MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF CUTTING CONDITIONS IN MILLING USING GENETIC ALGORITHMS K.-D. Bouzakis1, R. Paraskevopoulou1, G.

Giannopoulos1
1. Laboratory for Machine Tools and Manufacturing Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Department, Aristoteles University of Thessaloniki, Greece

ABSTRACT The optimal selection of the machining parameters remains of great interest in manufacturing industries up to the present time. Multi-objective formulation is a realistic model for the optimization of cutting conditions in several machining processes. In this paper, a multi-objective optimisation procedure, based on genetic algorithms, to obtain the optimum cutting conditions (cutting depth, feed rate and cutting speed) in milling, is presented. Objectives functions, like machining cost and machining time and several technological constrains are simultaneously taking into consideration. A Pareto ranking approach is used to determine the optimum cutting parameters. Milling simulation algorithms are taking into account in order to calculate chip thickness, cutting force, etc. An application example demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed methodology is also presented. KEYWORDS: milling, genetic algorithms, multi-objective optimization, Pareto optimal set 1. INTRODUCTION The selection of optimum cutting conditions (depth of cut, feed rate and cutting speed) is an important element of process planning for every machining operation /1/. In workshop practice, process planners or machine tool operators select the cutting conditions based on their experience or using data from machining databases or tool catalogs. These values are usually conservative and do not guarantee an optimum outcome. Since early 1900 that Taylor /2/ recognized the notion of an optimum cutting speed for maximum material removal rate in single pass turning, many attempts have been made to optimize the cutting parameters in machining operations. A variety of optimization criteria like minimum machining cost, minimum machining time, maximum profit rate, maximum production rate etc. have been considered /1, 3/. Furthermore, several types of methods have been used such as linear programming, geometric programming, graphical methods, dynamic programming /1, 3/. However, because of the complexity of the problem, progress in development of optimization strategies is very slow /4/. In milling, in particular, which is dictated by a more complex cutting mechanism than turning, the optimization problem becomes even more difficult. The optimization of cutting parameters in milling is a highly constrained and a highly non-linear procedure. Furthermore, in many real world applications the process planners, when defining the cutting parameters, face on regular basis the problem of simultaneous optimization of more than one objective (for example manufacturing cost and manufacturing time), which are often conflicting and incomparable. For this
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Manufacturing Engineering (ICMEN), 1-3 October 2008, Chalkidiki, Greece Edited by Prof. K.-D. Bouzakis, Director of the Laboratory for Machine Tools and Manufacturing Engineering (), Aristoteles University of Thessaloniki and of the Fraunhofer Project Center Coatings in Manufacturing (PCCM), a joint initiative by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Published by: and PCCM

763

reason, the optimization of cutting conditions in milling becomes, in practice, a multi-objective optimization problem /5/, that is difficult to be solved by traditional optimization techniques. Finding a method for solving it, without a priori preference decision and without first converting the problem into a single objective one, still constitutes an area of investigation /6/. Last years, the application of evolutionary algorithms in multi-objective optimization is receiving growing interest /7, 8, 9, 10/. Evolutionary algorithms mimic natural evolutionary principles to perform search and optimization procedures. Evolutionary algorithms operate on a population of candidate solutions applying some mechanisms inspired by biological evolution: selection, reproduction, mutation, and recombination. At each generation, a new set of solutions is created by selecting individuals according to their fitness rate to the problem and breeding them using genetic operators. Generation, after generation, this process leads to the evolution of solutions population, just as natural adoption. Although evolutionary algorithms do not guarantee to find the optimal solutions their convergence speeds in multi-objective optimization seem to be better than those of traditional techniques /5, 9/. In this paper, a multi-objective procedure based on genetic algorithms is proposed to optimize the cutting parameters in milling.

2. MILLING OPTIMIZATION MODEL Depth of cut, feed rate and cutting speed are the essential parameters of the milling operation. However, in single pass operations, depth of cut is usually predetermined, considering the workpiece geometry. It is recommended to machine the workpiece with the required depth in one pass, if possible, in order to maintain the machining cost and the machining time low. Therefore, in single-pass milling, the problem of optimizing the cutting conditions is confined in obtaining the optimum feed rate and cutting speed. In the optimization procedure presented in this paper the cases of single-pass and multi-pass milling are distinguished. Multi pass milling is treated as a multi-objective problem with three decision variables, while single pass milling as problem with two decision variables. Objective functions In optimization of cutting parameters for milling presented is this paper the purpose is to minimize the machining cost and the machining time. Machining cost During milling, the machining cost per component C MW can be calculated by the following equation / 11, 12/:

C MW = C1 + C2 + C3
where C1 : fixed cost, C2 : machine tool operating cost and C3 : cutting tool cost The fixed cost includes the idle time cost, as well as the cost per component corresponding to the machine preparation time. C1 can be calculated by:

tr C1 = CM + tn m where CM : machine tool cost, tr : set up time of the machine time for a new batch, m : total number of components in the batch, tn : idle time
Machine tool operating time composes of the personnel cost and the machine usage cost. C 2 can be calculated by:

764

3rd ICMEN 2008

C2 = CM

i =1

Li fvi ni
: number of tool

where L : length of the cutting tool path, fv : feed rate, n : cutting speed, paths.

The cutting tool cost includes the acquisition cost of a new cutting tool, the cost of grinding as well as the cost corresponding to the tool changing time. C 3 can be calculated by:

C3 = (CM tT +CT )
i =1

fvi 10 ( D ) hib2 lib3 10 b4 VBc nib1

b0 b1

Li

where t T : tool changing time, CT : cutting tool acquisition cost, D : cutting tool diameter, h : chip thickness, l : chip length, VBc : tool wear criterion, b0 b4 : tool wear model parameters Machining time Machining time per component t MW can be calculated by the following equation /11, 12/:

t MW = t1 + t 2 + t 3

where:

tr t1 : idle time and machine preparation time. It can be calculated by: t1 = +tn m
t 2 : machining time. It can be computed by: t 2 =
Li fvi ni

i =1

t 3 : tool changing time per component. It can be calculated by:

t3 =
i =1

Li b fvi 10b0 ( D ) 1 hib2 lib3 10b4 VBc nib1

Constrains The solution space where the optimum cutting conditions are searched, is limited by technological and practical constrains related to maximum machine power, maximum permitted cutting force, maximum permitted cutting tool deflection and the available feed rate and spindle speed on the machine tool /1,3/. Power The machining parameters should be selected so that the maximum machine power is used, but simultaneously the required machining power should not surpass the maximum power available at the machine tool spindle. The power consumed in milling is given by /5/:

P=

F *v 6120 *

where F : peripheral cutting force, v : cutting speed, : efficiency

Cutting force The cutting force F must not exceed a specific maximum value prescribed to prevent chatter. The cutting force coefficients are computed by exponential equations /13/:

CAD, CAM, CMM, Vitrual Manufacturing

765

Cutting tool deflection In finishing operations, the cutting tool deflection affects the accuracy of the machined components. For this reason, the cutting tool deflection must be lower than a certain value. Considering the cutting tool as a cantilever beam the deflection at the end of the cutting tool can be calculated by:

F * L3 3* I * E

where F : cutting force L : length, E : module of elasticity of the cutting tool material, I : moment of inertia. In a helical cutting tool (helical cutting tools are widely used in milling operations) two parts are distinguished: the cylindrical part and the part having the cutting edges. These two parts usually do not have the same diameters. In the frame of the present paper the cutting tool is considered to be a beam of circular cross section, having two different diameters corresponding to the above-mentioned parts. Cutting conditions constrains The feed rate and the cutting speed may vary between the lower and higher permitted values of the machine:

f min f f max v min v v max

By observing the above equations, it can be seen that many of them use data related to the undeformed chip geometry. In the present work a milling simulation algorithm is used, which considers the cutting tool data and the cutting conditions calculates the chip thickness, length and width. Using them the cutting force components, the machining cost and the machining time can be computed /12,13/.

3. MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION Pareto optimal set Multi objective problems are special in the sense that they have not a unique solution. The family of solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem is composed of all those elements of the search space, which are such, that the corresponding objectives cannot be all simultaneously improved. This is known as the concept of Pareto optimality /14/. While moving from one Pareto solution to another, there is always at least one objective, which is deteriorating when any other(s) are improved. The concept of Pareto optimality is explained analytically in figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows a minimization problem with two objectives, which has eight solutions (points s1-s8). In figure 2, three of the eight solutions (s1, s2 and s5) are examined for domination. As it can be seen, s1 is the best solution if only the first objective is considered. However it is worst than s2 if the second objective is considered. On the other hand, s2 is better than s1 regarding the second objective and worst regarding the first objective. According to the concept of Pareto dominance, these two solutions s1 and s2 are equally good and none of them dominates the other. Concerning the solution s5, it can be observed that solutions s1 is better than it in all objectives. Consequently, s1 dominate s5.

766

3rd ICMEN 2008

OBJ2 s8 s1 s5 s6 s2 s3 s4 Feasible objective space

s7

OBJ1
Figure 1: A two-objective search space.

OBJ2

Dominated Feasible objective space s5 s1

s2 Non-dominated Non-dominated OBJ1

Figure 2: Illustration of Pareto dominance. Pareto Ranking In the present paper a multi-objective genetic algorithm method was used to find the optimal solutions. Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) classifies the non-dominated solution of a GA population and was initially proposed by Fonseca and Fleming. According to them /15/, each solution is checked for its domination in the population. The rank of a solution corresponds to the number of chromosomes in the current population by which it is dominated. For example, to a solution i of a generation t , a rank equal to one, plus the number of solutions nsit that dominate the solution in the current population is assigned.

r (i, t ) = 1 + nsit
Figure 3 shows the application of this technique on the example presented in the previous paragraph. Considering again solutions s1, s2 and s5, s1 and s2 are non-dominated, so they get a rank equal to 1 while solution s5 which is dominated by s1 gets a rank equal to 2. After checking the domination of the rest solutions, in a similar way a rank is assigned to each one of them.

CAD, CAM, CMM, Vitrual Manufacturing

767

After ranking, a fitness value is assigned to every solution, based on the solution's rank.
OBJ2 (r=5) S8 (r=1) s1 (r=2) s5 (r=3) s6 (r=1) s2 (r=1) s3 (r=1) s4 (r=4) s7 Feasible objective space

OBJ1

Figure 3: Ranking assignment in a MOGA. Fitness Sharing In order to maintain a diverse set of good solutions and preventing them from the forming of relatively few clusters, fitness sharing is applied. Fitness sharing artificially reduces the fitness of solutions in densely populated areas and by this way it encourages the search in unexplored sections of Pareto front. The idea of the fitness sharing technique is that a solution shares local resource with other solutions. Consequently, its neighbors influence the fitness value of a solution. In the MOGA used in the scope of this paper, the Euclidean distance between solutions in the objective space is used. Constrains handling Most real world multi-objective problems have constrains that need to be incorporated into the search engine in order to avoid convergence towards infeasible solutions. Constrains have to be 'hard' (i.e. they must be satisfied) or 'soft' (they can be relaxed and their proper handling has been a matter of research within single-objective and multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. In the methodology, which is used in the present work, each functional constrain is treated as an additional objective /16/. For each solution of the population, the objective fitness values are calculated. Furthermore, every solution is checked for constrains violation. All the constrained objectives that are satisfied are assigned to zero, while all other (violated constrains) are assigned to the distance from the constrain boundary. Since the multi-objective optimization algorithm tries to find solutions with smaller objective values, it tends to minimize the corresponding distances (and thus the violation of the constrains) /17/. When the functional constrains are included in the multi-objective ranking, the comparison between two solutions becomes more difficult. In the present work, before comparing two solutions for domination, they are checked for their feasibility. Using a constrained tournament approach /18/ a solution xi is preferred from the solution x j , if any of the following conditions are true: Solution xi is feasible and solution x j is not. Solution xi and x j are both infeasible, but solution xi has a smaller constrain violation. Solution xi and x j are both feasible, but solution xi dominates solution x j , in the sense described in previous paragraphs.

768

3rd ICMEN 2008

Pareto ranking using a vector of goals for the individual criteria allows an improved generation of a number of solutions compared to plain Pareto-ranking.

4. AN APPLICATION EXAMPLE The above outlined optimization procedure, is demonstrated by single-pass and in multi-pass milling examples. Single-pass milling In single-pass milling the cutting parameters under optimization are the feed rate and the cutting speed, while the user defines the depth of cut. Furthermore, two different cases are distinguished: roughing and finishing. For roughing the optimization objectives are minimum production cost and minimum production time, while all constrains referred in paragraph 2 are considered. Simultaneously, emphasis is given to the utilization of the maximum possible machine power. For this reason an additional objective is used, related to the distance between the maximum available power of the machine tool and the power required for the machining. This objective has also to be minimized, which means that the machine power that will be used has to be as close as possible to the maximum available machine power. For finishing, the optimization objectives are minimum production cost, minimum production time and minimum cutting tool deflection. As lower limit for the deflection of the cutting tool, the amount of 0.75 of the maximum permitted cutting tool deflection has been used.

Figure 4: Pareto front for the case of roughing.

CAD, CAM, CMM, Vitrual Manufacturing

769

235 230

Cutting speed [m/min]

225 220 215 210 205 200

0.3492

0.3494

0.3496

0.3498

0.35

0.3502

Feed rate [mm/tooth,rev]

Figure 5: Cutting conditions values corresponding to the Paretian points. Table 1:Paretian points for the case of roughing. Feed rate (mm/tooth,rev) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Cutting speed (m/min) 225 232 203 230 200 213 207 Machining cost (Euro cent) 331.26 334.20 323.74 333.20 322.91 327.03 325.20 Machining time (min) 2.286 2.281 2.302 2.283 2.304 2.294 2.298 Power (KW) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

In both cases for the implementation of the genetic algorithm five subpopulations were used with 50, 30, 30, 40, 50 individuals respectively. Discrete recombination was applied on three subpopulations and linear to rest two. The mutation rate in each subpopulation was 0.1, 0.03, 0.01, 0.003 and 0.001 correspondingly. The maximum number of generations was 120 for roughing and 150 for finishing. In figure 4, the non-dominated points obtained from the optimization procedure for roughing are presented, while the corresponding values of the feed rate and the cutting speed are shown in figure 5. Some of the Paretian points and the corresponding objective functions values for the case of roughing are shown in Table1, and for the case of finishing in Table 2. Looking at the objective function values corresponding to the Paretian points in figure 4, and in table 1 and 2, it can be seen that in both roughing and finishing the convergence of the genetic algorithm is good. The range where the machining cost and the machining time may vary is small. In case of roughing, the genetic algorithm converged towards a specific optimum feed rate value, while the optimum values for the cutting speed vary in a range of 35 m/min providing better values for the machining cost or the machining time. In case of finishing, the situation is not so clear. Both feed rate and cutting speed vary between specific ranges.

770

3rd ICMEN 2008

Table 2: Paretian points for the case of finishing. Feed rate (mm/tooth,rev) 0.231 0.220 0.219 0.248 0.171 0.160 0.190 Cutting speed (m/min) 298 295 251 223 291 268 284 Machining cost (Euro cent) 312.67 313.05 310.58 307.28 318.05 319.96 315.12 Machining time (min) 2.302 2.315 2.344 2.351 2.388 2.434 2.363 Deflection (mm) 0.025 0.024 0.023 0.024 0.020 0.019 0.022

Multi-pass milling Multi-pass milling is used when the total stock to be removed exceeds the maximum allowable depth of cut. In this case the parameters under optimization, by the proposed methodology are: the number of passes (and subsequently the depth of cut), the feed rate and the cutting speed of every pass. The multi-pass operation is considered to be roughing which is carried out in n passes, with the same cutting conditions (depth of cut, feed rate and cutting speed). The depth of cut for every pass is calculated by:

ai =

at where at : total depth of cut, which has to be removed (defined by the user) n

The optimization objectives and constrains are the same with those described in single-pass roughing. In the case of multi-pass milling, for the implementation of the genetic algorithm one subpopulation was used containing 200 individuals. Discrete recombination was applied, while the mutation rate was 0.005. The maximum number of generations was 200. Some of the Paretian points and the corresponding objective functions values are shown in Table 3. In case of multi-pass milling the genetic algorithm convergence is considered satisfactory too. The algorithm converged towards a specific optimum value for the number of cuts and the feed rate and only cutting speed vary in a range of about 70m/min. The values of power presented in Table 1 and 3, have been calculated considering the values of third objective used in roughing. This objective, as it was mentioned above, corresponds to Table 3: Paretian points for the case of multi-pass roughing. Number of paths 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Feed rate (mm/tooth,rev) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Cutting speed (m/min) 188 212 216 208 200 217 205 Machining cost (Euro cent) 1018.20 1057.60 1065.13 1050.33 1036.63 1067,06 1045.06 Machining time (min) 6.980 6.925 6.918 6.932 6.950 6.916 6.938 Power (KW) 4.223 4.802 4.898 4.706 4.514 4.922 4.634

CAD, CAM, CMM, Vitrual Manufacturing

771

the distance between the maximum available power of the machine tool and the power required for the machining. For the above-mentioned application the following data have been considered: Al 2024 T351 S-6-5-2-5, D=20mm, z=2 150-325 m/min k c1.1( v =1m / min) = 94.792, I kc = -0.065, 1 mc ( v =1m / min) = 0.675 I mc = -0.059, k kn1.1( v =1m / min) = 813.499, I kkn = 0.746, 1 mkn ( v =1m / min) = 4.211, I mkn = -0.036 Tools wear model parameters: c AS = 6.816, c hs = 5.584, cl = 3.265, c v = 0.412, cVB = 0.187 v R = 270 m/min Reference cutting speed: Reference tool wear: VBR = 0.2 mm Pmax = 6.25 KW, n=0, RPM max = 6000 rpm, Machine tool specifications: FRmax =4000 mm/min CM = 75 Euro/h, CT = 15 Euro, m =100, tr = 6 min, tn = 2 min t T = 3 min L = 500 mm Cutting length: Single-pass milling: Depth of cut for roughing: 6mm Depth of cut for finishing: 2mm Multi-pass milling: Total depth of cut =45mm Workpiece material: Cutting tool: Cutting speed range: Cutting force coefficients:

4. CONCLUSIONS The determination of optimum cutting conditions in milling, due to their significant role in performing efficient and economic operations, has been a subject of interest for a long time. It is a multi-objective optimisation problem with several constrains which is difficult to be solved by traditional methods. In this paper a Pareto-optimization approach based on genetic algorithms is used to obtain the cutting parameters. The proposed procedure is automatic, seems to be reliable and can been applied to various cases of milling (single pass or multi-pass, roughing or finishing). At the end of the optimization, a set of optimal compromise solutions provides the user information, as a basis of final preference decision between the objectives. Optimum machining parameters obtained from this procedure can be intended for use by commercial CAD-CAM systems or directly by CNC machines.

REFERENCES 1. Toloutei-Rad M., Bidhendi I. M., On the optimization of machining parameters for milling operations, International Journal for Machine Tools and Manufacturing, Vol. 37 (1), 1997, 116. 2. Taylor F.W., On the art of cutting metals, Transaction of ASME, Vol. 28, 1907, 31-350. 3. Wang J., Computer-aided economic optimization of end-milling operations, International Journal of Production Economics, 54(1998), 307-320.

772

3rd ICMEN 2008

4. Jawahir I.S., Wang X., Development of hybrid predictive models and optimization techniques for machining operations, Journal of Material Processing Technology 185(2007), 4659. 5. Sonmez A. I., Baykasoglu A., Dereli T., Filiz H., Dynamic optimization of multipass milling operations via geometric programming, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 39 (1999), 297-320 6. Osyczka A., Evolutionary Algorithms for Single and Multicriteria Design Optimization, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany (2002). 7. Baskar N., Asokan P.,Savaran R. and Prabharan G., Selection of optimal machining parameters for multi-tool milling operations using a memetic algorithm, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 174 (2006), 239-249 8. Wang Z. G., Rahman M., Wong Y.S., Sun J., Optimization of multi-pass milling using parallel genetic algorithm and parallel genetic simulated annealing, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005), 1726-1734. 9. Sardinas R. Q., Santana M. R., Brindis E. A.,Genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimization of cutting parameters in turning processes, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006), 127-133. 10. Yildiz A. R, A novel hybrid immune algorithm for optimization of machining parameters in milling operations, to be published in Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 11. Hann V., Kinetik des Schaftfraesens,VDI-Verlag GmbH, Germany (1983). 12. Bouzakis K. D., Efstathiou K. , Paraskevopoulou R., NC-Milling with Optimum Cutting Conditions in CIM Environment, Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 23 (1994), 137-144. 13. Bouzakis K. D., Efstathiou K., Paraskevopoulou R., NC-Code Preparation with Optimum Cutting Conditions in 3-Axis, Annals CIRP, Vol. 40 (1994), 516-519. 14. Lampinen J., Multiobjective Nonlinear Pareto-Optimization, Lappeenranta University of Technolgy,2000. 15. Fonseca C. M., Fleming P.J., Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and Generalization, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416-423. 16. Surry, P. D., Radcliffe, N. J. and Boyd, I. D., A multi-objective approach to constrained optimisation of gas supply networks: The COMOGA method. Evolutionary Computing.AISB Workshop, pp166-180. 17. Pohlheim H., GEATbx: Introduction, Evolutionary Algorithms: Overview, Methods and Operators (2006). 18. Deb, K., Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms, J. Wiley, Chichester, England (1991).

CAD, CAM, CMM, Vitrual Manufacturing

773

774

3rd ICMEN 2008