Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Normal Boundary Intersection Based Parametric Multi Objective Optimization of Green Sand Mould System
Normal Boundary Intersection Based Parametric Multi Objective Optimization of Green Sand Mould System
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Technical Paper
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 April 2012
Received in revised form 26 October 2012
Accepted 30 October 2012
Available online 20 November 2012
Keywords:
Multi-objective (MO)
Green sand mould system
Normal Boundary Intersection (NBI)
Genetic algorithm (GA)
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Uniform spread
Pareto frontier
a b s t r a c t
In manufacturing engineering optimization, it is often that one encounters scenarios that are multiobjective (where each of the objectives portray different aspects of the problem). Thus, it is crucial for
the engineer to have access to multiple solution choices before selecting of the best solution. In this work,
a novel approach that merges meta-heuristic algorithms with the Normal Boundary Intersection (NBI)
method is introduced. This method then is used generate optimal solution options to the green sand
mould system problem. This NBI based method provides a near-uniform spread of the Pareto frontier in
which multiple solutions with gradual trade-offs in the objectives are obtained. Some comparative studies
were then carried out with the algorithms developed and used in this work and that from some previous
work. Analysis on the performance as well as the quality of the solutions produced by the algorithms is
presented here.
2012 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Most issues encountered when dealing with emerging technologies in engineering are multi-objective (MO) in nature [1,2].
Strategies in multi-objective optimization (MO) can be crudely
classied into two classes. First being methods that use the concept of Pareto optimality to trace the non-dominated solutions
at the Pareto curve (for instance, Zitzler and Thieles [3] Strength
Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) and Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) by Deb et al. [4]). The other
type of methods is known as the weighted (or scalarization) techniques. In these methods, the objective functions in the problem
are aggregated into a single objective function which is then solved
for various scalar (weight) values. Some known scalarization techniques include the Weighted Sum method [5,6], Goal Programming
[7] and Normal-Boundary Intersection (NBI) method [8]. Using
these techniques, the scalars (or weights) are used to consign relative trade-offs to the objectives during the aggregation procedure.
Hence, alternative near-optimal solution options are generated for
various values of the scalars.
A unique and ideal solution that explains all the features of a MO
problem in engineering are rarely encountered [9,10]. Nevertheless
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vasant0001@yahoo.com (P. Vasant).
in more practical scenarios, the decision maker (DM) is only interested in a single optimal solution. To select this unique optimum,
the DM utilizes some supplementary knowledge which is usually
very heuristic and too complex to be represented mathematically
[11]. Therefore, it is very useful for the DM to have access to numerous solution options with a variety of signicance with respect to
the objectives prior to the selection the best optimal solution. See
[1,12,13] for more detail investigations and explanations on MO
techniques in engineering optimization.
In optimization problems of this kind, it is required that the solution method caters for the multiobjective nature of the problem.
Thus, in this work the MO issue is tackled using the NBI method for
geometrical trade-offs of the weights while the GA-PSO is used to
iteratively improve the solutions for each respective weight. This
work aims to generate a series of Pareto-optimal solutions that
obtain a near-complete trade-off among the objective functions for
the green mould sand system. This problem was presented and
solved in Surekha et al. [14] by the application of genetic algorithm (GA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) techniques in
conjunction with the Weighted Sum approach.
The difference between sand mould and green sand mould is
that green sand mould has green compression strength, permeability, hardness and bulk density requirements where as sand mould
has the same properties without the green constraints. In green
mould systems, the quality of the product obtained from the moulding process is very dependent on the physical properties of the
0278-6125/$ see front matter 2012 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.10.004
some (user specied) tness condition. The candidate optimal solutions obtained by this algorithm are achieved as a result of particles
which are in motion (swarming) through the tness landscape. In
the beginning, some candidate solutions are selected by the PSO
algorithm. These solutions can be randomly selected or be established with the aid of some a priori facts. Next, the evaluation of
the particles position and velocity (which are also the candidate
solutions) relative to the tness function is carried out. Consequently, in conjunction with the tness function a condition is
introduced; where if the tness function is not fullled, then the
algorithm updates the individual and social terms by the aid of a
user-specied update rule. Following this, the velocity and the position of the particles are updated. This recursive course of action is
iterated until the tness function is satised by all candidate solutions and solutions have thus converged into a x position. It is
essential to note that the velocity and position updating rule is critical to the optimization capabilities of this method. The velocity of
each particle in motion (swarming) is updated using the following
equation.
(1)
(2)
where F* is the utopia point for this MO problem. Let the individual
minimum be denoted as xi and be obtained for i [1, 4]. The convex
hull of the individual minima is generated in this fashion. Thus, the
representation of the simplex from the convex hull is as follows:
= { Y : = F(xi );
Y = i : 1 x 4}
(3)
4
= 1. The formulation of
where forms a 4 by 4 matrix and
i=1 i
the NBI -sub problem is as the following:
Max(X,t) t
subject to
Y + tn = F(x) and
xX
(4)
Values
6 bit
6
0.3333
0.5
Random
Real-coded
N-point
N-bit ip
Tournament
Step 3: By recombination from the current population, create offspring for the next generation.
Step 4: Mutate offspring for this generation.
Step 5: The parent selection to create the next generation is done
by tournament selection.
Step 6: The next population of n individuals is chosen.
Step 7: Set new population to current population.
Step 8: Assess the tness of each offspring in the generation.
Step 9: If the stopping criterion are satised halt program and print
solutions, else go to Step 3.
Algorithm 2.
These parameter settings for this algorithm are usually constrained as the following:
0 w 1.2
0 c1 2
0 c2 2
(5)
0 r1 1
0 r2 1
The term wvi (t) in Eq. (1) (also referred to as the inertial
term) maintains the particles motion in the same direction as
its original vector. The inertial coefcient w serves as a dampener or an accelerator during the movement of the particles.
The term c1 r1 [xi (t) xi (t)] better known as the cognitive component functions serves as the memory. This component ensures
that the particle tends to return to the position in the search
space where the particle had a very high value of the tness
function. The term c2 r2 [g(t) xi (t)] (also known as the social
component) function as mover of the particles to the position
where the swarm has visited in the previous iterations. Next,
the particles position is then computed as is shown in the
following:
xi (t + 1) = xi (t) + vi (t + 1)
Randomly initialize
a population of n
individuals.
Generate offspring
by crossover/recombination
Offspring
Mutation
Perform
parent
selection
NO
Set new
population
to current
population
(6)
START
Fitness criterions are
assigned to each of
the n individuals.
199
Evaluate
offspring
fitness
Termination
criterion
satisfied?
YES
STOP
where no is some constant, n is the swarm iteration and T is the overall program iteration. However, in the event during this iterative
process the position of all the particles converges, the solutions are
feasible with respect to the specied ranges, no further optimization of the objective function occurs and all the decision variables
are non-negative (for the problem at hand) then it can be said that
the tness criterion are met. Hence the candidate solutions are
at their ttest and the program is stopped and the solutions are
printed. The initialization parameters for this algorithm is shown
in Table 2 and the workow is provided in Fig. 2.
START
Initialize no of
particles, i
Initialize
algorithm
parameters
Randomly initialize
position xi(n) and
velocity vi(n)
n = n +1
T = T +1
NO
Is fitness criterion
satisfied?
Evaluate
fitness of the
swarms
YES
YES
STOP
Fig. 2. Algorithm ow for PSO.
Is n > no+T ?
NO
Values
201
4. Application data
Algorithm 3.
Hybrid GA-PSO
(8)
(10)
52 A 94
8 B 12
1.5 C 3
(11)
3D5
Fig. 3. Flow of the pure and hybrid GA and PSO techniques in the NBI method.
Table 3
The comparison of the best solutions obtained by the algorithms.
Description
Algorithms
PSO [14]
NGA
NPSO
NHPSO
Objective function
54.9377
f1
53.679
f2
89.4473
f3
f4
1.5888
GA [14]
55.4112
107.895
84.7936
1.5079
61.5992
60.2611
89.0263
1.58366
61.3174
120.022
88.8441
1.51525
58.2195
135.478
88.3809
1.50958
Decision variable
93.9998
A
11.9999
B
C
2.6546
D
4.9998
52.0001
11.9998
2.8452
4.9999
73.3421
11.9024
2.05415
4.00906
54.5778
11.574
2.54539
4.18636
52.7462
11.9231
2.1876
3.80256
(12)
1.5 C 3
3D5
The algorithms used in this work were programmed using the
C++ programming language on a personal computer (PC) with an
Intel dual core processor running at 2 GHz.
5. Results and discussion
The comparison of the best candidate solutions obtained by the
NBI-Genetic Algorithm (NGA), NBI-Particle Swarm Optimization
(NPSO) and the NBI-hybrid GA and PSO (HNPSO) methods in this
work and by the PSO and GA methods (Weighted-Sum) in Surekha
et al. [14] is shown in Table 3. The Pareto frontiers of the objectives
obtained by the NGA method are presented in Fig. 4.
The best solution candidate in Table 3 was obtained by
the NGA method at the weights (objective function trade-offs)
203
[6] Triantaphyllou E. Multi-criteria decision making: a comparative study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer); 2000.
p. 320.
[7] Luyben ML, Floudas CA. Analyzing the interaction of design and control. I.
A multiobjective framework and application to binary distillation synthesis.
Computational Chemical Engineering 1994;18(10):18933.
[8] Das I, Dennis JE. Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM
Journal of Optimization 1998;8(3):63157.
[9] Van Sickel JH, Venkatesh P, Lee KY. Analysis of the Pareto front of a multiobjective optimization problem for a fossil fuel power plant. In: IEEE PES
general meeting. 2008.
[10] Kim IY, de Weck OL. Adaptive weight-sum method for biobjective optimization:
Pareto front generation. In: AIAA structures, structural, dynamics, and materials
conference. 2002.
[11] Sendn JOH, Alonso AA, Banga JR. Efcient and robust multi-objective optimization of food processing: a novel approach with application to thermal
sterilization. Journal of Food Engineering 2010;98:31724.
[12] Sandgren E. Multicriteria design optimization by goal programming. In: Adeli
H, editor. Advances in design optimization. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994. p.
22565 [Chapter 23].
[13] Stanikov RB, Matusov JB. Multicriteria optimization and engineering. New
York: Chapman and Hall; 1995.
[14] Surekha B, Kaushik LK, Panduy AK, Vundavilli PR, Parappagoudar MB.
Multi-objective optimization of green sand mould system using evolutionary algorithms. International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology
2011;58(14):19.
[15] Kumar S, Satsangi PS, Prajapati DR. Optimization of green sand casting process parameters of a foundry by using Taguchi method. International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology 2010;55(14):
2334.
[16] Rosenberg RS. Simulation of genetic populations with biochemical properties.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan; 1967.
[17] Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and articial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology. In: Control and articial intelligence. USA: MIT
Press; 1992.
[18] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983;220:67180.
[19] Li CL. A feature-based approach to injection mould cooling system design.
Computer-Aided Design 2001;33(14):107390.
[20] Li CL. Automatic synthesis of cooling system design for plastic injection mould.
In: ASME 2001 design engineering technical conferences and computers and
information in engineering conference, 27th design automation conference.
2001.
[21] Gen M, Cheng R. Genetic algorithms and engineering optimization. John Wiley
& Sons; 1997, 432 pp.
[22] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE proceedings of the
international conference on neural networks. 1995. p. 19428.
[23] Phuangpornpitak N, Prommee W, Tia S, Phuangpornpitak W. A study of particle swarm technique for renewable energy power systems. In: PEA-AIT
international conference on energy and sustainable development: issues and
strategies, Thailand. 2010. p. 17.
[24] Chryssolouris G, Lee M, Domroese M. The use of neural networks in determining operational policies for manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 1991;10(2):16675.
[25] Williams NR. Neural networks vs. regression in localized scan correction for robotic drilling applications. Journal of Manufacturing Systems
2005;24(1):2134.
[26] El Maraghy H, Patel V, Abdallah IB. Scheduling of manufacturing systems under
dual-resource constraints using genetic algorithms. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 1991;10(2):16675.
[27] Lee TS, Ting TO, Lin YJ. An investigation of grinding process optimization via
evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE swarm intelligence
symposium. 2007.
[28] Sardinas RQ, Santana MR, Brindis EA. Genetic algorithm based multi-objective
optimization of cutting parameters in turning process. Engineering Applied
Articial Intelligence 2006;19:12733.
[29] Parappagoudar MB, Pratihar DK, Datta GL. Non-linear modeling using central
composite design to predict green sand mould properties. Proceedings IMechE
B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2007;221:88194.
[30] Shukla PK. On the normal boundary intersection method for generation of efcient front. In: Shi Y, et al., editors. ICCS 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4487. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2007. p. 3107.
[31] Koza JR. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means
of natural selection. USA: MIT Press; 1992.
[32] Zelinka I. Analytic programming by means of soma algorithm. Mendel02.
In: Proc 8th international conference on soft computing Mendel02. 2002. p.
93101. ISBN 80-214-2135-5.
[33] Ganesan T, Vasant P, Elamvazuthi I. Optimization of nonlinear geological
structure mapping using hybrid neuro-genetic techniques. Mathematical and
Computer Modelling 2011;54(11):291322.
[34] Ganesan T, Vasant P, Elamvazuthi I. Hybrid neuro-swarm optimization
approach for design of distributed generation power systems. Neural Computing and Applications 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-0976-4.
[35] Vasant P, Ganesan T, Elamvazuthi I. Hybrid Tabu search hopeld recurrent ANN
fuzzy technique to the production planning problems: a case study of crude
205
[38] De Castro LN, Timmis J. Articial immune systems: a new computational intelligence approach. Springer; 2002, 380 pp.
[39] Yang D, Jiao L, Gong M, Liu F. Articial immune multi-objective SAR image
segmentation with fused complementary features. Information Sciences
2011;181:2797812.