Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA10), Sharjah, UAE, April 20-22, 2010.

OPTIMIZATION OF MULTIPASS TURNING OPERATIONS USING PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION Lee Yi Zheng School of Engineering Monash University, Sunway campus 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia yzlee5@student.monash.edu
ABSTRACT In this paper, a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm is implemented to optimize the multipass turning process which has rough machining and then a nish machining. The objective function considered is minimization of unit production cost that optimizes the machining parameters. The performance of the PSO is evaluated by comparing it with genetic algorithm (GA) and simulated annealing (SA) algorithm reported by earlier researchers. 1. INTRODUCTION Machining operations play an important role in the manufacturing of a test piece. Therefore, by optimizing the machining condition, the optimal outcome could be garnered. However, there is more than one method to optimize the machining conditions. Among the methods available are: minimizing the unit production cost. maximizing the production rate. maximizing the prot rate. optimizing a weighted combination of the above mentioned steps. In this paper, minimizing the unit production cost is considered as the objective function. Turning operation is affected by three process parameters: the feed rate, cutting speed and depth of cut. In multipass, the machining operations are separated into two different distinct stages, the rough machining stage and the nish machining stage. Thus, in a multipass turning operation manufacturing problem, there are six parameters to be optimized in order to nd the minimum unit production cost. The following lists the parameters to be optimized: Feed rate for rough stage. Feed rate for nish stage. Cutting speed for rough stage. Cutting speed for nish stage. Depth of cut for rough stage. Depth of cut for nish stage. However, for some problems, the same feed rate, cutting speed and depth of cut is used for both the rough and nish stages. At the earlier stages of research, the studies carried out had to be limited to single-pass operations [1], [2] and [3] as the computational 2.1. Notations The notations used in the paper are explained in this section. U C unit production cost except material cost ($/piece), CM cutting cost by actual time in cut ($/piece), CI machine idle cost due to loading and unloading operations and tool idle, motion time ($/piece), CR tool replacement cost ($/piece), CT tool cost ($/piece), Vr cutting speed in rough machining (m/min), Vs cutting speed in nish machining (m/min), VrL lower bound of cutting speed in rough machining (m/min), VrU upper bound of cutting speed in rough machining (m/min), VsL lower bound of cutting speed in nish machining (m/min), VsU upper bound of cutting speed in nish machining (m/min), fr feed rate in rough machining (mm/rev), fs feed rate in nish machining (mm/rev), frL lower bound of feed rate in rough machining (mm/rev), frU upper bound of feed rate in rough machining (mm/rev), fsL lower bound of feed rate in nish machining (mm/rev), fsU upper bound of feed rate in nish machining (mm/rev), dr depth of cut for each pass of rough machining (mm), ds depth of cut for each pass of nish machining (mm), drL lower bound of depth of cut in rough machining (mm), drU upper bound of depth of cut in rough machining (mm), dsL lower bound of depth of cut in nish machining (mm), dsU upper bound of depth of cut in nish machining (mm), n number of rough cuts (an integer), dt depth of material to be removed (mm), D diameter of work-piece (mm), L length of work-piece (mm), k0 direct labour cost + overhead ($/min), kt cutting edge cost ($/edge),

Ponnambalam S. G. School of Engineering Monash University, Sunway campus 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia sgponnambalam@eng.monash.edu.my
power could not cope for complex mathematical calculations. Optimization of machining parameters in multipass operations are researched by [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. The local search techniques including simulated annealing algorithm [9], the genetic algorithm [10], [11], the tabu search (TS) by [12] and the ant systems (AS) by [13] are applied to this problem. In this paper, a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is proposed and its performance is evaluated by comparing it with genetic algorithm (GA) and simulated annealing (SA) algorithm. 2. METHODOLOGY

ISMA10-1

Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA10), Sharjah, UAE, April 20-22, 2010.

tmr rough machining time (min), tms nish machining time (min), tm actual machining time (min), tc preparation time for loading/unloading (min), tv idle tool motion time such as tool travel and tool approach/departure time (min), ti total machine idle time (min), te tool exchange time (min), tr tool replacement time (min), h1 constant relating to tool travel time (min), h2 constant relating to approach/departure time (min), T tool life (min), Tr expected tool life for rough machining (min), Ts expected tool life for nish machining (min), TP tool life of weighted combination of Tr and Ts (min), a weight for TP [0 1], TU upper bound for tool life (min), TL lower bound for tool life (min), constant for tool-life equation, constant for tool-life equation, constant for tool-life equation, C constant for tool-life equation, p p = 1/, q q = /, r r = /, C0 C0 = C 1/ , SR maximum allowable surface roughness (mm), R nose radius of cutting tool (mm), Fr cutting force during rough machining (kgf), Fs cutting force during nish machining (kgf), FU maximum allowable cutting force (kgf), k1 constant of cutting force equation, constant of cutting force equation, v constant of cutting force equation, Pr cutting power during rough machining (kW), Ps cutting power during nish machining (kW), PU maximum allowable cutting power (kW), power efciency, constant related to expression of stable cutting region, v constant related to expression of stable cutting region, Qr chip-tool interface rough machining temperature (oC), Qs chip-tool interface nish machining temperature (oC), QU maximum allowable chip-tool interface temperature (oC), k2 constant related to equation of chip-tool interface temperature, constant related to equation of chip-tool interface temperature, constant related to equation of chip-tool interface temperature, constant related to equation of chip-tool interface temperature, X {x1 , x2 , ..., xm },machining parameter set, ni possible value of n under a given X , dri possible value of dr under a given X , NL lower bound of n, NU upper bound of n, k3 constant for roughing and nish parameter relations, k3 1, k4 constant for roughing and nish parameter relations, k4 1, k5 constant for roughing and nish parameter relations, k5 1, 1 constant used for velocity update. Determines the weightage of particle best in the update, 2 constant used for velocity update. Determines the weightage of global best in the update.

2.2. List of Constants The list of constants given in gure 1 are used in this paper. These are used by [14].

Figure 1: List of variables used.

2.3. Objective Function In this paper, the objective function chosen is the unit production cost that is to be minimized. The unit production cost consists of the following components [7]. Cutting cost by actual time in cutting operation, CM Machine idle cost due to loading and unloading operations and idle tool motion, CI Cost for tool replacement, CR Tool cost, CT Both [14] and [11] has adopted the unit production cost calculation proposed by [7] in their respective study. 2.4. Objective Function Equations for Three Input System The parameters that are needed to be optimized are the cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut for the rough machining and nish machining stages. In some cases, the cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut are assumed to be similar for both the rough machining stages and the nish machining stage. These scenarios are known to be three input system and are vital as some research were carried out with that assumption. The following are the equations used in the three input systems objective function calculation. C M = k0 DL 1000V f dt d dt d (1)

CI = k0 tc + (h1 L + h2 ) TP = C0 V p f q dr

(2) (3)

ISMA10-2

Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA10), Sharjah, UAE, April 20-22, 2010.

C R = k0 CT =

te Tp

DL 1000V f DL 1000V f

dt d dt d

(4) (5) (6)

VrL Vr VrU frL fr frU drL dr drU TL Tr TU Fr FU Pr PU Qr QU SCr SC For the nish machining constraints: VsL Vs VsU fsL fs fsU dsL ds dsU

(20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27)

kt Tp

U C = CM + CI + CR + CT 2.5. Objective Function Equations for Six Input System

The following are the equations used in six parameter input model. C M = k0 DL 1000Vr fr dt ds dr + DL 1000Vs fs (7)

C I = k0 t c + ( h1 L + h2 )

dt ds +1 dr

(8) (9) (10) (11)

TP = Tr + (1 ) Ts where, Tr = where, Ts = C0 q r Vrp fr dr C0 q r Vsp fs ds DL + 1000Vs fs DL 1000Vs fs

(28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36)

te C R = k0 TP kt TP

DL 1000Vr fr DL 1000Vr fr

dt ds dr dt ds dr

(12) TL Ts TU Fs FU Ps PU

CT =

(13) (14)

U C = CM + CI + CR + CT 2.6. Constraints

Qs QU The constraints considered are given below. The cutting force constraints and the power constraint equations will be adapted from [7] and are expressed as: F = k1 f d v (15) SCs SC SRs SRU

For the rough machining and nish machining parameter relationship constraints: Vs k3 Vr f r k4 f s d r k5 d 5 3. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION 3.1. Input Representation The input parameters for both the three input system and the six input system are represented in binary strings. For the three input system, each parameter are represented as a 10 -bit binary string, and one set of data is a string of 30 bit characters. The following depicts an example of the input string for a three input system. For a six input system, a set of data is a string of 60 bit characters. The example string is shown below. (37) (38) (39)

FV (16) 6120 The chip-tool interface constraint will follow the formulation of [15] and is expressed as: P = Q = k2 V f d (17)

The stable cutting region constraint equation and the surface nish constraint equation follows the formulation of Narang and Fischer (1993) and are expressed as: SC = V f d
v

(18)

f2 (19) 8R Thus, the equations of constraints for the optimization model are expressed in a list below. For the rough machining constraints: SR =

ISMA10-3

Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA10), Sharjah, UAE, April 20-22, 2010.

2 = 0.6 Number of iterations = 50 Swarm size = 20 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 2: Binary representation for three input system. Table 1 and 2 shows the results obtained for ten samples on 100 runs of PSO algorithm developed for 3-input and 6-input problems. The values in the tables clearly indicate the consistency in getting the results. Table 3 shows the performance comparison of PSO with GA [11], and SA [14] algorithms already reported in the open literature. The results show that better performance of PSO compared to GA and SA algorithm.

Figure 3: Binary representation for six input system.

3.2. Input Acquisition Each input parameter is represented by a 10 bit binary number. Thus, a conversion method needs to be implemented in order to convert the 10 bit binary number into a decimal number within the preferred range. This means that 0000000000 should represent the lower boundary and 1111111111 should represent the upper boundary. In the method used in this project, the 10 bit binary number is rst converted to its corresponding decimal value. For instance, a 0000000100 will convert to a decimal value of 4. Then, the obtained decimal value is being converted to another decimal value within range according to the following formula: Decimal = ConvertedDecimal (upbound lowbound) + lowbound 210 1 (40) An example of a conversion of a value for cutting speed will be provided below. Binary Bit representation = 1011001010 Converted Decimal = 714 Upper boundary = 500 Lower boundary = 50 (50050) Preferred Decimal = 714 + 50 210 1 Preferred Decimal = 364.07 Thus, the binary bit 1011001010 represents a cutting speed of 364.07 m/min. Implementation of PSO is explained in gure 2. Velocity and position updates are the vital operation for a PSO algorithm. These updates ensure that the particles will move towards the optimal value whilst nding a new and better value. There are many ways in which the velocity and position could be updated. In this paper, the update equations used are as follow: v (t + 1) = v (t) + 1 (pbest p (t)) + 2 (gbest p (t)) (41) 1 (42) 1 + ev(t+1) For each bit of each particle, a random number is generated. If the random number generated is less than s (t + 1), p (t + 1) will be set to 1. Else, p (t + 1) will be set to 0. Several parameters that play a vital role in the implementation of PSO have been set with values via trial and error method. The parameters were set to give the best results possible based on the algorithm. The list of the parameters and its value are: 1 = 0.4 s (t + 1) =

Table 1: Results obtained for PSO 3 inputs 100 runs.

Table 2: Results obtained for PSO 6 inputs 100 runs.

5. CONCLUSION In this paper, a PSO is implemented for a multipass turning problem. The objective function considered is minimizing the unit production cost. The performance of PSO is compared with GA and

ISMA10-4

Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA10), Sharjah, UAE, April 20-22, 2010.

[12] F. Glover et al., Tabu search-part I, ORSA journal on Computing, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 190206, 1989. [13] M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, and A. Colorni, Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 2941, 1996. [14] M. Chen and D. Tsai, A simulated annealing approach for optimization of multi-pass turning operations, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2803 2825, 1996. Table 3: Comparison between GA, SA, and PSO. SA. The results show that the proposed PSO performs better than GA and SA. The results are presented in tables. 6. REFERENCES [1] D. S. Ermer and S. M. Wu, The effective experimental error on the determination of the optimum metal-cutting conditions, Journal of Engineering for Industry, Transaction ASME, Series B, vol. 89, pp. 315322, 1967. [2] D. S. Ermer and M. S. Morris, A treatment of errors of estimation in determining optimum machining conditions, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 357362, 1969. [3] K. Iwata, Y. Murotsu, and F. Oba, Optimization of cutting conditions for multipass operations considering probabilistic nature in machining processes, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 99, pp. 210217, 1977. [4] K. Iwata, Y. Murotsu, T. Iwatsubo, and S. Fujii, A probabilistic approach to the determination of the optimum cutting conditions, Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 94, pp. 1099107, 1992. [5] D. S. Ermer and S. Kromodihardjo, Optimization of multipass turning with constraints, J. Eng. Ind.(Trans. ASME), vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 462468, 1981. [6] N. Alberti, Optimization of multi-pass turning, 1986 SME Manufacturing Technology Review and 14 th NAMRC North American Manufacturing Research, pp. 230235, 1986. [7] Y. Shin and Y. Joo, Optimization of machining conditions with practical constraints, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 29072919, 1992. [8] F. Tan and R. Creese, A generalized multi-pass machining model for machining parameter selection in turning, International journal of production research, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 14671487, 1995. [9] S. Kirkpatrick and C. Gelatt, MP Vecchi Optimization by simulated annealing, Science, vol. 220, no. 4598, pp. 671 680, 1983. [10] D. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search and Optimization. Addison-wesley, 1989. [11] G. Onwubolu and T. Kumalo, Optimization of multipass turning operations with genetic algorithms, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 39, no. 16, pp. 3727 3745, 2001. [15] S. Hati and S. Rao, Determination of Optimum Machining Conditions-Deterministic and Probabilistic Approaches, J. Eng. Ind.(Trans. ASME, B), vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 354359, 1976.

ISMA10-5

Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA10), Sharjah, UAE, April 20-22, 2010.

Figure 4: Flow chart of PSO implementation.

ISMA10-6