Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Application of GA to optimize cutting conditions for minimizing surface

roughness in end milling machining process
Azlan Mohd Zain a,*, Habibollah Haron a, Saan Sharif b
a
Department of Modelling and Industrial Computing, Faculty of Computer Science and Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai Johor, Malaysia
b
Department of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai Johor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This study is carried out to observe the optimal effect of the radial rake angle of the tool, combined with
Genetic algorithm speed and feed rate cutting conditions in inuencing the surface roughness result. In machining, the sur-
Optimization face roughness value is targeted as low as possible and is given by the value of the optimal cutting con-
Surface roughness ditions. By looking at previous studies, as far as they have been reviewed, it seems that the application of
Milling
GA optimization techniques for optimizing the cutting conditions value of the radial rake angle for min-
imizing surface roughness in the end milling of titanium alloy is still not given consideration by research-
ers. Therefore, having dealt with radial rake angle machining parameter, this study attempts the
application of GA to nd the optimal solution of the cutting conditions for giving the minimum value
of surface roughness. By referring to the real machining case study, the regression model is developed.
The best regression model is determined to formulate the tness function of the GA. The analysis of this
study has proven that the GA technique is capable of estimating the optimal cutting conditions that yield
the minimum surface roughness value. With the highest speed, lowest feed rate and highest radial rake
angle of the cutting conditions scale, the GA technique recommends 0.138 lm as the best minimum pre-
dicted surface roughness value. This means the GA technique has decreased the minimum surface rough-
ness value of the experimental sample data, regression modelling and response surface methodology
technique by about 27%, 26% and 50%, respectively.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to suggest the optimal cutting conditions for machining cutting

In many real machining applications, three conicting objec-
tives are often considered; these are the maximum production
rate, minimum operational cost, and the quality of machining. In
terms of quality of machining, the criterion for the assessment usu-
ally refers to the surface quality of the machined part. Improve-
ment in the quality could be indicated by referring to a
performance measure known as surface roughness (Ra). The con-
ventional optimization approach can optimize the machining
problem by using some techniques such as the Taguchi technique,
factorial technique, and response surface methodology (RSM) tech-
nique (Mukherjee & Ray, 2006). The new trend of optimization of
the machining process is for soft computing approaches (non-con-
ventional approaches) such as GA to be the alternative technique in
estimating the optimal result of the cutting parameters, particu-
larly for the Ra value in the end milling machining process. Some
established soft computing techniques applied by previous works
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +607 5532088; fax: +607 5565044.
E-mail addresses: azlanmz@utm.my (A.M. Zain), habib@utm.my (H. Haron),
saan@utm.my (S. Sharif).
problems are, for example, the genetic algorithm (GA), simulated
annealing (SA), Tabu search (TS), ant colony optimization (ACO),
and particle swarm optimization (PSO) (Aggarwal & Singh, 2005;
Mukherjee & Ray, 2006).
Considering the ability factors of GA for the machining optimi-
zation problem, an effort is taken to estimate the best combination
of cutting conditions for the Ra performance measure in the end
milling machining process. Some abilities of GA in optimizing cut-
ting conditions for machining problems may include being (Cus &
Balic, 2003; Manolas, Gialamas, Frangopoulos, & Tsahalis, 1996;
Mukherjee & Ray, 2006):
(1) Preferred when near-optimal conditions instead of the exact
optimal solution are cost effective and acceptable for imple-
mentation by the manufacturers.
(2) A derivative-free approach for near-optimal point(s) search
direction.
(3) Able to handle objective functions of any complexity with
both discrete (for example, integer) and continuous vari-
ables being successful.
(4) A simple complementation of the model by new input
parameters without modifying the existing model structure.

0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.043
 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659
Fig. 1. Parameters that affect surface roughness (Benardos & Vosnaikos, 2003).
(5) An automatic search for the non-linear connection between
the inputs and outputs.
(6) A fast and simple optimizing technique.
With GA application, the expectation of the study is to achieve
the more signicant result of the Ra performance measure com-
pared to the experimental result.
2. Literature review
With reference to the published literature, it is clear that, cur-
rently the usage of the GA technique, which is labelled as a soft
computing approach for the milling machining cutting process, is
given less consideration by researchers. It was found that usage
of the GA technique for optimization of cutting conditions for Ra
in the milling process was very limited (Zain, Haron, & Sharif,
2008). With GA, Ra increases with an increase in the depth of cut
and nose radius (Suresh, Venkateswara, & Deshmukh, 2002). The
high cutting speed values for the milling process is preferred for
the low surface roughness value by the GA technique (Colak, Kurb-
anoglu, & Kayacan, 2007). Feed rate has the greatest inuence on
surface roughness in the milling process when evaluated by the
application of the GA optimization technique (Brezonick, Kovavic,
& Ficko, 2004). With GA, for the cutting conditions of feed rate, cut-
ting speed and axial depth of cut, an Ra value was obtained that is
lower than the values of experimental results (Oktem, Erzurumlu,
& Erzincanli, 2006). With GA, Ra decreases with high cutting speed
and very small feed rate (Tansel et al., 2006). GA reduces the Ra va-
lue on mild steel from 2.60 lm to 0.71 lm for cutting speed, feed
rate and depth of cut cutting conditions (Palanisamy, Rajendaran,
& Shanmugasundaram, 2007). With feed rate, cutting speed, axial
depth of cut, radial depth of cut, machining tolerance cutting con-
ditions, GA reduces the Ra value in the mould cavity from 0.412 lm
to 0.375 lm, corresponding to about a 10% improvement (Oktem,
Erzurumlu, & Kurtaran, 2005).
Generally, the Ra value is inuenced by many factors such as
machining parameters, cutting phenomena, workpiece properties
and cutting tool properties. As shown in Fig. 1, the factor of
machining parameters, known as the tool angle, is one of the effec-
tive parameters that affect Ra. There are various types of angle in
machining cutting tools such as the axial rake angle, the radial rake
angle, the side rake angle, etc.
Relating to Fig. 1, by looking at previous studies, as far as they
have been reviewed, it was found that optimization for optimal
cutting conditions for Ra in the end milling of titanium alloy (Ti
6A14V) involving radial rake angle machining parameters using
the GA technique is still not given consideration by researchers.
4651
Thus, observing the effect of the radial rake angle of the tool com-
bined with cutting speed and feed rate machining parameters for
the Ra performance measure in the milling machining process that
is optimized by using the GA technique can be taken as the new
contribution to the machining area.
3. Methodology
Four phases are implemented to full the purpose of this study,
which is to obtain the optimal operating conditions that minimize
machining surface roughness (Ra) values in the end milling opera-
tion, and these are to:
(1) Study the real machining experimental set data to examine
the cutting conditions used (cutting speed, feed rate and
radial rake angle) that contribute to the surface roughness
Experimental data:
- Operation : end milling
- Workpiece material: Ti-6Al-4V (Ti-64)
- Cutting tool type: uncoated, TiA1N coated and SN TR coated
Regression modelling:
- Develop Regression model and Ra predicted equation for
each cutting tool type.
- t test: Determination of the best predicted Ra predicted
equation to be the GA fitness function
GA optimization:
- Formulation of the optimization
` solution
- Find the combination of the optimal cutting conditions
- Find the minimum Ra value
Evaluation of the GA results:
- The minimum Ra value of GA is compared to the result of
experimental sample data, Regression modelling and
Response Surface Methodology technique.
Fig. 2. Flow of searching for optimum cutting conditions.
4652 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659

results. For this purpose, the machining experiment in con- Table 3

ducting this work involves end milling titanium alloy (Ti Setting of the cutting conditions value for real machining experiments.

6A14V) using experiment set data for uncoated solid car- Independent Units Level in coded form
bide under ood conditions. variables
1.4142 1 0 +1 +1.4142
(2) Develop the machining model to describe the relationship
Cutting speed, v m/min 124.53 130.00 144.22 160.00 167.03
between independent machining variables (cutting condi- Feed rate, f mm/tooth 0.025 0.03 0.046 0.07 0.083
tions) and dependent machining variables (surface rough- Radial rake 6.2 7.0 9.5 13.0 14.8
ness) by using the regression technique. By the t test, the angle, c
best regression model is determined as the choice for the t-
ness function (objective function) in the GA optimization
module.
carbide tools also called Supernitride coating. The composition and
(3) Find the optimal set value of independent variables to pres-
properties of these cutting tools are illustrated in Table 2. For con-
ent the minimum objective function by using the GA tech-
ducting the experiments, the geometry of the end mills was pre-
nique. The objective function or tness function of GA
pared according to the experimental design, that is, radial rake
leads to the minimum (lower) value of surface roughness.
angle and helix angle.
Matlab optimization toolbox is used to nd the optimal solu-
tions that lead to the minimum value of surface roughness.
(4) Evaluate the GA optimization solution. The optimal cutting 4.1. Experimental design for surface roughness measurements
conditions that give minimum surface roughness values
generated from GA are compared to the experiment sample According to the design of the experiment for three indepen-
data and the regression model. The minimum surface rough- dent variables, the coding variables for the end milling of titanium
ness value is also compared to the response surface method- Ti-6Al4V is illustrated in Table 3. From this table, the coded vari-
ology result that was discovered by Mohruni, 2008. ables used in the 23-factorial design are only for levels 1, 0 and
+1. The whole experiments were carried out with a constant axial
Fig. 2 illustrates the ow of searching for optimum cutting con- depth of cut (aa) = 5 mm and radial depth of cut (ae) = 2 mm, under
ditions for the four phases listed above. ood conditions (6% concentration of water base coolants). For the
milling experiments, a CNC MAHO 700S machine centre was used
as shown in Fig. 3. The surface roughness value of the machined
4. Case study: experimental sample data
workpiece was measured using the Taylor Hobson Surftronic +3
as given in Fig. 4. Before conducting the measurement, the instru-
The machining experiment conducted by Mohruni (2008) to
ment was calibrated using a standard specimen roughness deliv-
measure the surface roughness value in the end milling operation
ered to ensure the consistency and accuracy of surface roughness
is referred to in this study. The workpiece used in the experiments
values. Five measurements were conducted at the location of the
was an annealed alphabeta titanium alloy, Ti6Al4V (Ti64). The
length of cut on the workpiece and the average surface roughness
mechanical properties and chemical composition of the Ti6Al4V
(Ra) value was recorded.
are illustrated in Table 1. Three types of end mills were used in the
experiments, namely uncoated carbide (WCCo) and two TiAlN
base coated carbide tools which include common PVDTiAlN 4.2. Experimental result
coated carbide tool and PVD with enriched Al-content TiAlN coated
Related to the problem investigated, an experiment was con-
ducted that dealt with the surface roughness measurement. In
Table 1
the experiment, twenty four experimental trials were executed
Chemical composition and mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V.
that were based on eight data of two levels of DOE 2k full factorial
Chemical compositions Mechanical properties analysis with four centre data and twelve axial data. All the data
Al 6.37 Tensile strength (MPa) 9601270 were tested in real machining for three different cutting tools,
V 3.89 Yield strength (MPa) 820 which are uncoated, TiA1N coated and SNTR coated cutting tools
Fe 0.16 Elongation 5D (%) P8
to show the actual value (experiment result) of Ra. The Ra values
C 0.002 Reduction in area (%) P25
Mo <0.01 Density (g/cm3) 4.42 of each type of cutting tool that were observed for the selected cut-
Mn <0.01 Modulus of elasticity tension (GPa) 100130 ting conditions of the experiment are given in Table 4.
Si <0.01 Hardness (Hv) 330370
Ti Balance Thermal conductivity (W/mK) 7

Table 2
Properties of the cutting tool used in the experiments.

Tool type WCCo TiAlN coated Supernitride

coated
Substrate (wt%) WC 94 94 94
Co 6 6 6
Properties Grade K30 K30 K30
Grain size (lm) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Coating Process PVDHIS PVDHIS
Coating thickness Monolayer Multilayer
(34 lm) (18 lm)
Film composition Approx. 54 Approx. 6567
(mol-%AIN)
Fig. 3. CNC MAHO MH 700S machine centre.
 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659 4653

ln Ra ln c k ln v l ln f m ln c ln e0 2

Eq. (2) can be written as:

y b0 x0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 e 3

where y is the logarithmic value of the experimental surface rough-

ness, x0 = 1 is a dummy variable, x1, x2 and x3 are the cutting condi-
tion values (logarithmic transformations) of v, f and c, respectively,
e is the logarithmic transformation of experimental error e0 and b0,
b1, b2 and b3 are the model parameters to be estimated using the
experimental data.
Next, Eq. (3) can also be written as follows:

^ y  e b0 x0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3
y 4

where y^ is the logarithmic value of the predictive (estimated) sur-

face roughness. Subsequently, this equation will be proposed as
Fig. 4. Taylor Hobson Surftronic +3. the objective function (tness function) of the optimization
solution.

Table 4
Ra values for real machining experiments. 5.1. Regression model for each cutting tool

No. Data Setting values of experimental Experimental surface

Based on the data for the real machining experiments given in
Source cutting conditions roughness value (lm)
Table 4, regression models for each cutting tool given in Eq. (4)
v (m/min) f (mm/tooth) c () Ra_uncoated Ra_TiA1N Ra_SNTR
are developed by using SPSS software. The values of coefcients
1 DOE 2k 130 0.03 7 0.365 0.32 0.284 for the model parameters of uncoated, TiA1N coated and SNTR
2 160 0.03 7 0.256 0.266 0.196
coated cutting tools are given in Tables 57, respectively.
3 130 0.07 7 0.498 0.606 0.668
4 160 0.07 7 0.464 0.476 0.624
5 130 0.03 13 0.428 0.260 0.280
Table 5
6 160 0.03 13 0.252 0.232 0.190
Coefcients values for uncoated cutting tool.
7 130 0.07 13 0.561 0.412 0.612
8 160 0.07 13 0.512 0.392 0.576 Independent Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
9 Centre 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.464 0.324 0.329 variable coefcients coefcients
10 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.444 0.380 0.416 B Std. Beta
11 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.448 0.460 0.352 Error
12 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.424 0.304 0.400
1 (Constant) 0.451 0.175 2.582 0.018
13 Axial 124.53 0.046 9.5 0.328 0.360 0.344 SPEED 2.67E03 0.001 0.277 2.407 0.026
14 124.53 0.046 9.5 0.324 0.308 0.320
FEED 5.671 0.811 0.805 6.994 0
15 167.03 0.046 9.5 0.236 0.340 0.272
RAKE_ANGLE 4.60E03 0.005 0.097 0.842 0.41
16 167.03 0.046 9.5 0.240 0.356 0.288
17 144.22 0.025 9.5 0.252 0.308 0.230 Dependent variable: UNCOATED.
18 144.22 0.025 9.5 0.262 0.328 0.234
19 144.22 0.083 9.5 0.584 0.656 0.640
20 144.22 0.083 9.5 0.656 0.584 0.696
21 144.22 0.046 6.2 0.304 0.300 0.361
Table 6
22 144.22 0.046 6.2 0.288 0.316 0.360
Coefcients values for TiAIN coated cutting tool.
23 144.22 0.046 14.8 0.316 0.324 0.368
24 144.22 0.046 14.8 0.348 0.396 0.360 Independent Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Ra (minimum) 0.236 0.232 0.190 variable coefcients coefcients
Ra (maximum) 0.656 0.656 0.696 B Std. Beta
Ra (average) 0.386 0.375 0.392 error
1 (Constant) 0.292 0.158 1.85 0.079
SPEED 8.55E04 0.001 0.098 0.854 0.403
FEED 5.383 0.731 0.843 7.36 0
5. Regression modelling RAKE_ANGLE 5.53E03 0.005 0.129 1.122 0.275

Normally, the measurement of surface roughness in end milling Dependent variable: TIA1N COATED.

in relation to the independent variables commonly investigated is

expressed mathematically as follows:
Table 7
Ra cv k f l cm e0 1 Coefcients values for SNTR coated cutting tool.

where Ra is the experimental (measured) surface roughness in lm, v Independent Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
variable coefcients coefcients
is the cutting speed in m/min, f is the feed rate in mm/tooth, c is ra-
dial rake angle in , c, k, l, m are the model parameters to be esti- B Std. Error Beta

mated using the experimental data, and e0 is the experimental error. 1 (Constant) 0.237 0.116 2.042 0.055
To develop the regression model for estimating the surface SPEED 1.75E03 0.001 0.14 2.368 0.028
FEED 8.693 0.539 0.954 16.143 0
roughness value, the mathematical model given in Eq. (1) is linear-
ized by performing a logarithmic transformation as follows: Dependent variable: SNTR COATED.
4654 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659

Table 8 b uncoated 0:451  0:00267x1 5:671x2 0:0046x3

^1 R
y 5a
Ra predicted values of regression modelling.
y b TiA1N 0:292  0:000855x1 5:383x2  0:00553x3
^2 R 5b
No. Data Setting values of experimental Surface roughness
source cutting conditions predicted values (lm) b SNTR 0:237  0:00175x1 8:693x2  0:00159x3
^3 R
y 5c
v (m/min) F (mm/tooth) c () b
R uncoated
b TiA1N
R b SNTR
R
Eq. (5a)c are applied to calculate the surface roughness predicted
1 DOE 2k 130 0.03 7 0.306 0.304 0.259
2 160 0.03 7 0.226 0.278 0.207
values, and the results are summarized in Table 8.Consequently,
3 130 0.07 7 0.533 0.519 0.607 scores of surface roughness values of the experimental data (given
4 160 0.07 7 0.453 0.493 0.554 in Table 4) and the surface roughness predicted values of the regres-
5 130 0.03 13 0.334 0.270 0.250 sion model (given in Table 8) for each cutting tool are compared as
6 160 0.03 13 0.254 0.245 0.197
shown in Fig. 5.
7 130 0.07 13 0.561 0.486 0.597
8 160 0.07 13 0.481 0.460 0.545 As illustrated in Fig. 5, overall, the three generated graphs,
which are experimental versus with uncoated, TiA1N coated and
9 Centre 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.370 0.364 0.369
10 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.370 0.364 0.369 SNTR coated cutting tools for the surface roughness score have gi-
11 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.370 0.364 0.369 ven a similar pattern between the experimental results and regres-
12 144.22 0.046 9.5 0.370 0.364 0.369 sion model results. Therefore, the assumption could be stated that
13 Axial 124.53 0.046 9.5 0.423 0.381 0.404 all the regression models have given a good prediction in estimat-
14 124.53 0.046 9.5 0.423 0.381 0.404 ing the surface roughness predicted values. By statistical analysis,
15 167.03 0.046 9.5 0.310 0.344 0.329 the best regression model is determined to be the tness function
16 167.03 0.046 9.5 0.310 0.344 0.329
17 144.22 0.025 9.5 0.251 0.251 0.187
(objective function) in the GA optimization module and is dis-
18 144.22 0.025 9.5 0.251 0.251 0.187 cussed in Section 5.2.
19 144.22 0.083 9.5 0.580 0.563 0.691
20 144.22 0.083 9.5 0.580 0.563 0.691
21 144.22 0.046 6.2 0.355 0.382 0.374 5.2. Determination of the best regression model
22 144.22 0.046 6.2 0.355 0.382 0.374
23 144.22 0.046 14.8 0.395 0.334 0.361 To answer which regression model is chosen as the tness func-
24 144.22 0.046 14.8 0.395 0.334 0.361
tion in the optimization module, the paired sample t test using
Ra (minimum) 0.226 0.245 0.187 SPSS software is conducted and the results are as summarized in
Ra (maximum) 0.580 0.563 0.691
Tables 9 and 10.
Ra (average) 0.386 0.376 0.391
Looking at the rst regression model and the predicted result
for the surface roughness of uncoated cutting tools when coupled
with the experimental result, Table 9 shows the two variables
By transferring the values of coefcients for each cutting tool are positively correlated, r(N = 24) = 0.857. From Table 10, it can
from Tables 57 into Eq. (4), the regression model equations can be seen that the mean for the surface roughness value increasing
be written as follows: from the experimental result to the uncoated regression model

Uncoted Cutting Tool TiA1N Coated Cutting Tool SN TR Coated Cutting Tool
0.700 0.700 0.800

0.600 0.600 0.700

0.600
0.500 0.500

0.500
0.400 0.400
Ravalue
Ravalue

Ravalue

0.400
0.300 0.300
0.300

0.200 0.200
0.200

0.100 0.100 0.100

0.000 0.000 0.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Samples Samples Samples

Experimental Data Regression Model Experimental Data Regression Model

Experimental Data Regression Model

Fig. 5. Experimental vs. regression for Ra values.

Table 9
Statistics and correlations for paired samples.

Variable Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 EXP_UNC 0.38558 24 0.12088 2.47E02 0.857 0.000
REG_UNC 0.38567 24 0.10363 2.12E02
Pair 2 EXP_TIAN 0.37533 24 0.10964 2.24E02 0.859 0.000
REG_TIAN 0.37587 24 9.42E-02 1.92E02
Pair 3 EXP_SNTR 0.39167 24 0.1565 3.19E02 0.965 0.000
REG_SNTR 0.39100 24 0.1509 3.08E02
 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659 4655

Table 10
Paired samples test.

Pair Paired differences T df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Std. Deviation Std. error mean 95% Condence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 EXP_UNC & REG_UNC 8.33E05 6.24E02 1.27E02 2.64E02 2.63E02 0.007 23 0.995
Pair 2 EXP_TIAN & REG_TIAN 5.42E04 5.62E02 1.15E02 2.43E02 2.32E02 0.047 23 0.963
Pair 3 EXP_SNTR & REG_SNTR 6.67E04 4.13E02 8.43E03 1.68E02 1.81E02 0.079 23 0.938

result is 0.0000833, t(23) = 0.007, p = 0.995. The 95% condence

Initialize parameters
interval ranges from 0.0264 to 0.0263 (including zero). Therefore,
the two means are not signicantly different from each other.
Looking at the second regression model and the predicted result
Mutation Generate population
for the surface roughness of TiA1N coated cutting tools when cou-
pled with the experimental result, Table 9 shows the two variables
are positively correlated, r(N = 24) = 0.859. From Table 10, it can be
seen that the mean increases in the surface roughness value from
experimental result to the uncoated regression model result was Crossover Fitness function
0.000542, t(23) = 0.047, p = 0.963. The 95% condence interval
ranges from 0.0243 to 0.0232 (including zero). Therefore, the
two means are not signicantly different from each other.
Looking at the third regression model and the predicted result Selection
for the surface roughness of SNTR coated cutting tools when cou-
pled with the experimental result, Table 9 shows the two variables The best
are positively correlated, r(N = 24) = 0.965. From Table 10, it can be No fitness is
seen that the mean decreases in the surface roughness value from obtained?
experimental result to the uncoated regression model result was
0.000667, t(23) = 0.079, p = 0.938. The 95% condence interval
ranges from 0.0168 to 0.0181 (including zero). Therefore, the Optimal solution
Yes
two means are not signicantly different from each other.
For the three couples, it could be summarized that the SNTR
coated cutting tool gives the highest positive correlation and is Fig. 6. The ow of GA for optimization.
the only couple that gives a decreasing mean in the surface rough-
ness value from the experimental result. Thus, it can be concluded
that the surface roughness predicted equation of SNTR coated cut- (1) The algorithm stops when the number of generations
ting tools which is given in Eq. (5c) is the best regression model reaches the value of generations.
and is proposed as the tness function in the GA optimization (2) The algorithm stops after running for an amount of time in
module. seconds equal to the time limit.
(3) The algorithm stops when the value of the tness function
for the best point in the current population is less than or
6. GA optimization
equal to the tness limit.
(4) The algorithm stops when the weighted average changes in
The genetic algorithm is a method for solving both constrained
the tness function value over Stall generations and is less
and unconstrained optimization problems and is based on natural
than Function tolerance.
selection, the process that drives biological evolution. Fig. 6 illus-
(5) The algorithm stops if there is no improvement in the objec-
trates the ow of how the GA technique operates in order to opti-
tive function during an interval of time in seconds equal to
mize a problem. The solution of an optimization problem with the
stall time limit.
GA algorithm begins with a set potential solution that is known as
(6) The algorithm runs until the weighted average changes in
chromosomes. The entire sets of these chromosomes comprise
the tness function value over stall generations and is less
populations which are randomly selected. The chromosomes
than function tolerance.
evolve during several iterations or generations. New generations
(7) The nonlinear constraint tolerance is not used as a stopping
known as offspring are generated by utilizing the crossover and
criterion. It is used to determine the feasibility with respect
mutation techniques. Crossover involves the process of splitting
to nonlinear constraints.
two chromosomes and then combining one-half of each chromo-
some with the other pair. Mutation involves the process of ipping
Primarily, the evaluation process is repeated until one chromo-
a chromosome. The genetic algorithm repeatedly modies a popu-
some with the best tness criteria is obtained. Then, this best t-
lation of individual solutions. At each step, the genetic algorithm
ness is taken as the optimum solution for the problem.
selects individuals at random from the current population to be
parents and uses them to produce the children for the next gener-
ation. Over successive generations, the population evolves toward 6.1. GA optimization solution
an optimal solution.
As shown in Fig. 6, in order to get an optimal solution, the gen- The target of the optimization process in this study is to deter-
erated population is evaluated by employing a certain tness crite- mine the optimal values of decision variables that contribute to the
rion. Some conditions for obtaining the best tness function are: minimum value of surface roughness being as low as possible. To
4656 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659
formulate the optimization problem, the surface roughness predic-
tion model which is proposed in Eq. (5c) is taken as the objective
function (tness function) of the optimization solution and is given
as follows:
minimize Ra v ; f ; c min0:237  0:00175v 8:693f  0:00159c
The minimization of the tness function value of Eq. (6) is subjected
to the boundaries (limitations) of cutting condition values. The
range of values of experimental cutting conditions in Table 3 is se-
lected to present the limitations of the optimization solution and is
given as follows:
124:53  m  167:03
0:025  f  0:083
6:2  c  14:8
Basically, obtaining the best optimal results depends on some crite-
ria. By following the ow of the optimization procedure given in
Fig. 6, the major criteria most inuencing the optimal result that
must be given consideration are the number of the initial popula-
tion size, the type of selection function, the crossover rate and the
mutation rate. The value or parameter setting for these criteria is
made by the process of trial and error for obtaining the most
optimal result that is expected from this study. As far as reviews
on the previous works go, there is no guideline yet given by the
researchers which could be followed in recommending the best
combination for setting the value of the parameters for the best
optimal result.
By using the Matlab optimization toolbox, this study has tried
several combinations of the set values for cutting conditions in or-
der to present the best optimal results. The best combination of
these values for cutting conditions will lead to the minimum sur-
face roughness. After several number of trials were conducted with
different value settings for the cutting conditions for searching the
minimization values of surface roughness using the Matlab optimi-
zation toolbox, the best combination of the parameters applied
Table 11
Combination of GA parameter rates leading to the optimal solution.
Parameters
Population size
Mutation rate
Crossover rate
Fig. 7. Results of the Matlab optimization toolbox.
that lead to the minimum values of the tness function is shown
in Table 11.
By using the tness function formulated in Eq. (6), the limita-
tions of cutting conditions formulated in Eq. (7a)c and the GA
parameters given in Table 11, the results of the Matlab optimiza-
tion toolbox are given in Figs. 7 and 8.
6 From Fig. 7, it can be observed that the minimum surface rough-
ness value is 0.138 lm. The set values of cutting conditions that
lead to the minimum surface roughness value are 167.029 m/min
for cutting speed, 0.025 mm/tooth for feed rate and 14.769 for ra-
dial rake angle. It is also indicated that the optimal solution is ob-
tained at the 67th generation (iteration) of the GA algorithm. As
discussed in Section 6, in order to get an optimal solution, the gen-
erated population is evaluated by employing a certain tness crite-
7a ria. Based on the result of Fig. 6, it is observed that the criterion
7b used by the GA algorithm to stop extending from the further pro-
cess of nding the optimal solution is the weighted average change
7c
in the tness function value over stall generations which is less
than function tolerance. From Fig. 8, the plot functions indicate
that the mean tness value is 0.13995 lm with the best tness va-
lue being 0.138 lm.
6.2. Evaluation of the GA result
To evaluate the GA result, the issues concerned in this study
are:
(1) The GA predicted surface roughness value (best tness func-
tion) is expected to be lower than the minimum (smallest)
Ra value of the experimental and regression model.
(2) The GA average predicted surface roughness value (the
mean tness) is expected to be lower than the average
(mean) surface roughness value of the experimental and
regression model.
(3) The optimal cutting conditions that lead to the best tness
function which is obtained at the last iteration of GA is
expected to be in the same range of values as those with
the cutting conditions of the experimental.
For the rst issue, by referring to Table 4, the minimum surface
roughness value among all the cutting tools for the real machining
experiment is 0.190 (Ra values of SNTR cutting tool). By referring to
Setting value Table 8, the minimum surface roughness value among all the cut-
ting tools for the regression model is 0.187 (Ra value of SNTR cutting
100
1.0 tool). Fig. 7 shows that the best predicted surface roughness value
0.8 of GA is 0.13854  0.139. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
GA technique has given the minimum result of surface roughness
Minimum Fitness Results
Function
Surface Roughness 0.138
Optimal cutting Results
conditions
Cutting speed 167.029
condition
Feed rate condition 0.025
Radial rake angle 14.769
condition
 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659
Fig. 8. Plot functions of the best tness.
value compared to the result of the experimental and regression
model.
For the second issue, the average surface roughness values of
the SNTR cutting tool of the experimental result, regression tech-
nique, and GA technique, respectively, are 0.392 (from Table 4),
0.391 (from Table 8) and 0.13995  0.140 (from Fig. 8). Therefore,
it can be concluded that SNTR is recommended as the cutting tool
to be used in the real machining process. By using SNTR, the GA
technique has estimated the minimum average result of the sur-
face roughness value could be obtained that is less than the result
of experimental and regression model.
For the third issue, by referring to Table 3, the range of values
for actual setting cutting conditions that have been applied in
the trial machining experiment are 124.53 to 167.03 m/min for
cutting speed, 0.0250.083 mm/tooth for feed rate and 6.214.8
for the radial rake angle. Based on Fig. 7, the optimal results of cut-
ting conditions which are estimated by the GA technique are
167.029 for cutting speed, 0.025 for feed rate and 14.769 for the ra-
dial rake angle. Since the optimal values that are estimated by GA
for each cutting condition are in the range of the actual setting cut-
ting conditions, it can be stated that the minimum (best) tness
function of the surface roughness value (Ra = 0.139) could be ob-
tained if used in the real machining experiment.
Theoretically, to validate the result of optimal cutting condi-
tions that are produced by GA techniques, these values will be
transferred into the best regression model equation. Eq. (5c), the
best regression model equation which is taken as the objective
function of the optimization GA solution, is used to validate the
optimal cutting conditions. With x1 = optimal solution of the cut-
ting speed, x2 = optimal solution of the feed rate and x3 = optimal
solution of the radial rake angle, the solution is given as follows:
b SNTR
^3 R
y point and average values estimated by the GA technique. The re-
0:237  0:00175167:029 8:6930:025
 0:0015914:769 0:138 8 in Table 12.
By transferring the optimal cutting values of GA into Eq. (5c) as
shown in Eq. (8), the predicted surface roughness value obtained
is 0.138. Next, this value is compared to the minimum tness
function value of the GA technique. As shown in Fig. 7, the mini-
mum tness function value of the GA technique is 0.138. This is
4657
exactly the same as the result of the transformation process. This
can be taken as the indicator that the same result (Ra = 0.138)
might be obtained when the set optimal cutting conditions that
are estimated by using the GA technique are used in the real
experiment process.
7. Discussion and conclusion
This study has applied the GA technique to estimate the optimal
solutions of cutting conditions that lead to the minimum surface
roughness value. By reviewing the application of GA for the
machining optimization problem involving tool machining param-
eter of the radial rake angle in the milling process of titanium alloy
(Ti6A14V), which focuses on the surface roughness performance
measure as discussed in Section 2, it has been found that this issue
has not yet been taken up by other researchers. So, the assumption
could be that this project gives a new contribution to the machin-
ing area of study. The methodology used in realizing the purpose of
the project is then discussed in Section 3.
The machining experiment carried out by Mohruni (2008),
which dealt with the radial rake angle tool for the Ra performance
measure in the end milling machining process, is referred to as the
case study for this study. The details of the experiment are given in
Section 4. The three cuttings tools that deal with titanium alloy
(Ti6A14V) are uncoated, TiA1N coated and SNTR coated. As dis-
cussed in Section 5, it has been discovered that the SNTR cutting
tool has been given the best cutting tool modelled by using the
regression technique. Therefore, this cutting tool has been selected
to be the tness function equation for the GA optimization
solution.
In Section 6, the output of GA is evaluated and discussed in term
of three issues. The rst and second issues are related to the best
sults of the GA outputs discussed in Section 6 can be summarized
From Table 12, as indicated at the last column, it is clear that
this study has found that the GA technique has been the effective
technique for estimating the better results in terms of the best
point and average minimum values of surface roughness compared
to the experimental and regression results. It has also been discov-
ered that the optimal value for each of the cutting conditions
4658 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659

Table 12
Summary of the GA result.

Variables Consideration factors Issue 1: the best Issue 2: average Issue 3: optimal v, Remarks
point of Ra of Ra f and c of GA
Ra Experimental result 0.190 0.392 Compared to the experimental and
Regression result 0.187 0.391 Regression, the GA technique gave the
GA result 0.139 0.140 more minimal value of the best and
average Ra values
v Required range: 124.53 to 167.03 167.029 All optimal points of v, f and c cutting
f Required range: 0.025 to 0,083 0.025 conditions of the GA technique were in the
c Required range: 6.2 to 14.8 14.769 range of required values.

Table 13
Classication of cutting conditions scale for comparing the optimal result.

Independent variables Units Classication of cutting conditions scale

Lowest Lower Medium High Highest
Cutting speed, V m/min 124.53 130.00 144.22 160.00 167.03
Feed rate, f mm/tooth 0.025 0.03 0.046 0.07 0.083
Radial rake angle, c 6.2 7.0 9.5 13.0 14.8

Table 14
Comparison the optimal cutting condition results of GA and RSM.

Technique Speed (v) Feed (f) Radial rake angle (c) The best predicted point of Ra
Optimal Level Optimal Level Optimal Level
GA 167.029 Highest 0.025 Lowest 14.769 Highest 0.138
RSM (Mohruni, 2008) 160.00 High 0.044 Medium 7 Lower 0.277

recommended by the GA which leads to the minimum surface
roughness values are satised by the cutting conditions range ap-
plied in the real experiment.
Part of the interest of this study is to compare the result of the GA
with the result of Mohrunis (2008) work. His study dealt with the
conventional approach known as the response surface roughness
methodology (RSM) technique to observe the optimal cutting con-
ditions for giving the minimum value of Ra. To compare the results
of the GA with the RSM technique, the values of the cutting condi-
tion level, noted as 1.4142, 1, 0, +1 and +1.4142 as given in Table
3, are classied as the lowest, lower, medium, high, highest scales as
stated in Table 13. Then, by using the scale in Table 13, the compar-
ison between the GA and RSM output is summarized in Table 14.
From Table 14, it is observed that the GA technique outperforms
the RSM technique by looking to the best (minimum) surface
roughness predicted value. With high speed, medium feed rate
and lower radial rake angle of the cutting conditions scale, the best
surface roughness value estimated by RSM technique is 0.277.
However, with the highest speed, lowest feed rate and highest ra-
dial rake angle of the cutting conditions scale, the GA technique
estimates the lower value (0.138) of the best surface roughness va-
lue compared to the RSM technique.
As highlighted before, the target of the optimization process in
this study is to determine the optimal values of decision variables
that could lead to the minimum value of surface roughness being
as low as possible. Therefore, with the best surface roughness value
(0.138) as shown in Table 14, the percentage ratio of GA to de-
crease the minimum surface roughness is calculated. When com-
pared to the best surface roughness value of the experiment
sample data (0.190), the regression model (0.187) and the RSM
technique (0.277), it has been found that the GA techniques de-
crease the surface roughness values which are about 27%, 26%
and 50%, respectively.
An issue which can also be highlighted is related to the type of
cutting tool proposed for use in the actual experiment. The best
minimum value of surface roughness is recommended by the
experiment sample data and regression model. It is clear from this
study that all the best minimum surface roughness values come
from the same resource, which is the SNTR coated cutting tool.
Therefore, the SNTR cutting tool is recommended for use in the ac-
tual further experiment.
References
Aggarwal, A., & Singh, H. (2005). Optimization of machining techniques A
retrospective and literature review. Sadhana Journal (India), 30, 699711.
Benardos, P. G., & Vosnaikos, G. C. (2003). Predicting surface roughness in
machining: A review. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
43, 833844.
Brezonick, M., Kovavic, M., & Ficko, M. (2004). Prediction of surface roughness with
genetic programming. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2836.
Colak, O., Kurbanoglu, C., & Kayacan, M. C. (2007). Milling surface roughness
prediction using evolutionary programming methods. Journal of Material and
Design, 28, 657666.
Cus, F., & Balic, J. (2003). Optimization of cutting process by GA approach. Robotic
and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 19, 113121.
Manolas, D. A., Gialamas, T. P., Frangopoulos, C. A., & Tsahalis, D. T. (1996). A genetic
algorithm for operation optimization of an industrial cogeneration system.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 20, 11071112.
Mohruni, A. S. (2008). Performance evaluation of uncoated and coated carbide
tools when end milling of titanium alloy using response surface methodology.
Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia.
Mukherjee, I., & Ray, P. K. (2006). A review of optimization techniques in metal
cutting processes. Computer and Industrial Engineering, 50, 1534.
Oktem, H., Erzurumlu, T., & Erzincanli, F. (2006). Prediction of minimum surface
roughness in end milling mold parts using neutral network and genetic
algorithm. Journal of Material and Design, 27, 735744.
Oktem, H., Erzurumlu, T., & Kurtaran, H. (2005). Application of response surface
methodology in the optimization of cutting conditions for surface roughness.
Journal of Material Processing Technology, 170, 1116.
 A.M. Zain et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 46504659 4659

Palanisamy, P., Rajendaran, I., & Shanmugasundaram, S. (2007). Optimization of
machining parameters using genetic algorithm and experimental validation for
end-milling operations. International Journal Advanced manufacturing
Technology, 32, 644655.
Suresh, P. V. S., Venkateswara, P., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2002). A genetic algorithmic
approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model. International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 42, 675680.
Tansel, I. N., Ozcelik, B., Bao, W. Y., Chen, P., Rincon, D., & Yang, S. Y. (2006). Selection
of optimal cutting conditions by using GONNS. International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture, 46, 2635.
Zain, A. M., Haron, H., & Sharif, S. (2008). An overview of GA technique for surface
roughness optimization in milling process. In IEEE proceedings international
symposium on information technology, ITSim (Vol. 4). doi:10.1109/
ITSIM.2008.4631925.