Skip to main content
Log in

Balancing multiple criteria in formulation of weighted, single-objective genetic algorithm optimization for CNC machining problems

Advances in Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents results obtained from the implementation of a genetic algorithm (GA) to a simplified multi-objective machining optimization problem. The major goal is to examine the effect of crucial machining parameters imparted to computer numerical control machining operations when properly balanced conflicting criteria referring to part quality and process productivity are treated as a single optimization objective. Thus the different combinations of weight coefficient values were examined in terms of their significance to the problem’s response. Under this concept, a genetic algorithm was applied to optimize the process parameters exist in typical; commercially available CAM systems with significantly low computation cost. The algorithm handles the simplified linear weighted criteria expression as its objective function. It was found that optimization results vary noticeably under the influence of different weighing coefficients. Thus, the obtained optima differentiate, since balancing values strongly affect optimization objective functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aich U, Banerjee S (2014) A simple procedure for searching pareto optimal front in machining process: electric discharge machining. Model Simul Eng. doi:10.1155/2014/594054

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krimpenis A, Vosniakos GC (2008) Rough milling optimisation for parts with sculptured surfaces using genetic algorithms in a Stackelberg game. J Intell Manuf 20(4):447–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kersting P, Zabel A (2009) Optimizing NC-tool paths for simultaneous five-axis milling based on multi-population multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Adv Eng Softw 40(6):452–463

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Fountas NA, Vaxevanidis NM, Stergiou CI et al (2014) Development of a software-automated intelligent sculptured surface machining optimization environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 75(5–8):909–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Izui K, Yamada T, Nishiwaki S (2013) A gradient-based multiobjective optimization technique using an adaptive weighting method. In: The 10th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, USA, Orlando, pp 1–6

  6. Seker S, Özgürler M, Tanyas M (2013) A Weighted multiobjective optimization method for mixed-model assembly line problem. J Appl Math. doi:10.1155/2013/531056

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ralphs TK, Saltzman MJ, Wiecek MM (2006) An improved algorithm for solving biobjective integer programs. Ann Oper Res 147:43–70

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kulscar G, Erdelyi F (2007) A new approach to solve multi objective scheduling and rescheduling tasks. Int J Comput Intell Res 2(4):343–351

    Google Scholar 

  9. Muralidhar A, Alwarsamy T (2013) Multi-objective optimization of parallel machine scheduling using neural networks. Int J Latest Trends Eng Technol 2(2):127–132

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kim IY, DeWeck O (2004) Adaptive weighted sum method for multiobjective optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 31(2):105–116

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Delcam®.http://www3.eng.cam.ac.uk/DesignOffice/cad/3rdyear/2014/week34/powermill_full_2014.pdf

  12. Ross PJ (1996) Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kim IY, DeWeck O (2005) Adaptive weighted-sum method for bi-objective optimization: Pareto front generation. Struct Multidisc Optim 29:149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fountas NA, Krimpenis AA, Vaxevanidis NM et al (2012) Single and multi-objective optimization methodologies in CNC machining. In: Davim JP (ed) Statistical and computational techniques in manufacturing. Springer, London, pp 187–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. López de Lacalle LN, Lamikiz A et al (2007) Toolpath selection based on the minimum deflection cutting forces in the programming of complex surfaces milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47(2):388–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaxevanidis NM, Galanis NI, Petropoulos GP et al (2010) Surface roughness analysis in high speed dry turning of a tool steel. In: Proceeding of the 10th biennial conf engineering systems design and analysis ASME, Istanbul, pp 551–557

  17. Mausser H (2006) Normalization and other topics in multi-objective optimization. In: Proceeding of the MITACS industrial problems workshop, pp 89–101

  18. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Longman Publishing Inc, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Michalewicz Z, Janikow C (1991) Genetic algorithms for numerical optimization. Stat Comp 1(1):75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ (1997) Multi-objective optimization. In: Bäck T, Fogel D, Michalewicz Z (eds) Handbook of evolutionary computation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–55

    Google Scholar 

  21. http://www.frezycnc.eu/end-mills-for-metal/general-purpose-end-mills/end-mills-4-flute-short-osg-wxl-ems/. Accessed 18 April 2015

  22. Yildiz AR (2012) A comparative study of population-based optimization algorithms for turning operations. Inf Sci 210:81–88

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Yildiz AR (2009) A novel particle swarm optimization approach for product design and manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40(5–6):617–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yildiz AR (2009) A novel hybrid immune algorithm for global optimization in design and manufacturing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 25(2):261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yildiz AR (2013) Hybrid Taguchi-differential evolution algorithm for optimization of multi-pass turning operations. Appl Soft Comput 13(3):1433–1439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yildiz AR (2013) A new hybrid bee colony optimization approach for robust optimal design and manufacturing. Appl Soft Comput 13(5):2906–2912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yildiz AR (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm for the selection of optimal machining parameters in milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 64(1–4):55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yildiz AR (2009) Hybrid immune-simulated annealing algorithm for optimal design and manufacturing. Int J Mater Prod Technol 34(3):217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yildiz AR (2009) An effective hybrid immune-hill climbing optimization approach for solving design and manufacturing optimization problems in industry. J Mater Process Technol 50(4):224–228

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yildiz AR (2013) Optimization of cutting parameters in multi-pass turning using artificial bee colony-based approach. Inf Sci 220:399–407

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Yildiz AR (2013) A new hybrid differential evolution algorithm for the selection of optimal machining parameters in milling operations. Appl Soft Comput 13(3):1561–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yildiz AR (2013) Optimization of multi-pass turning operations using hybrid teaching learning-based approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(9–12):1319–1326

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors kindly acknowledge Prof. Dr.-Ing. N.M. Vaxevanidis, director of the Laboratory of Manufacturing Processes and Machine Tools (LMProMaT) – Mechanical Engineering Department–School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE), for providing the facilities to support the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos A. Fountas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krimpenis, A.A., Fountas, N.A. Balancing multiple criteria in formulation of weighted, single-objective genetic algorithm optimization for CNC machining problems. Adv. Manuf. 4, 178–188 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-016-0144-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-016-0144-7

Keywords

Navigation