HRDE
HRDE
HRDE
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 December 2011
Received in revised form 14 January 2012
Accepted 22 January 2012
Available online 31 January 2012
Keywords:
Hybrid optimization
Differential evolution algorithm
Taguchis method
Manufacturing
Turning
a b s t r a c t
Hybridizing of the optimization algorithms provides a scope to improve the searching abilities of the
resulting method. The purpose of this paper is to develop a novel hybrid optimization algorithm entitled
hybrid robust differential evolution (HRDE) by adding positive properties of the Taguchis method to the
differential evolution algorithm for minimizing the production cost associated with multi-pass turning
problems. The proposed optimization approach is applied to two case studies for multi-pass turning operations to illustrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed algorithm in machining operations.
The results reveal that the proposed hybrid algorithm is more effective than particle swarm optimization
algorithm, immune algorithm, hybrid harmony search algorithm, hybrid genetic algorithm, scatter search
algorithm, genetic algorithm and integration of simulated annealing and Hooke-Jeevespatter search.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The machining processes are commonly used by manufacturing industries in order to produce high quality and very complex
products in a short time. These machining processes include large
number of input parameters which may affect the cost and quality of the products. Selection of optimum machining parameters
in such machining processes is very important to satisfy all the
conicting objectives of the process.
The present paper focuses on the well-known multi-pass turning optimization problem which consists of selecting the optimal
cutting parameters, i.e. cutting speeds, feed rates, depths of cut and
number of passes, for minimizing a production cost-based objective function. There are two options to choose the optimal cutting
parameters for a given economic objective. The rst one is concerned with the need of a machine expert that manually selects
the machining parameters on the basis of its own experience and by
means of a proper machining handbook. That way generates many
uncertainties and drawbacks in terms of efciency of solutions and
time/cost requirements. As an alternative to the above mentioned
approach, many research efforts have been made to state a comprehensive mathematical model of a turning process that, in practice,
entails a set of cutting constraints to be handled [114].
Machining optimization problems become tricky whenever a
given objective function must be optimized with respect to a
1434
C0
CI
CM
CR
CT
dr , ds
,
,
the cutting cost (CM ), machine idle cost (CI ), tool replacement cost
(CR ) and tool cost (CT ), respectively. The developed hybrid optimization approach is used to optimize multi-pass turning operation
for the determination of cutting parameters considering minimum
production cost under a set of machining constraints which are presented and adopted in the references of Shin and Joo [5], Chen and
Tsai [8], and Chen [30].
The cost function
CU = CM + CI + CR + CT
CU = k0
DL
1000Vr fr
(1)
d d
t
s
dr
+ k0 tc + (h1 L + h2 )
te
+ k0
Tp
+
kt
Tp
d d
t
s
+1
dr
dr
d d
t
s
dr
DL
1000Vs fs
DL
1000Vs fs
fs2
SRU
8R
(19)
(20)
fr k4 fs
(21)
dr k5 d5
(22)
dr =
(dt ds )
n
(23)
1000Vs fs
d d
t
s
DL
1000Vr fr
DL
1000Vr fr
DL
1435
(2)
ds = dt ndr
(24)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Tool-life constraint
TL tr TU
k1 fr dr
FU
(7)
Power constraint
k1 fr dr Vr
PU
6120
(8)
Vr fr dr SC
(9)
Qr = kq VR fr dr QU
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Tool-life constraint
TL ts TU
k1 fs ds
k1 fS ds VS
6120
(14)
FU
PU
(15)
yi2
VS fs ds SC
(17)
(25)
Larger the better. In this situation, the target value of y, that is,
quality variable, is innite and S/N ratio is dened as follows:
(16)
1/yi2
n
(26)
1436
Nominal the best. For these kind of problems, the certain target
value is given for y value. In this situation S/N ratio is dened as
follows:
S/N Ratio = 10 log
yi2
s2
(27)
(28)
Step 4: Crossover
DE follows a discrete recombination approach where elements
from the parent vector xik , are combined with elements from the
uk+1
=
i,j
k+1
i,j
,
otherwise
(29)
Table 1
Data for the example of multi pass turning.
L = 300 mm
VrL =50 m/min
drU = 3.0 mm
VsL = 50 m/min
dsU = 3.0 mm
kt =2.5 $/edge
tc = 0.75 min/piece
q = 1.75
TU = 45 min
= 0.75
FU = 200 kg f
= 1
= 0.4
QU = 1000 C
Table 2
Experimental results and S/N ratio.
Ex. No
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
50
50
50
50
200
200
200
200
350
350
350
350
500
500
500
500
0.1
0.27
0.53
0.9
0.1
0.27
0.53
0.9
0.1
0.27
0.53
0.9
0.1
0.27
0.53
0.9
50
200
350
500
200
50
350
500
350
500
50
200
500
350
200
50
0.1
0.27
0.53
0.9
0.53
0.9
0.1
0.27
0.9
0.53
0.27
0.1
0.27
0.1
0.9
0.27
1
1.66
2.32
3
3
2.32
1.66
1
1.66
1
3
2.32
2.32
3
1
1.66
10.3
3.1
1.9
1.4
3.6
1.8
3.1
9.5
17.9
26.7
2.7
2.2
33.4
3.8
1.8
2.6
20.2
9.7
5.7
3.5
11.1
5.3
10.1
19.5
25.1
28.5
8.8
7.2
30.4
11.8
5.1
8.5
Table 3
Results of the analysis of variance for objective (case 1 with dt = 6 mm).
In this section HRDE is conducted to compute the optimum machining parameters for the metal cutting model,
which is described in Section 2. The metal cutting model
is a non-linear problem subject to constraints with multiple
machining variables. First, Taguchis method is employed to
nd rened population space of design parameters to achieve
better initialize DE search. The machining variables (factors)
x1 (Vr ), x2 (fr ), x3 (Vs ), x4 (fs ) and x5 (ds ) are selected as feed, cutting
speed and depth of cut in rough and nish turning. The suitable
orthogonal array with regard to ve machining variables at four levels each is chosen as L16 matrix. Matrix experiments are designed
using L16 orthogonal array and S/N ratios are conducted. There
are 16 combinations of the design variables in which each row
corresponds to one trial. Machining data for the rst example of
multi-pass turning are shown in Table 1.
The equations for calculating S/N ratios for quality characteristics are logarithmic functions based on the mean square quality
characteristics. For this problem, S/N ratios for objective function
of rst example are computed using smaller-the-better (Eq. (25))
as given in Table 2 since the objective is the minimization of cost.
The relative effect of the different factors can be obtained by
the decomposition of variance, which is called an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The purpose of ANOVA is to investigate the design
parameters that affect signicantly the quality characteristic. It is
designed using S/N ratios as shown in Table 3 for (case 1 with
dt = 6 mm). The intervals of the design parameters are found regarding the effects of factors on the objective.
D = 50 mm
VrU = 500 m/min
frL = 0.1 mm/rev
VsU = 500 m/min
fsL = 0.1 mm/rev
ko = 0.5 $/min
h2 = 0.3
p=5
C0 = 6 1011
kf = 108
= 0.85
=2
kq = 132
= 0.105
Ra = 10
k1 = 1.0
k2 = 2.5
k3 = 1.0
1437
dt = 6.0 mm
frU = 0.9 mm/rev
drL = 1.0 mm
fsU = 0.9 mm/rev
dsL = 1.0 mm
h1 = 7 104
te = 1.5 min/edge
r = 0.75
TL = 25 min
= 0.95
PU = 5 kW
Sc = 140
= 0.2
Rn = 1.2 mm
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
SS
% Cont.
9.8
21.7
10.7
12.3
18.3
11.5
13.8
8.3
15.4
13.3
17.4
7.4
13.1
15.1
12.1
14
9.7
20.5
9.7
8.8
127
472.4
258.6
71.7
132.8
11.95
44.45
24.33
6.74
12.44
Table 4
Results of the analysis of variance for objective (case 2 with dt = 8 mm).
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
SS
% Cont.
13.6
25.7
12.8
14.4
21.40
14.3
17
11.4
18
16.1
19.9
9.8
16.1
19.1
15.2
16.3
11.7
24
13
11.5
94.5
599.1
294.5
58
139.8
7.9
50.5
24.8
4.8
11.7
1438
Table 5
Comparison of the best computed optimum results for turning problem (HRDE: hybrid robust differential evolution algorithm; PSO: particle swarm optimization algorithm,
HRGA: hybrid robust genetic algorithm, SS: scatter search; SA/PS: simulated annealing and Hooke-Jeeves pattern search; FEGA: oat encoding genetic algorithm; HTHSA:
hybrid harmony search algorithm; articial immune algorithm).
HRDE
AIA
PSO [31]
HRGA [35]
SS [30]
FEGA [29]
HTHSA [23]
SA/PS [8]
2.0461
2.4791
2.12
2.51
2.047
2.479
2.048
2.486
2.066
2.541
2.298
2.817
2.047
2.279
2.741
1439