Computers ind. Engng Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 367.

377, 1995
Copyright~i 1995ElsevierScienceLtd
Pergamon 0360-8352(94)00041-7 Printed in Great Britain.All rights reserved
0360-8352/95 $9.50+ 0.00

TOOL PATH OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURES FOR

MACHINE TOOLS

B U D D H A D E V R O Y C H O U D H U R Y I and J O H N F. M U T H "
~College of Business, Management Department, Mankato State University, Mankato, MN 56002, and
-'Operations Management, Graduate School of Business, Indiana University, Tenth and Fee Lane,
Bloomington, IN 47405, U.S.A.

(Received for publication 5 July 1994)

Almtraet--The effectivenessof heuristics for sequencing operations in a numericallycontrolled punch press

is reviewed in this paper. The contact time of a job with a tool in punching is especially small compared
to the total processing time, so that determination of the proper sequence is more crucial than in other
machining operations. NC programs from a major metal fabricator are used. Heuristics like random
insertion and nearest neighbor perform well enough to be comparable to the more widely-used nearest
neighbor within tool. Other well-known rules may be quite ineffective.

INTRODUCTION

Control of costs of manufacturing operations is an important aspect of process planning.

Determination of the sequence of operations which influences this cost is vital, irrespective of the
process (metal cutting or metal forming) or the types of products (flat or three dimensional).
In this research, various methods for determining the sequence of tool operations are compared.
An analysis of the total time spent by components in a manufacturing process reveals that an
average of 70% of the time is taken by movement of the jobs or of the tools [I]. The contact time
of a job with a tool in punching is especially small compared to the total processing time, so that
determination of the proper sequence is more crucial than in other machining operations.
It is very likely that a flexible punching system will have to deal with many flat products of less
repetitive nature. In order to be able to properly exploit the flexibility inherent in such a
manufacturing system, and still control the costs associated with the handling of jobs and tools,
it is essential that a reasonably good sequence of operations is generated within a reasonably short
period of time. Study of the available sequence generation techniques, and their match with certain
job or problem characteristics, is therefore deemed necessary.
The current research attempts a comparison of some of the approaches of solving the tool path
determination problem, particularly with respect to a rule currently used in numerically controlled
punch machines.

SOLUTION METHODS

Walas and Askin [2] develop an iterative heuristic based algorithm involving a traveling salesman
problem and a quadratic assignment problem. The traveling salesman heuristic (nearest neighbor
rule) generates sequence of operations with possible constraints. Constraints for tools are
considered only at the next stage, when a quadratic assignment heuristic is used for allocation of
tools to the sockets in the turret holding the tools.
Chauney et ai. [3] also formulate sequencing of operations as a traveling salesman problem. Their
solution method is based on space filling curve techniques. The type of problems considered here
involves more time for tool changing operations compared to that for repositioning of jobs between
operations. These authors present two heuristics--a direct approach and a clustering approach. In
the direct approach, a tour is searched for all locations on a parallelopiped as a three dimensional
traveling salesman problem. In the clustering approach, jobs requiring the same tool are identified
and formed into clusters. Two traveling salesman heuristics are then applied--one at higher level

367
368 Buddhadev Roychoudhuryand John F. Muth

to determine the sequence of these clusters, and another, at a lower level, to determine the sequence
of jobs within a cluster.
Meenakshi Sundaram [4] discusses the sequencing problem associated with metal cutting
operations. She uses a technique based on graph theory for determining the order in which surfaces
are to be machined. Complex products with a combination of cylindrical and prismatic surfaces
can also be handled by this technique.
Ssemakula and Rangachar [5] develop an artificial intelligence program to generate a sequence
of manufacturing processes. This system handles a variety of processes not limited to punching,
and attempts to reduce job and tool handling times, and machining time.
From the earlier discussion it is clear that the problem can be formulated as a traveling salesman
problem, and the same solution approaches can also be adopted here with the underlying
assumptions that:
(a) the tool holder is capable of holding all the tools required by all operations on the sheet;
(b) each operation on the sheet requires a single tool.
It may be noted that in this research repositioning of workholders is not considered. In
some of the jobs there may be several repositionings involved. This repositioning activity
involves additional movements on x- and y-axes directions besides the ones required for the
positioning of the jobs. Lack of consideration of the repositioning of workholders, therefore,
may not have any contradictory effect on the conclusions of this research. In view of the facts
that the operations considered here involve only punching, and that tool changing times are not
too high compared to job repositioning times, it is felt proper to include only some of the
approaches discussed in the various research reported earlier in the current research. Here the
focus is on the tool path determination problem, and the problem of tool assignment is not
considered.
The computational effort required to solve a traveling salesman problem increases exponentially
as the size of the problem increases. Optimization is impractical even for relatively small problems
involving numerically controlled machine tools or flexible automation. The literature on operations
research holds a number of heuristics for approximate solutions to the traveling salesman problem.
As such, they differ in both solution quality and computational effort. Tour construction
procedures, one of the two broad categories of these heuristics, generate an approximately optimal
tour from the distance or cost matrix. Tour improvement procedures start with a given initial tour
and attempt to improve upon this initial tour.
Included among the tour construction procedures are the nearest neighbor (NNBR) [6] and a
variation of it, the nearest neighbor within tool. In this category, there are two other heuristics--dis-
tance saved sequential (DSS) and distance saved multiple (DSM)--which use a ranked list of
"savings" resulting from joining any pair of nodes from high to low (Hill [7]). The basic idea behind
the "savings" is the reduction in tour length by connecting two nodes instead of covering each of
them individually from the originating node. Besides these methods in this subcategory, Golden
et al. [6] discuss four insertion heuristics--cheapest insertion, farthest insertion (FARIN), nearest
insertion (NEARIN), and random insertion (RANDIN)--based on an idea very similar to the
distance savings. They look at the cost of inserting any node into any subtour between any pair
of nodes. Therefore, it is not assumed that any of the nodes are initially connected. Bartholdi and
Platzman [8] discuss a heuristic based on the space filling curve technique (SFILL). This technique
can be applied to solve the traveling salesman problem. Chauney et al. [3] use a three dimensional
version of the same technique in their research. The important feature of this heuristic, besides
being simple, is the possibility of arriving at a reasonably good initial solution within a short period
of time.
Among the tour improvement procedures, the 2-OPT and 3-OPT heuristics are developed by Lin
[9], and K-OPT procedure by Lin and Kernighan [10]. According to Lin, a tour is K-optimal if
no improvement can be made in a tour by replacing any set of K links with any other set of K
links. Starting from any arbitrary node, the K-OPT heuristic chooses the best K edges that can
be swapped for reduction of tour length, instead of determining a priori the number of edges for
which a swap will be attempted. Unless otherwise stated, random initial tours are used for applying
the OPT procedures in this research.
 Tool path optimization procedures for machine tools 369

0.50
0.50
L/2 _1 -4- 12.00
9.00 ~ [
= 5o
-f-- " ~ - ~ 0.32 (8)
4.03

" ~ - ~ 0.56 (4)

4 24.00
A _
I 1.00
3.00
O
3.54 B
10.50

6.38~...~
,J
L_l L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ 1" ~ 9.31 (L- 12.76)/3 CTRS

12
.l"
2.00 0.32x2.00 slots @ 3.00 CTRS - 1.06 rain

Fig. I. Parametric drawing of Cab Ceiling.

TEST P R O B L E M S

The performance of all of the heuristics have been compared on 42 problems related to
numerically controlled punching operations at a major metal fabricator. A drawing of one such
part is shown in Fig. 1. The maximum and the minimum values of four problem characteristics
across all 42 problems are presented in Table I.

Preprocessing program
Preprocessing of the programs from the fabricating firm is required to set the problem up for
the traveling salesman heuristics.
The numerically controlled turret punch press used for this study is produced by the Wiedemann
Division of the Warner and Swasey Company (Model W-4560). Up to 36 punch and die sets may
be accommodated in the standard turret, with automatic changes from one punch to another taking
an average of 2 s [11]. This punch press uses a proprietary NC part programming language called
WIEDEPOINT V. An excerpt of the NC part program of a typical part is shown in Fig. 2.
Most of the instructions in the NC program follow the format:
X (x - coordinate) Y ( y - coordinate)T (turret position).
Because these determine the location of the operations involved in a job, the X- and Y-values are
important from the point of view of this research.
The input to the preprocessing program is a form of the output file from running of the
Wiedepoint V NC program modified in the form of spatial coordinates. This file needs the following
modifications for running the preprocessor program:
(a) The x- and y-axis locations along with the tool position is required for each line, although
in the above file repeated information from the previous line is not shown again.
(b) The correct position of the decimal point in the x- and y-axis values has to be explicit.

Table I. Range of problem characteristics

Problem characteristic Minimum Maximum
Number of nodes 9 289
Coefficient of variation 0.198 0.759
Average distance 98.21 242.5
Number of nodes/tool 4.5 116.5
370 Buddhadev Roychoudhuryand John F. Muth

X72 14 T 2 4 M O O
X01705 Y0511
X05615
X09525
X13435
X17345
X21255
X25165
X29075
X32985
......
X01705 0225 T08
0797
X0316 0361
Y0661

Fig. 2. NC part program (excerpt).

(c) The letters X, Y, T, etc. must be removed from the respective fields.
(d) In a particular record, the positions of the fields require us to always follow the order:
X-value, Y-value and tool position.
(e) The x- and y-axis values should always be absolute with reference to the (0, 0) point, and
not any other point.
After incorporation of the modifications, the lines shown in the above excerpt should appear as
in Fig. 3.

Estimation of travel times

Tools are loaded in a turret in this punch press. The turret is rotated to bring the required punch
and die pair to the desired position on the workpiece. A combination of linear movements along
the x- and y-axis is simultaneously used to position a punch and die for a particular operation.
The basic data required for estimation of the linear travel times is available from the 'HIT RATE
C H A R T FROM T I M E STUDIES' provided by the manufacturers of the machine. An excerpt of
the HIT C H A R T is shown in Fig. 4. The time parameters are first determined, one for the fixed
time for any table movement and the other for the time per unit distance traveled along either the
x- or the ),-axis. For this purpose, a regression analysis is performed with the seconds per hit as
the dependent variable and the average distance as the independent variable.
The regression equation is:
SPH = a + b , A D ,
where SPH is a variable, seconds per hit, and AD is Average Distance. The analysis generates the
intercept, which is the fixed time, and the slope, which is the time per unit distance traveled by
the table. As mentioned earlier, the average time of 2 min is used for rotational movement of the
turret for any pair of tools. For each possible pair of operations, there are three movement times:

72. 14. 24
01.705 5.11 24
05.615 5.11 24
09.525 5.11 24
13.435 5.11 24
17.345 5.11 24
21.255 5.11 24
25.165 5.11 24
29.075 5.11 24
32.985 5.11 24
....... . ..... .
1.705 2.25 8
1.705 7.97 8
3.16 3.61 8
3.16 6.61 8

Fig. 3. Modified NC part program (excerpt).

 Tool path o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s for m a c h i n e tools 371

A/D = Average distance

HPM = Hire per minute
SPH -- Seconds per hit

S-1528 S-2540, S-2560, S9K,-4050 W-4580

with W/5 control with GE 7522 control with CNC control
600"/Min. 1000"/Min. High speed Low speed
A/D HPM SPH A/D HPM SPH HPM SPH .AdD HPM SPH HPM SPH

1/4 116 0.52 114 113 0.52 113 0.528 114 250 0.240 171 0.350
1/2 106 0.57 1/2 104 0.57 104 0.572 1/2 213 0.281 153 0.391
3/4 98 0.60 3/4 191 0.313 141 0.423
1 94 0.64 1 94 0.63 94 0.636 1 176 0.340 133 0.450
1-1/2 86 0.70 1-1/2 87 0.68 87 0.684 1-1/2 155 0.384 121 0.494

2 79 0.76 2 81 0.73 82 0.725 2 141 0.422 112 0.532

2-1/2 73 0.82 2-112 76 0.78 78 0.761 2-1/2 131 0.456 105 0.566
3 68 0.88 3 71 0.83 75 0.794 3 123 0.486 I00 0.596
3-1/2 64 0.94 3-1/2 67 0.88 72 0.824 3-1/2 116 0.514 96 0.624

4 60 1.00 4 64 0.93 70 0.854 4 111 0.540 92 0.650

4-1/2 57 1.06 4-1/2 60 0.96 67 0.884 4-112 106 0.564 88 0.674
5 53 1.12 5 57 1.03 65 0.914 5 102 0.587 86 0.697
5-1/2 51 1.18 5-1/2 55 1.08 63 0.944 5-1/2 96 0.609 83 0.719

10 35 1.72 10 39 1.53 49 1.214 10 75 0.79 68 0.90

11
12 20 23 2.53 33 1.814 20 50 1.19 46 1.3
13
14 30 16 3.53 24 2.414 30 37 1.59 35 1.7
15 40 13 4.53 19 3.014 40 30 1.99 28 2.1
16
17 50 10 5.53 16 3.614 50 25 2.39 24 2.5
18
19 60 9 6.53 14 4.214 60 21 2.79 20 2.9
20 20 2.92 70 8 7.53 12 4.814 70 18 3.19 18 3.3

Fig. 4. Hit c h a r t for time s t u d i e s - - C N C W-4560 W i e d e m a t i c I1 (excerpt).

first, the table movement between the operations along the x-axis; second, a similar movement
along the ),-axis; and third, the rotation of the tool holder to switch the tools. For any pair of
operations, one has to examine all of the above mentioned times to determine the effective time
between the operations. The largest of the three for any pair is the effective time for that pair of
operations.
The modified file thus created is then used to determine the effective time of travel between any
pair of points. The three fields of this file represent the absolute values of the locations of the
operations along the x- and y-axis, and the tool position on the tool holder respectively. Besides
creating this input file for the heuristics, the preprocessor also generates the information about the
job characteristics. The output file created by the preprocessor program is the input file to the
programs written for the heuristics. A typical output file from the preprocessor program, illustrated
in Fig. 5, has three fields: the first two for the two nodes, and the third one for the distance between
these two nodes. This distance is expressed in terms of the largest of the three travel times with
1/100s as the unit.

Coding of the heuristics

The following three stages in the execution of the heuristics have been considered for their coding:
(a) Reading in the pair of node numbers and the distance between them.
(b) Performance of the heuristic proper to generate the tour.
(c) Generation of the information about the length of the tour generated in stage (b) above,
and printing of the tour and the tour length.
These three stages are observed in all of these heuristics. While the first and the last stages are
identical for each of these heuristics, the basic difference is in the second stage. The tracking of
the CPU time is therefore done only in the second stage. Coding of all the heuristics is done with
372 Buddhadev Roychoudhury and John F. Muth

1 2 333
1 3 317
1 4 301
i 5 285
1 6 269
1 7 253
1 8 237
1 9 221
1 10 205
O O O O . . . . O . . . . O e o e O . . . . Q

O Q O O O e Q O O . . . . O O Q O O O O O e e

Fig. 5. Estimated travel times from one node to another (excerpt).

due consideration to the comparability of the coding styles. IBM 4381 computing system has been
used for running all the heuristics for solving the problems.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Considering the various aspects of this research as discussed above, and the availability of the
data, the experiment is designed to include the various independent and dependent variables as
covered in the following subsections.

Independent variables
The suitability of the various heuristics to solve the sequencing problem may be determined by
some characteristics of the jobs. Investigation of matches between some job characteristics and the
heuristics is a part of the current investigation. One of the important characteristics is the number
of different tools used in a job. Hill [7] uses "clustering" and "scale" to measure these characteristics
in his research. Clustering is the coefficient of variation of the data in the distance or cost matrix.
Scale refers to the "average distance in the distance matrix, excluding the main diagonal".
In line with the preceding discussion, the following characteristics of the jobs are considered in
this study as the first set of independent variables:
(a) Number of nodes in the job.
(b) Average number of operations per tool.
(c) Clustering of the operations on the job.
(d) Scale of the job.

Heuristics tested
Effectiveness of the following heuristics has been investigated in this study:
(a) Tour construction methods:
(i) Nearest neighbor
(ii) Nearest neighbor within tool
(iii) Random or arbitrary insertion
(iv) Nearest insertion
(v) Farthest insertion
(b) Tour improvement methods:
(i) 2-OPT (using random rule as initial solution generator)
(ii) 2-OPT (using nearest neighbor rule as initial solution generator)
(iii) 2-OPT (using random insertion rule as initial solution generator)
Golden et al. [6] and Hill [7] report comparative studies of some of the heuristics for solving
traveling salesman problems. In our earlier comparative study [12] of different heuristics for
traveling salesman problems, we found that the computational effort required by distance saved
sequential, distance saved multiple and k-OPT procedures were too high relative to that of the
 Tool path optimization procedures for machine tools 373

nearest neighbor within tool heuristics, which is used by the numerically controlled punch machine
currently in question. These three heuristics are therefore dropped from consideration in this study.
In spite of limited need of computational effort, the random rule and the spacefilling curve
heuristics were observed in the above study to generate solutions of very poor quality. These two
heuristics are also therefore not considered in this study. It is assumed that these five rules would
not compare favorably with the one currently in use.
Considering the potential of effectively improving the solution quality of the tool path
determination problem, application of 2-OPT tour improvement rule with initial solution generated
by tour generation rules other than random rule has been included in this study. Nearest neighbor
(NNBR2) rule, and random insertion (RANDIN2) rule have been chosen for this purpose.
The eight heuristics, the performance of which are compared here, are included as dummy binary
(0, 1) variables, which are independent variables.

Dependent variables
The following criteria are used for comparing the performances of the heuristics:
(a) Tour length--Tour length covers the time for both metal removal or formation, and job
or tool handling.
(b) Computation time.
It is assumed that the comparison of the computation time in terms of CPU time is a good
representation of the actual situation because of the uniformity of the computer system used for
the different problems and the heuristics. The steps involved in the random insertion heuristic,
chosen as an example of the rules used here, is described in Fig. 6.
The two performance criteria mentioned above are the two dependent variables involved in this
research.

RANDOM INSERTION

1. Dimension variables and initialize to zero.

2. Read Nodes and Distances between any pair of nodes.
3. Start keeping track of the CPU time.
4. Pick Node I as the starting node of the partial tour.
5. Using Random Number Generator function, determine the order of the nodes, e.g.
Candidate (1), Candidate (2) etc., other than for those in the partial tour for insertion.
6. If the node for insertion is Candidate(l)
Then include Candidate (1) in the partial tour
Else
Perform the Subroutine NEXTNODE to select this candidate (k) node's location of
insertion in the
partial tour, and execute insertion.
7. Perform step 6 till all candidate nodes are included in the partial tour, thus completing the
tour.
8. End w~king for CPU time.
9. Determine tour length and write results.
10. END.

SUBROUTINE NEXTNODE

1. Find the costs of insertion of the Candidate (k) node between all possible pmrs of
nodes in the partial tour.
2. Select the pair of nodes (x,y) in the partial tour for minimum cost of insertion.
3. Perform Subroutine EXECFILL to insert Candidate (k) between nodes x and y in
the partial tour.
4. Return.

SUBROUTINE EXECFILL

I. Readjust the partial tour array to permit insertion of Candidate (k) node in
the partial tour.
2. Return.

Fig. 6. Steps for random insertion heuristic.

374 B u d d h a d e v R o y c h o u d h u r y and John F. M a t h

Table 2. Variable names used in regression analysis

CPU CPU time in seconds
TRLENG Tour length
AVDIS Average of the inter-node distances of the problem
CVAR Coefficient of variation of the inter-node distances of the problem
NNDS Number of nodes in the problem
NNDST Average number of nodes per tool
FARIN Binary dummy variable: if farthest insertion heuristic is used, otherwise 0
NEARIN Binary dummy variable: if nearest insertion heuristic is used, otherwise 0
NNBR Binary dummy variable: if nearest neighbor heuristic is used, otherwise 0
NNBR2 Binary dummy variable: if 2-OPT heuristic with nearest neighbor rule is used, otherwise 0
NNBRT Binary dummy variable: if nearest neighbor heuristic using the same tool is used, otherwise 0
OPT2 Binary dummy variable: if 2-OPT heuristic with random solution is used, otherwise 0
RANDIN Binary dummy variable: if random insertion heuristic is used, otherwise 0
RANDIN2 Binary dummy variable: if 2-OPT heuristic with random insertion rule is used, otherwise 0

Statistical analysis
In view of the nature of the possible relationships among the various independent and dependent
variables, and the availability of data, multiple regression analysis is considered the most
appropriate statistical method for analysis in this experiment. In the case of regression analysis,
the data, as available from the actual problems, can directly be used in the models without any
need of assignment of levels.
The names of the variables used in the analysis of the problems and heuristics are given in
Table 2.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Average tour length and C P U time

In Table 3, the basic results of all 42 problems are presented in a combined fashion. In this table,
for each of the heuristics, the first numeric column gives the average scaled tour length for each
of the heuristics. The second numeric column gives the CPU time for the heuristics. For any
problem, the scaled tour length is calculated using the expression:
Tour length with the procedure- Minimum tour length
Maximum tour length - Minimum tour length
The scaled CPU time is computed by the expression:
CPU time required by the procedure
Maximum CPU time required by any procedure
In Figs 7 and 8, plotting of original unsealed data with CPU times on the y-axis and the tour
lengths on the x-axis is shown. As investigation of both practical and statistical significance of the
differences is sought in this research, use of unsealed data rather than the scaled ones is preferred.
The percentage improvement in the tour length is very important. Figure 7 includes all heuristics
including RAND (random rule), SFILL (space-filling curve technique), OPTK (k-OPT rule), DSS
(distance saved sequential rule), and DSM (distance saved multiple rule). The plot of the data looks
like an L. RAND, SFILL, OPT-2 and DSS are all relatively fast heuristics but lead to tour lengths
that are definitely inferior to the heuristics in the lower left hand corner. It may be noted that the
space filling technique has been exploited in a number of articles having practical applications. This

Table 3. Average scaled results for 42 problems

Average Average
~aled tour scaled CPU
Heuristic Abbreviation length time
Farthest insertion FARIN 0.0327 0.5229
Nearest insertion NEARIN 0.0299 0.5228
Nearest neighbor NNBR 0.3049 0.0088
2-OPT applied to NNBR NNBR2 0.0149 0.2045
Nearest neighbor within tool NNBRT 0.0376 0.0046
2-OPT applied to random OPT2 0.6896 0.3006
Random insertion RANDIN 0.0291 0.0020
2-OPT applied to RANDIN RANDIN2 0.0173 0.2200
 Tool path optimization procedures for machine tools 375

180 p

170 -- n DSM
160
150
140
130
120
I10 NEARIN FARIN
rn
100
O OPTK
p. 90
8O
x.
70
60
5o
40
30
20
OPT2
10 - DSS SFILL RAND
0
I I~l"l I I~ I I J i ~,--n
60 100 140 180 220 260
80 120 160 200 240

Tour length ( s )

F i g . 7. Tour length and CPU time (42 problems) for all rules.

rule may be appropriate for geographic data when the points are more or less randomly scattered
on the plane, but that is definitely not the characteristic of the parts that we are dealing with here.
Another leg of the L is for heuristics that give reasonably good results but are extremely time
consuming. If they gave better results than the other heuristics then the computing time would be
a secondary consideration, but they do not. That would rule out OPTK, FARIN, NEARIN, and
DSM. Figure 8 shows an expanded view of the cluster of points at the corner of the two legs of
the previous chart. It shows the NNBR, NNBRT, NNBR2, RANDIN, and RANDIN2 heuristics.
The generally used heuristic, namely the nearest neighbor within the tool, is dominated by the
random insert, and the other three here are better in the tour length but take a somewhat longer

1.8
1.7 O NNBR2
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
u,: I.I
1.0 o R A N D ! N2
0.9

0.8 o NNBR
e~
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
o NNBRT
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 RANDIN
0
i I I 1 ~ I
88 89 90 91 92 93

Tour length (s)

Fig. 8. Tour length and C P U time (42 problems)~selected rules.
376 Buddhadev Roychoudhury and John F. Muth

computing time. However, the computing time is completely irrelevant as we are dealing with times
of 0-2 s. It may also be pointed out that the tour length differences are not great, although they
may approach economic significance considering repetitive manufacturing.

Regression analysis
In Table 4, the results of statistical analyses of the regression model are presented. These analyses
have been performed using the SPSS program.
Table 4 deals with tour length (TRLENG) as the dependent variable in a regression model with
part features and heuristics as independent variables. Its R-squared value of 0.946 indicates that
the linear fit between the dependent and the independent variables is quite close. The probability
(P > F) value of 0.0000 is another indication that the regression model fits the data well. In this
regression model, the significance of the binary variables representing the heuristics, and of the
problem characteristics is studied with respect to the nearest neighbor within tool (NNBRT) rule.
For the individual variables representing the problem characteristics, the significant variables
describing the problems are the average distance (AVDIS), the number of nodes (NNDS), and the
number of nodes within a tool (NNDST). These all relate to the size of the problem or the scale
of the data, so it is hardly surprising that these are highly significant. The only variable that is not
a scale variable, the coefficient variation (CVAR), is not significant. The difference is not observed
to be significant for any variables representing the heuristics.
The interaction effects between three problem characteristics (NNDS, AVDIS, NNDST) and the
heuristics are also tested. Only number of nodes (NNDS) seems to show some significant difference
when nearest neighbor, or random insertion, or 2-OPT with random insertion rule is used.

CONCLUSIONS

This research compares the effectiveness of heuristics for sequencing operations in a numerically
controlled punch press machine. Proper sequencing of operations in punch press operations, as in
the case of other metal removal or metal forming operations, is important from the point of view
of controlling the time and therefore the cost associated with the movement of jobs or tools. In
punching operations, the contact time of a job with a tool is small compared to other operations,

Table 4. Multiple regression on scaled tour length

Dependent Variable TRLENG
Multiple R 0.94634
R Square 0.89556
Adjusted R Square 0.88893
Standard Error 1674.35803
Analysis of Variance
d.f. Sum of Squares Mean Square
Regression 20 7572344239.03143 37861721 1.95157
Residual 315 883094563.39417 2803474.80443
F = 135.05283 Significance /: = 0.0000

Equation variable B SE B Beta F Sig. F

NNBR*NNDST 5.792717 19.191985 0.013739 0.091 (I.7630
CVAR 461.224664 977.888404 0.010483 0222 0.6375
RANDIN*NNDST 5.729698 19.191985 0.013590 0.089 0.7655
NNBR2*NNDST 7.303285 19.191985 0.017322 0.145 0.7038
RANDIN2*NNDST 5.991057 19.190923 0.014210 0.097 0 755 I
AVDIS 13.728502 5.617563 0.077135 5972 0.015 I
NNDS 71.466065 2.425203 1.149268 868.368 00000
NNBR*AVDIS 0.256063 12.324414 0.003286 0.000 0.9834
RANDIN*AVDIS - 1.08643 I 12.324414 -0.013943 0.008 0.9298
RANDIN2*AVDIS - 1.490205 12.325292 -0.019124 0.015 (19038
NNBR2*AVD1S -0.897434 12.324414 -0.011517 0.005 0.9420
NNDST - 53.089137 8.659079 0.255729 37.599 0.(R)00
RANDIN2*NNDS - 7.360804 5.103t53 -0.075618 2.(181 0.1502
NNBR*NNDS - 8.038239 5.103212 0.082578 2.481 0.1162
RANDIN*NNDS - 7.329633 5.103212 -0.075298 2.063 0.1519
NNBR2*NNDS - 8.305230 5.103212 -0.085321 2.649 0.1046
N N BR 2 453.434262 2470.631857 0.029893 0.034 0.8545
NNBR 375.129634 2470.631857 0.024731 0.023 0.8794
RANDIN 552.517036 2470.631857 0.036426 0.050 0.8232
RANDIN2 538.923932 2470.703008 0.035529 0.048 0.8275
(Constant) - 1181.454883 1261.599917 0.877 0.3497
 Tool path optimization procedures for machine tools 377

and determination of the proper sequence is therefore even more crucial. The current research also
investigated the possibilities of matches between the solution techniques and the problem
characteristics. In an environment of decreasing product life cycle, exploration of such matches is
perceived to have potential benefits in terms of meaningful exploitation of the flexibility available
in modern machines. Tour length, as determined by the heuristics, and CPU time required by such
a run, are used as the bases of comparison. Four job characteristics are used in the exploration
of a match with solutions.
The results of the study bring into focus some interesting facts. Heuristics like random insertion
and the nearest neighbor perform well enough to be comparable to the more widely used nearest
neighbor within tool. Many other rules are quite ineffective. It is more interesting to observe that
some tour improvement rules tend to be more effective than the rule currently in use if the initial
solution generator rule is carefully chosen.

REFERENCES

1. M. E. Merchant. World trends and prospects in manufacturing technology. Int. J. Vehicle Design 6, 121 138 ~1985).
2. R. A. Walas and R. G. Askin. An algorithm for NC turret punch press tool location and hit sequencing, liE Tran.~.
6, 280-287 (1984).
3. F. Chauney, A. Hourie, R. Loulou and E. Wagneur. Sequencing punch operations in an FMS: a three-dimensional
spacefilling curve approach. INFOR 25, 26-45 (1987).
4. R. Mcenakshi Sundaram. Process planning and machine sequence. Proc. 8th Ann. ConL Computers md Engng I 1,
184-188 (1986).
5. M. E. Ssemakula and R. M. Rangachar. The prospects of process sequence optimization in CAPP systems. Computers
ind. Engng 16, 161--170 (1989).
6. B. Golden, L. Bodin, T. Doyle and W. Stewart Jr Approximate traveling salesman algorithms. Ops Res. 28, 694 71 I
(1980).
7. A. V. Hill. An experimental comparison of human schedulers and heuristic algorithms for the traveling salesman
problem. J. ops Mgmt 2, 215-223 (1982).
8. J. J. Bartholdi III and L. K. Platzman. Heuristics based on spacefilling curves for combinatorial problems in euclidean
space. Mgrnt Sci. 34, 291-305 (1988).
9. S. Lin. Computer solutions of the traveling salesman problem. Bell Syst. tech. J. 44, 2245 2269 (1965).
10. S. Lin and B. Kernighan. An effective heuristic algorithm for the travelling salesman problems. Ops Res. 21,498 516
(1973).
I 1. F. Robert Jacobs, Kieran Mathieson, John F. Muth and Terence M. Hancock. A rule-based system to generate NC
programs from CAD exchange files. Computers ind. Engng 20, 167-176 (1991).
12. Buddhadev Roychoudhury and John F. Muth. The solution of travelling salesman problems based on industrial data.
Accepted for publication. J. Opl Res. Soc.