
edges
Burned end, Surface
C120 H5 VMM.00035.0115.0304 10 12 scratches, Thermal
cracks,.Very slightly
chipped edges
Burned end, Surface
C180 H5 VMM.0016.0673.0237 11.5 18.5 scratches, Hairline
thermal cracks, Fairly
sharp edges
% difference
between Diamond
and Silicon Car- 21-94 1400-10,700.27-1.36 64.3-164 71.4-2.64
bide abrasive using
Diamend as- 100%
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000009.tif" SEQ="00000009" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="850" N="8">
Table II
Wheel Speed 180B Diamond 3660 FPM
SiC 6280 FPM
Work Infeed 0.00025 inch per traverse
Number -of Traverses 20
Tool Material Carboloy 831
Metal Removal Wheel Wear Volume Ratio Surface Finish
Wheels (Cubic inches) (Cubic inches) V (Microinches') Surface Condition
Vm Vwr With Across
Diamond 180B.00097.000003 254.0 4 4.5 Smooth clean surface,
Sharp edges
co
C 60 I8 V5.0003.0264.0113 4 4 Burned end, Thermal
cracks, chipped edges
Burned end, T.hermal
ClO0 H5 VMM.00052.:0403.0128 10 15 cracks, slightly
chipped edges
Burned end, Scratched
C120 H5 VMM.00035.0086.0406 12 12 surface, Hairline
thermal cracks,
Chipped edges
Burned end, Scratched
C180 H5 VMM.00065.0581.0112 23 30 surface, Thermal
cracks, Badly dhipped
edges
% difference between Diamond and
Silicon carbide 30.9-67.0 2867-19,367.004-.017 100-575 88.9-667
abrasive using
Diamond as 100%
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000010.tif" SEQ="00000010" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="845" N="9">
Table III
Wheel Speed 180B Diamond 3660 FPM
SiC 6280 FPM
Work Infeed 0.00025 inch, per traverse
Number of Traverses 20
Tool Material Carboloy 883
Metal Removal Wheel Wear Volume Ratio Surface Finish
Wheels (Cubic inches) (Cubic inches) Vm (Microinches) Surface Condition
Vm Vw Vr V With Across
Diamond 180B.0017.00606.286 7.5 20 Smooth, clean surface,
Sharp edges
C 60:I8 V5.0003.259.0012 4.5 13 Scratched surface,
Slightly- chipped edges
Light surface scratches,
ClO0 H5 VMM.0002.0642.0031 10 11 Slight thermal cracks,
Slightly chipped edges
Burned end, scratched
C120 H5 VMM.00035.0682.0051 7 20 surface, Slight thermal
cracks, Chipped edges
Burned end, Scratched
C180 H5 VMM.00022.0199 COlll 12.5 21 surface, Hairline thermal
cracks, Slightly chipped
edges
* difference between Diamond and
Silicon carbide 11.8-20.6 332-4316 0.413-3..90 60-167 55-105
abrasive using
Diamond as 100%
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000011.tif" SEQ="00000011" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="311" N="10">
A:11 Li
It I I -IA %a
L-L AP IWI
A &A a I a
T -1
I IL I II I - - - - - - - -
If I 1 11116al
It
Jill It I
I lilt I
Kim
71-11 I I I I I
raw_ I LIF
IL,
L-L- I I IIf
I I N I II I
It,
NJ
If I
Iti I I
6 lint.............
IL
I fill
TEHI 1-1 I IT
FiG.
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000012.tif" SEQ="00000012" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="135" N="11">
1I I I I I I I I I I I I I L~ L l L l L Lii I L l L[ L[ I! 1 1 E ETR[flkE
- - - - - - - - - - 144 1 I 11 11 i —1 11-4-41-1- 11 1 - - 1-4 4
EIl I 1-l lN llillllm TI~~Em
f i l l i i
i1|-IIII i1lIIIIIiIIIIiIIIf A-6J sIIII1l,i|l Ii!11111111li i0I i~ l R~i4l IIL ilillLI H H-!_lt ll lllliilllllilIThlllf IIILIILlll4lm_+ii{ Iilllllll lIlnF
F +1 1 l ll~li l~f liliili liltlililillill~lFmililil Lll~liil Ilillilililll 4x#$l tF Illilililill TH 1!, i0
ti11!ll-r H-F11z1-11,FiII 411111Al11l11l11llIII1@1lki111111'I~~~~i FTT-I11111 IIIIIIIIIII11-111I~~~tt~it 7t 1111!IIIIIIII! IIIIZ{I!I Li.1-1!1- -lilv4 ~ll-llililllllliiIIII~MI~#[ltlllllll llllllllllllllltti-dllllllIif,,
I, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~I.1 I I U: I I If'1 1 lI1l1111 1 1 1 1
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000013.tif" SEQ="00000013" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="145" N="12">
-~~~~ ~ ~ - - i - - --
I L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tL
ffrs~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1-!TLi
i I I I I IHI 5 I
-44
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000014.tif" SEQ="00000014" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="185" N="13">
CI TM X T 01 W X 1 W w 20E~gT];E;SW:1 ARI IWWIF1|II 111111il lllEll IfI IIIIIIIII IIIII ll IT II
I r-r W 1 |24 I I I I ~ u C i
m 21 il t t t lt 1 X t ALI la%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I fI I I I i 11~~ I I i I!
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11111!11r m Xl mmS
-t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
I ig EiI
I i L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I i I
1E +
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ij \ I I I I II A I i I I II I LI I ULL~
AM I T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 I i t 1 I m I L I II I I i S t I I i 1 1 1 I i I 1 1,
FlG 4
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000015.tif" SEQ="00000015" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="262" N="14">
I I if I L
ElJ
r I I I I im I 1111ILl I,#A
tell Ull
I t
------- ------- t AL
_lAAHMkA A
7T 1-1 _RA_
I L I
I Fl I I FT I
7-1
Arm
I -AI L I I
HI I I I I I
IL
I WIN - - - - - - - -
f I
mm
ALM
Ala
NW
"A. 1. I I Ll I 1.1 L
_Hi i i -HR
Fl(
IHH
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000016.tif" SEQ="00000016" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="127" N="15">
S a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i t
in ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I t i WE14If | I I 110 I::!
XX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -------.
2 S me 012Xt't!S ~i
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000017.tif" SEQ="00000017" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="110" N="16">
T-T~ ~~~~~~~~~~
r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
IL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I IR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
A O I II Ir - I I I
WI~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~:j
III It If I -i-f~~
iT~~~~~~Q
A-ki~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000018.tif" SEQ="00000018" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="111" N="17">
11 If& wr K"M I WAR rri ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ii lll ~ ri lllr~r rII I II1;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I aA -1 7! -i —
L-L L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 tI;i
M 711T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~16
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000019.tif" SEQ="00000019" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="309" N="18">
I I I I II I f I I I F 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I q I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I. A I...
f I I I I I I I I I
I Irl ILL 1 J6 w
min m Nd a
I I I. AI
F
deft I
fI
L II
FT
t
I f II.1 I I
I
f I II I III I
II F
II I t II I
I FI I I
I I'lf II
f II
fII II I
I I I
I IIhA- F I
I tI I I I
I I I f 1. IIII I I III III I II I II I I I -. I
II I t a II I I
I F
a -
Lj
L.L JAAA6 151IL-1I
L-
AAAAM, 71W 1
1-3 -L I-JUL
I Li
Aim I
I II L
IL I I A I I 11
I I I I IL
II I t
I I A I I
f I X-E-t
I t
L -A fit[ a I I LAM
a t II II
I IL
I A
II tI
LI LdftL j3w 1
I A
F I -1
I I I I
ALM
L.A. II
IF I
Im
I f IF
I.1If I
f UT I-M
AM -L- it I
"Al
A 144
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000020.tif" SEQ="00000020" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="237" N="19">
1A I I
NW
91 11. q-r I I I I I
hwb I A-A AM -1
tm 1-1 m AO
I I I f. I 1-W
Aft II Am m k
a A I I ffN &&I I I I
rl r I
WjAAM
11LUA
I 7aII
Is
Is
of IIII
tI
I I IF
A
Ir-17111I I III I
Iran I
-A -IffjM-I
Ai I I I I
I IV
AI I
ir 1 r-I F T- I I M I TI
f i l l I 1 11 1 1 I III I
life
F11
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000021.tif" SEQ="00000021" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="118" N="20">
FI IIII0 I;g]: 1t~ti01W H22f if I I fiI I i;
I IJI)I1i@ WlIt 51 | i I
It II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wkkiild It I 0 a!' 11lUS 1
fill a ggll lil 11 1ll~lil~11li
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000022.tif" SEQ="00000022" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="266" N="21">
II I I I R i l l I I I I
Lt IIII I'jnF72 IIWIII L I A.1I 11- mrw M
law
L-ML.L- lAfidk
law
L IIs
I L
cm
I L
I ILII
I IF I I +41
11111119.1- - irk it
-T
IF
A
I I r RI
I IIrim ------
x J'9, Ilk AN.
I I I I I Fill I I
is I ILI I
IL
IL
I I
-16f-T-r I
110 I L16J
t LT.J 1.
I I II Fla
Is'
I YT I
17M I
I T-1 laI
I I Is I I
I I IINI
im 7f1-1 I X,met
d..bd
I I II T-T-I
Iwfi-t -1 L II
I 111011M I. II
&L11I I I I
IN
is I
Iff I so
I CK ffw
1-11711I
I LORI 1-1 r=1
I 1-imi LL
I- I act_
_:_I_ A
q"m
ILII
I R&K TVU
I- L= I
IIf
</P>
<P><PB REF="00000023.tif" SEQ="00000023" RES="600dpi" FMT="TIFF6.0" FTR="UNSPEC" CNF="100" N="22">
</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>