See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222562987

A novel hybrid immune algorithm for global

optimization in design and manufacturing

Article in Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · April 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.rcim.2007.08.002

CITATIONS READS

127 140

1 author:

Ali R. Yildiz
Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi
51 PUBLICATIONS 2,218 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crash behaviour of composite tubes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali R. Yildiz on 11 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270

www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim

A novel hybrid immune algorithm for global optimization

in design and manufacturing
Ali Rıza Yıldız
Mechanical Engineering Department, Uludag University, 16059, Bursa, Turkey
Received 13 January 2007; received in revised form 21 May 2007; accepted 1 August 2007

Abstract

This paper presents a new hybrid optimization approach based on immune algorithm and hill climbing local search algorithm. The
purpose of the present research is to develop a new optimization approach for solving design and manufacturing optimization problems.
This research is the first application of immune algorithm to the optimization of machining parameters in the literature. In order to
evaluate the proposed optimization approach, single objective test problem, multi-objective I-beam and machine-tool optimization
problems taken from the literature are solved. Finally, the hybrid approach is applied to a case study for milling operations to show its
effectiveness in machining operations. The results of the hybrid approach for the case study are compared with those of genetic
algorithm, the feasible direction method and handbook recommendation.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Immune algorithm; Hill climbing; Hybrid approach; Milling operation; Design optimization

1. Introduction used for optimization of machining parameters in the

In today’s fierce competition conditions, it is an
important matter to determine the optimal machining
parameters and to maximize total profit rate as well as to
increase the quality of the final product for machining
operations. Generally, the handbook recommendation or
human experience is used to select convenient machine
parameters in manufacturing industry. These may not
guarantee the optimum performance and minimization of
costs.
Although the first study that defines the importance of
using optimal cutting parameters was conducted in the
early 1900s [1], because of the complexity of the problem,
there have not been many studies done regarding the
optimization of machining conditions in the literature [2,3].
Different optimization techniques such as geometric
programming [4], dynamic programming [5–7], integer
programming [8] and graphical techniques [9–13] have been
Current Address: University of Michigan, Mechanical Engineering
Department, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. Tel.: +1 734 5658028.
E-mail address: aliriza@uludag.edu.tr
literature.
Despite the fact that evolutionary algorithms do not
guarantee the global optimum, their convergence speeds to
the optimal results (nearly global) are better than those of
the traditional techniques. Thus, evolutionary algorithms
have been used for optimization of real-world problems in
many applications instead of traditional techniques
[2,14–16]. The first and well-known evolutionary-based
optimization technique introduced in the literature is the
genetic algorithm (GA). The GA, developed by Holland
[17], has been widely used in engineering applications and
optimization of machining parameters [2,15,18].
GA was used to optimize multi-pass face milling
operations by Shunmugam et al. [15]. Dereli et al. [2] used
GA to develop an optimization system for optimization of
cutting parameters in process planning of prismatic parts.
Although GA has been used in many applications and
has advantages over the traditional techniques, two draw-
backs of GA are lack of good local search ability and
premature convergence. During the past decades, different
optimization methods have been integrated to improve
performance of algorithms and to reach the global optimum

0736-5845/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2007.08.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
262 A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270
Nomenclature
A chip cross-sectional area (mm2)
a, arad axial depth of cut, radial depth of cut (mm)
C constant in cutting speed equation
ca clearance angle of the tool (degrees)
Ci (i ¼ 1–8) coefficients carrying constants values
cl, co labour cost, overhead cost ($/min)
cm, cmat, ct machining cost, cost of raw material per
part, cost of a cutting tool ($)
Cu unit cost ($)
d cutter diameter (mm)
e machine tool efficiency factor
F feed rate (mm/min)
f feed rate (mm/tooth)
Fc, Fc(per) cutting force, permitted cutting force (N)
FF, FR, FT feed, radial and tangential forces resulting
from all active cutting teeth (N)
G, g slenderness ratio, exponent of slenderness ratio.
K distance to be travelled by the tool to perform
the operation (mm)
Ki (i ¼ 13) coefficients carrying constant values
Kp power constant depending on the workpiece
material
results. Different studies on the integrated algorithms were
published in the literature [19–24]. Since the integrated
methods, also called hybrid approaches, combine the
positive properties of different methods, they have sig-
nificant advantages in finding the global optimum results.
In order to optimize the machining parameters, the
evolutionary methods have been modified or hybridized by
using other optimization techniques. Liu and Wang [25]
modified GA by defining and changing the operating
domain and used for optimization of milling parameters.
The results and the convergence speed of their approach
are better than that of GA. Wang et al. [26] proposed a new
hybrid approach, named genetic simulated annealing
(GSA), based on GA and SA to find optimal machining
parameters in milling operations. In their approach, GA
and SA were combined. They pointed out that the results
obtained were found to be better than those of GA and
geometric programming. Wang et al. [3] modified their first
approach [26] and proposed a new hybrid approach named
parallel genetic simulated annealing (PGSA) to improve
GSA’s performance and to determine optimal machining
parameters in multi-pass milling operations.
Although some improvements on optimization of
machining parameters in milling operations have been
made, due to the complexity of machine parameters with
conflicting objectives and constraints, these problems still
present a matter of investigation. Therefore, in recent
years, there has been increasing interest in the hybrid
approaches to optimize the machining parameters and
machining economic problems.
la lead (corner) angle of the tool
m number of machining operations required to
produce the product
N spindle speed (rev/min)
n tool life exponent
P, Pm required power for the operation, motor power
(kW)
Pr total profit rate ($/min)
Q contact proportion of cutting edge with work-
piece per revolution
R sale price of the product excluding material, set-
up and tool changing costs ($)
Ra, Ra(at) arithmetic value of surface finish, and
attainable surface finish (mm)
Sp sale price of the product ($)
T, Tu tool life (min), unit time (min)
tm, ts, ttc machining time, set-up time, tool changing
time (min)
V, Vhb, Vopt cutting speed, recommended by hand-
book, optimum (m/min)
w exponent of chip cross-sectional area
W tool wear factor
z number of cutting teeth of the tool
The purpose of this research is to further develop the
immune algorithm and to optimize machining parameters
for milling operations. In this research, a new hybrid
optimization approach is developed by hybridizing the
immune algorithm with hill climbing local search algorithm
to maximize total profit rate in milling operations. The
validity and efficiency of the proposed hybrid approach are
evaluated by considering single objective test problem,
multi objective I-beam and machine tool optimization
problems taken from the literature. The developed hybrid
approach is applied to a case study to increase the total
profit rate for milling operations.
The results of the proposed approach for the test
problems and the case study show that the proposed
hybrid approach is more effective to optimize the cutting
parameters for milling operations than GA, the feasible
direction method [9] and handbook recommendation [27].
2. Optimization model of milling operations
Depth of cut, feed rate and cutting speed have the
greatest effect on the success of a machining operation.
Depth of cut is usually predetermined by the workpiece
geometry and operation sequence. It is recommended to
machine the features with the required depth in one pass to
keep machining time and cost low, when possible. There-
fore, the problem of determining machining parameters is
reduced to determining the proper cutting speed and
feed rate combination [9]. The mathematical model of
Tolouei-Rad and Bidhendi [9] is used in this paper.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270 263

2.1. Objective function The required surface finish Ra, must not surpass the
maximum accessible surface finish Ra(at) under the existing
In the optimization of machine parameters for milling conditions. Therefore, the surface finish constraint for end
operations, the purpose is to maximize the total profit rate. milling can be defined as
The maximization of total profit rate is carried out
C 6 f 2 p1, (8)
according to two objective functions, which are unit
production time and unit production cost. The unit cost where
is the sum of material cost, set up cost, machining cost and
318ð4dÞ1
tool changing cost. The unit cost is defined as follows [9]: C6 ¼ (9)
RaðatÞ
X
m
1
C u ¼ cmat þ ðcl þ co Þts þ ðcl þ co ÞK 1I_ V I1
_ fi and for face milling
i¼1
C 7 f p1, (10)
X
m
ð1=nÞ1 ½ðwþgÞ=n1
X
m
þ cti K 3i V i fi þ ðcl þ co Þ. (1) where
i¼1 i¼1
318½tanðl a Þ þ cotðca Þ1
The unit time for producing of a part in multi-pass C7 ¼ . (11)
milling is defined as follows: RaðatÞ
X
m X
m
T u ¼ ts þ K 1I_ V 1
I_
f 1
i þ tci . (2) 2.2.3. Cutting force
i¼1 i¼1 The total cutting force Fc that results from the machining
The total profit rate is defined as follows: operation must not exceed the allowed cutting force Fc(per)
Sp  C u that the tool can resist. The permitted cutting force for each
Pr ¼ . (3) tool has been taken into account as its maximum limit for
Tu
cutting forces. Therefore, considering C8 ¼ l/Fc(per), the
cutting force constraints can be defined as
2.2. Constraints
C 8 F c p1. (12)
In order to maximize the total profit rate, permissible
ranges of cutting speed and feed rate are imposed 3. The human immune system and artificial immune
restriction by constraints. The constraints taken into algorithm
consideration in this paper are defined as follows [9]:
The natural immune system plays a vital role in
1. Maximum machine power protecting our body health from infectious foreign organ-
2. Surface finish requirement isms called antigens including viruses, bacteria and other
3. Maximum cutting force permitted by the rigidity of the tool parasites. The immune system needs to distinguish all cells
(or molecules) within our body and categorize those cells as
2.2.1. Power self or non-self. While disease causing external cells are
The required machining power for the machining named as non-self, its own harmless cells are named as self.
operation must not surpass the maximum obtainable value Although there are several types of immune cells in the
of motor power. Therefore the power constraint can be immune system, lymphocytes are the main type of immune
defined as cells. They are classified as ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘T’’ cells. The former
C 5 Vf 0:8 p1, (4) are able to recognize antigens free in solution (e.g., in the
blood stream) whereas the latter can recognize via other
where accessory cells [28].
0:78K p Wzarad a The artificial immune algorithm (AIA) used in this paper
C5 ¼ . (5) is based on the clonal selection and affinity maturation
60pdePm
principles of the immune system.
The clonal selection principle describes how an immune
2.2.2. Surface finish
response is given when a non-self antigenic pattern is
The surface finish value for plain milling and end milling
recognized by a B cell. The principle is shown in Fig. 1. B-
operations can be defined as:
cells and T-cells have receptor molecules on their surfaces.
f2 The B-cell receptor molecule is called as antibody. These
Ra ¼ 318 (6) receptor molecules recognize disease-causing pathogens.
4d
and for face milling When antigens and receptor molecules have complemen-
tary shapes, they can bind together [29]. When an antigen is
f recognized by immune cell receptors, an immune response
Ra ¼ 318 . (7)
tanðl a Þ þ cotðca Þ is obtained through the production of antibody from the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
264 A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270
Fig. 1. The clonal selection principle [30].
bone marrow. After these antibodies combine with
antigens, the antigen stimulates the B-cell to proliferate
and mature into terminal (non-dividing) antibody secreting
cells, called plasma cells [29].
The proliferation in the immune system occurs via cell
divisions (mitosis). The proliferation (mitosis) generates a
clone of cells that are the children of a single cell. De
Castro and Zuben [30] developed the clonal selection
algorithm (CSA) based on clonal selection to solve
engineering problems. In their paper, a very clear overview
of this mechanism from points of view of immunology and
engineering problems was presented.
Affinity maturation is the all-mutation processes and
selection that guarantees the survival of the variant
offspring that better match the antigen. The affinity defines
the degree of binding of the cell receptor with the antigen.
The higher the affinity the stronger the binding and thus,
the better the immune recognition and response. The two
main mechanisms of affinity maturation are hyper-muta-
tion and receptor editing [29–31]. Random changes
(mutations) happen in the variable region genes of
antibody molecules and cause structurally different cells.
Rarely, one such change will lead to an increase in the
affinity of the antibody.
Since the lymphocytes of the immune system are somatic
cells, the mutation that occurs during affinity maturation is
named as somatic mutation. Somatic mutation helps the
immune system to keep the high-affinity cells and to ensure
large mutations for the low-affinity ones in order to get
better-affinity cells [30–31].
The last stage of artificial immune algorithm is receptor
editing. After cloning and mutation processes are com-
pleted, a percentage of antibodies in the antibody popula-
tion are replaced with antibodies created randomly.
This process is called as receptor editing. This mechanism
introduces diversity, helps to escape from local optima
on an affinity landscape, leading to possible new candi-
dates [29].
AIA inspired from human immune system has been
used for different optimization studies in the literature
[30–38].
The AIA was used for multi-modal topology optimiza-
tion [33] and optimal design of truss structure by Luh and
Chueh [34]. In their paper [34,35], multi-objective test
functions and truss sizing optimization problems were
solved using multi-objective AIA. They showed that the
results of AIA were better than those of NSGA-II [39]
which is a popular optimization method based on GA.
Coello and Cortes [40] proposed a new multi-objective
optimization algorithm based on the clonal selection
principle of artificial immune system. They solved multi-
objective optimization problems taken from the evolu-
tionary computation literature and compared their results
with those of other evolutionary optimization approaches
which are representative of the state-of-the-art in evolu-
tionary multi-objective optimization.
The initiation of hybrid methods comes from a need to
tackle real-world problems and to reach to the global
optimum. Different optimization techniques have been
integrated to improve the efficiency of the evolutionary
optimization algorithms in the literature. Some of these
studies concentrated on the AIA [24,37]. For instance,
Hajela and Yoo [37] proposed a hybrid approach based on
GA and AIA and applied to engineering optimization
problems. Coello and Cortes [24] proposed a hybrid
approach based on GAs and AIA, which is an extension
of Hajela and Yoo’s algorithm [37]. Their approach was
validated by considering test and engineering problems
taken from the literature.
4. The proposed hybrid optimization approach
This research presents a new hybrid optimization
approach to determine optimal machining parameters for
milling operations, which was described in Section 2. The
proposed approach hybridizes the AIA with hill climbing
local search algorithm.
In the proposed algorithm, first an initial antibody
population is randomly generated for possible solutions
within the range of design variables. Each antibody (B cell)
in the population defines a possible solution of the
problem. The affinity (fitness) values of the antibodies in
the population are calculated. Depending on the affinity
values, the copies of the antibodies are generated. At the
second stage, mutation process is applied to the antibodies.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270
When the mutation process is applied to a antibody in the
population, if the affinity value of the new antibody is
better than that of original value, then the new antibody is
stored in the place of the original one, otherwise the old
antibody is kept in population. The mutation process is
applied to each antibody in the population. After the
mutation process, receptor editing is applied to the
antibody population. In the receptor editing process, in
each generation, a percentage of antibodies in the antibody
population are replaced by randomly created new anti-
bodies.
The final step of the proposed algorithm is local search
with the hill climbing algorithm. In the proposed approach,
the optimum result (nearly global) obtained by the AIA is
used as a starting point for the tuning of the parameters by
hill climbing local search algorithm to reach to the global
optimum. The pseudo code of the proposed algorithm is
presented below:
Step 1: Define Problem
Step 2: Artificial Immune Algorithm
2.a Initial antibody population
for i:¼1 to the number of antibodies do begin
generate randomly initial antibody population
end;
While (not termination condition) do begin
calculate affinity values of the antibodies
2.b Cloning
generate copies of antibodies using affinity values
of the antibodies
2.c Mutation
for i:¼1 to the number of the antibodies do begin
apply mutation to the antibodies
end;
2.d Receptor editing
for i:¼1 to (0.25*number of the antibodies) do
begin
apply receptor editing to randomly selected
antibodies
end;
End;
Step 3: Hill Climbing
For i:¼1 to (Stop Criteria) do begin
apply local search
end;
END.
5. Evaluation of proposed approach using test and
engineering optimization problems
In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposed
approach, first, single objective test problem, multi-
objective I-beam and multi objective machine tool optimi-
zation problems are solved. After it is shown that the
proposed approach is successful to optimize the complex
engineering optimization problems, then it is applied to the
case study for milling operations.
265
5.1. Single objective test problem
The first test problem is a minimization problem for a
single objective function with seven variables and four
inequality constraints. This problem is used by several
researchers to assess the performances of their approaches
[24,41–44]. The objective and constraint functions for the
problem are defined as follows:
Minimize:
f ðxÞ ¼ ðx1  10Þ2 þ 5ðx2  12Þ2 þ x43 þ 3ðx4  11Þ2
þ 10x65 þ 7x26 þ x47  4x6 x7  10x6  8x7 (13)
subject to:
g1 ðxÞ ¼ 127  2x21 þ 3x42 þ x3 þ 4x24 þ 5x5 p0, (14)
g2 ðxÞ ¼ 282 þ 7x1 þ 3x2 þ 10x23 þ x4  x5 p0, (15)
g3 ðxÞ ¼ 196 þ 23x1 þ x22 þ 6x26  8x7 p0, (16)
g4 ðxÞ ¼ 4x21 þ x22  3x1 x2 þ 2x23 þ 5x6  11x7 p0, (17)
10pxip10 (i ¼ 1,y,7). The global optimum is at x* ¼
(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,3,1) where the optimum solution is x* ¼
(2.330499, 1.951372, 0.4775414, 4.365726, 0.6244870,
1.038131, 1.594227) where f(x*) ¼ 680.6300573.
In optimization process, the proposed hybrid approach
used the following parameters: antibody size ¼ 80, max-
imum number of generations ¼ 1500, number of objective
function evaluations ¼ 120 000.
The efficiency of each approach can be measured by
comparing function evaluation number, which is equal to
the antibody size (population size) multiplied by the
generation number as each solution is evaluated once in
every generation. The main aim of the evolutionary
optimization techniques is to find the optimum results
with minimum function evaluation number.
The results of the proposed hybrid approach (AIHC)
for first test problem are compared with those provided
by Coello and Cortes [24]. It can be seen that AIHC
gives better solutions than those shown in Table 1 as
far as the function evaluation number, the best
solution computed, and the statistical analysis results are
taken into account together. The standard deviation
of AIHC is very low, which indicates that AIHC is
among the most robust approach in finding an optimum
solution.
Although the mean value of Hamida and Schoenauer
[44] is the best value (680.641), the number of function
evaluations for their approach is 1 500 000. On the other
hand, the proposed hybrid approach requires only 120 000
function evaluations to find the best known solution of
680.630. Coello and Cortes [24] found the best solution
680.959 for 150 000 function evaluations with standard
deviation of 0.7733.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
266 A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270

Table 1
Statistical results of different methods for first test problem

Design variables Best Mean Worst Std. dev. Function evaluations

AIHC 680.630 680.987 682.104 0.3614 120 000

Coello and Cortes (2004) 680.959 681.619 683.7651 0.7733 150 000
Hamida and Schoenauer (2002) 680.630 680.641 NA NA 1 500 000
Koziel and Michalewicz (1999) 680.91 681.16 683.13 NA 1 500 000
Hadj-Alouane and Bean (1997) 867.491 1269.355 2008.210 303.4729 NA
Michalewicz, and Attia (1994) 897.711 1381.541 2148.620 308.032 NA

The use of the AIHC improves the convergence rate by

computing the best value 680.630 with respect to very low
standard deviation 0.3614 and maintaining the less
function evaluations 120 000. L = 200 cm

P
5.2. Multi-objective I-beam problem
Z
L/2
Multi-objective I-beam problem was used in testing of
the new algorithms in the literature [45]. The proposed Q
approach is applied to I-beam design problem. The aim of x2
the problem is to design an I-beam with minimal cross- x3
section area and static deflection under given loading
conditions, as shown in Fig. 2. The objective and constraint
Y
functions for I-beam design problem can be defined as x1
follows [45]:
Objectives: x4

f 1 ðxÞ ¼ 2x2 x4 þ x3 ðx1  2x4 Þ cm2 , (18)

60 000 Fig. 2. I-beam design problem [45].

f 2 ðxÞ ¼ 3
. (19)
x3 ðx1  2x4 Þ þ 2x2 x4 ½4x24 þ 3x1 ðx1  2x4 Þ
Constraints:
to find the best solutions, use of the proposed hybrid
18 000x1 approach ameliorates the convergence rate by computing
gðxÞ ¼ 16 
x3 ðx1  2x4 Þ3 þ 2x2 x4 ½4x24 þ 3x1 ðx1  2x4 Þ the best values and maintaining lesser function evaluations
15 000x2 of 3000.
 X0, (20) The comparison of the best values of objectives obtained
ðx1  2x4 Þ3 x33 þ 2x4 x32
from AIHC and other techniques reported in [45,46]
10px1 p80; 10px2 p50; 0:9px3 p5; 0:9px4 p5. presents that solutions obtained from the AIHC are not
dominated. As seen in Table 2, AIHC gives better solutions
(21)
for the multi-objective I-beam design problem.
More detailed explanation on the mathematical model of
this problem can be obtained from [45]. The following
parameters were used by the proposed hybrid approach for 5.3. Multi-objective machine tool spindle design problem
the optimization process:
The multi-objective machine tool spindle design problem
(a) antibody size: 50; has been considered by several researchers to assess the
(b) maximum number of generations: 60; performance of optimization methods in the area of
(c) number of objective function evaluations: 3000. engineering optimization. This problem, defined initially
by Eschenauer et al. [47], was redefined as a multiple
The results of the proposed approach are compared objective optimization problem by Coello [48]. The
against those provided by Coello and Christiansen [45] and problem was solved using MOSES, based on GA by
Baykasoglu [46]. Although the approach of Coello Coello [48]. The objectives of the problem are to minimize
and Christiansen [45] required 5000 function evaluations the spindle volume and static deflection under given
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270 267

loading as shown in Fig. 3. The formulation of the multi- g3 ðxÞ ¼ d a1  d a p0, (26)
objective optimization problem is defined as below:
Objectives: g4 ðxÞ ¼ d a  d a2 p0, (27)
p 
g5 ðxÞ ¼ d b1  d b p0,
f 1 ðxÞ ¼ aðd 2a  d 2o Þ þ lðd 2b  d 2o Þ , (22) (28)
4
   g6 ðxÞ ¼ d b  d b2 p0, (29)
Fa3 l Ia F  a 2 c a a2
f 2 ðxÞ ¼ 1þ þ 1þ þ 2 , (23)
3EI a a Ib ca l cb l g7 ðxÞ ¼ d 0m  d o p0, (30)

I a ¼ 0:049ðd 4a  d 40 Þ; I b ¼ 0:049ðd 4b  d 40 Þ, g8 ðxÞ ¼ p1 d o  d b p0, (31)

10=9 g9 ðxÞ ¼ p2 d b  d a p0, (32)

ca ¼ 35 400jdra j1=9 d 10=9
a ; cb ¼ 35 400jdrb j1=9 d b .

a

Constraints:

g10 ðxÞ ¼
Da þ ðDa  Db Þ
 Dp0. (33)
l
g1 ðxÞ ¼ l  l g p0, (24)
The design variables are l, do, da and db. In this problem, da
and db are discrete variables and da must be chosen from the
g2 ðxÞ ¼ l k  lp0, (25)
set (80, 85, 90, 95), and db from the set (75, 80, 85, 90).
Additionally, the following constant parameters are assumed:
Table 2 dom ¼ 25.00 mm, da1 ¼ 80.00 mm, da2 ¼ 95.00 mm,
Comparison of the results for the I-beam design problem db1 ¼ 75.00 mm, db2 ¼ 90.00 mm,
p1 ¼ 1.25, p2 ¼ 1.05, lk ¼ 150.00 mm,
Methods f1(x) f2(x)
lg ¼ 200.00 mm, a ¼ 80.00 mm,
Monte Carlo 188.65 0.06175 E ¼ 210 000.0 N/ F ¼ 10 000 N,
Monte Carlo 555.22 0.00849 mm2,
Min–max 316.85 0.01697 D‘ ¼ 0.0054 mm, Db ¼ 0.0054 mm, D ¼ 0.01 mm,
Min–max 326.49 0.01636
GA (binary) 128.27 0.05241
dra ¼ 0.001 mm, drb ¼ 0.001 mm.
GA (binary) 848.41 0.00591
GA (floating point) 127.46 0.06034
GA (floating point) 850 0.0059
More detailed explanation about the mathematical model
Literature 128.47 0.06 of machine tool optimization problem can be obtained from
Literature 850 0.0059 Coello [48]. The problem is solved by the proposed hybrid
MOTS 143.52 0.037 approach. The following parameters were used by the
MOTS 678.21 0.00664 proposed hybrid approach for the optimization process:
Artificial immune algorithm 129.157 0.05859
Artificial immune algorithm 825.860 0.00631
Proposed hybrid approach 127.411 0.06141 (a) antibody size: 50;
Proposed hybrid approach 833.039 0.00603 (b) maximum number of generations: 80;
(c) number of objective function evaluations: 4000.
For each method the best results for f1(x) and f2(x) are shown in boldface.

The results of the AIHC are compared with those

obtained by Baykasoglu [46] and Coello [48] in Table 3.
F The approach of Coello [48] required 5000 function
ca evaluations to find the best solutions. The use of the
cb proposed hybrid approach improves the convergence rate
by computing the best values and maintains a lesser
function evaluation number of 4000.
The comparison of the best values of objectives obtained
from AIHC and other techniques reported in [46,47]
db do da presents that solutions obtained from the AIHC are not
dominated. As can be seen from Table 3, AIHC gives
better solutions for the multi-objective machine tool
spindle design problem.

6. Case study for milling operation

l a

In this case study, it is aimed that a part shown in Fig. 4 is

Fig. 3. Machine tool design problem [46]. to be produced using CNC milling machine. At the same
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
268 A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270

Table 3 Constants:
Comparison of the results for the machine tool spindle design problem Sp ¼ $25,
Methods f1(x) f2(x)
cmat ¼ $0.50,
co ¼ $1.45/min,
Monte Carlo 1 606765.4 0.032463 cl ¼ $0.45/min,
Monte Carlo 2 1457744.6 0.019242
ts ¼ 2 min,
GA (binary) 494015.4 0.038087
GA (binary) 1643777.6 0.016613 tct ¼ 0.5 min,
GA (floating point) 1124409.3 0.017951 C ¼ 33.98 for HSS tools,
GA (floating point) 1637052.3 0.016615 w ¼ 0.28,
Literature 531183.7 0.030215
Literature 694200.0 0.023101
C ¼ 100.05 for carbide tool,
MOTS 497644.1 0.037839 Kp ¼ 2.24,
MOTS 1485169 0.016894 W ¼ 1.1,
Artificial immune algorithm 499288.3 0.032243 n ¼ 0.15 for HSS tools,
Artificial immune algorithm 1504364.00 0.016717
Proposed hybrid algorithm 492283.1 0.037952
n ¼ 0.3 for carbide tool,
Proposed hybrid algorithm 1571479.2 0.016646 g ¼ 0.14.

For each method the best results for f1(x) and f2(x) are shown in boldface.
Machine tool data:
Type: vertical CNC milling machine
10
5
Pm ¼ 8.5 kW, e ¼ 95%.
10

30 Material data:
Quality: 10L50 leaded steel.
Hardness ¼ 225 BHN.
A-A
120
The speed and feed rate limits used in this paper are given
100 in Table 4. The geometric information for the required
80
Table 4
Speed and feed rate limits
40
Operation no. Operation type Speed limits Feed rate limits

1 Face milling 60–120 m/min 0.05–0.4 mm/tooth

80 30 60
2 Corner milling 40–70 m/min 0.05–0.5 mm/tooth
3 Pocket milling 40–70 m/min 0.05–0.5 mm/tooth
12 4 Slot milling 1 30–50 m/min 0.05–0.5 mm/tooth
20 R5
5 Slot milling 2 30–50 m/min 0.05–0.5 mm/tooth

Slot 1 Table 5
Required machining operation

Slot 2 Operation Operation Tool a K Ra Fc(per)

no. type no. (mm) (mm) (mm)
Pocket
1 Face milling 1 10 450 2 156 449.4
2 Corner milling 2 5 90 6 17 117.74
Step
3 Pocket milling 2 10 450 5 17 117.74
4 Slot milling 3 10 32 – 14 264.78
5 Slot milling 3 5 84 1 14 264.78

Table 6
Tools data

Fig. 4. An example part. Tool no Tool type Quality d (mm) z Price ($) la ca

time, it is desired that optimum machining parameters are 1 Face mill Carbide 50 6 49.50 45 5
2 End mill HSS 10 4 7.55 0 5
found with the maximum profit rate. Specifications of the 3 End mill HSS 12 4 7.55 0 5
machine, material and values of constants are given below [9].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270 269

Table 7
Comparison of the best results for milling problem

Method Cu—unit cost Tu—unit time Pr—profit rate

Handbook $18.36 9.40 min 0.71/min

Method of feasible direction $11.35 5.48 min 2.49/min
Genetic algorithms $11.11 5.22 min 2.65/min
Proposed approach $10.912 5.049 min 2.79/min
Improvement over handbook $7.45 4.35 min 2.082/min
Improvement over method of feasible direction $0.44 0.43 min 0.302/min
Improvement over genetic algorithms $0.2 0.18 min 0.142/min
Improvement (handbook) %40.5 %46.3 %293.2
Improvement (method of feasible direction) %3.9 %7.9 %12.2
Improvement (genetic algorithms) %1.8 %3.4 %5.3

operations and tools is given in Tables 5 and 6. The part
shown in Fig. 4 includes four machining features which are
step, pocket and two slots. To manufacture the part, it
required five milling operations, listed in Table 5, which are
face milling, corner milling, pocket milling, slot milling 1
and slot milling 2. The tools used for each operation and
the data for tools are listed in Table 6. The aim is to find
the optimum cutting conditions of each feature in order to
machine the part with maximum profit rate.
The results of the proposed approach are listed in
Table 7 and are compared with those of GA, the feasible
direction method and handbook recommendation. From
the comparison of best results given in Table 7, it can be
seen that the maximization of the total profit rate in milling
operation is achieved by the proposed hybrid approach. By
using the proposed approach, the total profit rate is
increased by 293.2%, 12.2% and 5.3% over handbook
recommendation, feasible direction method and GA,
respectively.
7. Conclusion
In this research, a new hybrid optimization approach is
developed by hybridizing the AIA inspired from human
immune system with hill climbing local search algorithm.
The new hybrid approach is successfully applied to the
single objective test problem, multi-objective I-beam
optimization problem, multi objective machine tool pro-
blem and to the optimization of machining parameters
for maximization of total profit rate in milling operations.
Significant improvements are obtained with the pro-
posed new hybrid approach in comparison to the results
by GA, the feasible direction method and handbook
recommendation.
As can be seen from Table 7 the proposed hybrid
approach is a good alternative for optimization of
machining parameters in milling operations. In addition,
the proposed hybrid approach is a generalized optimization
method and it can be applied to optimization of the
other metal cutting problems such as turning, drilling
and grinding operations in the manufacturing industry
as well as to other complex engineering optimization
problems.
References
[1] Taylor FW. On the art of cutting metals. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng
1907;28(31).
[2] Dereli T, Filiz IH, Baykasoglu A. Optimizing cutting parameters in
process planning of prismatic parts by using genetic algorithms. Int J
Prod Res 2001;39(15):3303–28.
[3] Wang ZG, Rahman M, Wong YS, Sun J. Optimization of multi-pass
milling using parallel genetic algorithm and parallel genetic simulated
annealing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2005;45(15):1726–34.
[4] Petropoulos PG. Optimal selection of machining rate variable by
geometric programming. Int J Prod Res 1973;11(4):305–14.
[5] Agapiou JS. The optimisation of machining operations based on a
combined criterion. Part 2: Multipass operations. J Eng Ind 1992;114:
508–13.
[6] Armarego EJA. Computer-aided constrained optimisation analyses
and strategies for multipass helical tooth milling operation. Ann
CIRP 1994;43(1):437–42.
[7] Shin YC, Joo YS. Optimization of machining conditions with
practical constraints. Int J Prod Res 1992;30(12):2907–19.
[8] Gupta R, Batra JL, Lal JK. Determination of optimal subdivision of
depth of cut in multi-pass turning with constraints. Int J Prod Res
1995;33:115–27.
[9] Tolouei-Rad M, Bidhendi IM. On the optimization of machining
parameters for milling operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1997;
37(1):1–16.
[10] Wang J. Computer-aided economic optimization of end-milling
operations. Int J Prod Econ 1998;54(3):307–20.
[11] Wang J, Armarego JA. Computer-aided optimization of multiple
constraint single pass face milling operations. Mach Sci Technol
2001;5(1):77–99.
[12] Wang J, Kuriyagawa T, Wei XP, Guo DM. Optimization of cutting
conditions for single pass turning operations using a deterministic
approach. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2002;42(9):1023–33.
[13] Kilic SE, Cogun C, Sen DT. A computer-aided graphical technique
for the optimization of machining conditions. Comput Ind 1993;
22(3):319–26.
[14] Bauma LE, Mcphee JJ, Calamai PH. Application of genetic
algorithms to the design optimization of an active vehicle suspension
system. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998;163(1–4):87–94.
[15] Shunmugam MS, Reddy SVB, Narendran AA. Selection of optimal
conditions in multi-pass face-milling using a genetic algorithm. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 2000;40(3):401–14.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
270 A. Rıza Yıldız / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 261–270
[16] Tandon V, El-Mounayri H, Kishawy H. NC end milling optimization
using evolutionary computation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
2002;42(5):595–605.
[17] Holland HJ. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an
introductory analysis with application to biology control and
artificial intelligence. Ann Arbor, USA: The University of Michigan
Press; 1975.
[18] Chung JS, Hwang SM. Application of a genetic algorithm to the
optimal design of the die shape in extrusion. J Mater Process Technol
1997;72(1):69–77.
[19] Renders J, Bersini H. Hybridizing genetic algorithms with hill-
climbing methods for global optimization: two possible ways. In:
Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on evolutionary computa-
tion, Orlando, FL, 1994.
[20] Yen J, Liao JC, Randolph D, Lee B. A hybrid approach to modeling
metabolic systems using genetic algorithm and simplex method. In:
Proceedings of the 11th IEEE conference on artificial intelligence for
applications, CAIA95, Los Angeles, CA, 1995.
[21] Okamoto M, Nonaka T, Ochiai S, Tominaga D. Nonlinear numerical
optimization with use of a hybrid genetic algorithm incorporating the
modified Powell method. Appl Math Comput 1997;91(1):63–72.
[22] Yıldız AR, Özturk N, Kaya N, Özturk F. Hybrid multi-objective
shape design optimization using Taguchi’s method and genetic
algorithm. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 2007;34(4):277–365.
[23] Yildiz AR, Ozturk F. Hybrid enhanced genetic algorithm to select
optimal machining parameters in turning operation. Proc Inst Mech
Eng B: J Eng Manuf 2006;220(12):2041–53.
[24] Coello CAC, Cortes NC. Hybridizing a genetic algorithm with an
artificial immune system for global optimization. Eng Optim 2004;
36(5):607–34.
[25] Liu YM, Wang CJ. A modified genetic algorithm based optimization
of milling parameters. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1999;15(11):796–9.
[26] Wang ZG, Wong YS, Rahman M. Optimisation of multi-pass milling
using genetic algorithm and genetic simulated annealing. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2004;24(9–10):727–32.
[27] Machinability Data Center. Machining data handbook. Vol. 1. 3rd
ed. OH: Machinability Data Center; 1980.
[28] De Castro LN, Von Zuben FJ. Artificial immune systems, part 1, Basic
theory and applications. Technical report TR-DCA 01/99, 1999.
[29] De Castro LN, Von Zuben FJ. Learning and optimization using the
clonal selection principle. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6(3):239–51.
[30] De Castro LN, Von Zuben FJ. The clonal selection algorithm with
engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the workshop on
GECCO 2000, Las Vegas, July 2000.
[31] De Castro LN, Timmis JI. Artificial immune systems as a novel soft
computing paradigm. Soft Comput 2003;7(8):526–44.
[32] Khoo LP, Alisantoso D. Line balancing of PCB assembly line using
immune algorithms. Eng Comput 2003;19(2–3):92–100.
View publication stats
[33] Luh GC, Chueh CH. Multi-modal topological optimization of
structure using immune algorithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 2004;193(36–38):4035–55.
[34] Luh GC, Chueh CH. Multi-objective optimal design of truss
structure with immune algorithm. Comput Struct 2004;82(11–12):
829–44.
[35] Luh GC, Chueh CH, Liu WW. MOIA: multi-objective immune
algorithm. Eng Optim 2003;35(2):143–64.
[36] Du HF, Gong MG, Jiao LC. A novel algorithm of artificial immune
system for high-dimensional function numerical optimization. Prog
Nat Sci 2005;15(5):463–71.
[37] Hajela P, Yoo JS. Immune network modelling in design optimization.
In: Corne D, Dorigo M, Glover F, editors. New ideas in
optimization. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1999. p. 167–83.
[38] Chan FTS, Swarnkar R, Tiwari MK. Fuzzy goal-programming
model with an artificial immune system (AIS) approach for a machine
tool selection and operation allocation problem in a flexible
manufacturing system. Int J Prod Res 2005;43(19):4147–63.
[39] Deb K, Pratap A, Meyarivan T. Constrained test problems for multi-
objective evolutionary optimization. In: Proceedings of the first
international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimiza-
tion, EMO2001, 2001.
[40] Coello CAC, Cortes NC. Solving multiobjective optimization
problems using an artificial immune system. Genet Programm Evol
Mach 2005;6(2):163–90.
[41] Michalewicz Z, Attia, N. Evolutionary optimization of constrained
problems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on evolu-
tionary programming. Singapore: World Scientific; 1994. p. 98–108.
[42] Hadj-Alouane AB, Bean JC. A genetic algorithm for the multiple-
choice integer program. Oper Res 1997;45:92–101.
[43] Koziel S, Michalewicz Z. Evolutionary algorithms, homomorphous
mappings, and constrained parameter optimization. Evol Comput
1999;7(1):19–44.
[44] Hamida SB, Schoenauer M. ASCHEA: new results using adaptive
segregational constraint handling. In: Proceedings of the congress on
evolutionary computation, 2002, vol. 1. p. 884–9.
[45] Coello CAC, Christiansen AD. MOSES: a multiple objective
optimization tool for engineering design. J Eng Optim 1999;31(3):
337–68.
[46] Baykasoglu A. Applying multiple objective tabu search to continuous
optimization problems with a simple neighbourhood strategy. Int J
Num Methods Eng 2006;65:406–24.
[47] Eschenauer H, Koski J, Osyczka A. Multicriteria design optimiza-
tion. Berlin: Springer; 1990.
[48] Coello CAC. An empirical study of evolutionary techniques for
multiobjective optimization in engineering design. PhD thesis,
Department of Computer Science, Tulane University, New Orleans,
LA, 1996.