CIM Paper
CIM Paper
CIM Paper
To cite this article: D. Kondayya & A. Gopala Krishna (2012): An integrated evolutionary approach for modelling and
optimisation of CNC end milling process, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25:11, 1069-1084
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2012.684718
An integrated evolutionary approach for modelling and optimisation of CNC end milling process
D. Kondayyaa* and A. Gopala Krishnab
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Hyderabad 501301, Andhra Pradesh, India;
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada
533003, Andhra Pradesh, India
1. Introduction
Machining processes nd extensive applications in
most of the engineering industries such as aerospace,
automotive, defence and tool and die industries. In this
work, one of the most widely used machining
processes, computer numerical control (CNC) end
milling is considered for investigation. End milling is a
complex and costly shape machining process used for
obtaining proles, slots, engraving, surface contouring
and pockets on nished components. This machining
process has become indispensable in industry and is
continuously nding further applications with the
developments of new cutting tool materials.
Computer numerical control machining being an
expensive process (Tolouei-rad et al. 1997), there can
be a big payo from even small increase in performance. Hence, the selection of optimum process
parameters is highly essential to reduce the machining
cost and increase the production rate. Optimisation
through full enumerations is not possible owing to the
complex nature of the machining process and complicated interaction between the variables of machining.
Moreover, the said procedures neither lead to optimal
use of the machines nor the quality of surface
generated. Though considerable number of researchers
1070
2.
Literature survey
component used in biomedical applications by coupling ANN and GA. Yih-fong (2007) applied Taguchi
methods coupled with principal component analysis in
the process optimisation of the high-speed CNC
milling. Krain et al. (2007) experimentally optimised
the tool life, tool wear and productivity when end
milling Inconel 718. For optimisation they considered
the eects of fed rate, radial depth of cut, tool material
and geometry. They concluded that no single tool
material or geometry gave the best overall performance. Palanisamy et al. (2008) used regression and
ANN techniques for developing models to predict tool
wear on AISI 1020 steel using a carbide cutter in a
universal milling machine. In their work, ank wear
was taken as the response variable measured during
milling, while cutting speed, feed and depth of cut as
input parameters. Bala Murugan et al. (2009) carried
out experimental investigations for machinability
study of hardened steel and obtained optimum process
parameters by grey relational analysis. The machining
process parameters considered were cutting speed,
feed, depth of cut and width of cut and the multiple
responses that were optimised were volume of material
removed, surface nish, tool wear and tool life. Oktem
(2009) used ANNs to model surface roughness and
applied GA to optimise the cutting parameters when
end milling of AISI 1040 steel material with TiAlN
solid carbide tools under wet condition. Lu et al.
(2009) applied grey relational analysis coupled with
principal component analysis for optimisation of
cutting parameters for rough cutting in high speed
end milling on SKD61 tool steel. Modelling results for
surface roughness in end milling of 6061 aluminium
using combined adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
and genetic algorithms were presented by Samanta
(2009). Ding et al. (2011) investigated the main eects
and interaction eects and optimised the cutting
parameters for desirable surface roughness in end
milling of hardened AISI H13 steel with PVD coated
carbide insert. The best surface roughness was
achieved with high cutting speed, small axial depth of
cut, high feed and small radial depth of cut. Azlan
et al. (2011) applied an integrated approach to search
for optimal cutting conditions leading to the minimum
value of surface roughness in end milling of Ti-6AL-4V
alloy. Regression equations were developed for surface
roughness which were then optimised by conventional
GA and conventional simulated annealing (SA) algorithms separately and then by an integrated GA and
SA technique.
3. Critique on literature survey
The literature survey reveals that specic eorts were
devoted to determine the most accurate empirical
4.
Proposed methodology
1071
Modelling using GP
1072
Figure 1.
Proposed methodology.
Figure 2.
Example of GP procedure.
of (x72)+y/(z2). The set of functions in the representation are { , , *, /} whereas the set of terminals are
{x, y, z}.
5.1. Initial population
Genetic programming algorithm begins with a set of
randomly created individuals called initial population.
Each individual is a potential solution represented as a
tree. Each tree is constructed by random compositions
of the sets of functions and terminals. The shape of a
tree has an inuence on its evolution and both sparse
and bushy trees should be present in the initial
population. To ensure this, a ramped half-and-half
method, suggested by Koza (1992) is usually used in
GP. In this method, half of the trees in the population
are generated as full trees and other half as random
trees. Once the population is generated, a suitable
tness function should be given for evaluating the
tness value of each individual. Then, a set of
individuals with better tness value will be selected
and used to generate new population of next generation by the predened genetic operators while the
population size is kept constant.
5.2.
Genetic operators
Figure 3.
1073
Figure 4.
1074
6.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Experimental details
Figure 7.
1075
1076
Figure 8.
Implementation issues
TW x2 x3
1077
Table 1.
S.
no.
Speed (x1)
(RPM)
Feed (x2)
(mm/min)
Depth of
cut (x3)
(mm)
MRR
(g/min)
TW
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1500
900
1500
1200
1200
900
1500
1200
900
1200
900
1200
1200
1500
1500
900
1500
900
900
1500
900
1500
1200
1500
1200
900
1200
30
30
60
45
30
30
30
60
45
45
45
30
45
45
60
45
45
60
30
30
60
60
60
45
60
60
30
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
5.587
3.487
8.494
7.87
4.888
5.587
3.492
5.924
4.744
6.641
6.741
3.497
4.744
7.645
9.479
7.59
4.844
9.479
4.888
4.988
8.376
5.925
8.294
6.654
9.579
5.624
5.594
0.163
0.09
0.209
0.199
0.13
0.139
0.115
0.145
0.151
0.174
0.149
0.115
0.148
0.207
0.225
0.175
0.11
0.225
0.13
0.116
0.189
0.175
0.202
0.188
0.235
0.173
0.143
Table 2.
Figure 9.
Training dataset.
Validation dataset.
S.
no.
Speed
(x1)
(RPM)
Feed (x2)
(mm/min)
Depth of cut
(x3) (mm)
MRR
(g/min)
TW
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1300
1000
1100
1300
1100
1300
1000
1000
1000
1100
35
35
50
40
35
35
35
50
40
40
0.55
0.42
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.32
0.55
0.45
0.32
0.45
6.1
4.429
7.988
5.68
4.89
2.832
5.99
6.461
3.221
5.34
0.159
0.123
0.19
0.146
0.123
0.097
0.158
0.167
0.098
0.143
Table 3.
GP control parameters.
Terminal set:
Function set:
Population size:
Number of generations (max.):
Number of independent runs:
Crossover probability (%):
Mutation probability (%):
Reproduction probability (%):
Selection method:
Fitness measure:
1078
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
8.1.1.
MRR
Figure 15.
Comparison of the predicted model and the experimental value for the validation datasets of TW.
Figure 16.
1079
1080
9.
Figure 17.
MRR 0:9896x3
Minimise
TW x2 x3 = x2 24= x3 2 0:997x2
64:85 160 x1 36 =x3
89 :
Subject to
900 x1 1500
30 x2 60
0:4 x3 0:6
Table 4.
100
350
Tournament
0.85
0.15
20
20
50
1081
Figure 18.
1082
Table 5.
S.
no
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
(mm/min)
Depth
of cut
(mm)
MRR
(g/min)
Tool
wear
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
931.433
906.919
933.998
922.752
903.403
905.414
900.798
928.707
906.845
929.41
904.941
910.858
906.549
933.277
907.317
905.422
935.146
901.12
933.709
929.195
938.027
935.205
904.108
900.148
901.683
931.34
911.594
907.317
932.903
904.71
900.261
928.964
933.998
920.798
935.205
907.586
936.665
904.03
905.456
933.709
901.143
900.309
905.451
900.014
903.628
934.749
902.692
930.785
931.433
935.714
50.734
50.541
36.642
41.747
50.566
45.905
45.538
41.783
37.079
36.783
41.357
41.663
36.899
37.107
50.912
45.630
51.310
45.752
50.277
45.836
46.394
51.082
37.362
50.660
51.343
41.747
50.480
51.122
37.572
37.189
45.735
45.978
41.293
50.221
50.541
37.420
45.741
43.960
42.002
50.177
50.386
37.190
42.131
41.233
41.266
50.605
45.769
50.846
50.734
36.642
0.5012
0.5146
0.5224
0.5008
0.5159
0.4892
0.4854
0.5025
0.4898
0.5141
0.4989
0.5104
0.5072
0.5218
0.4897
0.5099
0.5025
0.4893
0.5226
0.5043
0.5225
0.5025
0.4968
0.5096
0.4884
0.4994
0.5096
0.4892
0.5219
0.5147
0.5029
0.5149
0.5216
0.5157
0.4976
0.5105
0.5212
0.4984
0.4889
0.5226
0.5129
0.5150
0.5096
0.4893
0.4972
0.5178
0.5006
0.5026
0.5012
0.5223
7.629
7.524
5.855
6.209
7.547
6.543
6.438
6.238
5.483
5.768
6.133
6.336
5.593
5.907
7.157
6.829
7.422
6.526
7.616
6.769
7.113
7.394
5.613
7.458
7.187
6.189
7.435
7.173
5.968
5.826
6.735
6.948
6.443
7.501
7.246
5.801
7.010
6.447
6.066
7.602
7.477
5.831
6.383
5.979
6.099
7.582
6.705
7.366
7.328
5.485
0.1887
0.1864
0.1524
0.1599
0.1869
0.1665
0.1643
0.1606
0.1441
0.1504
0.1583
0.1628
0.1487
0.1536
0.1797
0.1729
0.1843
0.1662
0.1887
0.1714
0.1791
0.1838
0.1469
0.1849
0.1802
0.1595
0.1845
0.1800
0.1549
0.1517
0.1707
0.1754
0.1653
0.1861
0.1813
0.1511
0.1770
0.1648
0.1568
0.1884
0.1854
0.1518
0.1637
0.1549
0.1575
0.1877
0.1700
0.1833
0.1824
0.1423
1083
Figure 19. SEM photograph of cutting tool insert corresponding to point 1 of Pareto-optimal front. Machining conditions:
x1 931.433 RPM, x2 50.734 mm/min, x3 0.5012 mm, MRR 7.629 g/min, TW 0.1887 mm.
Figure 20. SEM photograph of cutting tool insert corresponding to point 2 of Pareto-optimal front. Machining conditions:
x1 935.714 RPM, x2 36.642 mm/min, x3 0.5223 mm, MRR 5.485 g/min, TW 0.1423 mm.
1084
Riolo, R., Terence, S., and Bill, W., eds., 2007. Genetic
programming theory and practice IV. Ann Arbor: Genetic
and Evolutionary Computation series, Springer.
Samanta, B., 2009. Surface roughness prediction in machining using soft computing. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 22 (3), 257266.
Sardinas, R.Q., Santana, M.R., and Brindis, E.A., 2006.
Genetic algorithm based multiobjective optimization of
cutting parameters in turning processes. Engineering
Applications of Articial Intelligence, 19, 127133.
Sette, S. and Boullart, L., 2001. Genetic programming:
principles and applications. Engineering Applications of
Articial Intelligence, 14, 727736.
Shunmugam, M.S., Bhaskara Reddy, S.V. and Narendran,
T.T., 2000. Selection of optimal conditions in multi-pass
face-milling using a genetic algorithm. International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 40, 401414.
Tandon, V., El-Mounayri, H., and Kishawy, H., 2002. NC
end milling optimization using evolutionary computation. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 42, 595605.
Tolouei-rad, M., and Bidhendi, I.M., 1997. On the optimization of machining parameters for milling operations.
International Journal of Machine tools and Manufacture,
37 (1), 116.
Urbanski, J.P., et al., 2000. High speed machining of moulds
and dies for net shape manufacture. Materials and
Design, 21, 395402.
Wang, Z.G., Wong, Y.S., and Rahman, M., 2004. Optimisation of multi-pass milling using genetic algorithm and
genetic simulated annealing. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 24,727732.
Wang, Z.G., et al., 2006. Multi-objective optimization of
high-speed milling with parallel genetic simulated annealing. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 31, 209218.
Wong, S.V., and Hamouda, A.M.S., 2003, Machinability
data representation with articial neural network.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 138, 538
544.
Yih-fong, T., 2007. A hybrid approach to optimise multiple
performance characteristics of high-speed computerised
numerical control milling tool steels. Materials and
Design, 28, 3646.
Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L., 1998. Multiobjective optimization
using evolutionary algorithms a comparative case
study. In: A. E.Eiben, eds. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on parallel problem solving from
nature. Amsterdam: Springer, 292304.