9 views

Uploaded by Manav Mahesh Chandra

My Son Omkar Manav Submitted Project Report for M Tech Mechnical Kindly support to get suitable Vacancies in respected Inustries and Location Preference Pune .Bangalore,Hyderabad and Delhi NCR
M-9890142638
manav.omkar@gmail.com
Omkar Manav
Present Location Pune

- bat algorithm
- Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Economic Load Dispatch
- Computational Methods and Applied Computing
- DEA2012-Proceedings.pdf
- 9 Sept 2016 NS Neural Network
- A Price-Based Unit Commitment Model Considering Uncertainties with a Fuzzy Regression Model
- Genetic-algorithm-approach-for-solving-a-cell-formation-problem-in-cellular-manufacturing_2009_Expert-Systems-with-Applications.pdf
- Chapter 1
- Mar 818 Exam
- An ion Stratigy for Industrial Metal Forming
- Petrel Reservoir Engineering
- Flow Discharge Modeling in Open Canals Using ANew Fuzzy Modeling Technique (SMRGT)
- An Adaptive Optimization Technique for Dynamic Environments
- saber1
- Unit Commitment With v2g Using Pso
- 9
- -A Novel PSO Based Approach With Hybrid of Fuzzy C-Means and Learning Automata -46481-69094-3-PB
- Reviewing the Multiobjective Optimization Package of modeFrontier in Energy Sector.pdf
- Compensation Map Calibration of Engine Management Systems Using Least-Squares Support Vector Committee Machine and Evolutionary Optimization
- Genetic Algorithm

You are on page 1of 276

Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative

Evaluation. The project work has certainly rendered me a tremendous learning.

Apart from my efforts, the success of this project depends largely on the

encouragement and guidelines of many others. I take this opportunity to express my

gratitude to the people who have been instrumental in the successful completion of this

project.

First and foremost, I would like to thank to my guide, Dr. Satish S. Chinchanikar

(Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, VIIT, Pune) for his valuable

guidance and advice. My special thanks to my Co-guide, Mr. Mahendra G. Gadge

(Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, VIIT, Pune) for his

valuable guidance and advice. He inspired me greatly to work in this project. His

willingness to motivate me contributed tremendously to this project.

I would like to thank Dr. Atul P. Kulkarni (Associate Professor and Head,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, VIIT, Pune) for allowing me to work on this

project and giving me valuable guidance and advice in my Project.

I am highly grateful to Dr. Bilavari S. Karkare (Principal) and I would also thank

our Institution, faculties and technical staff of mechanical engineering department who

helped me directly or indirectly during this project work. I also extend my heartfelt

thanks to my family, siblings, all my friends and well-wishers.

i

LIST OF FIGURE

ii

3.16 Average distance between consecutive generations (45HRC) 60

4.4 Feed forward neural network for AISI 4340 Hard turning 88

iii

4.6 Training state of Network at each epoch 89

iv

4.27 Training error in Tf 93

v

4.48 Validation Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output) 107

vi

4.69 Regression Plots for Fa (Train /Test/Validate) 111

vii

4.90 Regression Plots for Ft (Train /Test/Validate) 118

viii

4.111 Response Surface Plot for Ra 122

ix

ANFIS FCM plots For 35 HRC

x

4.154 Testing Error Plots for Tf (Target vs Output) 134

xi

4.175 Validation Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output) 138

ANFIS Prediction

FOR 35 HRC

For 45 HRC

Results

xii

FOR 35 HRC

FOR 45 HRC

FOR 35 HRC

FOR 45 HRC

xiii

FOR 35 hrc

FOR 45 HRC

NSGA-NN 35HRC

xiv

5.13 Regression fit plot for Fr 152

xv

5.33 Regression fit plot for Ra 157

xvi

5.54 Response Surface Plot for Fa 163

xvii

5.75 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output) 169

xviii

5.96 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output) 175

xix

5.117 Testing Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output 180

FOR 35 HRC

For 45 HRC

xx

5.135 Error Estimation Plots For F r 184

xxi

LIST OF TABLES

No`

3.3 Results of NSGA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 35 HRC Steel 48

3.4 Results of NSGA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 45 HRC Steel 50

3.6 Results of SPEA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 35 HRC Steel 57

3.7 Results of SPEA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 45 HRC Steel 58

3.9 MOPSO family of optimal solutions for 35 HRC AISI 4340 steel 72

3.10 MOPSO family of optimal solutions for 35 HRC AISI 4340 steel 74

4.3.4(b) Statistical Results of ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster for 35 HRC and 102

45HRC

4.3.16(b) Statistical Error analysis of ANFIS Subtractive clustering for 35 HRC 116

and 45 HRC

xxii

4.3.26 (a) Fuzzy structure 127

4.3.26(b) Statistical Results of ANFIS FCM for 35 HRC and 45HRC 129

Results with Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

5.2.1 (b) Calibrated weigths and bias for NSGA-NN 35 HRC and 45HRC Steel 150

5.3.2 (b) Calibrated weigths and bias for 35 HRC and 45HRCSteel 156

5.4.1 (a) Statistical Error analysis of GA and PSO based ANFIS (FCM) for 35 159

HRC and 45HRC

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35HRC and 45HRC

6.1 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life 190

6.2 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life 192

6.3 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life 193

6.4 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life 194

6.5 Mean error and Standard Deviation between Experimental and Predicted 201

statistics

6.6 Table.6.6 MSE and RMSE between Experimental and Predicted statistics 201

6.7 Mean error and Standard Deviation between Experimental and Predicted 205

statistics

6.8 Mean Square Error and Root Mean Square Error between Experimental 205

and Predicted statistics

xxiii

NOMENCLATURE

HRC Rockwell C Hardness

V, (vc) Cutting Speed

f Feed Rate

d Depth Of Cut

Ra Surface Roughness

Ft Tangential Force

Fa Axial Force

Fr Radial Force

Tf Tool Life

AI Artificial Intelligence

CI Computational Intelligence

HC Hard Computation

SC Soft Computing

FS Fuzzy Systems

NN Neural Network

EA Evolutionary Algorithm

GSO Global Search Optimization

SI Swarm Intelligence

GA Genetic Algorithm

DE Differential Evolution

CA Culture Algorithm

PSO Particle Swarm Optimization

FA Fire Fly Algorithm

BBO Biogeography Based Optimization

xxiv

W1/W2/W3 Weights

EA-NN Evolutionary Based Neural Network

NN-EA Neural Network Based Evolutionary Algorithm

NSGA Non-Sorted Domination Based Genetic Algorithm

PESA Pareto Envelope Based Selection Algorithm

SPEA Strength Pareto Based Evolutionary Algorithm

MF Membership Function

ANFIS Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Interface System

ACO Ant Colony Algorithm

HLGA Hybrid Adaptive Learning Based Genetic Algorithm

Pmt Probability of m bits in K sting length to Mutate

X t , Vt Particle Position and Velocity

Gt Global Best attractor

n ', n Local Guide attractor

Lt

nt ,d Swarm Potential

Sij Layers

Membership cluster vector

d ( xi , j ) Dissimilarity Function

J q ( , u) Cluster Function

xxv

CONTENTS

No

Acknowledgement i

List of Figures ii

List of Tables xix

Nomenclature xxi

Contents xxiii

Abstract xxviii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Computational Intelligence (CI) 1

1.2 Approaches to Computational Intelligence 2

1.2.1 Fuzzy logic 4

1.2.2 Neural Network 4

1.2.3 Evolutionary Computing 4

1.2.4 Learning Theory 5

1.2.5 Probabilistic Methods 5

1.2.6 Swarm Intelligence 6

1.2.7 Global Search Optimization 6

1.3 Synergies of Computational Intelligence Techniques 6

1.4 Applications of Computational Intelligence 8

1.4.1 Application of NN 8

1.4.2 Application of Evolutionary Systems 9

1.4.3 Application of Fuzzy system 9

1.5 Overview of the chapter 10

1.6 Problem Statement 10

1.7 Objectives 10

1.8 Methodology 11

1.9 Thesis Outline 12

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

xxvi

2.1 Literature Review 14

2.2 Literature Summary 27

3.1 Introduction 28

3.2 Multi-objective Optimization 29

3.3 Application of MOOPs to Machining system 30

3.3.1 Machining Model (Surface Roughness Cutting force components material 31

hardness: 35 HRC).

3.3.2 Machining Model (Surface Roughness Cutting force components work 31

material hardness: 45 HRC).

3.3.3 Tool life model for 35 HRC 32

3.4 Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) 32

3.4.1 Mathematical Formulation of Evolutionary Algorithms 33

3.4.1. Definition of Evolutionary systems 34

3.4.1.

1 Convergence Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithm 34

3.4.1. Criteria for mutation 35

3

3.4.1. Criteria for Crossover 37

3.4.2 4 points from convergence analysis

Key 40

3.5 NSGA II Algorithm 41

3.5.1 Initialize Variables and Evaluate Objectives 41

3.5.2 Non_dominated_sort 42

3.5.3 Selection. 45

3.5.4 Genetic Operators 45

3.5.5 Recombination of parent and off springs 47

3.5.6 Plots for NSGA II results (35 HRC) 50

3.5.7 Plots for NSGA II results (45 HRC) 52

3.6 Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2 52

3.6.1 Initialize Variables and Evalaute Objectives 54

3.6.2 Tournament Selection 55

3.6.3 Genetic Operator 55

3.6.4 Plots for SPEA 2 results( 35 HRC) 57

3.6.5 Plots for SPEA 2 results( 45 HRC) 59

xxvii

3.7 Swarm Intelligence 60

3.8 Mathematical Formulation of PSO Algorithm 60

3.8.1 Typical Initialization strategy 62

3.8.2 Topologies of PSO 62

3.8.3 Definitions of Swarm topology 63

3.8.4 Convergence criteria 63

3.8.5 Criteria for Inertia clamping and acceleration co-efficeint 64

3.9 PSO Algorithm 66

3.9. Initialize population and Evaluate fitness 67

1

3.9. Create Grid Index 68

2

3.9. Select Leader 69

3

3.9. Delete extra elements 70

3.9.

4 Swarm Movement 71

6

3.9. Plots for MOPSO results (35 HRC) 73

73.9. Plots for MOPSO results (45 HRC) 75

3.10 8

Comparison between EA and SI technique 76

3.10. Comparison Based on Spectrum of solution space 77

1

3.10. Comparison Based on Diversity in solution space. 78

4 2

PREDICTION MODELS FOR MACHINING SYSTEM

THROUGH INTELLIGENT LEARNING TECHNIQUES

4.1 Introduction 80

4.2 Neural Network 81

4.2.1 Feed forward Neural network 81

4.2.2 Mathematical background of neural network 82

4.2.2.1 Gradient Descent Approach 83

4.2.3 Key notes form feed forward analysis 87

4.2.4 Multi-layer Perceptron for Turning of AISI 4340 Steel 87

4.2.5 Results of perceptron for 35 HRC Steel 89

4.2.6 Results of perceptron for 45 HRC Steel 92

4.3 Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Interference System (ANFIS) 94

4.3.1 Hybrid learning in ANFIS 96

xxviii

4.3.2 Backpropogation Learning 97

4.3.4 Grid Partition clustering based Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Interference System 101

4.3.6 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Ft 35 HRC 104

4.3.7 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Fa 35 HRC 105

4.3.8 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Fr 35 HRC 106

4.3.9 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Tf 35 HRC 108

4.3.10 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Ra 45 HRC 109

4.3.11 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Ft 45 HRC 110

4.3.12 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Fa 45 HRC 111

4.3.13 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Fr 45 HRC 112

4.3.14 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Tf 45 HRC HRC 113

4.3.15 Subtractive Clustering 114

4.3.16 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Ra 35 HRC 117

4.3.17 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Ft 35 HRC 118

4.3.18 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Fa 35 HRC 119

4.3.19 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Fr 35 HRC 120

4.3.20 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Tf 35 HRC 121

4.3.21 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Ra 45 HRC 122

4.3.22 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Ft 45 HRC 123

4.3.23 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Fa 45 HRC 124

4.3.24 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Fr 45 HRC 125

4.3.25 ANFIS Substractive Cluster Plots For Tf 45 HRC 126

4.3.26 Fuzzy C Mean Clustering 127

4.3.27 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Ra 35 HRC 130

4.3.28 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Ft 35 HRC 131

4.3.29 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Fa 35 HRC 132

4.3.30 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Fr 35 HRC 133

4.3.31 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Tf 35 HRC 134

4.3.32 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Ra 45 HRC 135

xxix

4.3.33 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Ft 45 HRC 136

4.3.35 ANFIS FCM ve Cluster Plots For Fr 45 HRC 138

4.3.36 ANFIS FCM Cluster Plots For Tf 45 HRC 139

4.4 Comparison of Prediction Results with Experimental Statistics 140

4.4.2 Error Plots of Neural Network Prediction Results with Experimental 140

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

4.4.3 Error Plots of Neural Network Prediction Results with Experimental 141

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45HRC

4.4.4 Error Plots of ANFIS (Grid Partitioning Clustering) Results with 142

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

4.4.5 Error Plots of ANFIS (Grid Partitioning Clustering) Results with 142

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

4.4.6 Error Plots of ANFIS (Subtractive Clustering) Results with Experimental 143

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

4.4.7 Error Plots of ANFIS (Subtractive Clustering) Results with Experimental 144

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

4.4.8 Error Plots of ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with 144

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

4.4.9 Error Plots of ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with 145

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

4.5 Conclusion 146

5.1 Introduction 147

5.2 EA-NN Synergism 148

5.2.2 Results of NSGA-NN 35 HRC Steel 151

5.2.3 Results of NSGA-NN for 45 HRC Steel 153

5.3 SI-NN synergism 154

5.3.1 PSO combined Neural Network 155

5.3.2 Results of PSO-NN for 35 HRC Steel 157

xxx

5.4 Synergies of EA and ANFIS 158

5.4.1 ANFIS GA 159

5.4.2 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ra 35 HRC 169

5.4.3 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ft 35 HRC 161

5.4.4 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fa 35 HRC 162

5.4.5 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fr 35 HRC 163

5.4.6 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Tf 35 HRC 164

5.4.7 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ra 45 HRC 166

5.4.8 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ft 45 HRC 167

5.4.9 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fa 45 HRC 168

5.4.10 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fr 45 HRC 169

5.4.11 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Tf 45 HRC 170

5.5 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) 35 HRC and 45HRC 171

5.5.1 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) 171

5.5.2 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ra 35 HRC 172

5.5.3 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ft 35 HRC 173

5.5.4 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fa 35 HRC 174

5.5.5 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fr 35 HRC 175

5.5.6 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Tf 35 HRC 176

5.5.8 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ra 45 HRC 177

5.5.9 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ft 45 HRC 178

5.5.10 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Fa 45 HRC 179

5.5.12 PSO based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Tf 45 HRC 181

5.6 Comparison of Prediction Results with Experimental Statistics 182

5.6.2 Error Plots of NSGA-NN Prediction Results with Experimental Statistics 182

for AISI 4340 Steel 35HRC

5.6.3 Error Plots of NSGA-NN Prediction Results with Experimental Statistics 183

for AISI 4340 Steel 45HRC

5.6.4 Error Plots of PSO-NN Results with Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 184

Steel 35HRC

5.6.5 Error Plots of PSO-NN Results with Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 184

Steel 45HRC

xxxi

5.6.6 Error Plots of GA based ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with 185

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45HRC

5.6.7 Error Plots of PSO based ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with 186

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35HRC

5.6.8 Error Plots of PSO based ANFIS Prediction Results with Experimental 186

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45HRC

5.7 Conclusion 187

6.1 Global Search Optimization 189

6.1.1 NSGAII 189

6.1.1 (a) For AISI 4340 35HRC 189

6.1.1(b) For AISI 4340 45HRC 191

6.1.2 Results for SPEA 2 192

6.1.2 (a) For AISI 4340 35HRC 192

6.1.2 (b) For AISI 4340 45HRC 193

6.1.3 Results for PSO 194

6.1.3(a) For AISI 4340 35HRC 194

6.1.3(b) For AISI 4340 45HRC 195

6.1.4 Comparison between EA and SI 196

6.1.4 (a) Comparison among the Solution spectrum 196

6.1.5 Evident from the literature 197

6.2 Intelligent Learning Techniques 198

6.2.1 Neural Network 198

6.2.2 Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Interference Technique 199

6.2.2(a) ANFIS Grid partition 199

6.2.2 (b) ANFIS Subtractive Clustering 200

6.2.2 (c) ANFIS Fuzzy C-mean Clustering 200

6.2.3 Comparative Evaluation of the predictive technique on Experimental statistics 200

6.3 Synergies of CI 202

6.3.2 SI-NN 203

xxxii

6.3.3 ANFIS Synergies 204

6.3.4 Comparative Evaluation of the predictive technique on Experimental statistics 204

7 CONCLUSION 207

Appendix- C: Certificates

xxxiii

ABSTRACT

machining execution since they significantly affect the productivity rate, cost and

quality of machining operation. Although process parameters optimization has been

widely investigated for conventional machining operation, very limited work is

reported on optimization of hard turning using evolutionary algorithm. In this work

multi-objective optimization of hard turning with evolutionary optimization technique

is attempted (i.e, NSGA II, SPEA II, PSO) during hard turning of hardened AISI 4340

Steel at different hardness level (35 and 45 HRC) with experimental based multi

regression models as objective functions. The process variables are cutting speed, feed

rate, and depth of cut with appropriate constraints. Further -more different intelligent

learning techniques (i.e, Neural network, Adaptive Neural network based fuzzy

learning) were applied using (EA-NN and NN-EA) supportive combinations to

recognize the pattern of optimal solution through learning This learnt prediction model

is compared with experimental statistics a comparative evaluation is made which is in

good agreement with experimental data.

Turning;

xxxiv

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Chapter-1

1. Introduction

The complexity of design optimization of any dynamic system has many aspects among

them the major facets are the ambiguity of objectives, conflicting nature of objectives and

many possible solutions this brings an issue in characterizing the difficulty of design

optimization task. Any design solution has combination of values for parameters of a

solution and the challenge lies in identifying the solution. Considering second issue

functionality of obtained solution, the solution should be practical enough, look appealing

and have moderate cost. Third issue is contributing to the ambiguity of design

optimization is conflicting objectives which inhibits unidirectional solution. To tackle

these complexity several attempts are made through conventional methods but the

solution in general are partially satisfactory To address this issue new computational

approaches are followed which has multi-agent system each agent is defined by its

behavior that are classified into various categories in Computational Intelligence.

Computational Intelligence deals with the design of intelligent agents which act

intelligently for goal attainment in any circumstances, flexible enough to adopt changing

environment and goals. Computational Intelligence has the ability to comprehend reason,

learn, and simulate intelligent behavior in systems for complete knowledge formulation.

Much real-time system behavior cannot be captured exactly through classical

mathematical description in spite of complex formulations; moreover complexity of

mathematical description inhibits development of system model. Hence it is really

advantageous to model a real time system with piece-wise linearity and non-linearity so

that the highly complex and un-anticipatory models can be captured by intelligent agents.

Any real time problem has uncertainties involved in it with multiple objectives and the

risk in decision making should be such that the performance criteria are maintained even

in drastic change, this necessity of capturing the dynamic behavior of system is replacing

conventional techniques with intelligent techniques. Computational Intelligent techniques

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

1

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

are thus an illustration of alternative methods to conventional technique when the system

knowledge is highly important in system modeling and control. The structure of such

systems is determined by experimental evidence where direct input-output response

behavior is utilized to develop system model. Intelligent systems are meant for the

processes that are not properly defined, complex and stochastic in nature, time varying.

The fundamental property of any intelligent system is that it must sense and reason

without prior knowledge about the environment and adapt to the control action in a robust

manner. Many attempts have been made to define by different researchers but the

property of a system to be computationally intelligent is if it deals with numerical data

and has ability of pattern recognition. CI is a subdivision of machine intelligence where

subtle difference between the techniques lies in the type of computing. Machine

intelligence has two constituents Artificial Intelligence based on hard computing (HC)

and Computational Intelligence based on soft computing (SC) [Fuzzy Sets (FS), Neural

Network (NN), Evolutionary Algorithms(EA)] (Fig. 1.1) distinguishes clearly the

components of Machine intelligence and their components.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

2

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

The core of the computational intelligence is designing process or system model which is

not responsive to mathematical modeling since the process exhibits following attributes

Models difficult to Compute

Uncertainties in operations

Nonlinear, Stochastic and disturbed in nature

The system is capable of learning to adapt to unknown situations and is able to make

predictions about the process status in future time step. CI is a combination of soft

computing and numerical technique with methods involving adaptive control, (Fig. 1.2)

optimal control, learning theory, fuzzy logic, neural-network, evolutionary computing.

All methods tuned to attain common goal set. There are five elemental methods to CI

Fuzzy logic

Neural network

Evolutionary computing

Learning theory

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

3

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Probabilistic methods

Swarm Intelligence

In any real-time process, the measurement, process modeling, and control can never be

exact to the theoretical definitions [1]. There is always a certain amount of uncertainties

i.e., incompleteness, randomness of data. Fuzzy assimilates human experimental

knowledge converts it into engineering model and control. Most process which are ill-

defined with nonlinearity and uncertainties. The fuzzy logic is more of reasoning and

inference technique based on high level linguistic or semantic rules and operations.

Neural network neural network is a technique adopted from the biological brain which

involves a neuron as a fundamental building block [1]. These neurons receive signals

from neighboring neurons through their cell body and transfer the results through a long

fiber called an axon. The axons behave like signal conducting device. A similar electrical

analogy of biological neural network is artificial neural network which is characterized

by computational power learning of real-time data error tolerance, pattern recognition,

and generalization capabilities, low-level computational algorithms which manifest good

performance in numerical data processing. The learning is in different form supervised,

unsupervised, and competitive and reinforcement learning.

procedure based on evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin [1]. The species undergoes

reproduction, gives birth to new offspring with features of combating adverse

environment and survive The process of natural selection makes sure that the individuals

with better fitness have opportunity to make most of the time, with expectations that the

offsprings will have similar higher fitness levels. Evolutionary computation uses iterative

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

4

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

search to achieve the desired population of solution.

Learning theory is based on the human learning capabilities without much effort in a

conventional sense. The mechanism of learning in humans is the process of bringing

together cognitive, emotional and environmental effects to acquire enhance or change

knowledge, skills. In general, learning is characterized by how the information is input,

processed and stored. Learning theories fall into three framework behaviorism cognitive

theories and constructivism. Behaviorism is learning based on objectively observable

feature learning Cognitive learning is how learning occurs in brain. Constructivism

learning is a process in which permutation of existing idea builds a new idea. In most of

the machine learning four basic forms of learning si adopted i.e., supervised learning

where a mapping of input to desired output is done, unsupervised learning where a set of

input feature is modeled and mapping of input to output is done with similar pattern.

Semi-supervised learning, combination of both learned and unlearned datasets are used to

generate an appropriate classifier. Reinforcement learning involves decision making on

given observation and feedback is taken from the consequence to supervise the learning

process [1].

Probabilistic theory is methodology which guides in dealing with the uncertainties and

imprecisions. The probabilistic methods involve a space consisting probabilities of whole

system. The uncertainties of complex dynamic system are calculated and combined

behavior of system is analyzed for the degree of causticity. The chaotic behavior of

system is estimated by the past. In general, the chaotic behavior of system grows

exponentially with time [1].

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

5

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Swarm systems are based on behavior of school of birds, insects, fireflies where a flocks

of birds twisting, V-shaped structure of migrating geese, winter birds hunting for food,

the synchronized flashing of fireflies are tried to imitating. The well-choreographed

collective behavior without any leader is adopted to search for optimal solutions for

instance, ants living in colony, their behavior is driven by the goal of colony survival

instead of individual survival, While searching for food ants initially explores

surrounding nests in random manner. A similar behavior is observed with flocks of birds

where a leader keeps guiding the flock to updated food location [1].

Both EA and SI together form a broader class of optimization driven search techniques

defined as global search optimization technique as shown in Fig.1.3 below.

The different combination of all the methodologies can be used to design intelligent

systems. Though a particular technique might be excellent in approximate reasoning and

modeling uncertainty but may not be so good at learning and adopting with experimental

data. A combined approach with computational intelligence technique and their

implementation can help in designing better intelligent agents.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

6

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Different forms of synergisms (Fig. 1.4) of fuzzy logic, neural networks and evolutionary

algorithms the common forms of weakly coupled synergism of neural network and

evolutionary algorithms include training designing, optimizing architecture and

parameters of neural networks and feature selection scaling training data for neural

network using evolutionary algorithms. A strongly coupled synergism between the two

methodologies where genetic operators are represented in the form of neural network and

the epochs are meant to be the generations of evolutions [1].

Synergisms of neural networks and fuzzy systems have proven to be very powerful for

system modeling and learning. In weakly coupled synergism, neural networks and fuzzy

system work independently towards a common goal where neural network assist fuzzy

logic to form rules and tuning membership functions. In strongly coupled synergism

fuzzy system assist neurons to assign weights to its membership functions where neural

network learns data over the epoch. There is other synergism possible between swarm

intelligence, fuzzy systems, evolutionary algorithms and neural network.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

7

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

irrespective of its orientation and it has upper hand over the classical domain based

analysis where the data computing and processing becomes difficult. CI exhibits

characteristic of domain independence where same methodology can be applied to

different fields For instance both neural network and fuzzy logic can be applied to solve a

problem the only difference would be in the performance.

Neural network can be applied in five ways i.e., data analysis, classifier, clustering,

pattern recognition, control strategy neural network has been successfully applied in

problems behaving non-linearly whereas fuzzy logic has been applied to appliances

where a module control is required the most adaptive implementation is done on

stabilizing an unsteady image. Fuzzy expert systems are applied to medical systems,

diagnostic, scheduling, and financial systems.

1.4.1 Application of NN

1. In aerospace neural networks are applied to high performance autopilot flight path

simulation, aircraft control systems, fault detection system.

application evaluation, credit, and activity.

4. In defense, it is used for weapon steering, target tracking, object discrimination, facial

recognition.

diagnosis, quality inspection.

6. In Medical cancer cell analysis, EEG and ECG signal analysis, optimization of

transplantation.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

8

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

7. In speech, applied for speech recognition, compression, and text to speech synthesis.

8. Telecommunication applied for image and data compression, speech processing, real-

time translation of spoken language.

objective design of automotive components for crashworthiness, weight savings and

other characteristics.

systems. For optimization of mechanical systems like heat exchanger, turbines, flywheel

and computer-assisted engineering design.

equipment design using catalogs of exemplar lever pattern.

aircraft design, keyboard configuration, communication network.

scheduling with objective to schedule jobs in both sequence-dependent and non-sequence

dependent for maximum production volume.

1. Fuzzy systems are used in automobiles and vehicle subsystems such as automatic

transmissions, ABS and cruise control.

3. In digital image processing, such as edge detection and video gam artificial

intelligence.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

9

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Intelligence and their methodologies are discussed (i.e., Evolutionary Systems, Neural

networks and Fuzzy systems). The Possible interactions of these techniques and the type

of synergism in which the limitations of one technique can be surpassed by combination

of two or more CI techniques is discussed. Depending on the compatibility of individual

methodologies, a better computational model can be built which could complement

respective methodologies.

for its robust and dynamic adaptability, flexibility, versatility in problem solving and

decision making skill. Computational Intelligence has potential competency to capture

and compare real time data. Application of Computational Intelligence is not yet explored

in machining problems to its fullest potential Most of the machining problems are

modeled and optimized through conventional techniques.

In the present work different soft computing technique is applied over machining system

to optimize machining performance and recognize machining pattern with a case study

from literature [2-9] in which extensive machinability aspects of AISI 4340 alloy steel

with different machining characteristics during, hard turning. Operation with different

faceted is discussed.

1.7 Objectives

In the present work, an attempt is made to apply the Computational Techniques and their

synergies with the objective to optimize and build prediction models for conventional

machining system. Different Computational methods are applied over the machining

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

10

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

system for optimization and learning of machining data Further, the optimized and learnt

data are compared with the result obtained from the literature

and swarm intelligence (i.e., Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm, Strength

Pareto, Particle Swarm Optimization technique) and compare optimized results

with literature.

2. To develop prediction models for hard turning of AISI 4340 steel by applying

intelligent learning techniques i.e., Neural network (NN) and Adaptive Neuro-

Fuzzy systems (ANFIS). (Tagaki-Sugeno fuzzy based Neural network) and

compare the prediction model with the experimental statistics.

3. To develop supportive-combination of evolutionary based prediction neural

network, furthermore the predicted model will be tested with experimental data.

4. To develop Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy based evolutionary estimator for predicting

optimized parameters for AISI 4340 steel hard turning machining operation.

1.8 Methodology

The adapted methodology is developed (Fig. 1.5) to achieve the above mentioned

objective with focus to optimize and develop prediction models.

prediction models are applied exclusively and another division supportive

combination of optimization-prediction models is applied.

2. After obtaining results from each technique comparative evaluation of respective

techniques is made with the experimental statistics of hard turning operation.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

11

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

techniques and their combination is discussed, applications of CI techniques how CI can

be applied to machining systems, problem statement, objectives, and methodology for the

current work has been discussed.

conclusion from literature is drawn.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

12

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

4340 steel both evolutionary and swarm intelligence based algorithm is described in

brief, mathematical aspects and the pseudo code along with their results is discussed.

In Chapter 4, applied predictive models i.e., neural network and adaptive neuro fuzzy

based learning model are discussed. Mathematical aspects and pseudo code along with

their results is discussed.

applied pseudo code is described the results of the applied techniques are discussed.

with the experimental statistics is discussed. Conclusions of present research work and

future scope is briefed.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

13

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

CHAPTER-2

The literature was explored with an aim to gather research work of authors who utilized

different evolutionary and learning techniques. In the literature authors have utilized

optimization and predictive techniques exclusively; multi-objective machining systems

were converted to single objective for performance evaluation. Many authors have

optimized machining systems with unit control parameter to enhance machining

performance avoiding the complex nature of conflicting objective. Literature review was

emphasized on the process parameters and control parameters utilized to model

machining system, applied optimization techniques and their degree of accuracy in

comparison to conventional techniques.

operation on SS420 Steel. Process parameters considered were cutting speed, feed rate,

and depth of cut to model surface roughness. RSM based regression model was built for

prediction and further improvised optimization technique was applied viz., Integrated GA

(IGA) which was comprehended with Conventional GA (CGA). The IGA gave better

results than CGA.

Hesam et al. [11] executed EDM process on DIN 1.452 stainless steel in which surface

roughness and white layers were control parameters. The machining model was built on

Taguchi technique and NSGA II was applied for optimization which could produce

convincing results.

Garg et al. [12] improvised machining turning operation of AISI 1040 Steel with surface

roughness as a control parameter. Taguchi technique was applied to model surface

roughness apart from that (Artificial Neural Network) ANN, (Support Vector Regression)

SVR techniques were used to build regression. Genetic programming (C-GP) coupled

with classifier was used as optimization technique. The results suggested that C-GP was

on par with the ANN but SVR performed poorer than C-GP and ANN.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

14

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Khaider et al. [13] examined hard turning operation of AISI 52100 bearing steel with

CBN (7020). The machining performance was measured in surface roughness, tool wear

and material removal rate were modeled with Taguchi, RSM and grey-relation, these

models were utilizes to optimize performance by applying GA and the results obtained

from GA predicted parameters which gave better machining performance.

Ozel and Karpat [14] investigated on enhancing the performance of AISI H13 grade

steel turning with CBN tool. Prediction model for surface roughness and tool wear was

built on process parameters (cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut). Experimental data of

AISI52100 steel was referred form literature and further data experiment was performed

on AISI H-13 steel these data was utilized to train neural network, Regression was also

carried out, two feed-forward neural networks was modeled. In the first model the input

layer constituted edge geometry, hardness, cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut to

predict tool wear and surface roughness, while in the latter network material hardness,

cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and forces were utilized to model tool wear and

surface roughness. The latter network performed well than the former.

Alhameri et al. [15] studied multi pass turning of austenitic AISI 302 Steel. Box-Behken

design was utilized to develop model. Prediction models were also built by Regression

analysis and NN to predict Tool life and machining economics with motive to minimize

machine economics and maximize tool life.

Abbas et al. [16] carried out research on turning operation of J steel with Tungsten-

Carbide insert. Models were built to predict Surface roughness and Material removal rate

by applying Taguchi technique. The formulated regression equations were utilized as

objectives with appropriate constraints in process parameters. Multi-objective EGO

algorithm was implemented to optimize machining performance.

Zhenghua et al [17] investigated high speed milling aluminum alloy AlMN1CU with

Carbide tipped tool. Both Linear and quadratic regression models were built and

Bayesian Neural nets (BNN) was built using experimental data to predict surface

roughness, the regression model built was utilized as objective functions with precise

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

15

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

predicted optimized parameters for each surface roughness which was verified by BNN.

Yunguang et al. [18] worked on micro-grinding of nickel based super alloy (DD98),

surface roughness was modeled in linear and non-linear degree using CCD based RSM.

GA was applied to predict control parameters for best machining performance. The

results were verified experimentally and were found to show pretty good agreement.

minimize cellular movement distance and machine idle time. Regression models were

developed and optimization techniques viz., NSGA II, lingo, Fuzzy-GA was applied and

results concluded that NSGA II gives better results than Lingo and Fuzzy-GA.

N.Alberti and Perrone [20] worked on multi pass turning operation to predict least

power consumption, machine economics and surface roughness for which three different

modelling approaches was adopted viz., deterministic model, possibilistic model, a fuzzy

possibilistic-GA model with constrained and unconstrained search space. The results

established that fuzzy-possibilistic model predicted most failures and fuzzy-possibilistic-

GA optimized objectives to practically feasible solution.

Garge et al. [21] experimented on EDM of Titanium and Inconel alloy in which surface

roughness and cutting speed were control parameters modeled with process parameters.

NSGA II was applied to optimize performance.

Pramanic et al. [22] worked on EDM of ZrB2 where cutting speed, material removal

rate, and surface roughness was modeled with process parameters by applying Taguchi

technique and optimization based on Taguchi based grey relation. ANN was used to

predict cutting speed and surface roughness, the predicted accuracy was checked with

experimental statistics for confidence level and it gave the appreciative result.

Sahali et al. [23] worked on multi point turning operation, modeling machine economics

with process parameters and constrains in surface roughness, chip-tool temperature, tool

life and force was applied. Optimization techniques applied were viz., Deterministic

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

16

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

that P-NSGA II outperformed deterministic and probablisitc technique.

Dureja et al. [24] reviewed different optimization and modeling techniques used in hard

turning operations viz., RSM, Taguchi, Regression analysis, NN, Fuzzy modeling, GA.

by predicting machining cost, machining time, tool wear with process parameters and GA

was applied to optimize objective function.

formation, hybrid predictive model was developed to characterize and optimize chip

breakability and chip curl geometry. Furthermore, GA was used to optimize chip

formation so that machining happening according to desirability, the optimized results

were verified with FEM simulation results.

Sundaraman et al. [27] in contrast worked on fixture design and layout of end milling;

quadratic model was built using RSM and optimization done by GA and PSO. The model

was built to predict work piece deformation with positions of clamp and location as

parameters. The results of optimization suggested that RSM-PSO gave better solution

than RSM-GA technique. Furthermore, these results were compared with FEM

simulation of fixture layout.

Costa [28] investigated on multi-pass turning with the objective to minimize unit

production cost. The objective was constituted of actual machining cost, machining idle

cost, tool replacement cost. The characteristic equation was built on process parameters

viz., cutting speed, depth of cut, feed rate both in rough and finish pass, operation

constraints were applied in tool life, cutting forces, power and surface roughness. A novel

hybrid technique in PSO was formulated for optimization. Furthermore, this solution was

compared with other techniques suggested 2.035 unit production cost, while FEGA gave

2.3057 as optimal cost SA gave 2.29, MGA gave 2.30, HC gave 2.27 and ACO gave

2.25.The hybrid PSO technique could optimize solution superior than other techniques.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

17

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Bharathi et al. [29] investigated on turning operation with diamond shape tungsten

carbide tool on four different materials i.e., brass, aluminium, copper and mild steel.

Machining was characterized by forces, surface roughness with cutting speed, feed rate,

and depth of cut as process parameters. Furthermore, these equations were optimized

using PSO technique; the optimal solution suggested the trend that higher cutting speed,

lower feed, and depth of cut gave better surface roughness. The optimal surface

roughness obtained from PSO for brass was 0.07m, for copper 0.08m, for aluminium

0.08m and mild steel 0.08m.

Bharathi et al. [30] carried out investigation on milling operation of aluminum bar with

carbide tool. Machining time and surface roughness were characterized with process

parameters such as spindle speed, feed rate, and depth of cut. The characterized equations

were optimized using PSO technique. The solution obtained from PSO was verified by

conducting confirmation test. The solution trend showed that higher speed, lower depth

of cut, lower feed rate gave better surface roughness and feed rate had a greater influence

on surface roughness. The prediction ability of present approach was found to be 96 %

for machining time and 85% for surface roughness.

Bharathi et al. [31] investigated on modeling and optimizing both turning and grinding

operation. The turning operation was done on single and multi-pass while grinding was

done in the single-pass. The performance of turning was measured on machining time

while grinding was done on machining time and material removal rate. Optimization

technique applied were PSO, GA, and SA whose optimal solutions were

comprehensively evaluated. The computational time obtained by PSO in single and

multi-pass turning was 11 sec and 12 sec respectively, while for grinding 4 sec. Similarly,

results of GA gave 15 sec in both single and multi- pass turning, while in grinding it gave

6 sec as optimal computational time. Likewise in SA, it was 12, 13 and 5 respectively.

Optimal material removal rate in grinding was in the range of 0.17-0.44 m, from the

results it could be inferred that PSO proved to be better than GA and SA.

Chandrasen et al. [32] reviewed different soft computing techniques that could be

applied to machining performance prediction. Any machining system could be

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

18

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

generalized by its corresponding inputs and outputs. Input in general are process

parameters, material properties, sensory feed and output of the system are concerned

about machining performance i.e., dimensional deviation, cutting forces and tool wear,

after machining characterizations done various soft computing techniques are applied to

optimize machine model. The review concluded that best strategy to predict performance

is to couple fuzzy with a neural network. Likewise, to optimize precisely GA, PSO and

similar heuristic techniques are the best technique.

Prabhakaran et al. [33] carried out work on machining fixture analysis where location

and displacement of clamp and locator were objective functions. Regression models were

developed for displacement and location and optimized using GA and ACA. Ant colony

algorithm gave near optimal solution than GA.

Farahnakian et al. [34] investigated end milling operation; performance was modeled in

cutting force and surface roughness with process parameters as cutting speed, depth of

cut, feed rate. The characterized equation was utilized to frame optimization problem,

coupled PSO-NN technique was applied to optimize. The applied technique gave better

Pareto-spread in solution space with good convergence.

Yang et al. [35] carried out worked on multi- pass face milling operation. Performance

was characterized by unit production cost with process parameters such as number of

pass, depth of cut, cutting speed, feed rate. Fuzzy based multi-objective PSO was applied

to optimize process parameters which gave better solution with fast convergence.

surface roughness with process parameters cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut.

Taguchi based regression equation was utilized to formulate optimization. PSO was used

to optimize parameters.

performance was measured such as cutting force, tool life, surface roughness and cutting

power with process parameters spindle speed, feed rate, depth of cut. PSO technique was

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

19

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

spread of optimal solutions was well spread and converged well.

removal rate. PSO was applied to optimize material removal rate.

Sukla and Singh [39] investigated on Abrasive Water jet Machining (AJM) of

Aluminum alloy with garnet abrasive particles. Machining model was built for kerf width

and taper angle prediction with process parameters by applying Taguchi technique and

Optimization techniques applied, PSO, Firefly, Simulated Annealing, Black Hole, Bio-

Geographical, NSGA. PSO gave better results than other techniques.

AISI 1040 steel with Al2O3 coated carbide insert. Tool variable considered were tool

material, nose radius, and rake angle cutting edge geometry while work piece variable

considered material hardness with cutting conditions such as cutting speed, feed rate and

depth of cut. With these variables, a multi-regression model was developed and full

factorial experimental design was built Further, ANN was developed with back

propagation training algorithm to predict surface roughness. ANN and multi-regression

were had close estimated of surface roughness prediction. ANN performed better with

99% regression coefficient and regression with 97% regression coefficient.

Senthil et al. [41] predicted performance of cutting tool inserts using neural network.

Experiments were performed on workpiece with carbide inserts with process parameters

such as cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut, material hardness, and cutting insert shape

(relief angle, nose radius) to model surface roughness and flank wear. The Taguchi based

ANN model was built with these process parameters as input layer. Results predicted by

neural network model were compared with experimental values which predicted values

close to experimental statistics.

Miron et al. [42] worked on dynamic characterization and vibration analysis of lathe

machining system by which the machine condition was determined. Modal analysis was

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

20

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

done to determine the natural frequencies, the frequency was compared with numerical

model and validation experiment was performed.

Dilbag and Venkateshwara [43] developed analytical tool wear model while turning

bearing steel with ceramic tool. The model incorporated abrasion, adhesion and diffusion

wear mechanism further it was validated by conducting experiment. The analytical model

had capability of predicting flank wear using cutting parameter and tool geometry.

Yahya et al. [44] worked on turning operation of steel at different conditions with P25

HSS tool at different working conditions. Surface roughness, flank wear, and crater wear

were modeled with process parameters to determine machinability of tool steel. The

relative degree of influence of each parameter on control parameters was quantified. This

work can help in sorting the priority of objective functions and the contribution to overall

machining performance.

Hamdi et al. [45] investigated behaviour of hard turning while machining AISI H11

Steel with CBN tool. Forces and surface profile were considered as process responses. A

CCD based RSM was applied to build machining model furthermore a comprehensive

analysis was done on influence of process parameters over machining quality.

Shihab et al. [46] conducted experiment on hard turning of AISI 52100 Steel alloy with

coated carbide tool in which surface roughness and micro hardness were modelled and

optimized utilizing CCD based RSM approach. The RSM based optimization technique

gave satisfactory results but by reducing multi objective to single objective.

Waleed et al. [47] worked on hard turning of AISI 4340 Steel with CBN tool; in his

work surface roughness and tool flank wear were modelled by Taguchi technique to form

multi-regression equation. This equation was used as objective functions along with

constraints in process parameters; the S/N ratio analysis was done on regression to

optimize control parameters.

model was built on material removal rate, cutting speed and machining time for both

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

21

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

brass wire and zinc coated brass wire by applying both RSM and multi criteria grey

relation. RSM was utilized to optimize the objectives individually for both the wires.

Emeryl et al. [49] worked on hard turning of Ni-Steel alloy (62HRC) with CBN tool

insert, the performance was modeled to predict cutting forces, surface roughness with

process parameters by applying Taguchi method and optimization was done by Taguchi

based S/N ratio. The results were in agreement with experimental data with good level of

confidence.

Ilhan and asks [50] worked on hard turning of AISI 4140 (51HRC) steel by carbide tool

coated with Al2O3 and TiC. A three-level full factorial with Taguchi based experimental

design was applied to model surface roughness by applying cutting conditions and

control factors. The process variability was measured by S/N ratio. Taguchi based S/N

response suggested that larger difference in S/N ratio will have more significant effect on

surface roughness. The result of process variables for optimum surface roughness was

120 m/min, 0.18 mm/rev and 0.4 mm cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut

respectively.

Gaurav and Choudhary [51] focused study on hard turning of EN31 bearing steel (58-

62HRC) with CBN tool insert. A three-level full factorial experimental design was

developed; ANOVA was performed to find the relative contribution. RSM was utilized to

build regression equation on cutting forces and surface roughness, further RSM

optimization was done. Results showed that depth of cut had more influence on cutting

forces and while speed had the least influence. Results also revealed that initially forces

decreased with increasing speed later on increased along with speed due thermal

softening of tool material.

Ashvin and Nanavati [52] enquired on turning operation of AISI 410 steel with carbide

inserts of TNMG series differing in nose radius. A three-level full factorial experimental

design was done, further, RSM was utilized to model and optimize surface roughness

which suggested optimal solution 225 m/min,0.1 mm/rev, 0.3 mm, 0.12 mm for cutting

speed, feed rate, depth of cut and tool radius respectively.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

22

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Asilturk and Suleyman [53] investigated hard turning of AISI 304 austenite stainless

steel with carbide inserts (SNMG series). A three-level full factorial Taguchi based

experimental design was built. RSM based regression equation was modeled for surface

parameters (Ra and Rz) using process variable, S/N ratio was determined then RSM

based optimization was done. The optimized control factors setting for Ra was found to

be cutting speed 50 m/min, feed rate 0.15 mm/rev, depth of cut 1.5mm and for Rz was

cutting speed 150m/min, feed rate 0.15mm/rev, depth of cut 1mm. These authors applied

Taguchi and RSM to model and optimize machining parameters. RSM relates response

based input parameters by experimental statistics and applying regression. RSM consists

of three stages design of experiment, regression, and optimization to find best optimal

solution RSM is coupled with meta-heuristic technique.

Aggarwal and Singh [54] reviewed different machining modeling technique for

conventional machining model and types of optimization methodology to optimize and

characterize machine model.

Chinmaya et al. [55] experimented on hybrid machining where laser assisted machining

(LAM) was coupled with turning operation. High strength alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) was

machined with cobalt bound tungsten carbide, liquid nitrogen was used coolant. The

LAM hybrid turning operation reduced specific cutting energy and improved surface

roughness when compared to conventional machining.

Wang et al. [56] worked on multi-pass turning operation of AISI 1045 with a different

set of tools (TNMG carbide inserts). A hybrid model was built to predict machining

performance, surface roughness, forces, and chip breakability were characterized by

process parameters with operation constraints such as surface roughness, forces, and tool

life. RSM was utilized to optimize process parameter. The hybrid model developed could

predict slip line field accurately, which was verified by Finite Element Modelling results.

reinforced with SiC (Al 6061) using coated tungsten carbide tool. The effect of

reinforcement on cutting forces was characterized to improve machining performance and

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

23

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

it was found that weight forces have maximum impact on the cutting forces. A quadratic

model was developed using RSM. Optimal solution concluded that cutting forces was

majorly affected by the type of reinforcement.

EranAlsan et al. [58] investigated hard turning of AISI 4140 steel with ceramic tool

mixed with Al2O3 and TiCN. Machining performance was modeled using Taguchi based

RSM on flank wear and surface roughness as control parameters with process variables.

The optimization results obtained from RSM technique suggested cutting speed

250m/min, feed rate 0.1mm and depth of cut 0.25-0.4 mm for surface roughness and

flank wear.

Hashimoto et al. [59] identified the fundamental difference in the surface integrity of

hard turning and ground surface, their subsequent impact on rolling contact fatigue life.

The work concluded that the mechanical deformation could play a large role during hard

turning than grinding while the size effect in grinding introduced surface hardness

furthermore the hard turned surface may have more than 100% longer fatigue life than a

ground one with an equivalent surface finish due to very different characterization of

surface integrity. The effect of turned or ground surface free of white layer was clarified a

super finished turned surface may have twice a fatigue life than ground surface.

Ozel et al. [60] investigated on hard turning of AISI 4340 steel with uniform and variable

edge PCBN insert where the forces and tool wear was measured and 3D finite model was

utilized to predict chip formation, temperature and tool wear on both type of inserts the

predicted tool wear and forces were compared with experimentation. The result showed

that the variable edge tool insert has advantage of less tool wear and good temperature

distribution profile.

Ravinder and Santram [61] investigated the effects of cutting parameters on surface

roughness in turning of Al7075 hard ceramic composites and Al7075 hybrid composite

using polycrystalline diamond tool (PCD) dry turning was conducted to examine the trend

of roughness by using roughness tester for both composites. It was concluded that surface

roughness of hybrid composite was lesser in all combination of experiment. Further

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

24

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

RSM based artificial neural network was applied to validate the results obtained during

experimentation and to protect the behavior of the system under any condition within the

operation range.

Mia and Dhar [62] developed a predictive model of average tool-workpiece interface in

hard turning of AISI 1060 steel by coated-carbide insert. Cutting condition used were

cutting speed, feed rate, and depth of cut utilized to model temperature profile.

Experiment was conducted in both dry and high pressure coolant environment with full-

factorial design. Temperature was measured using tool-work thermocouple. Response

Surface Methodology (RSM) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) were employed to

predict the temperature. The accuracy of both RSM and ANN model were in region of

acceptance. The regression coefficient of ANN for both the environment was greater than

99.8%. ANN model demonstrated a higher accuracy which was found convincing if

employed for controlling cutting temperature in turning of hardened steel.

Pontes et al. [63] worked on turning of AISI52100 hardened steel with multi-layered

coating (Al2O3+Tic+TiN) chamfer edge. Experiments were conducted with training sets

of different size to compare performance of best network in each experiment. Process

parameters considered were cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut to model performance in

surface roughness. Radial base function (RBF) neural network was developed with the

use of Taguchis orthogonal array as a tool to design parameter of network. The factors

considered in designing RBF-NN were number of radial units, algorithm for selection of

radial center and algorithm for selection of spread factor for evaluating performance of

RBF-NN. The results revealed that algorithm for calculation of radial spread factor was

most influencing among the three factors RBF-NN trained gave least mean standard

deviation for worst trained case. The results suggested that DOE based RBF network are

more efficient and effective than trail and error based NN architect.

characteristics of turning AISI D2 (cold work) tool steel with different ceramic inserts. A

multi-layer feed forward Neural was developed with inputs as ceramic insert grade,

cutting speed, feed rate and machining time to predict specific cutting force, surface

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

25

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

roughness and tool wear. Statistical comparison was done between the predicted results

and experimental results further more interaction effects among the process parameters

were studied.

Wang [65] developed neural network based optimal estimator for predicting CBN tool

wear during hard turning operation. Prediction model was based on fully forward

connected neural network, with inputs as cutting condition and machining time and

predicted output in tool flank wear. The feed forward fully connected neural network

(FFCNN) based optimization was validated with experimental data. Comparison showed

that the (FFCNN) estimated a close value to experimental tool wear and developed

FFCNN model was found to be faster, accurate than other neural network approaches.

Umbrello et al. [66] developed predictive hybrid model based on neural network and

finite element method with objective to predict residual stress profile in hard turning for

different combination of material properties, cutting tool geometry and cutting condition.

A converse prediction of cutting conditions and geometry was made for a given residual

stress profile which acted as constrained based process parameters determination.

Furthermore, this model was utilized as closed feedback where the predicted residual

stress of ANN were applied to simulate cutting condition in FEA and vice-versa The

results obtained from ANN based FE simulation gave practical results.

Ravinder and Santram [67] investigated the effect of cutting parameters (cutting speed,

feed rate and approach angle) on roughness while turning Al 7075 hard ceramic based

composite using polycrystalline tool diamond tool (PCD). The surface roughness was

modeled by both RSM and ANN. Moreover, the influence of parameters on surface

roughness was analyzed both RSM and ANN model correlated fairly to the experimental

data.

minimizing production cost in multi-pass turning operation the algorithm was illustrated

two case studies. Taguchi based differential evolution was applied to solve machining

economics problem. Further hybrid differential evolution based optimization technique

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

26

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

was compared with PSO, HEGA, Scattered Search (SS), Simulated Annealing (SA),

Pattern Search (PS), Floating encoding genetic algorithm (FEGA) and Hybrid Harmony

Search (HSS) HEDEA outperformed all other techniques.

Kara et al. [69] worked on turning of AISI 310L Stainless steel with both coated and

uncoated cutting tool (TiCN+Al2O3+TiN). The cutting condition (cutting speed, feed rate,

and depth of cut) were used to model tangential forces and feed force Prediction model

was developed for both the responses with ANN. Two learning methods were deployed

i.e., scaled conjugate learning and Lavenberg-Madquart learning. The predicted forces

were accurate with error within 5%.

Sener Karabulut [70] worked on milling of metal matrix composite (Aluminum Alloy

7039/Al2O3 powder metallurgy) with CVD carbide tools the process parameters were

material removal rate, cutting speed, feed rate and axial depth of cut to model machining

performance such as surface roughness and cutting force ANN model was developed

with cutting condition to predict performance. The predicted performance was compared

with experimental model which gave close results with 99.8% regression.

optimization. From the literature it could be concluded that very few authors have applied

swarm intelligence techniques for optimization. While concerning to regression based

learning techniques, authors have applied neural network based prediction models and

few authors have utilized hybrid learning based evolutionary optimization estimators.In

the literature authors, have utilized optimization and predictive techniques exclusively;

multi-objective machining systems were converted to single objective for performance

evaluation. Many authors have optimized machining systems with unit control parameter

to enhance machining performance avoiding the complex nature of conflicting objectives.

The literature motivates for research work in multi performance of machining system and

multi-regression prediction models as literature lacks application of synergies of

computational techniques for performance evaluation and prediction.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

27

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

CHAPTER 3

OPTIMIZATION

3.1Introduction

solved by applying Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) and Swarm Intelligence (SI) which

are Global Search based Optimization techniques (ref Fig.1.3). In the first section

Evolutionary Based NSGA II (Non-Dominated Sort Genetic Algorithm) and SPEA 2

(Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm) algorithms are applied to Machining MOOPs

and a comparison of between both is made on basis of diversity of solution. In the second

section Particle Swarm based Swarm Intelligence is applied to existing Machining

MOOPs and optimized results are interpreted through, swarm surface and pareto plots. In

the third section comparative evaluation of obtained results between EA and SI technique

are analyzed and the difference in the nature of solution space between the two search

optimization techniques is assessed. The workflow of this chapter is explained below,

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

28

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Most of the practical problems are complex and their definition of optimality is not

simple as they need to satisfy multiple competing objective functions at the same time.

Moreover, some of these objectives may have conflicting relations with others, which

makes the optimization difficult. Problems requiring simultaneous optimization of more

than one objective function are known as multi-objective optimization problems

(MOOPs). They can be defined as problems consisting of multiple objectives, which are

to be minimized or maximized while maintaining some constraints. Formally, they can be

defined as:

g j ( x) 0 j 1, 2,3... j

hk ( x) 0, k 1,2, 3,..., K

equality constraints. This type of problem has no unique perfect solution. In traditional

multi-objective optimization, it is very common to simply combine all the objectives

together to form a single (scalar) fitness function. But the obtained solution using a single

scalar is sensitive to the weight vector used in the scaling process. This requires

knowledge about the underlying problem which is not known before in most cases.

Moreover, the objectives can interact or conflict with each other. Therefore, trade-offs

exists when dealing with such MOOPs, rather than a single solution. Most MOOPs do not

provide a single solution; rather, they offer a set of solutions. Such solutions are the

trade-offs or good compromises among the objectives. In order to generate these trade-

off solutions, an old notion of optimality called the Pareto-optimum set is normally

adopted.

for single-objective optimization problems. The main challenges in a multi- objective

optimization are: converge as closely as possible to the Pareto-optimal front, and

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

29

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

maintain as diverse a set of solutions as possible. The first task ensures that the obtained

set of solutions is near optimal, while the second task ensures that a wide range of trade-

off solutions is obtained.

The Machining data from hard turning of AISI 4340 steel [2] is utilized as machining

objectives in which machining is performed on two different hardness and regression

equations were built using RSM with process variables involving in cutting speed, feed

rate and depth of cut to model surface roughness, cutting forces and tool life. The

machining constraints and objectives are as follows,

bound(35) bound(35) bound(45) bound(45)

parameters

Feed 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25

rate(mm/rev)

Depth of cut(mm) 1 2 1 2

parameters forces(N)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

30

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

3.3.1 Machining Model (Surface Roughness Cutting force components and Tool

Life work material hardness: 35 HRC).

0.000236 v d 11 f d 0.00000381 v 2 32.039 f 2

0.2853 d 2 3.1

1.9860 f d 235 f d 0.00075 v 2 6659.8 f 2

0.598 d 2 3.2

145 f d 0.000398 v 2 1528.4 f 2

66.71 d 2 3.3

0.2472 v d 585 f d 0.000415 v 2 2593.5 f 2

22.93 d 2 3.4

3.3.2 Machining Model (Surface Roughness Cutting force components and Tool Life work

material hardness: 45 HRC).

0.102 v d 3.7 f d 0.0000128 v 2 49 f 2

0.22 d 2 3.5

1.11 v d 1175 f d 0.01183 v 2 5909.091 f 2

38.9091 d 2 3.6

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

31

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

1.39 v d 695 f d 0.01210 v 2 3477.273 f 2

41.271 d 2 3.7

1.19 v d 95 f d 0.01518 v 2 2695.4545 f 2

26.95 d 2 3.8

423

Tf 3.9

(v) 0.59

( f )0.4697 (d )0.47

23135.13

Tf 3.10

(v) 0.59

( f )0.4697 (d )0.47

Optimum seeking is one of the central issue in Manufacturing system. Every problem

solved is outcome of best possible choice for which a variety of tools and techniques

have been developed and applied to systems for optimum seeking.

Meanwhile optimum seeking in nature, biological and social systems takes place in a

completely different way i.e., natural evolution they have adapted themselves to a

constantly shifting and changing environment in order to survive. Those weaker and

lesser fit members of species tend to die away leaving create stronger and fitter to mate

create to create offspring and ensure the containing survival of species and it is upon this

dictated idea that evolutionary computing is based on. Evolutionary computing is

emulation of the process of natural selection in search procedure (as shown in Fig.3.1).

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

32

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

( p 1) [ ( ( p))]

Fig 3.2 Evolutionary Model

The current EAs applied in Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MOOPs) and the

combination became known as a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA). An

MOEA will be considered good only if both the goals of convergence and diversity are

satisfied simultaneously. The MOEAs population-based approach helps to preserve and

utilize the non-dominated diverse set of solutions in a population. The MOEA converges

to a Pareto-optimal front with a good spread of solutions in some fixed number of

generations. Most MOEAs use the concept of domination to attain the set of Pareto-

optimal solutions.

no solution is equally likely, if the parameters of genetic operator are not appropriate

depending upon nature of problem in hand. A prior convergence analysis is essential for

favorable working of Evolutionary algorithm So at each genetic operations the

probability of obtaining best solution and its heritance in the subsequent operation is

essential.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

33

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

EA system which does not use any specific properties of the set X, the only condition is

that the function f should be defined at every point of X i.e, X R n . Then the problem

of optimization can be defined as,

f x 0 X Rn

discretize search space X to XD by a simple binary code as encoding function the

optimization problem is converted to finite set SD S , SD C ( X ) .

There are Variety of Evolutionary system with different types of selection, crossover and

mutation. This section discusses most generalized terms with no bias in different genetic

operation.

Consider the following events in evolutionary system with their respective properties let

P be a population and n be the size of population

P A | H Probability that the population does not contain solution after mutation

P A | H Probability that the no solution is found after mutation and crossover

P H Probability that solution will be found after a crossover.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

34

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

_

P H No solution after crossover.

S is a finite S 2m

Let Pmt be the probability of mutation s S be selected individual, then the probability

*

of individual not getting mutated be P S x mut PD and not giving rise S * in the

Let K be the no. of different bits in S & S * 0 k m then the probability that S

P P , P PS S 1 P

k

m

k

mt

m

k

Pm Pmt

1 k

k m

P 1 Pmt : Pmk is The probability of K mutation

mk

Cm

1 Pmt

mk

is the probability that the remaining (m-k ) bits do not mutate

1

probability that precisely the necessary K-bits mutate but not other bits.

Cmk

m

pmt

Then P{s s ' s*} 1 P{s s*} 1 is the probability that s does not mutate

Cm[ m/2]

in S*

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

35

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Pmtm

P S S *

1 k

Cm

mk 1 m

k Pmt 1 Pmt k Pmt ( m /2)

Cm Cm

For an individual to get mutated the minimum condition is that half of its bit length must

participate in mutation and in contradictory assuming that mutation does not happen then,

P S * mut P P{ S S ' S *}

SP

Pmt m P

P S S S * 1 ( m /2) 1 mmt/2

'

(3.2)

s p s p

Cm Cm

The above condition is valid when the probability of mutation pmt <0.5, if the probability

of mutation exceeds 0.5 then the probability that the population does not contain solution

S* is given as follows.

(1 Pmt )

P S * mut ( P) 1

Cmm /2

P S * mut ( P)

Now evaluating binary strings over the objective f P k max ( f ( S )) if elite method

SSp

is utilized for selection then,

and subsequently we get,

f f f ( p kf ) f ( s ) f p

0

Re sults

p p 'f p kf Pf0 Pr obability

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

36

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Here Pfk Probability that f ( P k ) f after k th iteration and Pfk is the probability that

f ( P k ) f * after the k th iteration now that the required expectation probability does not

decrease,

E P k E P k 1 E P k 2 ....... E P0

1 ,........., Sl if elistism is applied then the expectation is

unchanged i.e, E[ P K ] f *

Consider situation when A =A that no solution is found after the first iteration,

consequently suppose that a hypothesis H stating at least one of the solutions results from

_ _

crossover, Then possible events P A P A | H P H P A | H P H

3.4.1.4 Criteria for Crossover

Estimating P{H} from the above which only differ from the pmt by the fact that

population contains one solution before mutation, where as it does not contain any in

second case. Applying from the above,

n

n l

Pmt m

PA | H P S .......S

*

1

*

P

mut cross( P 0 ) 1 mmt/2 1

m /2

C m

l

Cm

n

n l

Pmt m

S .......S

P

_

* *

P A | H P mut cross( P ) 1 mmt/2

0

1 m /2

1

C m

l

Cm

crossover it can be concluded that a pair is good if both the individuals in the pair

contains fragments of the same solution as sub-string.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

37

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

C Event that all the pair is chosen for crossover are good.

P H P H | B P B P H | B P H | C

This can be concluded from the fact that if all the pairs are good then the probability is

maximum compared to other events,

So the probability that a good pair (s1,s2) yields a solution .can be written as

q

P{s1 s2 s*} pc pc q m 1,

m 1

P{s1 s2 s*} 1 pc

In contrary P{H | C}, the probability that a solution does not arise after a crossover,

provided that all pairs are good:

P{H | C}

( S1 , S2 )Cross ( P )

P{s1 s2 s1* ,...sl } (1 pc ) (1 pc ) n

P{H | C} 1 (1 pc ) n

Assuming that atleast n pairs take part in the crossover. Then probability of good pairs

after crossover

Now if Event A happens then the possibility of event A can be written as follows

m n

pmt pmt

(1 [ m /2]

) n

(1 (1 pc ) n

) (1 [ m /2]

)n *1

CM Cm

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

38

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

m

pmt

S (1 [ m /2]

)n (2 (1 pc ) n ) (3.3)

CM

Therefore probability in kth iteration can be written through mathematical induction as,

That no solution arises after the kth iteration now from above frame works the

expectation of solution after the kth iteration

E[ P K ] fp kf f * p kf f * (1 S k ) f *

With this following conclusions can be drawn from the expectation regarding the

parameters which influence mean convergence rate

4. The dependence of S on n can be drawn from the below expression

m

pmt

(1 [ m /2]

)n 0 as (n infinity)

CM

and (2 (1 pc ) ) 2 as (n infinity)

n

In order extract the extreme limits of convergence we consider the extreme of the

function S(n).

m

pmt

Let a 1 [ m /2] b 1 pc

CM

S (n) a n (2 bn )

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

39

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

S ' (n) a n (2 bn ) ln a bn ln b

2log a

The optimum n is given by n= log b

ln ab

With increase in population size the string length increases, reaches optimum peek

and then decreases. The least string length possible for encoding is 1 for zero size

population.

From above result it can be concluded that n exists and is real and S attains its

maximum i.e, as n increase, S first increases and then decrease.

For accelerating convergence pc should be minimum while pmt should be maximum

but the drawback of having pc minimum is that the best solution are not inherited to

next generation and high pmt destroys best solution space.

With elitism the expectation of solution getting transferred to next generation

increases moreover if crossover probability is increased the density of best solution

increases including good solution in every iteration.

If the mutation probability is decreased then the string length participating decrease

which decreases the passivity of killing best solutions, but if mutation is accurately

tuned then there is quite a possibility that worst strings could give good solution.

If the crossover size is increased the convergence decelerates but the chances of

obtaining good solution increases. In contrast for accelerating convergence if the

mutation rate is increased then good solutions are lost leading to no solution so a

good balance between convergence time and crossover-mutation rate is essential.

It is always suggested that in order to obtain good solution if convergence rate is

allowed to float freely whenever possible and when convergence rate is strict criteria

then it is suggested that the string length is kept minimum so that humming effect and

relative degrees of change in string character is merely small.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

40

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

With the key points in mind evolutionary algorithm is chosen with properties which

could overcome these drawbacks A fast elite NSGA II and SPEA2 algorithms are utilized

to optimize our machining system.

Population size 1000

Generation 100

Crossover probability 0.8

Crossover constant 0.1

Mutation probability 0.1

Mutation constant 0.2

Initialize Variables uses the bounds of V decision variables and randomly generates N

number of population over the bound range and each objective M is evaluated over

this population pop for fitness through Evaluate Objectives.

1. For i :[1-N]

2. For j :[1-V]

3. V[i,j]= Rmin+ random(0,1)*Range

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

41

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

5. Evaluate Objectives [Pop, M, V, N]

6. For i :[1-N]

7. For j :[1-V]

8. Objectives[I,j]= f (v)

3.5.2 Non_dominated_sort

population is sorted on the basis of domination front and over this front the population.

2. Initialize Sp = . This set would contain all the individuals that is being

dominated by p.

3. Initialize np = 0. This would be the number of individuals that

dominate p.

4. for each individual q in P if p dominated q then add q to the set Sp i.e. Sp = Sp

{q} else if q dominates p then

5. Increment the domination counter for p i.e. np = np + 1

6. If np= 0 i.e. number of individuals dominate p then p belongs to the first front;

Set rank of individual p to one i.e. prank = 1. Update the first front set by

adding p to front one i.e F1 = F1 {p}

This is carried out for all the individuals in main population P.

7. Initialize the front counter to one. i = 1 following is carried out while the ith

front is nonempty i.e. F[ ]= .

9. for each individual p in front Fi for each individual q in Sp (Sp is the set of

individuals dominated by p).

10. nq = nq 1, decrement the domination count for individual q.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

42

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

dominate q. Hence set qrank = i + 1.

12. Update the set Q with individual q i.e. Q = Q q.

13. Increment the front counter by one.

14. Now the set Q is the next front and hence Fi = Q.

Non_dominated_sort (pop,M,V,N)

2. Initiate Pop[i].domination set []

3. Pop[i].domination count=0;

4. //Initialize empty front F[1]=[]

5. For i :[1-N]

6. For j :[i+1-N]

7. P=pop[i] q=pop[j] //Consequetive population

8. //Check for domination

9. If dominates(p,q)

10. d=dominates(p,q)

11. d=all(p<=q)&&any(p<q)

12. P.dominates set=[P.dominates set ,j]

13. q.dominates count=[q.dominated count +1]

14. if dominates (q.cost p.cost)

15. q.dominate set=[q.dominates ,i]

16. p.dominate set=p.dominated count+1

17. Exchange pop[i] with p and pop[j] with q

18. If pop[i].dominated count==0

19. F[i] = [F[i],i] &pop[i].rank=1

20. While (~front not empty)

21. //calculated the subsequent fronts

22. Exchange p=pop[F[i] & q=pop[j]

23. q.dominated count =q.dominated count-1

24. q.dominated count ==0

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

43

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

25. Q=[q,j]

26. q.rank=pop(F[i])+1

27. exchange q with pop[j]

28. F[pop[i]+1]=Q

Once the non-dominated sort is complete the crowding distance is assigned. Since the

individuals are selected based on rank and crowding distance all the individuals in the

population are assigned a crowding distance value. Crowding distance is assigned front

wise and comparing the crowding distance between two individuals in different front is

meaningless. The crowing distance is calculated as below

16. Initialize the distance to be zero for all the individuals i.e. Fi (dj ) = 0, where j

17. for each objective function m

18. Sort the individuals in front Fi based on objective m i.e. I = Sort (Fi, m).

19. Assign infinite distance to boundary values for each individual in Fi i.e. I (d k ) =

and I (dn) =

20. for k = 2 to (n 1)

I (k 1).m I ( K 1).m

I (d k ) I (d k ) 3.4

f mmax f mmin

I(k).m is the value of the mth objective function of the kth individual in I

Distance (M, V, N)

2. //Initiate disyance d=0

3. //Index of fronts F[p,q]

4. S.up=S.up+1

5. S.down=S. up

6. Push[S,pop[i]]

7. I=sort(pop(push(S,pop[i])

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

44

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

I (k 1).m I ( K 1).m

I (d k ) I (d k )

f mmax f mmin

9. Return fronts and distance

3.5.3 Selection

Once the individuals are sorted based on non-domination and with crowding distance

assigned, the selection is carried out using a crowded- comparison-operator

Non-domination rank prank i.e. individuals in front Fi will have their rank

1. p <n q if

2. prank < qrank

3. or if p and q belong to the same front Fi then Fi(dp) > Fi(dq) i.e. the crowing

distance should be more.

The individuals are selected by using a binary tournament selection with crowed-

comparison-operator

1. For i :[1-N]

2. For j :[1-Tour size]

3. I:random(N,Tour size)

4. Get [i1,i2]:I(j)

5. //Check rank and distance of candidate

6. [I_Rank, I_distance]=pop[min(pop(Rank),max(pop(distance))]

7. I_min : pop[find(min(pop(rank)&&max(pop(distance))]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

45

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Real-coded GAs use Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX) operator for crossover and

polynomial mutation Simulated Binary Crossover. Simulated binary crossover simulates

the binary crossover simulated.

Where ci, k is the ith child with kth component, pi,k is the selected parent and k ( 0) is a

sample from a random number generated having the density.

p( ) 0.5(c 1) c 2 if 0 1 3.8

p( ) 0.5(c 1)1/ c 2 if 1 3.9

This distribution can be obtained from a uniformly sampled random number u between

(0, 1). c is the distribution index for crossover

(u) (2u)1/( 1)

c

3.10

(u) (1/ 2(1 u)) 1/(c 1)

3.11

Crossover (parent pop, M, V, Rang, PC)

1. For i:[1-N]

2. If Random(0,1)<PC

3. //Child initiation child1 and child 2

4. Select parents

5. P1: round [N*random(0,1)]

6. P2: round[N*random(0,1)]

7. Parent 1=parent pop[P1,:]

8. Parent 2=parent pop[P2,:]

9. //Simulated Binary Crossover

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

46

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

11. If Uj[i] <0.5

1

(2U i )1 Pc

12. Else

1

2(1 U i ) Pc 1

14. Evaluate objective(child2,M,V)

15. Polynomial Mutation

ck pk ( p u k pkl ) k

k (2rk )1/ m 1

1 if 0.5 3.12

1/m 1

k 1 [2(1 rk )]

17. For i :[1-N]

18. P3=round[N*random(0,1)]

19. Child3=parentpop(P3,1)

20. m(i)=random(0,1)

21. if m(i)<0.5

(i ) 2 * m(i ) pm 1

else

1

(i )

2(1 m(i )) pc 1

23. evaluate objective(child 3,M,V,N)

Where, rK is a uniformly sampled random number between (0, 1) and m is mutation rate.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

47

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

The best parents from former generations and off springs in current generations are

combined to preserve parents so that the parents are conserved in the consecutive

generations

Replace pop (Intermediate pop,M,V,N)

1. For i : [1-N]

2. Sort pop

3. Max_rank=Intermediate pop[find(maxRank)]

4. For i: 1 to max_rank

5. J=max(find[sorted pop(max>rank)==i)

6. If (j>N)

7. //sorted with rank

8. //find the number of individuals with current rank

9. k=j-N

10. p=sorted_pop(k:N)

11. //Sort according to distance

12. For j : [1-N]

13. F[N+K:]=p(N:j)

14. Elseif j<N

15. F[N:j]=sorted_pop[j:N]

16. For i :[1-Kmax]

17. Pool=round(Np/2),tour=2

18. Parent pop=Tournament selection (pop, Tour)

19. [Child 1,Child 2]=Crossover (Parent pop, M, V, Range, PC)

20. [Child 3]=Mutate(Parent pop, M, V, Range, Pm)

21. Offspring pop=[Child 1, Child 2, Child 3]

22. Intermediate pop =[pop, offspring]

23. Replace pop(Intermediate pop, M, V, N)

Table.3.3 Results of NSGA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 35 HRC Steel

Vc f d Ra Ft Fa Fr Tf R D

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

48

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

265 0.15 1 1.732035 481.3859 108.6272 196.3489 38.33675 1 65535

265 0.25 2 2.972375 889.7312 341.015 436.8659 21.77353 1 65535

169.434 0.15 1 4.023594 412.8885 152.2218 231.225 49.91373 1 65535

261.1212 0.15 1 1.823688 475.9385 108.9812 196.2864 38.67171 1 65535

265 0.25 2 2.972375 889.7312 341.015 436.8659 21.77353 1 65535

264.9902 0.25 2 2.972568 889.7437 341.0119 436.8632 21.774 1 65535

264.9983 0.241889 1.927966 2.753395 851.9404 321.1578 419.3945 22.49811 1 0.02106

231.6619 0.150082 1 2.523533 442.0419 115.6496 199.9704 41.49104 1 0.017777

256.2502 0.157696 1.086001 1.906649 498.2758 125.4584 216.8083 36.74274 1 0.016073

265 0.241178 1.922463 2.735899 848.8689 319.5894 417.9773 22.55941 1 0.015979

255.922 0.160701 1.078365 1.924486 500.1209 127.8311 218.4533 36.56701 1 0.01586

264.9996 0.246009 1.921864 2.81867 861.1237 322.9102 422.1392 22.35356 1 0.015844

185.7026 0.15 1 3.628576 414.8737 139.6661 219.9264 47.28547 1 0.015625

177.0656 0.15 1 3.838041 413.3254 146.0696 225.6509 48.63301 1 0.015374

265 0.197867 1.329979 1.873269 621.6293 191.4162 291.9741 29.43819 1 0.014759

264.961 0.161601 1.172733 1.681103 531.3475 137.4695 234.1206 34.35057 1 0.014673

218.6432 0.150107 1 2.834868 431.2042 120.7764 203.8858 42.92803 1 0.014661

264.9999 0.187048 1.311578 1.792259 598.7628 178.8963 278.8227 30.42464 1 0.014372

264.8573 0.241097 1.982864 2.795903 862.7214 331.3484 426.7589 22.24438 1 0.014369

174.3167 0.15 1 3.904826 413.0673 148.2322 227.6029 49.08405 1 0.014283

265 0.244146 1.891249 2.756463 849.2464 315.7876 416.0992 22.60344 1 0.014065

265 0.198594 1.349524 1.881922 627.2379 194.4536 295.5071 29.18677 1 0.014015

225.3303 0.150002 1 2.674819 436.3252 117.9001 201.6127 42.18555 1 0.013776

185.282 0.15 1 3.638763 414.7724 139.9641 220.1908 47.34876 1 0.013629

186.0766 0.15 1 3.619519 414.966 139.4022 219.6925 47.22937 1 0.013486

264.9959 0.240879 1.953051 2.760167 855.148 325.316 422.2024 22.40593 1

189.9865 0.15 1 3.524895 416.0567 136.7103 217.3171 46.65346 1 0.013037

264.9613 0.150352 1.247266 1.609129 533.0857 133.4604 236.7962 34.52022 1 0.01294

264.5977 0.171423 1.103768 1.747466 529.6774 141.0782 232.7329 34.4049 1 0.01288

232.9983 0.150418 1 2.491644 443.7511 115.4963 199.9651 41.30708 1 0.012815

265 0.246117 1.759588 2.664722 823.9152 293.6823 399.6592 23.29502 1 0.012699

208.8492 0.150014 1 3.070018 424.5623 125.443 207.6562 44.11734 1 0.01264

Table 3.3 consists optimized results for 35 HRC process parameters in first three

columns (vc,f,d) and latter columns contains optimized results for objective functions (Ra

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

49

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

,Ft ,Fa ,Fr ,Tf ).Out of the 1000 chromosome solutions few best chromosomes

Fig. 3.4 Rank and Pareto for Ra(35HRC) Fig. 3.5 Pareto-front for Tf (35HRC)

Table.3.4 Results of NSGA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 45 HRC Steel

Vc f d Ra Ft Fa Fr Tf R D

175 0.2500 2 5.4703 1.1135e+03 576.9927 494.4395 8.9403 1 65535

135.9606 0.1500 1 3.9895 519.5461 331.3059 282.9869 28.2786 1 65535

130.8263 0.1500 1 4.0725 524.2045 331.6248 282.5873 30.0149 1 65535

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

50

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

175 0.2500 2 5.4703 1.1135e+03 576.9927 494.4395 8.9403 1 65535

171.7381 0.1500 1 3.5991 504.4006 346.7949 307.9906 19.6973 1 65535

170.6747 0.1512 1 3.6100 505.0240 346.2216 307.2963 19.8126 1 0.0195

175.0000 0.2487 1.9979 5.4454 1.1089e+03 574.4013 492.7024 8.9698 1 0.0172

160.3800 0.1500 1.0066 3.6897 508.6927 339.0356 296.4326 21.7907 1 0.0168

174.9624 0.2458 1.9982 5.3980 1.1015e+03 569.8832 489.6478 9.0210 1 0.0160

175 0.2373 2 5.2635 1.0800e+03 556.7698 480.8408 9.1639 1 0.0156

171.7067 0.1500 1.0037 3.6009 505.9857 346.9955 308.2302 19.6489 1 0.0154

167.9552 0.1514 1.0066 3.6322 508.2227 344.5538 304.7724 20.2004 1 0.0154

168.5030 0.1500 1.0865 3.6577 541.3019 350.1705 311.2217 19.0637 1 0.0146

175 0.2306 2 5.1613 1.0631e+03 546.5998 474.0485 9.2885 1 0.0145

175 0.1857 1.4158 4.0521 716.6107 404.1508 368.3416 13.3300 1 0.0144

136.3303 0.1500 1 3.9838 519.2347 331.3076 283.0465 28.1599 1 0.0143

174.4113 0.1512 1.1067 3.6398 551.0508 356.2463 320.0333 17.7614 1 0.0142

174.8377 0.1511 1.0501 3.6089 526.7210 352.9048 316.2096 18.4048 1 0.0141

145.7619 0.1500 1 3.8500 512.3850 332.4684 285.9718 25.3898 1 0.0141

174.9083 0.1500 1 3.5803 504.5192 349.6613 312.0804 19.1474 1 0.0140

175 0.2393 2 5.2960 1.0853e+03 559.9760 482.9890 9.1264 1 0.0139

174.9987 0.2313 1.5566 4.6773 856.1857 468.7186 420.8659 11.1902 1 0.0137

174.9734 0.2064 1.1378 4.0238 611.7845 388.5914 358.3491 14.9399 1 0.0137

171.7164 0.1528 1.0761 3.6445 538.6585 352.6485 315.3194 18.4855 1 0.0136

175 0.1504 1.0131 3.5873 510.3848 350.6039 313.3299 18.9233 1 0.0136

175 0.2458 2 5.4006 1.1023e+03 570.2226 489.8743 9.0119 1 0.0135

175.0000 0.2028 1.1931 4.0322 634.4821 392.0288 360.3824 14.5323 1 0.0135

174.9971 0.2481 2 5.4377 1.1083e+03 573.8392 492.3111 8.9735 1 0.0133

175 0.1500 1.0286 3.5935 516.9707 351.4236 314.2841 18.7316 1 0.0132

168.5690 0.1500 1.0653 3.6481 532.3890 348.6946 309.5442 19.3321 1 0.0131

175 0.2295 1.0450 4.1928 593.8836 396.2472 370.1817 15.1377 1 0.0131

Table 3.4.consists optimized results for 45 HRC process parameters in first three

columns (vc ,f, d) and latter columns contains optimized results for objective functions

(Ra ,Ft , Fa , Fr , Tf ).Out of the 1000 chromosome solutions few best chromosomes are

listed in the above table.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

51

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig. 3.7 Rank and Pareto for Ra (45HRC) Fig. 3.8 Pareto-front for Tf (45HRC)

3.6 Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (Type 2)

Initialize population structure with fields in position cost fitness variables, dominance

field and cumulative fitness. Then objectives are evaluated over random pop. Position

with initial fitness, pop.cost. A fitness subset archive for best individuals is initiated,

first, all non-dominated population members are copied to the archive; any dominated

individuals or duplicates are removed from the archive during this update operation. If the

size of the updated archive exceeds a predefined limit, further archive members are

deleted by a clustering technique which preserves the characteristics of the non-

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

52

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

dominated front. Afterwards, fitness values are assigned to both archive and population

members:

Each individual i in the archive is assigned a strength value S(i) [0, 1), which at the same

time represents its fitness value F (i).and S(i) is the number of population members j

that are dominated by or equal to i with respect to the objective values, divided by the

population size plus one.

strength values S(i) of all archive members i that dominate or are equal to j, and adding

one at the end. To avoid the situation that individuals dominated by the same archive

members have identical fitness values, for each individual both dominating and

dominated solutions are taken into account. Each individual i in the archive P t and the

population Pt is assigned a strength value S(i), representing the number of solutions it

dominates.

S i {j j P.t Pt i j} |

R(i)

j Pt Pt , j i

S ( j)

On the basis of the S values, the raw fitness R(i) of an individual i is calculated:

That is the raw fitness is determined by the strengths of its dominators in both archive

and population. fitness is to be minimized here, i.e., R(i) =0 corresponds to a non-

dominated individual, while a high R(i) value means that i is dominated by many

individuals.

having identical raw fitness values.

The density estimation utilizes kth nearest neighbor method, where the density at any

point is a (decreasing) function of the distance to the kth nearest data point. Here the

inverse of the distance to the kth nearest neighbor is used for as density estimate. For each

individual i the distances (in objective space) to all individuals j in archive and population

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

53

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

are calculated and stored in a list. After sorting the list in increasing order, the kth element

gives the distance sought, denoted as k. The kth nearest parameter is defined as square

root of the sample size, NN and density distribution as

1

D(i) (3.13)

k 2

In the denominator, two is added to ensure that its value is greater than zero and that

D(i) < 1. Finally, adding D(i) to the raw fitness value R(i) of an individual i yields its

fitness F (i).

Population size 1000

Generation 100

Archive size 300

Crossover probability 0.7

Crossover constant 0.1

Mutation probability 0.1

Mutation constant 0.2

1. For i : [1-N]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

54

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

2. Pop.position :random(range,N)

3. Pop.cost=evalautefunction(pop.position)

4. //Initialize archive

5. Archive={ }

The tournament selection is similar to that applied in NSGA II

6. I=random(N,2)

7. I1=I(1)

8. I2=I(2)

9. If F(i1)<F(i2)

10. P=pop[i1]

11. Else

12. P=pop[i2]

Genetic operator applied is similar to that of NSGA II with slight variation in mutation

technique.

Crossover (p1,p2,crossover parameters)

13. Parametrs :(,range)

14. :random(-,1+,N)

y1 * p1 (1 )* p 2

15. y 2 * p 2 (1 )* p1

16. Y1=min[max(y1,range)]

17. Y2=min[max(y2,range)]

18. Mutate (p3,mutation parameters, range)

19. Parameters : , range

20. Rmin=min(range)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

55

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

21. Rmax=max(range)

22. dr=Rmax-Rmin

23. : *dr

24. y=p1+*random(Nm)

25. y=min(max(y,range))

26. Main learning

27. Do until( max iteration IT)

28. P=[pop,archive]

29. //check for domination

30. [dom,p.S]=dominates (p[i])

31. S=[p.S]

32. P[I].R=sum(S[dom])

33. Q=[p.cost]

34. : Euclidiean distance[q]

35. : sort[]

36. p[i]. =

37. p[i].[k]=p[i].[k]

1

p[i].D

38. p[i]. [k 2]

39. //Fitness Calculation

40. P[i].F=p[i].R+p[I].D

41. Fit =sum(find(p.R==0))

42. P.F=[fit]

1. Archive =p[size[p.R]]

2. While[min()==max((k)&&k<size())]

3. Pareto front=archive[archive.R==0]

4. [p1,p2]=binary tournament selection(archive,[archive.F],N)

5. Popc.cost=evalautefitness[child1,child2]

6. [child 1 child2]=crossover(p1,p2,crossoverparameters)

7. [p3]=binarytournamentselection(archive,[archive.F],N)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

56

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

9. Popm.cost=evalautefitness[child3]

10. pop=[popc.cost popm.cost]

Table 3.6 Results of SPEA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 35 HRC Steel

Position Cost S R sigmaK D F

[259.15 0.17 1.07] [1.88 514.11 136.22 225.95 35.51] [9.00] [0.00] 0.375 [0.32] [0.32]

[265.00 0.16 1.84] [1.60 674.93 238.28 350.68 27.63] [16.00] [0.00] 0.3563 [0.32] [0.32]

[265.00 0.24 1.81] [2.57 813.37 295.99 398.32 23.38] [17.00] [0.00] 0.2863 [0.34] [0.34]

[265.00 0.20 1.96] [2.05 757.72 292.73 391.58 24.60] [9.00] [0.00] 0.305 [0.33] [0.33]

[264.60 0.15 1.94] [1.51 683.95 250.23 366.11 27.68] [6.00] [0.00] 0.4035 [0.32] [0.32]

[264.83 0.17 1.74] [1.64 661.12 224.65 335.27 28.00] [26.00] [0.00] 0.3147 [0.33] [0.33]

[264.98 0.21 1.77] [2.11 737.27 265.23 367.09 25.17] [26.00] [0.00] 0.2558 [0.34] [0.34]

[265.00 0.19 1.79] [1.89 706.15 252.72 356.92 26.15] [20.00] [0.00] 0.3483 [0.33] [0.33]

[264.23 0.21 1.92] [2.25 776.56 295.04 392.75 24.13] [11.00] [0.00] 0.2511 [0.34] [0.34]

[264.85 0.22 1.47] [2.09 689.39 226.10 330.51 26.92] [34.00] [0.00] 0.3906 [0.32] [0.32]

[265.00 0.24 1.69] [2.57 802.55 280.54 388.16 23.84] [16.00] [0.00] 0.2971 [0.34] [0.34]

[264.99 0.18 1.88] [1.81 711.36 262.25 367.37 26.09] [17.00] [0.00] 0.3296 [0.33] [0.33]

[264.72 0.25 1.93] [2.91 874.97 328.11 427.52 22.13] [6.00] [0.00] 0.2971 [0.34] [0.34]

[256.63 0.16 1.09] [1.90 505.03 129.90 221.26 36.21] [13.00] [0.00] 0.3225 [0.33] [0.33]

[264.97 0.19 1.45] [1.83 636.05 200.63 303.73 28.72] [39.00] [0.00] 0.3818 [0.32] [0.32]

[263.42 0.20 1.31] [1.91 616.67 188.86 289.03 29.75] [30.00] [0.00] 0.368 [0.32] [0.32]

[264.62 0.21 1.91] [2.16 763.63 289.27 387.95 24.44] [12.00] [0.00] 0.2511 [0.34] [0.34]

[264.57 0.23 1.41] [2.16 695.37 225.90 331.84 26.94] [30.00] [0.00] 0.3986 [0.32] [0.32]

[265.00 0.21 1.97] [2.28 789.31 306.06 402.04 23.74] [8.00] [0.00] 0.2477 [0.34] [0.34]

Table 3.6 has results of optimized solution obtained from SPEA2 algorithm for 35HRC

position matrix represents the process parameters (vc,f,d), cost matrix represents

optimized solution for objectives (Ra ,Ft ,Fa ,Fr ,Tf ). and the remaining cells correspond to

SPAE2 parameters. Out of the 300 solutions in archive only few are listed in the above

table.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

57

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig. 3.11 Rank and Pareto for Ra (35HRC)

Table 3.7 Results of SPEA II family of best solution for AISI 4340 45 HRC Steel

Position Cost S R sigmaK D F

[175.00 0.22 1.90] [4.92 997.97 515.49 452.74 9.82] [14.00] [0.00] 0.238 [0.35] [0.35]

[174.72 0.23 1.54] [4.67 849.67 466.88 419.61 11.30] [10.00] [0.00] 0.271 [0.34] [0.34]

[174.92 0.18 1.34] [3.93 674.57 389.76 355.44 14.19] [29.00] [0.00] 0.427 [0.31] [0.31]

[174.83 0.23 1.70] [4.80 920.84 489.93 435.20 10.54] [14.00] [0.00] 0.247 [0.35] [0.35]

[174.85 0.18 1.55] [4.14 773.13 418.81 380.47 12.54] [21.00] [0.00] 0.299 [0.33] [0.33]

[175.00 0.16 1.33] [3.83 656.51 380.43 346.35 14.81] [26.00] [0.00] 0.482 [0.30] [0.30]

[174.99 0.19 1.70] [4.37 852.70 448.58 404.23 11.40] [21.00] [0.00] 0.253 [0.34] [0.34]

[175.00 0.19 1.44] [4.14 737.76 413.56 376.50 12.91] [24.00] [0.00] 0.373 [0.32] [0.32]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

58

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[174.99 0.22 1.47] [4.45 793.05 442.97 401.34 11.96] [11.00] [0.00] 0.278 [0.34] [0.34]

[175.00 0.21 1.84] [4.64 934.49 483.32 430.12 10.45] [20.00] [0.00] 0.238 [0.35] [0.35]

[175.00 0.22 1.51] [4.54 819.43 453.20 409.14 11.62] [13.00] [0.00] 0.26 [0.34] [0.34]

[173.87 0.19 1.34] [4.06 693.36 401.38 366.13 13.76] [26.00] [0.00] 0.435 [0.31] [0.31]

[175.00 0.21 1.40] [4.23 738.85 419.98 382.61 12.77] [23.00] [0.00] 0.348 [0.33] [0.33]

[175.00 0.24 1.29] [4.51 735.25 436.39 400.33 12.70] [7.00] [0.00] 0.346 [0.33] [0.33]

[168.21 0.16 1.02] [3.67 519.42 348.53 310.79 19.45] [15.00] [0.00] 1.069 [0.33] [0.33]

[175.00 0.24 1.19] [4.48 688.80 426.53 395.02 13.40] [8.00] [0.00] 0.425 [0.31] [0.31]

[174.95 0.23 1.26] [4.33 698.11 419.46 385.62 13.28] [16.00] [0.00] 0.347 [0.33] [0.33]

[175.00 0.22 1.70] [4.68 901.42 478.44 426.62 10.73] [18.00] [0.00] 0.266 [0.34] [0.34]

[175.00 0.24 1.82] [5.07 1000.50 524.52 459.35 9.80] [11.00] [0.00] 0.353 [0.32] [0.32]

Table 3.7 has results of optimized solution obtained from SPEA2 algorithm for 45HRC

position matrix represents the process parameters, (vc, f, d) cost matrix represents

optimized solution for objectives (Ra ,Ft ,Fa , Fr , Tf ) and the remaining cells correspond to

SPAE2 parameters Out of the 300 solutions in archive only few are listed in the above

table

Fig. 3.14 Rank and Pareto for Ra (45HRC) Fig. 3.15 Pareto-front for Tf (45HRC)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

59

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Swarm systems are based on behavior of school of birds, insects, fireflies where a flocks

of birds twisting ,V-shaped structure of migrating geese, winter birds hunting for food,

the synchronized flashing of fireflies are tried to imitating. The well-choreographed

collective behavior without any leader is adopted to search for optimal solutions. For

instance Ants living in colony, their behavior is driven by the goal of colony survival

instead of individual survival, while searching for food ants initially explores surrounding

nests. In random manner A similar behavior is observed with flocks of birds where a

leader keeps guiding the flock to updated food location.

Let f be objectives of our optimization problem the function f is defined over the

discretized space as f : R D R over the space R. The definition of swarm can be

condensed to

o o

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

60

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Where

X t X tn,d 1 n Nt & 1 d D

Vt Vt n,d 1 n Nt & 1 d D

Lt Lnt ,d 1 n Nt & 1 d D

Gt Gtn,d 1 n Nt & 1 d D

n 1

Furthermore Gtn ,d = Gt if (n<N) and satisfying initial and final conditions Gt Gt 1

N ,d l ,d

with given distribution for initial position and velocity (x0,v0) Initial grid index G0I is

determined by minimum argument of function.

vtn,1d vtn,1d C1.r1n,d Lnt ,d X tn,d C2 .S1n,d Gtn,d X tn,d (3.15)

Where C1 & C2 control the influence of personal best of particle and the common

Stn.d & rtn,d are randomness which are drawn uniformly at random [0,1]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

61

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

If a particle velocity component exceed a certain interval [-Vmax, Vmax]. It is set back to

interval found. The movement equation is altered by clamping inertia.

vtn,d 1.vtn,d C1.rt n,d Lnt ,d X tn,d C2 .Stn,d Gtn,d X tn,d

and position is altered as

0.72 C1 C2 1.49

v n,d .vn,d C1rand (0,1) Ln,d X n,d C2 rand (0,1) G n,d X n,d

If f X n L Ln then Ln X n

f X n L G then G X n

To better predict social learning process the global best particle (Gd) is replaced by the

local guide particle (Ld) Topology is typically represented as graph whose nodes are

particles and edges connect neighboring particles. The edge connections between any two

grid points n1 & n2 as a particle for its own local guide, the edge connections are

determined by minimum argument of function

n ', n

Pt n Euclidean(arg min f ( x) where x [ Lt | n' N (n) |]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

62

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

n ', n

Lt is local guide attraction of particle n at the time step t when particle n

makes its move.

n ' n ',n

n ', n

Lt

L n ' L If n n

L t 1

search space. In general neighborhood topology is choose independent of particle

position in search space.

For a Swarm, definition of topology and its potential drives solution space, leader of

swarm both locally and global depends on the topology, though topology remains static

the co-ordinates of particle attractors monitors the distribution of swarm. In general the

global and local attractor is determined by fitness augments i.e.

Lnt arg min[ X tn1 , Lnt ]

t ,d

dimension d is determines the swarm fitness level at interval time step t. It is determined

by global best and personal best of swam at all interval.

n 1 n N

nt ,d ( | vtn ,d | | Gtn,1d X tn ,d |) ( | v

' '

n' , d '

n' 1 n' n 1

It is important to control swarm topology for determining the desired solution space

which depends on the movement constants applied on swarm so for a swarm to converge

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

63

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

the inertia damping co efficient which keeps the swarm in bound and the acceleration

coefficient keep drives the co-ordinates of local and global attractors.

At the topological development both global and local attractors are bound to same value

t

X t1,1 X 01,1 v1,1

s

t 0

t 1

X 01,1 v0 s

t 0

t 1

Lt s X 1,1

t Lt s [ X 1,1

0 v s

]

0 t 0

1

X 01,1 v0 [ ]

1

So for swarm to be in bounds the inertia damping co-efficient should be between [0<

<1]. Now for acceleration co-efficient the movement equation is analyzed

X tn,1d X tn,d vtn,1d

[ X tn,1d , vtn ,d ]tN

vtn,1d X tn,1d X tn ,d

vtn ,d X tn ,d X tn,1d

vtn,1d vtn ,d [ X tn,1d X tn,1d ]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

64

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Now to calculate the error in position between the expected and attained the expentancy

operator is applied on position vector.

Assuming the expectance to be , now for a particle in swarm it is expecte that the

calculated and expected positions are equal so for optimum goal attainment the

expectancy is equal to zero which converts the position expectancy equation to

2 [1 0.5*(C1 C2 )] =0

0 (C1 C2 ) 4(1 )

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

65

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

MOPSO Definition

Stopping/convergence 100

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

66

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Max no of repository elements 500

Inertia weight ( w) 0.5

Inertia weight damping rate (w.damp) 0.99

Personal learning co efficient (a1) 1

Global learning co-efficient (a2) 2

No of grid in each dimension 7

Inflation rate ( ) 0.1

Leader selection pressure ( ) 2

Deletion selection pressure ( ) 2

Mutation rate (mu) 0.1

Initialize population structure with fields Particle. Evaluate fitness over particle

position and determine the dominance levels of each particle by dominates function

Particle.Bestcost, Particle.Is Dominated, Particle.Grid Index, Particle.Grid Subindex}

1. For i :[1-N]

2. Pop[i].position=random[Range,N]

3. Pop[i].velocity : zeros[N]

4. Pop[i].cost :evaluate (pop[i].position)

5. //update personal best

6. Exchange pop[i].best position with pop[i].position

7. Exchange popi[i].best cost with pop[i].cost

Initiate repository element which is subset of all particles with best position and cost

then select leader for swarm at every iteration through select leader function and

i=update the particle structure for current leader swarm.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

67

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Pop : domination(pop,N)

1. For i:[1-N]

2. For j:[i+1-N]

3. If dominates (pop[i], pop[j])

4. True(pop[j] Is dominated)

5. Else if dominates(pop[j],pop[i])

6. True(pop[i] Is dominated)

7. b=dominates(pop[i],pop[j])

8. b= all(x<y)&&any(x<y)

9. //Initiate repository element

10. Rep=pop[~dominated pop)

Apply mutation operator on the updated particle structure then calculate the

dominance level for current structure. Create neighborhood for swarm by initiating

grid topology for swarm. Update the swarm in the repository element with current

dominance level.

Now the topology is built for swarm which was initialized through particle structure

topology is static and remains unchanged at every generation. Naumann /Grid based

topology is built which utilizes Euclidean co-ordinates based on position of each swarm

Grid=create grid(rep,ngrid,)

1. P=[pop.cost]

2. Rmin=min(p,[],2)

3. Rmax=max(p,[],2)

4. dr=Rmax-Rmin

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

68

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Rmin Rmin * dr

5. Rmax Rmin * dr

6. //Initiate grid index

7. Grid.L : [] Grid.H :[]

8. Object : size[p,1]

9. For j: [1-object]

10. p.object[equal spacing in R]

11. Grid[j].L =[-, p.object]

12. Grid[j].H=[p.object, ]

13. For i :[1-size(Rep)]

14. Rep[i]=find Grid index (Rep[i],Grid)

15. Obj=size(particle.cost)

16. Grid size=size(Grid.L)

17. Particle.Grid sub Index :zeros(p.object)

18. For i : [1-obj]

19. Particle.Grid sub Index[i]=find(particle.cost[i]<grid]

20. Particle.Grid Index=N*Grid size*particle grid index+ particle grid sub index

21. //Initiate repository element

22. Rep=pop[~dominated pop)

After building topology each particle in repository is recognized with its position and

velocity coordinates the identity of each particle is recognized through this co ordinate

Swarm is lead most fittest particle/particles At each generation the swarm changes its

leader according to the swarm velocities and position evaluated through swarm

movement equation.

//select leader

Select leader(rep, )

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

69

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

2. I=[rep.Grid Index]

3. //occupied cells

4. C=select unique cells(I)

5. Q=find(I==C)

6. //selection probability

7. p=exp(- *N)

p

P

8. p

9. s=select(P>random(0,1))

10. //select cell

11. Sc=unique (s)

12. Find(I==s)

13. Leader=Rep(sc)

14. Mutation(pop,pm,Range)

15. If pm<random[0,1]

16. Pop[i]=R+dr*R

17. dr=pm*(Rmax-Rmin)

Excess particles in the repository are either deleted or replaced by better fit particles in

each generation if repository exceed its size then the interia damping factor reduces the

velocity of swarm resulting in poor convergence hence at aevery generation repository is

checked for its size.

[2] Deletion=select leader (Rep,)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

70

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[3] Deletion={ }

Now that the swarm and its topology is built the swarm is allowed to move over the

topology with governing movement equation followed by a slight mutation in fit particles

which would accelerate motion of swarm by randomly changing the velocity and position

coordinates.

Main Learning

For i : [1-N]

//Select Leader

1. leader=Select leader(rep, )

pop i .Velocity w * pop i .Velocity c1* rand VarSize .

* pop i .Best.Position pop i .Position c 2* rand VarSize .

* leader.Position pop i .Position

pop i .Position pop i .Position pop i .Velocity

pop i .Position max pop i .Position, VarMin

pop i .Position min pop i .Position, VarMax

pop i .Cost Evaluate pop i .Position

2. Newpop=mutatute(pop,pm,Range)

3. newpop.cost=evaluate(newpop.position)

4. Determine domination(Rep)

5. If dominates(New.pop.position, pop.position)

6. True(Is dominated pop.position)

7. Else if dominates(pop.position, New.pop.position)

8. True(Is dominated New.pop.position)

9. Grid=Create Grid(Rep, grid size,)

10. Check if resize>maxrep

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

71

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Table 3.9 MOPSO family of optimal solutions for 35 HRC AISI 4340 steel

Grid

Position Velocity Cost Best Position Best Cost Index GridSubIndex

[265.00 0.16 [1.55 702.05 266.48 379.44 [263.49 0.22 [2.01 595.25 181.77 277.57

2.00] [1.62 -0.06 1.07] 26.93] 1.01] 31.89] 10668 [2,6,6,7,3]

[212.34 0.15 [-43.26 -0.04 - [2.99 426.70 123.66 206.18 [255.60 0.19 [2.03 659.89 217.50 320.77

1.00] 0.97] 43.69] 1.59] 28.39] 33631 [6,2,2,2,7]

[193.76 0.15 [137.29 -0.02 - [3.43 417.33 134.23 215.15 [193.76 0.15 [3.43 417.33 134.23 215.15

1.00] 0.35] 46.12] 1.00] 46.12] 40282 [7,2,3,3,7]

[174.19 0.15 [-85.70 -0.01 - [3.91 413.06 148.34 227.70 [174.19 0.15 [3.91 413.06 148.34 227.70

1.00] 0.24] 49.11] 1.00] 49.11] 46844 [8,2,3,3,8]

[265.00 0.15 [1.45 652.07 221.19 340.52 [265.00 0.15 [1.45 652.07 221.19 340.52

1.82] [7.93 -0.01 0.20] 28.93] 1.82] 28.93] 9850 [2,5,5,6,4]

[174.72 0.15 [-32.71 -0.00 - [3.89 413.10 147.91 227.31 [207.43 0.15 [3.10 427.11 127.30 209.77

1.00] 0.01] 49.02] 1.01] 44.08] 46844 [8,2,3,3,8]

[215.30 0.15 [-30.50 -0.03 - [2.92 428.66 122.23 205.01 [215.30 0.15 [2.92 428.66 122.23 205.01

1.00] 1.23] 43.34] 1.00] 43.34] 27070 [5,2,2,2,7]

[211.21 0.15 [3.01 425.98 124.22 206.64 [211.21 0.15 [3.01 425.98 124.22 206.64

1.00] [-1.61 -0.04 -0.73] 43.83] 1.00] 43.83] 33631 [6,2,2,2,7]

[194.42 0.15 [-14.35 -0.05 - [3.42 417.57 133.80 214.78 [194.42 0.15 [3.42 417.57 133.80 214.78

1.00] 0.63] 46.02] 1.00] 46.02] 40282 [7,2,3,3,7]

[265.00 0.20 [1.95 694.04 238.22 342.10 [265.00 0.20 [1.95 694.04 238.22 342.10

1.66] [37.22 -0.00 0.20] 26.52] 1.66] 26.52] 17139 [3,6,5,6,3]

[171.25 0.15 [-32.00 -0.03 - [3.98 412.91 150.71 229.85 [203.25 0.18 [3.13 673.17 231.63 322.24

1.00] 0.62] 49.60] 1.60] 33.15] 46844 [8,2,3,3,8]

[265.00 0.15 [1.66 509.07 120.80 217.67 [265.00 0.15 [1.66 509.07 120.80 217.67

1.13] [32.08 -0.01 0.13] 36.15] 1.13] 36.15] 14684 [3,3,2,3,5]

[265.00 0.15 [26.00 -0.05 - [1.49 603.83 180.32 296.71 [265.00 0.15 [1.49 603.83 180.32 296.71

1.59] 0.03] 30.84] 1.59] 30.84] 9031 [2,4,4,5,4]

[249.95 0.16 [2.10 480.93 125.34 211.22 [249.95 0.16 [2.10 480.93 125.34 211.22

1.00] [8.34 -0.09 -0.99] 37.96] 1.00] 37.96] 21236 [4,3,2,2,5]

[265.00 0.16 [1.50 696.28 262.59 377.89 [265.00 0.16 [1.50 696.28 262.59 377.89

2.00] [32.06 0.00 1.15] 27.25] 2.00] 27.25] 10659 [2,6,6,6,3]

[265.00 0.16 [1.57 608.71 184.51 296.17 [265.00 0.24 [2.38 749.62 248.99 359.27

1.55] [2.84 -0.08 0.06] 30.28] 1.49] 25.43] 9031 [2,4,4,5,4]

[265.00 0.15 [1.48 610.04 185.18 302.22 [265.00 0.15 [1.49 603.83 180.32 296.71

1.62] [1.51 -0.02 0.03] 30.57] 1.59] 30.84] 9031 [2,4,4,5,4]

[265.00 0.20 [1.96 698.30 241.07 344.82 [265.00 0.20 [1.96 698.30 241.07 344.82

1.68] [10.04 0.01 0.04] 26.38] 1.68] 26.38] 17139 [3,6,5,6,3]

[265.00 0.17 [125.17 -0.00 - [1.74 530.80 141.76 233.24 [265.00 0.17 [1.74 530.80 141.76 233.24

1.10] 0.30] 34.33] 1.10] 34.33] 15494 [3,4,3,3,5]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

72

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[265.00 0.16 [1.61 708.49 270.60 381.20 [265.00 0.15 [1.49 603.83 180.32 296.71

2.00] [0.68 0.01 0.47] 26.59] 1.59] 30.84] 10668 [2,6,6,7,3]

[265.00 0.24 [28.76 -0.01 - [2.70 846.43 323.67 419.78 [265.00 0.24 [2.70 846.43 323.67 419.78

1.96] 0.04] 22.55] 1.96] 22.55] 31169 [5,7,7,8,2]

[265.00 0.15 [1.48 694.34 261.24 377.37 [265.00 0.15 [1.48 694.34 261.24 377.37

2.00] [3.61 0.00 0.67] 27.37] 2.00] 27.37] 10659 [2,6,6,6,3]

[250.88 0.17 [2.09 486.86 128.60 214.65 [250.88 0.17 [2.09 486.86 128.60 214.65

1.00] [-7.54 -0.02 -0.11] 37.52] 1.00] 37.52] 21326 [4,3,3,3,5]

Table 3.9 has results obtained from MOPSO for 35 HRC the position, Best position matrix

represent process parameters (vc,f,d),. and Cost, Best Cost represents objective fitness (Ra ,Ft ,Fa

,Fr ,Tf ) and the latter columns are corresponding to grid index and grid sub index of PSO

topology Out of the 500 repository elements few are listed in above table.

Fig 3.18 Pareto spread surface roughness and Fig 3.19 3D surface plot of optimal Ra with

cutting force 35HRC best position 35HRC

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

73

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig 3.20 3D surface plot of Tf with best Fig 3.21. Depth of cut influence on cutting

position 35HRC forces 35 HRC

Table 3.10 MOPSO family of optimal solutions for 35 HRC AISI 4340 steel

Table 1 Repository elements Solution for Population

Position Velocity Cost Best Position Best Cost Grid Index GridSubIndex

[131.18 0.15 [4.07 523.87 331.58 282.59 [169.76 0.15 [3.91 730.05 393.60 357.11

1.00] [-38.59 -0.02 -0.73] 29.89] 1.55] 14.41] 20510 [4,2,2,2,8]

[145.95 0.15 [3.85 512.27 332.51 286.06 [145.95 0.15 [3.85 512.27 332.51 286.06

1.00] [-29.05 -0.08 -1.19] 25.34] 1.00] 25.34] 13948 [3,2,2,2,7]

[175.00 0.24 [5.24 1075.52 554.08 479.04 [172.92 0.18 [4.53 953.91 482.02 431.27

2.00] [2.94 0.05 0.95] 9.20] 2.00] 10.62] 45011 [7,8,7,7,2]

[175.00 0.15 [3.88 720.39 390.67 356.83 [175.00 0.15 [3.88 720.39 390.67 356.83

1.52] [18.14 -0.00 0.06] 13.99] 1.52] 13.99] 15501 [3,4,3,4,3]

[175.00 0.19 [4.67 977.77 494.94 440.17 [175.00 0.19 [4.67 977.77 494.94 440.17

2.00] [2.26 0.01 0.10] 10.11] 2.00] 10.11] 31070 [5,7,6,6,2]

[157.18 0.15 [3.72 506.91 336.75 293.12 [157.18 0.15 [3.72 506.91 336.75 293.12

1.00] [-17.82 -0.04 -1.28] 22.59] 1.00] 22.59] 13947 [3,2,2,2,6]

[175.00 0.19 [4.62 969.60 489.97 436.99 [136.93 0.15 [4.01 617.69 362.52 315.19

2.00] [56.89 -0.05 0.12] 10.21] 1.26] 23.55] 31070 [5,7,6,6,2]

[175.00 0.24 [4.99 944.81 506.19 447.74 [175.00 0.24 [4.99 944.81 506.19 447.74

1.68] [4.45 -0.01 0.22] 10.29] 1.68] 10.29] 36911 [6,6,6,7,2]

[132.82 0.15 [4.04 522.32 331.42 282.65 [132.82 0.15 [4.04 522.32 331.42 282.65

1.00] [-53.49 -0.04 -0.47] 29.32] 1.00] 29.32] 20510 [4,2,2,2,8]

[149.38 0.15 [3.80 510.32 333.49 287.81 [149.38 0.15 [3.80 510.32 333.49 287.81

1.00] [-7.05 -0.03 -1.52] 24.44] 1.00] 24.44] 13947 [3,2,2,2,6]

[154.57 0.15 [3.75 507.89 335.50 291.14 [154.57 0.15 [3.75 507.89 335.50 291.14

1.00] [-20.43 -0.12 -0.45] 23.19] 1.00] 23.19] 13947 [3,2,2,2,6]

[162.55 0.15 [3.67 505.40 339.86 297.86 [166.04 0.15 [3.64 504.79 342.25 301.40

1.00] [-3.48 -0.02 -0.06] 21.45] 1.00] 20.75] 7395 [2,2,2,3,6]

[173.21 0.15 [0.62 -0.06 -0.09] [3.64 549.52 354.83 317.92 [172.59 0.20 [4.02 635.55 389.86 357.26 8204 [2,3,3,3,5]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

74

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[175.00 0.19 [4.07 721.13 405.90 369.87 [175.00 0.19 [4.07 721.13 405.90 369.87

1.42] [4.58 0.01 0.22] 13.24] 1.42] 13.24] 22143 [4,4,4,4,3]

[175.00 0.23 [4.70 864.69 471.99 423.23 [175.00 0.23 [4.70 864.69 471.99 423.23

1.57] [1.33 -0.02 -0.43] 11.10] 1.57] 11.10] 36822 [6,6,5,6,3]

[175.00 0.23 [4.70 876.32 474.30 424.45 [175.00 0.23 [4.70 876.32 474.30 424.45

1.61] [0.30 0.01 0.40] 10.97] 1.61] 10.97] 36822 [6,6,5,6,3]

[175.00 0.20 [4.04 639.51 392.88 360.94 [175.00 0.20 [4.04 639.51 392.88 360.94

1.21] [0.75 -0.05 -0.42] 14.45] 1.21] 14.45] 14854 [3,3,4,4,4]

[175.00 0.24 [5.28 1082.79 558.47 481.98 [172.40 0.25 [4.61 740.79 441.72 405.77

2.00] [1.67 0.02 1.18] 9.14] 1.25] 13.04] 45020 [7,8,7,8,2]

[175.00 0.15 [3.63 548.62 356.03 319.83 [175.00 0.15 [3.63 548.62 356.03 319.83

1.10] [2.22 -0.01 0.10] 17.79] 1.10] 17.79] 8204 [2,3,3,3,5]

[131.18 0.15 [4.07 523.87 331.58 282.59 [169.76 0.15 [3.91 730.05 393.60 357.11

1.00] [-38.59 -0.02 -0.73] 29.89] 1.55] 14.41] 20510 [4,2,2,2,8]

[145.95 0.15 [3.85 512.27 332.51 286.06 [145.95 0.15 [3.85 512.27 332.51 286.06

1.00] [-29.05 -0.08 -1.19] 25.34] 1.00] 25.34] 13948 [3,2,2,2,7]

[175.00 0.24 [5.24 1075.52 554.08 479.04 [172.92 0.18 [4.53 953.91 482.02 431.27

2.00] [2.94 0.05 0.95] 9.20] 2.00] 10.62] 45011 [7,8,7,7,2]

Table 3.10 has results obtained for MOPSO for 45 HRC the position, Best position matrix

represent process parameters (vc,f,d),. and Cost, Best Cost represents objective fitness (Ra ,Ft ,Fa

,Fr ,Tf ) and the latter columns are corresponding grid index and gris sub index of PSO topology

Out of the 500 repository elements few are listed in above table.

Fig 3.22 Pareto spread surface roughness Fig 3.23 3D surface plot of optimal Ra

and cutting force 45HRC with best position 45HRC

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

75

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.3.24 3D surface plot of Tf with best Fig.3.25 Depth of cut influence on cutting

position 45 HRC forces 45 HRC

Fig.3.26. Solution Spectrum for 35 hrc Fig.3.27. Solution Spectrum for 45 hrc

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

76

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.3.28 Solution Spectrum for 35 hrc Fig.3.29 Solution Spectrum for 45 hrc PSO

Fig 3.30. Solution Spectrum for 35 hrc Fig. 3.31 Solution Spectrum for 45 hrc

population size and density which can be observed from the spectrum distribution

of solution space.

2. The spectrum of solution space reveals the demographic changes in solution space

at each generation hence it is crucial to compare saturation levels in solution

spectrum.

3. Solution Spectrum in NSGA II :

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

77

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

3.1 The solution spectrum distribution in NSGA II (as shown in Fig. (3.26-3.27)) has

attained uniform amplitude with periodic crusts and troughs in all the objectives

exhibiting quit a good saturation level in the demography in solution space for

both hardness levels.

3.2 Solution Spectrum in SPEA 2 While in SPEA 2 the demography of solution space

(as shown Fig. (3.30-3.31)) is quite different from the NSGA II as the solution

space is built on niche Pareto sharing

3.3 The spectrum is pretty disturbed with low levels of saturation and crusts and

troughs varying throughout the wavelength of the data. for both the hardness

levels.

4. Solution Spectrum in PSO

4.1 The trend in PSO shows moderate level of disturbance in spectrum of solution

space (as shown Fig. (3.28-3.29)) but the level of saturation is appreciable when

compared to the SPEA 2 and change in demography is not as amplifying as SPEA 2

while in comparison with the NSGA II it is inferior in terms of saturation levels.

From the nature of spectrum in solution space conclusion can be condensed to as follows.

NSGA II relatively better compared to PSO and SPAE 2, PSO is better compared to

SPEA 2.

1. The diversity of solution space is evaluated through the average Pareto spread in

each generation, diversity measures exploration potential in search space.

2. Higher diversity in generations gives greater chances of solutions getting retained

from varying locals of search space hence increasing the strength of solution.

Evolutionary Algorithm Diversity

NSGA II [0.01-1]

SPEA 2 [0.27-0.37]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

78

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

3 The diversity of NSGA II is superior when compared to SPEA 2 the range of search

exploration between the generations in NSGA II varied from Euclidean spread of [0.01 to

1] (Fig.3.6 and Fig. 3.9) which shows that the exploration happened between two

extremum and in mid generations solution spread curled towards mean solution and

drifted away from the mean solution.

4 While in the SPEA 2 the Euclidean spread was in a short range of 0.27-0.37 (as shown

in (Fig.3.26 and Fig. 3.27). with all the equal dominating and non-dominated solutions in

the spread, the diversity oscillated in short range at each generation with most of the

generations between average spread [0.3-0.35].

5 The overall analysis between EA and PSO suggests that NSGA II performs well in

terms of diverse solution while SPEA 2 and PSO performs well when the solutions

spread is short In NSGA II more diverse solutions are preserved while in PSO and SPEA

2 neighborhood solutions are preserved.

Further potentials of both EA and SI are explored with synergism with prediction models

in chapter 5 where EA and PSO are utilized to enhance learning in prediction models.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

79

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

CHAPTER 4

TECHNIQUES

4.1 Introduction

learning techniques on machining system. Learning algorithm with their

mathematical framework is extensively discussed and applied to existing machining

system. In the first segment prediction model by applying neural network is

developed for both steels. In the second segment adaptive learning techniques are

developed and the third section developed models are analyzed over machining

statistics. Further extensive statistical analysis is done between the experimental da ta

and the prediction results for evaluating the accuracy among the developed models.

The objective of this chapter is explained through the following work flow.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

80

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Neural network consists of nodes connected by direct links each link has numeric

weight wij associated with it which determines the strength and configuration

between links. A threshold function activation function f(.) is applied to model

which alters the topology of links, these connection between nodes forms layer

pattern so called network architecture. Depending on the direction of propagation of

weights in the link neural model is classified into feed forward and feed backward

/recurrent network.

Feed forward networks are arranged in layers such that each unit receives input only

from the units in the preceding layer. The architect of the feed forward network has

following composition.

First layer is input layer receiver of data or input from the external stimuli,

the incoming data is then sent to the next layer where the number of layers

can be more than one.

Second layer consists of hidden layer in which the number of nodes depends

on the complexity and non-linearity of data to be handled with weights

defining connections between node and bias at each node A single hidden

layer constituents a network activated by threshold /activation function which

takes augment of weights and bias matrix from the net This augmented net is

propagated to the subsequent layers depending number of hidden layers.

Data processed in hidden layers are routed to the output layer. This layer

plays a role in determining the validity of data that are analyzed based on the

existing limits in the activation function.

Neural network runs training examples through the net one at a time,

adjusting the weights slightly after each example to reduce the error. Each

cycle through the examples called epoch.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

81

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Since the essential elements of neural network are discussed now the working matrix

by which each layer learns is discussed through simple network.

Let X be input vector and Y be output layer vector with weight matrix mapping

between the input and output layer. Then the neural network is characterized by the

learning model

n

Yi Wx Xi bi

i 1

Where the input layer and output layers are defined by the vectors

X {x1 , x2 , x3 ,......xl }

Y { y1 , y2 , y3 ,....... yl }

Now for training and mapping between the input and output layer learning law which

describes that prediction accuracy to increase the weights of nodes should be

correlated to attain minimum error in predictor consequently to store a prototype

( xi , yi ) .The weights are altered by weight matrix

w .yi x iT

Where is learning factor and is generally kept positive, elements of weight matrix w

starts from zero to a perfectly associative neuron weight. And inverse mapping is possible

at any instance of learning stage by recalling the weight matrix as

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

82

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

L

W Yi .Xi T

i 1

W . X K YK K 1, 2...l

Now that the weight matrix is defined and one to one mapping between the input and

output layer is established the next step is to minimize the error of mapping in weight

matrix by applying gradient descent approach.

According to gradient descent the mean square E(w) associated gradient of expected

error .The error gradient ( points in the direction in which E(W) will decrease at fastest

possible rate

w k 1 w k (E)

arbitrary constant similarly the lest mean square error for predicted output and weight is

calculated as

1

ek [w(k), y(k)] [| w(k).y(k) | w k .y k ]

2

To minimize this error the error gradient showed be headed in the direction where error is

least

ek w k y k 1

y k .Tb w k .y k y k

w k 2

w k 1

0

From extremum of error gradient we get the

Tb w k 1 if w(k).y(k) 0

1 if w(k).y(k) 0

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

83

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

w k 1 w k

2

y k y k Tb w k y k

Now validating weights for desired output d(k), the augments w(k) and y(k)determines

the rate at which the desired output is approached .

ek d k w k * y k

2

e2k d k w k .y k d k w k .y k

2 T

To minimize the least square error expectation operator E[ek2:]is applied over the squared

gradient of error

e2k

k 2e k y k

w

E k 2E ek y k

E(K ) 2E y k .yT k .w k d k .y k

By estimating the mean of the gradient the direction of least error propagation can be

known

K 2E y k .yT k .w k d k .y k

the expectancy of gradient is expected to be zero and with few manipulations weight

matrix which has least error propagation is obtained.as

K 0

P y k .yT k .

Q d k .y k

W* Q1.P

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

84

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Now that the weights matrix for a single layer is established an extension of weight

matrix for consecutive layers are evaluated for the above multi-layer network.

y j k d k

1 m

E k

2

2 j1

N

ET E k

k 1

Where ET is the expectation of all the layers similarly evaluating the gradients of

expectation

E k

yj dj

dy j

s j yi wil j

The activation function or transfer function characterizes the input output relationship

y j f j (s j )

Most common choice of activation function is sigmoidal function which satisfies the

1 1

yj

1 exp( s j ) n

1 exp[ ( wij yi(1) j )]

i 1

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

85

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Now for the above function the error propagation for every input to layer can be written

by chain rule as

E k E k y j

s j y j s j

After few assumptions in the activation function and applying the above chain rule

dyi d 1

( ) y j (1 y j )

ds j ds j 1 exp( s j )

E (k )

( y j d j ) y j (1 y j )

s j

Where j are the threshold value generally referred as bias and yj in the consecutive layers

is determined by transfer function.so at each layer the targets changes with the weights

which are expected to approach to desired matrix. Thus the error gradient at each layer

with respect to the weights can be written by chain rule as

E k E k yl si

w m yl sl w ml

E k E k

w ij

yi j s j

There are two approaches to apply gradient descent method to the training method of a

multi-layer feed forward neural network .The first is based on periodic updating and

second is based on continuous updating. In both the cases the weights are repeatedly

monitored either sequentially or randomly until the convergence criteria is satisfied

[ , , .... ]

w w1 w 2 w 3 w m

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

86

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

With m donating the number of weights in the network and weights are updated only

once every epoch after all the training patterns are evaluated the weights get updated by

the generalized fixed increment/decrement rule.

E k

w new w old n

w

Where is small constant referred to as learning rate. Wnew and wold are weights vector

at epoch k+1 and k respectively.

In order to build accurate prediction model sufficient input and output vectors is

necessary to be included in the network.

accurately. There is no hard rule for selecting number of nodes and layers it is purely a

trail error based mapping technique. If the developed model is accurate enough for a

given set of nodes and layers and satisfies the stopping criteria then the network

hypothesis is acceptable.

With the above fundamentals a prediction model for machining system [1] is built for

both the steels i.e., 35 HRC and 45HRC with process parameters as input vectors and

cutting speed, forces and tool life as output vectors. In the Fig a schematic description of

developed prediction model is explained in detail. This model is adopted for predicting

both the steels.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

87

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.4 Feed forward neural network for AISI 4340 Hard turning

Neural Network Type Feed forward neural network

Training function Levenberg-Marqaurdt

No of neurons in Hidden 10

layer

No of neurons in output 5

Weights in hidden layer 30 [310]

Weights in output layer 50[510]

Training samples [700 3]

Testing samples [150 3]

Validation samples [150 3]

Transfer function Tan-sigmoid function

Training performance 2.861*10-4 (35HRC) NN 7.930*10-

4

Testing performance 4.147*10-4 (35HRC) NN (45HRC) NN

0.00106(45HRC)

Validation performance 1.777*10-4 (35HRC) NN 0.00118(45HRC)

NN

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

88

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Table 4.2.4 (b) Calibrated weights and bias above Neural Network

Calibrated weights and bias for 35 HRC Steel

Bias(i) W1(vc) W2(f) W3(d) bias(i) W1(Ra) W2(Ft) W3(Fa) W4(Fr) W5(Tf)

0.660 -0.135 -0.086 0.005 4.388 -3.260 -2.039 -8.270 -6.538 -4.691

-0.660 0.0024 -0.034 0.1812 -0.80 1.545 -3.425 3.573 2.873 3.957

0.661 0.002 0.148 -0.099 11.57 4.809 -0.977 1.910 -5.394 0.541

0.901 -0.710 0.535 0.138 10.89 0.429 0.058 -0.07 0.042 -0.035

-0.677 0.002 -0.180 -0.119 12.74 6.030 0.239 0.002 -3.204 3.619

0.167 -0.307 -0.020 0.295 1.690 0.597 0.981 -0.136 -0.025

-0.180 -0.441 0.334 0.086 0.489 0.539 -0.648 0.390 -0.115

-0.672 -0.134 -0.005 -0.07 -0.067 -6.242 6.290 6.749 10.459

-0.99003 -0.255 -0.0165 0.2469 1.143 2.986 4.917 -0.703 0.274

-1.376 -0.465 0.351 0.0912 0.6855 1.169 -1.4074 0.850 -0.113

Caliberated weigths and bias for 45 HRC Steel

2.991 0.541 1.972 -2.656 0.746 0.176 0.0013 -0.007 -0.027 -0.017

0.245 0.276 0.134 0.323 0.635 -0.127 -1.326 0.707 1.233 -1.894

-2.418 2.11 1.853 1.524 0.974 0.200 0.0059 0.0128 0.0091 -0.010

0.210 0.180 0.099 0.428 0.620 0.860 2.276 0.0923 0.0118 0.566

0.519 -2.88 -1.639 -0.557 0.261 0.676 -0.0322 -0.0670 -0.039 -0.100

0.615 2.144 1.797 1.122 0.728 -0.0492 -0.088 -0.0488 -0.106

-1.914 -0.230 -0.261 -2.013 0.198 -0.063 0.0148 0.0102 0.072

0.493 0.646 -0.628 0.776 -0.298 0.0085 -0.029 -0.188 -0.062

6.36 3.857359 1.379878 2.528731 -0.051 -0.0027 -0.004 -0.011 -0.08

0.733 0.268918 -0.332 -0.4 -1.295 -1.324 -1.956 -1.324 -0.01

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

89

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

90

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.11 Training error in Fa

Fig.4.14 Regression fit plot for Fr

Fig.4.16 Regression fit plot for Tf

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

91

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

epoch

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

92

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.23 Training error in Fa

The hypothesis of network for both the steels were quite accurate with the man

square error approaching to order of 10 -3.Error gradients and mean error gradients in

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

93

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

learning stage is found to converge to minimum criteria. Error analysis for each

target output is evaluated at learning stages i.e., training testing and validating and

targets are fir to linear regression model with regression coefficient approach to 1.

in modeling information either numeric or linguistic by employing fuzzy

membership function and fuzzy if-then rules combined with neural network architect.

ANFIS shares methodology of fuzzy sets and neural network for building learning

model by interpreting the fuzzy system in terms of neural nodes with slight

modification in the fuzzy rule base which is replaced by weights instead of linguistic

rules.

There are two ways of implying fuzzy neural systems. In the first method the fuzzy

rules are modified with no change in the input and output membership functions. In

the second method fuzzy neural systems with learning algorithms such as back-

propagation or hybrid learning are applied to learn and adjust the membership

function parameters.

Different combinations of fuzzy neural systems are possible with varying input

output membership functions. The applied adaptive neuro fuzzy interference system

is explained through a two input-single output model utilizing Sugeno-type fuzzy

system also known as Takagi-Sugeno-Kang type fuzzy system where rule base is

replaced by neural network weights and output membership are defined by linear

function instead of fuzzy linguistic model.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

94

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Layer 1 Every node in this layer is defined by membership function where each node

gives membership values after evaluating inputs over the membership function. The

applied membership function can be linear or exponential with each input defined by

desired subsets in membership function In most cases Gaussian membership function

is applied

x ci 2

A,i exp[( ) ]

2ai

O1,i A,i ( x), i 1, 2..k

O1,i B ,i ( y ), i 1, 2..k

Layer 2 In this layer the node is fixed and takes the fuzzified value as input from the

layer 1. The output of this node is the result of fuzzy multiplication of membership

function which goes into the next node. Each node represents the firing strength of

each rule in the second layer. The T-norm operator with and operation is applied to

obtain the output. This layer is known as andecent layer

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

95

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Layer 3 In this layer the normalized weight for each firing strength with respect to all

the cumulative fire strength is calculated. The resulting weights is called normalized

firing strength

wi

O3,i wi

wi

Layer 4 Every node in this layer is adaptive node known as consequent layer and

gives output with node function defined as

O4,i wi fi

O4,i = wi ( pi x qi y ri )

Layer 5 Single node fixed node that calculates overall output of from consequent

layer

O5,i wi fi

The adaptive layers i.e., first and fourth layer contain parameters which can be

modified at every iteration. The antecedent and consequent parameters can be

updated through learning method. There are two paths of learning forward and

backward path. In the forward path recursive least square method is used to alter

consequent parameters. While in the backward path the antecedent parameters are

changed through gradient descent method.at each iteration which is also called

epochs.

f w1 f1 w2 f 2

w1 ( p1 x q1 y r1 ) w2 ( p2 x q2 y r2 )

( w1 x) p1 ( w1 y )q1 w1r1 ( w2 x) p2 ( w2 y )q2 w2 r2

When N training data are given as input vector the n the consequent function changes

to

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

96

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

( w1 x)n p1 ( w1 y) n q1 ( w1r1 ) n ( w2 x) n p2 ( w2 y ) n q2 ( w2 r2 ) n f n

A y

parameters is set and A is the vector P* M where P is the number of N data training

provided to the adaptive network and y is the output vector P*1 whose elements are

N number of output data of an adaptive network. The optimum solution for is

defined as

* ( AT A)1. AT y

T 1

Where AT is the inverse of A and if not singular, ( A A) is pseudo inverse of A by

using recursive LSE method then

and is defined by

Pi ( AT A)1

The parameters in Gaussian parameters are trained for minimizing error For a given

adaptive network where the network consists of five layers and has total of N (L)

node in layer L then the square error in the L layer to n data is 1 n N the error at

each node can be written as

N (l )

En d k X kL,n

k 1

Where dk is the k-th component of the vector of the desired output while X kL,n is k-th

component of the vector of actual output generated by adaptive network with input

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

97

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

from the input vector n. The main aim of adaptive learning system is to reduce error

that occurs .i.e.,

En

L ,i 2(di ,n X iL,n )

iL,n

Applying chain rule for consecutive layers for error propagation we get

l 1

En N ( l 1)

En X m, p

l 1 l 1

X l ,i m 1 X m , n X m , n

With 0 l L 1 internal node error is a cumulative node error in the layer l+1. For a

specific node in adaptive layer the error rate corresponding to parameter is given as

En E x

n

xS x

Where S is the set of nodes containing the parameter the error specific to this

parameters is given as

En En

N

=

n 1

4.3.3 Fuzzy clustering Algorithms

Fuzzy clustering algorithms are utilized to discretize the membership function into

subsets in the input vectors so that each input vector is sub divided into topologies

defined by densities of points in respective region. Building a fuzzy set requires

following key points.

system the no of mfs function and subsets in mfs Generating the antecedent and

consequent rule

clustering a fuzzy set with following definition is declared. Let u(t), y(t), x(t) denote

the input, output and state of a system S at time t

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

98

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

X (t 1) f ( x(t ), u (t ))

Y (t 1) f ( x(t ), u (t ))

f &g

f : X *U X

G : X *U Y

[m1T , m2T ,.....mmT ]T

distribution and resulting clustering which produces the membership function

c) Clustering in mfs

In any clustering technique the goal is to estimate that characterizes the best

cluster for input vector X. The parameter vector is sensitive to the shape of

clusters. To define the topology of clusters a set of m points mi in the l-dimensional

space is required which corresponds to a cluster

d) Definition of cluster

Let X be data set, for which m clustering is defined in R partition of X into m sets so

that the following three conditions are met

X {x1 , x2 ,......xn }

1.Ci , i 1,........m

m

2. Ci X

i 1

3.Ci C j , i, j 1,......, m

where

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

99

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

u j : X [0,1], J 1,....m

And

m N

u j ( xi ) 1, 2,.....N ,

j 1

0 u j ( xi ) N , j 1, 2,....m

i 1

These are called membership functions. The value of fuzzy membership function is a

mathematical characterization of clusters which is not precisely defined and each

vector x belongs to more than one cluster simultaneously.

X {x1 , x2 ,......xn }

Ci , i 1,........m

m

Ci X

i 1

Ci C j , i, j 1,......, m

u j : X [0,1], J 1,....m

m N

u ( x ) 1, 2,.....N ,

j 1

j i 0 u j ( xi ) N , j 1, 2,....m

i 1

e) Proximity measures: This parameter measure will quantify the similarities and

dissimilarities between the two clusters and within the clusters with no bias in

selected clusters that each cluster should contributed equally with no domination

among each other. The proximity measure has two property functions which measure

dissimilarity and similarity between two vectors.

Dissimilarity measure

d : X *X R

d 0 R : d 0 d ( x, ) , x,

d ( xi , j )

applied to choose specific algorithm scheme that forms the clustering structure Most

of the fuzzy clustering algorithm are derived by minimizing functions of form

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

100

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

N m

J q ( , u ) uijq d ( xi , j )

t 1 j 1

Where J q ( , u) is clustering structure and uijq is membership function for each input

Now that the fuzzy clustering is defined the clusters are applied to adaptive layer of

neuro fuzzy interference model.

divided into grid elements. Depending on the fuzzy rules R a fuzzy portioning is

done on input membership function with cluster definitions

N m

J q ( , u ) uijq d ( xi , j )

t 1 j 1

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

101

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

ANFIS type Grid Partitioning

Fuzzy system Sugeno

And method Prod

Or method Max

Defuzzification method Weigthed average

Implication method Prod

Aggregation method Max

Membership function Five

Fuzzy rule 125

Input Mf Type Gaussmf

Output Mf type Linear

Max Epoch 200

Error Goal 0

Initial Step 0.01

Step size Decrease rate 0.9

Step size Increament rate 1.1

Table 4.3.4 b)Statistical Results of ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster for 35 HRC and

45HRC

Statistical Results of ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster for Results of ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster for 45

35 HRC HRC

ANFIS Grid- Error Error MSE RMSE Error Error MSE RMSE

35 mean() STD() mean() STD()

Train Ra (m) 7.74*10-4 6.41*10-4 4.11*10-7 6.41*10-4 5.49*10-7 6.185*10-4 3.82*10-7 6.181*10-4

Test Ra (m) 1.74*10-4 0.0020 3.99*10-6 0.0020 1.09*10-4 0.0019 3.44*10-6 0.0019

-5 -4 -7 -4 -5 -4 -7

Validation Ra 2.63*10 9.74*10 9.84*10 9.74*10 1.56*10 9.17*10 8.41*10 9.17*10-4

(m)

Tangential force (Ft)

Train Ft(N) -5 0.1352 0.0183 0.1351 5.69*10-5 0.0788 0.0062 0.0787

4.49*10

Test Ft(N) -0.0501 0.5101 0.2610 0.5109 7.612*10-4 0.3501 0.128 0.3148

Validation -0.0023 0.714 0.41 0.57 1.62*10-4 0.153 0.0235 0.153

Ft(N)

Axial force (Fa)

Train Fa(N) 1.54*10-5 0.0847 0.0072 0.0847 3.76*10-5 0.0675 0.0045 0.0674

Test Fa(N) 0.0203 0.3453 0.118 0.3448 0.0055 0.1399 0.0195 0.1396

Fa(N)

Radial force(Fr)

Train Fr(N) 2.4*10--5 0.082 0.0068 0.0823 3.59*10-5 0.0654 0.00043 0.0654

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

102

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Test Fr(N) 0.0567 0.3802 0.1468 0.3831 -0.0207 0.2173 0.0473 0.0654

Fr(N)

Tool Life (Tf)

Train Tf (min) 7.56*10-6 0.0120 1.43*10-4 0.0120 4.44*10-6 0.0074 5.409*10-5 0.0074

Test Tf (min) -6.69*10-4 0.0271 7.28*10-4 0.0270 0.0014 0.0235 5.487*10-4 0.0234

(min)

Fig.4.31 Training Error Plots for Ra (Target vs Fig.4.32 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

vs Output)

Fig.4.33 Validation Error Plots for Ra (Target vs Fig.4.34 Regression Plots for Ra (Train

Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

103

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.36 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.4.37 Testing Error Plots for Ft (Target vs

Output) Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

104

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.38 Validation Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.4.39 Regression Plots for Ft (Train

Output) /Test/Validate)

4.3.7 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Fa 35 HRC

Fig.4.41 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target vs Fig.4.42 Testing Error Plots for Fa (Target vs

Output) Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

105

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.43 Validation Error Plots for Fa (Target vs Fig.4.44 Regression Plots for Fa (Train

Output) /Test/Validate)

4.3.8 ANFIS Grid Partioning Cluster Plots For Fr 35 HRC

Fig.4.46 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output) Fig.4.47 Testing Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

106

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.48 Validation Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Fig.4.49 Regression Plots for F (Train /Test/Validate)

r

Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

107

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.51 Training Error Plots for Tf (Target vs Fig.4.52 Testing Error Plots for Tf (Target

Output) vs Output)

Fig.4.53 Validation Error Plots for Tf (Target vs Fig.4.54 Regression Plots for Tf (Train

Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

108

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.56 Training Error Plots for Ra (Target Fig.4.57 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

Fig.4.58 Validation Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.59 Regression Plots for Ra (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

109

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.61 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.4.62 Testing Error Plots for Ft

Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.63 Validation Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.4.64 Regression Plots for Ft (Train

Output /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

110

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.66 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.4.67 Testing Error Plots for Fa

vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.68 Validation Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.4.69 Regression Plots for Fa (Train

vs Output /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

111

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.71 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target Fig.4.72 Testing Error Plots for Fr (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

Fig.4.73 Validation Error Plots for Fr

/Test/Validate)

(Target vs Output

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

112

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.76 Training Error Plots for Tf (Target vs Fig.4.77 Testing Error Plots for Tf

Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.78 Validation Error Plots for Tf (Target Fig.4.79 Regression Plots for Tf (Train

vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

113

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

and the point with higher influence on any cluster center will take in the that cluster.

Recalling the cluster function

N m

J q ( , u ) uijq d ( xi , j )

t 1 j 1

exponential function

N || xi x j ||

d ( xi , j ) exp[ ]

J 1 j (ra / 2)2

Where j (ra / 2) is the radius of xi & x j are membership function points if a point has

many other points surrounded around itself then point has highest density point.

The highest density point is as first cluster center xc and in the consecutive the

iteration the density measure of each point is obtained by subtracting cluster points

by applying the following equation.

N || xi x j ||

di di d . exp[ ]

J 1 j (ra / 2)2

After the calculation of the dissimilarity at each point first cluster center is identified

as the point having highest density.

Eliminate all points in the vicinity around the first cluster center of its defined radius

value. For the next iteration update the dissimilarity and apply the cluster function.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

114

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

ANFIS type Substractive Clustering

Fuzzy system Sugeno

And method Prod

Or method Probor

Defuzzification method Weigthed average

Implication method Prod

Aggregation method Max

Cluster Radius 0.5

No of clusters 12

Max Epoch 100

Error Goal 0

Initial Step 0.01

Step size Decrease rate 0.9

Step size Increament rate 1.1

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

115

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Table 4.3.15 (b) Statistical Error analysis of ANFIS Subtractive clustering for

35 HRC and 45 HRC

Statistical Results of ANFIS Subtractive Cluster for 35 HRC Results of ANFIS Subtractive Cluster for 45

HRC

ANFIS Grid- Error Error MSE RMSE Error Error MSE RMSE

35 mean() STD() mean() STD()

Surface roughness (Ra)

Train Ra (m) 1.0458*10-7 0.0044 1.922*10-5 0.0044 6.64*10-6 4.32*10-4 2.63*10-7 5.12*10-4

Test Ra (m) -2.82*10-5 0.0052 2.86*10-5 0.0052 1.165*10-5 0.0039 3.48*10-5 5.89*10-3

Validation Ra -4.121*10-6 0.0045 2.036*10-5 0.0045 5.58*10-5 0.0035 1.25*10-5 0.0035

(m)

Tangential force (Ft)

Train Ft(N) -4.28*10-6 0.5928 0.3510 0.5924 -1.29*10-6 0.4917 0.2415 0.4914

Test Ft(N) -0.0135 0.6604 0.433 0.658 0.0128 0.6335 0.3988 0.6315

Validation -0.0020 0.6031 0.3633 0.6028 0.0019 0.515 0.2651 0.5149

Ft(N)

Axial force (Fa)

Train Fa(N) 2.98*10-6 0.3191 0.1017 0.318 3.621*10-6 0.2806 0.07806 0.2805

Test Fa(N) -0.0233 0.4351 0.1886 0.434 0.0414 0.4176 0.1749 0.4183

Validation -0.35 0.3389 0.1147 0.3387 0.0062 0.305 0.0931 0.3051

Fa(N)

Radial force(Fr)

Train Fr(N) -3.86*10-6 0.3432 0.1176 0.3430 4.85*10-6 0.3020 0.0911 0.3013

Test Fr(N) -0.0484 0.380 0.1458 0.3818 -0.0051 0.352 0.1233 0.3512

Validation -0.0073 0.3849 0.121 0.349 -7.62*10-4 0.3099 0.096 0.3098

Fr(N)

Tool Life (Tf)

Train Tf (min) 1.49*10-6 0.0325 0.011 0.0325 7.78*10-4 0.0249 6.19*10-4 0.0249

Test Tf (min) 0.0048 0.0358 0.0013 0.0360 0.0018 0.0283 7.96*10-4 0.0282

(min)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

116

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.82 Training Error Plots for Ra (Target Fig.4.83 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

Fig.4.84 Validation Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.85 Regression Plots for Ra (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

117

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.87 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.4.88 Testing Error Plots for Ft

Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.89 Validation Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.4.90 Regression Plots for Ft

Output) (Train /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

118

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.92 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target vs Fig.4.93 Testing Error Plots for Fa

Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.94 Validation Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.4.95 Regression Plots for Fa

vs Output) (Train /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

119

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.97 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target Fig.4.98 Testing Error Plots for Fr

vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.99 Validation Error Plots for Fr (Target

(Train /Test/Validate)

vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

120

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.102 Training Error Plots for Tf (Target Fig.4.103 Testing Error Plots for Tf

vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.104 Validation Error Plots for Tf (Target Fig.4.105 Regression Plots for Tf (Train

vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

121

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.107 Training Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.108 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

(Target vs Output) vs Output)

Fig.4.109 Validation Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.110 Regression Plots for Ra (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

122

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.112 Training Error Plots for Ft Fig.4.113 Testing Error Plots for Ft

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.114 Validation Error Plots for Ft Fig.4.115 Regression Plots for Ft (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

123

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.117 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.4.118 Testing Error Plots for Fa (Target vs

vs Output) Output)

Fig.4.119 Validation Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.4.120 Regression Plots for Fa (Train

vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

124

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.122 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target vs Fig. 4.123 Testing Error Plots for Fr (Target

Output) vs Output)

Fig.4.124 Validation Error Plots for Fr (Target Fig.4.125 Regression Plots for Fr (Train

vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

125

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.127 Training Error Plots for Tf Fig.4.128 Testing Error Plots for Tf

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.129 Validation Error Plots for TF

(Target vs Output) (Train /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

126

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fuzzy C-Mean clustering is another circular invariant clustering technique the radius

of clusters is calculated by membership functions. Recall the cluster function

N m

J q ( , u ) uijq d ( xi , j )

t 1 j 1

u

j 1

ij

m

* xj

Compute the cluster mean i M

(u

j 1

ij )m

1

Update the member partition matrix uij by uij M

dik

(d

k 1

) 2/ m1

kj

ANFIS type Fuzzy C Mean

Fuzzy system Sugeno

And method Prod

Or method Probor

Defuzzification method Weigthed average

Implication method Prod

Aggregation method Max

No of clusters 15

Partition matrix Exponenet 2

Maximum iteration 200

Improvemenet level 1*10-5

Max Epoch 200

Error Goal 0

Initial Step 0.01

Step size Decrease rate 0.9

Step size Increament rate 1.1

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

127

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

128

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Table 4.3.26 b) Statistical Results of ANFIS FCM for 35 HRC and 45 HRC

Statistical Results of ANFIS Fuzzy C -Mean for 35 HRC Results of ANFIS Fuzzy C -Mean Cluster

Error Error MSE RMSE

Grid-35 mean() STD() mean() STD()

Surface roughness (Ra)

Train Ra 7.014*10-8 0.0046 2.077*10-5 0.0046 5.58*10-8 0.0033 1.076*1 0.0033

(m) 0-5

Test Ra (m) 1.165*10-4 0.0053 2.78*10-5 0.0053 -0.0032 0.0457 0.0021 0.0456

4 7 4

Ra (m)

Tangential force (Ft)

Train Ft(N) -1.02*10- 1.2296 1.5101 1.228 -2.93*10-6 1.2581 1.581 1.2574

5

Test Ft(N) -0.0224 1.897 3.577 1.893 -0.1034 1.4454 2.085 1.44

Ft(N)

Axial force (Fa)

Train Fa(N) -3.10*10- 0.7534 0.5669 0.753 6.36*10-6 0.466 0.2172 0.4661

6

Test Fa(N) 0.0835 0.9753 0.953 0.976 -0.0626 0.59206 0.3500 0.5916

Fa(N)

Radial force(Fr)

Train Fr(N) -2.149*10- 0.863 0.744 0.862 -3.36*10-7 2.12*10-4 0.0041 0.064

6

Test Fr(N) 0.1296 0.935 0.886 0.941 -0.0112 0.559 0.3132 0.559

Fr(N)

Train Tf 2.648*10-6 0.052 0.0027 0.0524 1.347*10-6 0.0460 0.0021 0.046

(min) 9

Test Tf (min) 0.0058 0.072 0.0053 0.0729 -0.0032 0.0457 0.0021 0.0456

9

Validation 8.8668*10-4 0.056 0.0031 00560 -4.80*10-4 0.0459 0.0021 0.0459

Tf (min) 0

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

129

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig. 4.133 Training Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.134 Testing Error Plots for Ra

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.135 Validation Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.136 Regression Plots for Ra (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

130

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.138 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target Fig.4.139 Testing Error Plots for Ft

vs Output) (Target vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

131

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.143 Training Error Plots for Fa Fig.4.144 Testing Error Plots for Fa

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig4.146. Regression Plots for Fa

(Target vs Output)

(Train /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

132

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.148 Training Error Plots for Fr Fig.4.149 Testing Error Plots for Fr

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

(Target vs Output) (Train /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

133

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.153 Training Error Plots for Tf Fig.4.154 Testing Error Plots for Tf

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

(Target vs Output) (Train /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

134

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.158 Training Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.159 Testing Error Plots for Ra

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.160 Validation Error Plots for Ra Fig.4.161 Regression Plots for Ra (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

135

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.163 Training Error Plots for Ft Fig.4.164 Testing Error Plots for Ft

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.165 Validation Error Plots for Ft Fig.4.166 Regression Plots for Ft (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

136

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.168 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.4.169 Testing Error Plots for Fa (Target vs

vs Output) Output)

Fig.4.170 Validation Error Plots for Fa (Target

/Test/Validate)

vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

137

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.173 Training Error Plots for Fr Fig.4.174 Testing Error Plots for Fr

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

Fig.4.175 Validation Error Plots for Fr Fig.4.176 Regression Plots for Fr (Train

(Target vs Output) /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

138

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.178 Training Error Plots for Tf Fig.4.179 Testing Error Plots for Tf

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

(Target vs Output) (Train /Test/Validate)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

139

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

4.4.1 Statistical Comparison of Neural Network and ANFIS Prediction Results with

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

NN35 Error Error MSE RMSE Error Error MSE RMSE

NN VS Experimental 35 HRC

STD() NN VS Experimental

STD() 45 HRC

Ra 0.0442 1.0814 1.1130 1.0550 -0.1700 0.2769 0.1018 0.3190

Ft (N) 0.186.6 126.4 594.81 24.38 -57.23 128.3 1.8929*104 137.5

4

Fa (N) 103.98 33.77 1.897*10 109.07 54.67 33.57 4.0607*103 63.72

Fr (N) 1.1318 93.95 93.95 9.69 0.415 14.0720 188.29 13.72

ANFIS grid partitioning VS Experimental 35 HRC ANFIS grid partitioning VS Experimental

Ra -0.2308 0.5964 0.3912 0.6255 -0.9278 0.5964 1.198 1.0949

4 3

Ft (N) 17.49 106.9 1.116*10 105.66 -22.35 77.58 6.128*10 78.85

Fa (N) 157 80 3.09*104 176 -7.5709 40.08 1.5841*103 39.8

Fr (N) 32.57 41.29 2.6*103 51.78 -7.69 38.35 1.457*103 38.17

ANFIS Subtractive VS Experimental 35 HRC ANFIS Subtractive VS Experimental 45

Ra -0.226 0.5964 0.3875 0.6225 -0.947 0.594 1.23 1.109

Ft (N) 15.29 105.36 1.07*104 103 -23.106 76.64 6.1143*103 78.19

4

Fa (N) 157.79 82.3 3.133*10 177.016 -6.9912 39.58 1.537*103 39.213

Fr (N) 27.89 40.81 2.3604*103 48.58 -8.525 36.57 1.343*103 36.65

ANFIS FCM VS Experimental 35 HRC ANFIS FCM VS Experimental 45 HRC

Ra -0.2339 0.5964 0.392 0.6266 -0.856 0.596 1.0714 1.0351

Ft (N) 18.19 104.9 1.08*104 103.9 -21.7 78.8 6.38*103 79.8

Fa (N) 157 79.42 3.073*104 175.32 -6.8003 38.45 6.36*10-6 0.4664

Fr (N) 32.23 42.20 2.73*103 52.25 -6.63 36.89 1.33*103 36.56

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

140

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.4.189 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.4.190 Error Estimation Plots For F r

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

141

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

Fig.4.191 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.4.192 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.4.193 Error Estimation Plots For F a

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.4.195 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.4.196 Error Estimation Plots For F t

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

142

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.197 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.4.198 Error Estimation Plots For F r

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

Fig.4.199 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.4.200 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.4.201 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.4.202 Error Estimation Plots For F r

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

143

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.4.203 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.4.204 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.4.205 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.4.206 Error Estimation Plots For F r

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

Fig.4.207 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.4.208 Error Estimation Plots For F t

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

144

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.4.209 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.4.210 Error Estimation Plots For F r

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.4.211 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.4.212 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.4.213 Error Estimation Plots For F a

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

145

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

4.5 Conclusion

From the Comparison PLOTS and table the mean error and RMS of neural

network was found to be lower compared to ANFIS models

Though the errors in neural network was less the prediction curve for surface

roughness should poor match with the experimental curve while in ANFIS the

curve match for surface roughness was better in comparison to neural

network.

With this results learning techniques for were further attempted to improve with

synergies.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

146

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

CHAPTER 5

5.1 Introduction

In the previous chapters optimization and prediction techniques were applied exclusively

and the results obtained from them were found to be pretty convincing when compared

with the experimental statistics In this chapter hybridization of these techniques is applied

to our current machining problem with objective to improve the ability of techniques

through mutual assistance and improve prediction and optimization ability of exclusive

techniques. A exposition of adapted synergies is illustrated in brief. In the first section the

combinations of Neuro-Evolutionay and Neuro-Swarm techniques is implemented , in the

second section combination of Evolutionary - Neuro fuzzy and Swarm-Neuro fuzzy is

exercised and in the third segment a .comparison is made between the predicted results

obtained from synergism and experimental statistics. The objective of this chapter is

depicted through the flow chart.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

147

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Various types of EAs and NNs synergies are possible which can be broadly classified in

three combinations supportive combination, collaborative combination and amalgamated

combination

contrast NN uses these optimized results as exemplars for training and the

learning then converges depending on the learning parameters and topology of

NN. The performance of both EA and NN can be improved by accelerating the

convergence if an appropriate population of data sets and strategic learning

parameters is applied.

In a supportive combination EAs and NNs are used sequentially where one is

primary problem solver and other is secondary.

In collaborative combination they are used simultaneously where both EAs and

NNs solve the problem together and in amalgamated combination the EA search

technique and NN as pattern model.

Collaborative Combination In collaborative learning both EAs and NNs are used

simultaneously using the result of one to prepare data set for other .In other words

one technique plays primary role of solving problem and the other technique is a

supportive to solve the problem.

Finding an appropriate topology of NN for a given problem is trial and error task.

Synergies between EAs and NN assists in determining optimal network architecture and

then evaluate neural network.

algorithm and generate a optimal population which will be data set for Neural

Network architect.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

148

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

2. Set up the training data for neural network as received from the EA results by

permuting train and target sets and dividing them for training testing and

validation

3. Apply learning criteria for network and evaluate the weights and bias for the

targets. Test the targets against the expected outputs

4. Evaluate the training errors and fitness of network for current learning, transfer

back weights and bias along with the targets to EA. Repeat the step2-4 until the

convergence or max generation is reached.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

149

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Population size 1000

Generation 100

Crossover probability 0.8

Crossover constant 0.1

Mutation probability 0.1

Mutation constant 0.2

Neural Network Type Feed forward neural network

Training function Levenberg-Marqaurdt

No of neurons in Hidden layer 10

No of neurons in output layer 5

Weights in hidden layer 30 [310]

Weights in output layer 50[510]

Training samples [700 3]

Testing samples [150 3]

Validation samples [150 3]

Transfer function Tan-sigmoid function

Training performance 2.861e-04(35HRC) 1.861e-04(45HRC)

Testing performance 4.147e-04(35HRC) 5.847e-04(45HRC)

Validation performance 1.777e-04(35HRC) 8.777e-04(45HRC)

Calibrated weights and bias for 35 HRC Steel

Hidden layer Definition(sij) Output layer Definition(sij)

Bias( W1(v W2(f) W3(d bias W1(R W2(F W3(F W4(Fr W5(Tf

-0.771 0.242 -0.284 0.444 3.444 -2.004 0.010 0.068 -0.154 -0.138

-0.410 -0.040 -0.039 -0.248 1.881 0.511 -1.764 0.516 -4.511 1.559

-0.734 0.065 0.155 -0.224 1.784 -1.875 2.474 1.788 1.7166 0.607

-0.279 -0.208 0.206 0.0684 3.254 3.329 2.564 0.611 -0.616 0.637

-1.215 -0.633 0.895 0.274 3.678 0.772 0.0842 -0.040 0.0041 -0.136

0.746 0.164 0.173 -0.102 0.5492 0.377 -2.206 -0.811 -0.746

0.895 -0.051 -0.037 -0.306 -3.277 -0.713 -3.158 -2.335 -0.383

0.870 -0.0149 0.227 0.050 -1.800 -1.466 3.607 -1.017 -2.811

0.164 -0.16 0.2133 1.23 2.071 1.67 -2.687 0.373

0.55

-1.672 -0.23 -0.21 -1.002 1.107 -0.036 0.1082 -0.077 0.5352

-0.810 -0.856 -2.308 1.099 2.240 -0.856 -2.308 1.099 1.1200 0.528

0.874 -0.651 -2.535 -0.896 0.017 -0.651 -2.535 -0.896 -1.368 -0.039

4

-1.434 0.0990 0.0157 -0.020 2.414 0.099 0.0157 -0.0209 -0.0158 -0.0248

0.731 -0.103 0.478 -0.793 3.064 -0.1033 0.4782 -0.793 1.200 -3.515

-0.135 1.867 1.823 2.756 3.370 1.867 1.823 2.7567 2.046 0.589

2.358 0.005 -0.001 0.002 0.0051 -0.001 0.0002 0.0021 0.0335

-0.733 -0.013 -0.773 0.496 -0.013 -0.773 0.496 1.115 0.933

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

150

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

1.321

0.261 -0.444 -0.415 -1.545 -0.692 -1.112 -0.749 0.111

0.118

-0.109 0.164 0.697 -0.938 0.5015 1.499 -0.848 -0.583

epoch

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

151

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

152

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

each epoch

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

153

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.25 Regression fit plot for Fr

Similar to EA-NN synergies, SI-NN is has three class of synergies which differ in the

degree of coupling and interdependency in working towards solution. The collaborative

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

154

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

combination strategy is analogues to EA-NN strategy. The figure below illustrates the

collaborative combination of SI and NN.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

155

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Total particle population 1000

Max no of repository elements 500

Inertia weight ( w) 0.5

Inertia weight damping rate (w.damp) 0.99

Personal learning co efficient (a1) 1

Global learning co-efficient (a2) 2

No of grid in each dimension 7

Inflation rate ( ) 0.1

Leader selection pressure ( ) 2

Deletion selection pressure ( ) 2

Mutation rate (mu) 0.1

Neural Network Type Feed forward neural network

Training function Levenberg-Marqaurdt

No of neurons in Hidden layer 10

No of neurons in output layer 5

Weights in hidden layer 30 [310]

Weights in output layer 50[510]

Training samples [700 3]

Testing samples [150 3]

Validation samples [150 3]

Transfer function Tan-sigmoid function

Training performance 1.5224e-05

Testing performance 2.089e-05

Validation performance 2.03e-05

Hidden layer Definition(sij) Output layer Definition(sij)

Bias(i) W1(vc) W2(f) W3(d) bias(i) W1(Ra) W2(Ft) W3(Fa) W4(Fr) W5(Tf)

-0.904 1.656 1.671 -0.155 1.100 -0.027 -0.001 -0.003 0.0011 0.004

-3.013 2.294 -1.05 0.092 2.257 -0.121 -0.006 0.006 -0.005 -0.03

0.829 -0.131 0.344 0.001 1.922 -0.200 -0.453 0.908 -0.629 -1.07

-3.295 1.724 1.051 0.0081 0.426 0.111 0.061 0.057 0.049 -0.01

-1.695 0.330 0.163 -0.869 0.227 -0.292 0.017 0.243 0.167 0.2031

-0.369 -0.369 0.143 0.166 3.723 2.250 0.860 -1.183 0.1944

2.0164 -2.643 3.987 -0.614 0.001 0.0006 -0.0001 0.00007 0.0015

-1.248 2.022 -0.81 3.412 0.001 -0.001 -0.003 -0.0002 0.0024

-0.629 0.403 0.346 -0.012 0.44 0.556 0.616 0.436 0.122

-0.705 3.124 -1.47 1.981 -0.018 -0.002 0.0009 0.0004 -0.001

-0.633 -0.304 -0.02 -0.185 0.833 -2.606 1.609 0.649 2.208

0.3125 0.390 -0.23 0.075 0.375 -0.425 1.281 -1.364 0.150

0.896 2.234 -1.43 1.056 0.087 0.010 -0.005 -0.008 0.007

-0.362 -0.010 -0.09 -0.21 0.540 -0.184 -1.76 -3.427 0.285

1.834 -0.298 -0.63 -1.286 -0.166 0.0019 -0.0005 -0.0023 -0.002

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

156

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

-0.983 -0.091 -0.05 0.440 -0.911 0.0689 1.9151 1.440 -0.087

1.326 2.797 -1.62 -0.057 0.107 0.0142 -0.0097 -0.029 -0.024

1.975 -0.015 0.364 0.611 -1.441 -0.074 0.12064 0.341 -0.802

3.971 1.211 -1.51 -0.028 0.4813 -1.663 -0.3358 -0.469 0.126

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

157

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

The synergism between EA and ANFIS is strongly coupled here the EA technique is

toapplied on the membership function which optimizes fitness value of fuzzy output. The

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

158

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

below flow chart outlines the applied strategy in synergism .Membership function are

clustered through Fuzzy C-mean clustering and the fuzzy structure utilized is same as

previously applied (refer chapter 4 table (4.3.27 (a) )). A detailed description is given in

appendix.

5.4.1 ANFIS GA

5.4.1 (a) Statistical Error analysis of GA based ANFIS (FCM) for 35 HRC and

45HRC

Results of GA based ANFIS (FCM) for 35 HRC Results of GA based ANFIS (FCM) for 45 HRC

ANFIS Grid- Error Error MSE RMSE Error Error MSE RMSE

35 mean() STD() mean() STD()

Surface roughness (Ra)

Train Ra -1.5*10-15 0.1016 0.0103 0.1015 3.14*10-16 0.0682 0.0046 0.0681

Test Ra (m) -0.0020 0.1004 0.0100 0.1002 0.0014 0.069 0.0048 0.0692

Tangential force (Ft)

Train Ft(N) 9.22*10-3 23.7 561.42 23.69 -2.69*10-13 18.31 335.08 18.30

Test Ft(N) -0.3057 25.68 657.6 25.64 1.3611 19.58 384 19.59

Axial force (Fa)

Train Fa(N) 1.21*10-13 11.57 133.7 11.56 -1.69*10-13 8.42 70.8 8.4176

Test Fa(N) 0.0194 10.79 116.09 10.77 1.681 9.79 98.45 9.92

Radial force(Fr)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

159

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Train Fr(N) 4.037*10-13 7.568 57.2 7.56 -4.3*10-13 6.266 38.70 6.22

Test Fr(N) -0.0449 7.90 62.314 7.894 1.082 7.41 55.97 7.481

Tool Life (Tf)

Train Tf (min) -3.06*10-14 0.7850 0.6153 0.7844 2.69*10-14 0.6304 0.39 0.62

Test Tf (min) 0.034 0.80 0.6431 0.0802 -0.0157 0.16 0.38 0.618

Results of PSO based ANFIS (FCM) (35 HRC) Results of PSO based ANFIS (FCM) 45 HRC

Surface roughness (Ra)

Train Ra (m) -8.43*10-17 0.0988 0.2168 0.4656 1.4*10-15 1.4*10-15 0.0042 0.0681

Test Ra (m) -4.79*10-4 0.1010 0.0102 0.1008 1.4*10-15 1.4*10-15 0.0048 0.0692

Tangential force (Ft)

Train Ft (N) -3.3*10-13 23.87 589.7 23.86 -4.98*10-13 18.57 344.4 12.55

Test Ft (N) -2.214 23.79 569.38 23.86 1.178 18.90 357.6

Axial force (Fa)

Train Fa (N) 1.02*10-13 10.98 120.46 10.96 -5.59*10-13 8.78 77.08 8.78

Test Fa (N) -0.2655 11.98 143.22 11.96 0.080 9.045 81.54 9.03

Radial force(Fr)

Train Fr (N) -2.36*10- 7.57 57.22 7.56 -3.23*10-13 6.57 42.79 6.54

13

Test Fr (N) 0.221 7.71 59.42 7.708 -0.1446 6.73 45.25 6.72

Tool Life (Tf)

Train Tf (min) 3.03*10-14 0.796 0.6335 0.795 2.90*10-14 0.6186 45.25 6.72

Test Tf (min) 0.0042 0.88 0.774 0.8817 -0.0036 0.64 0.416 0.645

Fig.5.43 Training Error Plots for Ra (Target Fig.5.44 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

160

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

5.4.3 GA based ANFIS (FCM) Plots For Ft 35 HRC

Fig.5.47 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target vs Fig.5.48 Testing Error Plots for Ft (Target vs

Output) Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

161

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

162

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.51 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target vs Output) Fig.5.52 Testing Error Plots for Fa (Target vs

Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

163

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.55 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target Fig.5.56 Testing Error Plots for Fr (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

164

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.59 Training Error Plots for Tf (Target Fig.5.60 Testing Error Plots for Tf (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

165

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.63 Training Error Plots for Ra (Target Fig.5.64 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

166

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.67 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target Fig.5.68 Training Error Plots for Ft (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

167

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.71 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.5.72 Testing Error Plots for Fa (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

168

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.75 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target Fig.5.76 Testing Error Plots for Fr (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

169

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.79 Training Error Plots for Tf (Target Fig.5.80 Testing Error Plots for Tf (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

170

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

The synergism between SI and ANFIS is also strongly coupled where the SI technique is applied

on the membership function to optimize fitness value of fuzzy output. The below flow chart

outlines the applied strategy in synergism .Membership function are clustered through Fuzzy C-

mean clustering and the fuzzy structure utilized is same as previously applied (refer chapter 4

table (4.3.27 (a) )). A detailed description is given in appendix.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

171

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.84 Training Error Plots for Ra (Target Fig.5.85 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

172

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.88 Training Error Plots for Ft Fig.5.89 Testing Error Plots for Ft (Target

(Target vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

173

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.92 Training Error Plots for Fa (Target Fig.5.93 Testing Error Plots for Fa

vs Output) (Target vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

174

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.96 Training Error Plots for Fr (Target Fig.5.97 Testing Error Plots for Fr

vs Output) (Target vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

175

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.100 Training Error Plots for Tf Fig.5.101 Testing Error Plots for Tf (Target

(Target vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

176

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.104 Training Error Plots for Ra Fig.5.105 Testing Error Plots for Ra (Target

(Target vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

177

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.108 Training Error Plots for Ft Fig.5.109 Testing Error Plots for Ft (Target

(Target vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

178

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.112 Training Error Plots for Fa Fig.5.113 Testing Error Plots for Fa (Target

(Target vs Output) vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

179

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.116 Training Error Plots for Fr Fig.5.117 Testing Error Plots for Fr

(Target vs Output) (Target vs Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

180

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.120 Training Error Plots for Tf (Target Fig.5.121 Testing Error Plots for Tf (Target vs

vs Output) Output)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

181

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

5.6.1 NSGA-NN

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35HRC and 45HRC

NN35 Error Error MSE RMSE Error Error MSE RMSE

NSGA-NN VS Experimental

STD() 35 HRC NSGA-NN VS Experimental

STD() 45 HRC

Ra --0.221 0.979 0.960 0.980 -0.355 0.378 0.262 0.512

Ft (N) 42.67 86.21 8.88*103 94.24 -57.23 128.36 1.89*104 137.58

Fa (N) 156.2 49.56 2.675*104 114.49 -13.571 38.046 1.55*103 39.488

Fr (N) -0.723 14.77 206.55 14.37 -11.74 35.99 1.36*103 36.99

PSO NN VS Experimental 35 HRC PSO NN VS Experimental 45 HRC

Ra 1.749 0.732 3.56 1.88

Ft (N) -53.25 104.6 1.32*14 115.04

Fa (N) 138.22 40.44 2.06*104 43.73

Fr (N) 40.08 64.63 5.57*103 74.66

ANFIS GA VS Experimental 35 HRC ANFIS GA VS Experimental 45 HRC

Ra -0.1572 0.4507 0.2177 0.466 0.0371 0.2796 0.075 0.2751

Ft (N) 17.6 57.06 3.4*103 58.3 -21.84 107.08 1.64*10 4

107.76

Fa (N) 136.152 51.87 2.109*104 145.2 -45.95 41.46 3.74*103 61.19

Fr (N) 11.065 20.54 523 22.87 -0.91 36.86 1.29*103 35.93

ANFIS PSO VS Experimental 35 HRC ANFIS PSO VS Experimental 45 HRC

Ra 0.1578 0.4494 0.2168 0.4656 0.0372 0.2798 0.075 0.275

Ft (N) 17.13 57.16 3.398*103 58.29 -27.34 106.19 1.14*104 107.05

Fa (N) 135.9 52 2.11*104 145.4 -46.83 41.55 3.83*103 61.91

Fr (N) 10.89 70.79 517 22.75 -0.747 36.77 1.28*103 35.84

for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

Fig.5.124 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.125 Error Estimation Plots For F t

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

182

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.126 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.5.127 Error Estimation Plots For Fr

for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.5.128 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.129 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.5.130 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.5.131 Error Estimation Plots For F r

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

183

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

5.6.4 Error Plots of PSO-NN Results with Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340

Steel 35 HRC

Fig.5.132 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.133 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.5134 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.5.135 Error Estimation Plots For F r

5.6.5 Error Plots of GA based ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.5.136 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.137 Error Estimation Plots For F t

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

184

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.138 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.5.139 Error Estimation Plots For F r

5.6.6 Error Plots of GA based ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.5.140 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.141 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.5.142 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.5.143 Error Estimation Plots For F r

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

185

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

5.6.7 Error Plots of PSO based ANFIS (Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering)) Results with

Experimental Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 35hrc

Fig.5.144 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.145 Error Estimation Plots For F t

Fig.5.146 Error Estimation Plots For F a Fig.5.147 Error Estimation Plots For F r

5.6.8 Error Plots of PSO based ANFIS Prediction Results with Experimental

Statistics for AISI 4340 Steel 45hrc

Fig.5.148 Error Estimation Plots For R a Fig.5.149 Error Estimation Plots For F t

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

186

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fig.5.151 Error Estimation Plots For F r

5.7 Conclusion

synergies is performed and at all the three learning stages the errors were monitored i.e,

while training testing and validating. The learning converged well for all applied

techniques.

Furthermore the predicted results are tested against experimental statistics for evaluating

the prediction accuracy of each learning model. The prediction models demonstrated

relatively varying accuracy results which are tabulated in each sections.

1. The results of EA NN were more accurate than SI-NN and less accurate when

compare to the synergies of ANFIS.

2. EA-NN accuracy was convincing but the accuracy of ANFIS-EA and ANFIS-SI

were better than the EA-NN and SI-NN prediction models which can be clearly

commented from the statistical error table.

3. Between the ANFIS EA and ANFIS-SI the relative difference of accuracy is

negligible as both the techniques demonstrated almost similar results in prediction

4. The Adaptive neuro fuzzy combination proved to be better than the neuro

computing combination this difference is possible due to the adaptive layers

introduced in the neuro-fuzzy inference. Though in both the techniques back

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

187

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

adaptive layers and clustering technique in membership function of fuzzy

structure improved the learning ability of prediction model.

5. However the synergism of neural network gave better accuracy than the exclusive

techniques exhibiting improvement in learnability of pattern

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

188

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

CHAPTER 6

The results from optimization and predictive techniques are elaborately discussed and

comparison with experimental statistics is made.

implemented strategy is shown in fig.3.1 both techniques from EA and SI were utilized to

optimize machining performance

6.1.1 NSGAII

NSGA II utilized non-domination technique for its population selection and mating, the

fitness of individuals were determined by two criteria (a) Pareto-Individual rank (b)

Pseudo Euclidean distance

According to criteria an individual with least rank and maximum Euclidean distance is

the fittest and these individual/individuals represents globally optimized solutions. The

degree of optimality depends on their relative function of rank and distance which

represents diversity of individuals in each generation. The results of both the steels AISI

4340 35HRC and 45HRC had initial population of 1000 and elitism was applied at each

generation.

The Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 records results of family of optimized individuals for both

steels after hundred generations arranged in descending order of fronts and fitness levels

which are calculated by rank and distance. Only the first 20 solutions are listed out of the

1000 population in the tables.

From Table 3.3 the first front has maximum distance and minimum rank the solutions

and these solutions shows a good tradeoffs between the surface roughness and tool life

among them fifth individual with fitness which gives both good surface finish and

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

189

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

maximum tool life .This individual corresponds to process parameters (cutting speed

,feed rate and depth of cut) 170m/min, 0.15mm/rev, 1mm respectively with machining

objectives(Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 4.0m, 412N, 152N, 231N and 50 minutes. The subsequent

individual with process parameter (cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut)

231m/min,0.15mm/rev,1mm corresponding to machining performance (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf)

2.5m, 442N, 115N, 199N and 42.49 minutes can be picked out as optimal solution.

Though the fitness of first front is fittest among others, the individuals from subsequent

front can also be chosen from the solution space with permitted tradeoffs.

The Fig.3.3-3.5 constitutes plots of NSGA II for 35HRC, in the Fig.3.3 the first subplot

shows the rank of individual at each generation, from the figure it can be inferred that the

rank converges to one for most of the population as non-dominated technique is applied

for sorting, in the second subplot of Fig 3.3 Pareto plots between the objectives are

plotted to evaluate relative tradeoffs between two objectives.

Pareto front depicts plots for elite members which can be between two or three objectives

that are non-inferior. The subplots 2, 3 and 4 in the figure 3.3 are pareto plots between

force and surface roughness, the second subplot represents pareto-front between Ra-Ft, in

third and fourth sub plot pareto front between Ra-Fa and Ra-Fr.

The Fig 3.4 contains pareto-fronts between tool life and forces; first subplot is pareto-

front between Tf -Ft, second subplot between Tf-Fa and third sub plot between Tf-Fr. From

the pareto fronts for minimum surface roughness and maximum tool life following region

range of forces were found to be favorable (approximately) optimal surface profile.

Table.6.1 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life

Forces Surface Roughness(1-2.5 m) Tool life (Tf>40 mins)

Tangential Forces 800-600 N <470N

Axial Forces 300-200 <160N

Radial forces 400-300 <250N

In fig. 3.5 average pareto diversity plots in the consecutive generations is plotted which is

determined by average pareto (Euclidean) distance among individuals The diversity of

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

190

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

population varied from 1-0.001 The population in overall generations exhibited vivid

diversity. Initially the average distance between the generations was maximum after 20

generations a shift in distance was observed with distance spread to 0.6 in mid generation

and as final generations are approached the distance between generations converges to

0.001 showing a good migration of individuals across generations.

For AISI 4340 45 HRC steel the family of solutions is listed in table 3.4 out of the 1000

elite solutions only 20 solutions are tabulated. The best individual in the first front is

corresponding to process parameters (cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut)

130.8m/min, 0.15 mm/rev, 1mm and objective fitness (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 4.0 m, 542N,

331N, 282N, 30 minutes is fittest. Similarly preceding individual with process parameters

(cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut) 135m/min, 0.15mm/rev, 1mm corresponding to

objective fitness (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 3.98, 519N, 331N, 282N, 28 minutes can be picked as

best solution. Likewise favorable solutions can be chosen with the degree of tradeoffs

permitted among the objectives.

The Fig.3.6 - 3.8 are plots of NSGA II for 45HRC, in the Fig.3.6 the first subplot depicts

rank of individual at each generation and the rank converges to one for most of the

population, in the second subplot of Fig.3.7 Pareto plots between the objectives are

graphed and in Fig.3.8 diversity plot at each generation is drawn.

The subplots 2, 3 and 4 in the figure 3.6 are Pareto plots between surface roughness and

force, the second subplot represents pareto-front between Ra-Ft, the third and fourth sub

plot shows pareto front between Ra-Fa and Ra-Fr.

The Fig.3.7 contains pareto-fronts between tool life and forces; first subplot is pareto-

front between Tf-Ft, second subplot between Tf-Fa and third sub plot between Tf-Fr. From

the pareto fronts for minimum surface roughness and maximum tool life following region

range of forces were found to be favorable (approximately) for optimal solution in

45HRC machining.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

191

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Table.6.2 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life

Forces Surface Roughness(3.5-4m) Tool life (Tf>10 mins)

Tangential Forces 600-400 N <500N

Axial Forces 360-300N <160N

Radial forces 300-330N <350N

distance was maximum latter on at mid generations a sharp drop is observed between 25-

35 generations and then at final generations the distance converged to as low as 0.001

showing good migration ability and diversity.

Since SPEA 2 is a combination of pareto envelope and nichepareto the rank and fitness

strength is calculated to both best elements in archive and individuals in population

through dominance level. The proposition rule of determining best solution is by

calculating effective fitness value which is sum of raw fitness and density distribution

about individuals. Table 3.6 holds optimal solution for AISI 4340 steel 35 HRC which

contains 300 archive elements. The matrix F contains the fitness strength of each

individual which calculated by summation of R (rank) and D (distance /density function)

matrix (in table 3.6), the distance D is calculated by K nearest cluster algorithm .The

matrix S is strength value which is evaluated by dominance count. The position matrix

represents process parameters and the cost matrix represents machining objectives.

The individual with least strength value represents the fittest individual i.e., the

individual in first front with strength fitness S 0.32 can be picked as best individual with

position (process parameters :cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut) 259m/min,

0.17mm/rev, 1.07mm corresponding to machining objectives (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 1.88m,

514N, 136N, 225N, 35.51 minutes.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

192

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

In Fig.3.10 subplots have individual ranks and pareto fronts between surface roughness-

forces, the subplots 2, 3, 4 depicts the pareto front between Ra-Ft, Ra-Fa, Ra-Fr, which are

archive element containing only fittest individual. Similarly the pareto fronts between

tool life and forces are plotted in fig.3.11 the subplots 1,2,3 are pareto fronts for Tf- Ft,

Tf- Fa, Tf- Fr are represented. Though the solutions suggested by SPEA 2 is different

individuals from the NSGA II the force constraint obtained is same as NSGA II for

minimum surface roughness and maximum tool life

Table.6.3 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life

Forces Surface Roughness(1-2.5m) Tool life (Tf>35 mins)

Tangential Forces 780-590 N <500N

Axial Forces 300-200N <160N

Radial forces 300-330N <250N

In Fig.3.12 diversity among generation is plotted the average pareto distance is different

from the NSGA II and the spread is limited between 0.37-0.27 the spread is random

representing a good mix in individual among generations but the combination is restricted

between limited distance.

The results of 45 HRC steel is recorded in the Table 3.7 with same definition of elements.

From the table the strength fitness is least for third individual with F 0.31 the position

(process parameters: cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut) of this individual is 174

m/min,0.23 mm/rev, 1.7 mm with machining performance (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 3.93m,

674N, 389N, 355N, 14.19 minutes and next fittest individual is in consequent front with

strength fitness S 0.33 with process parameters168m/min,0.16mm/rev,1.02mm for

machining performance 3.67m,519.42N,384N,310N,19 minutes.

Pareto fronts for 45 HRC objectives are in Fig.3.13 and Fig.3.14,in fig 3.13 the sub plot

2,3,4 represents the pareto front between Ra-Ft, Ra-Fa, Ra-Fr, and subplots in Fig.3.14

shows subplots of Tf-Ft, Tf - Fa, Tf- Fr respectively for minimum surface roughness and

maximum tool life the force constraints should be as follows

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

193

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Table.6.4 Tradeoffs among forces for Surface roughness and Tool life

Forces Surface Roughness(3.5-4m) Tool life (Tf>10 mins)

Tangential Forces 600-400 N <500N

Axial Forces 360-300N <160N

Radial forces 300-330N <350N

limited between 0.4-0.26 the spread is random representing a good combinations in

individual among generations but this trend is limited.

The PSO algorithm utilizes swarm movement to find optimal solution. The applied

swarm constitutes of particle structure with position, cost and their best position, best cost

associated with it a pseudo velocity and acceleration associated for each particle. Table

3.9 comprises of optimal solution for AISI 4340 steel where the position matrix holds

process parameters cost holds the machining performance for each position best cost ,best

position is defined for each position. The velocity matrix is which correspond to the

position matrix is utilized to move swarm in search space and changes at each transition.

The Grid Index matrix contains the topology of swarm at each transition and grid sub

index contains the neighborhood topology of grid index. The table consists of 500 swarm

particles which are in repository element out of 1000 swarm.

In Fig.3.17 pareto front between the surface roughness and tangential force is graphed

which gives similar results as pareto front of Evolutionary Techniques.

Fig.3.18-3.19 are swam surfaces for surface roughness and tool life respectively which

shows the potential of swarm. Each particle on the swarm surface is defined by particle

position in Fig.3.18 the particles at the declination of surface are fittest particles which

converged to minimum surface roughness values and in Fig.3.19 the particles at the

projection of swarm surface represents the optimal tool life showing convergence at the

foot of swarm surface.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

194

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

plotted. The subplots 1, 2 and 3 show the force gradients with respect to depth of cut for

best particles. The change in force about the mean line is shows that best particles are

about the mean line presenting favorable solutions for surface roughness and tool life.

From the table 3.9 optimal solution is determined by leaders among swarm the first

leader corresponding is to gird index 40282 with best position 193.76m/min,0.15mm/rev,

1 mm with machining performance (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 3.43 m, 417N, 134N, 215N, 46.12

minutes the subsequent solution is corresponding to particle with grid index 46844

similarly other solutions are equally fit depending on the permitted tradeoffs solutions

can be chosen.

The solution for AISI 4340 45 HRC steel has same entities which are listed in table

3.10.The pareto-fronts and swarm surface are plotted in fig 3.21 and fig 3.22-3.23

respectively. The swarm surface of 45HRC showed similar trends as to 35 HRC steel the

45HRC steel shows similar trends in swarm surface. In Fig.3.21 the pareto front between

surface roughness and tangential force is drawn which gives force constraints similar to

NSGA II 45 HRC fronts .In fig 3.22 and fig 3.23 the swarm surface for surface roughness

and tool life is drawn.

In fig 3.24 the influence of depth of cut on force component on optimal particles is

plotted. The subplots 1, 2 and 3 show the force gradients with respect to depth of cut for

best particles.. From the table 3.10 optimal solution is determined by swarm leaders

among them the first leader corresponds to gird index 20510 with best position 136

m/min, 0.15mm/rev, 1mm with machining performance (Ra, Ft, Fa, Fr, Tf) 4.04 m, 522N,

134N, 331N, 29.32 minutes the subsequent solution is corresponding to particle with grid

index 31070 similarly other solutions are equally fit depending on the allowed tradeoffs

solutions can be chosen.3

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

195

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

The Fig.3.25 - Fig.3.30 are plots of solution spectrum obtained from applied global

search optimization technique. Each plot has solutions for five objectives i.e, Surface

roughness, tool life, radial force, axial force and tangential force. In fig 3.25 and fig 3.26

the solution space obtained from NSGA II for 35 HRC and 45 HRC steels is drawn.

Clearly distinction can be made the graphs that in 35 HRC steel radial forces are

dominating axial force while in 45 HRC steel axial force is dominating radial force. A

similar trend can be inferred from solutions of SPEA2 and PSO.

Fig 3.27 and Fig 3.28 are solution space obtained from the PSO technique for 35 HRC

and 45 HRC steel respectively and Fig.3.29 and Fig.3.30 are solution space obtained

from the SPEA2 for 35HRC and 45HRC respectively.

For 35 HRC the sequence of solution for each objectives are represented in following

order surface roughness, tool life, axial force, radial force and tangential force ,while for

35 HRC the solution for each objective is in order of surface roughness, tool life ,radial

force, axial force and tangential force.

The solution space of NSGA II (fig 3.25 & 3.26) has thousand populations which is a

combination of parents and offspring formed by tournament selection. The solution space

is distributed with constant amplitude in solution space. While the solution space of PSO

and SPEA2 (fig.3.27-fig.3.30) vary in amplitude in solution space at each generation.

The solution space of PSO (Fig 3.27 & fig 3.28) has five hundred best solutions which

are elite solutions. The solution trend is random when compared to NSGAII showing

varying amplitude across wavelength with immediate change in crest and troughs in local

and global minima and maxima.

However the solution space of SPEA2 has three hundred best elite solutions which are

highly disturbed amplitude when compared to NSGAII and PSO the jumps in maxima

and minima is uneven exhibiting unsaturation in local and global minima .

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

196

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

From the solution space analysis the NSGAII showed a better saturation in local global

maxima minima while PSO should a moderate saturation and SPEA2 exhibited lower

saturation levels in maxima and minima. The saturation levels also depicts tradeoffs in

objectives from which an following inference can be made.

The solution obtained from the NSGAII solution gave better tradeoffs among objectives

which can be observed from each front in solution space. While PSO gave a moderate

trade off with the solution space was favoring lower surface roughness by reducing tool

life for few swarm particles though the overall trade off was found to be good enough.

The solution space of SPEA2 gave unbalance tradeoff between objectives favoring

surface roughness and reducing tool life for many individuals. From above discussion it

can be concluded that the solution space provided by NSGAII is better than other two

while the solution space provided by the PSO is better than SPEA2.

The solutions obtained by fittest individuals in NSGAII and PSO keeps the flank wear of

tool under working limit. The tool used for current hard turning was multi-layer coated

carbide inserts and the cutting speed suggested by both the optimization techniques

suggested cutting speed below 200 m/min and feed rate, depth of cut in between LFLD

(low federate low depth of cut) and HLHD (high feed high depth of cut) at this condition

the flank wear is less than 0.15 mm for tool life greater than 40 minutes [2]. This cutting

condition keeps flank wear under appreciable level, restricting sharp rise in cutting forces

due to high flank wear rate [3]. If the flank wear is inhibited above this then machining

chatter due to excessive forces is controlled and better surface finish is obtained.

In contrast SPEA2 suggests cutting speed close to 260m/min (250-260 m/min) and feed

rate, depth of cut near (HLHD condition) for which flank wear about 0.2mm for time

cutting greater than 35 minutes.[2]. At this flank wear the forces tend to increase sharply

which may increase machining vibrations resulting in poor surface finish. The tradeoff

between the surface roughness and tool life should be picked wisely for a successful hard

turning.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

197

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Intelligent learning systems were applied to recognize machining pattern sequence which

is discernible in the machining statistics. In fig 4.1 the adopted strategy for chapter 4 is

illustrated and accordingly the results were discussed. Learned networks were utilized to

predict machining performance on experimental runs and obtained results were analyzed

for statistical error. An extensive mathematical framework is discussed for the all the

applied learning techniques.

The applied network architect for both steels is illustrated in fig 4.4. A multi-layer feed

forward perceptron type network was used to for both steels which require many

exemplars for mapping multiple vectors. From the regression model thousand machining

data were generated for each vector model for better interpolation of target vectors in

learning space. These data sets were randomly permutated and split for training, testing

and validating samples. Out of the thousand sets 700 samples were utilized for training

150 sample for training and 150 for validation.

The description of applied neural network for AISI 4340 steel 35 HRC is listed in table

4.2.4 (a) and the calibrated weights and bias for the targets is given in table 4.2.4 (b). The

network performance plot in Fig.4.5 shows drop in mean square error from 104 to 10-3 in

1000 epoch while learning (training, testing and validating stage). The error gradient

Fig.4.6 between the targets and output converged to 10-2 at 1000 epoch from gradient of

105. For each objective an error histogram and regression plots were drawn in (Fig. 3.7-

Fig. 3.16) in each error plot the mean error was close enough to the zero error line

depicting that the error minimized to its least possible value. Linear regression fit was

obtained between targets and output while learning each objective with regression co

efficient close to 1.

Same network was utilized for leaning machine statistics of 45HRC steel. The network

description and calibrated weights and bias are listed in Table 4.2.5(c) and 4.2.5(d).The

mean square error while learning converged to similar order (Fig.5.17) to that of 35HRC.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

198

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

While in training state the error gradient gave sharp slopes though at final epoch the

gradient converged to 1.125 with zero validation fails. The error histogram and regression

plot for each vector is in (Fig.4.19-Fig.4.28).The error for each machining vector was in

order of 10-2.

In this network two adaptive layers with learnable parameters were used viz., antecedent

and consequent layer. Three different clustering techniques were applied on membership

function i.e., Grid portioning clustering, Subtractive clustering and Fuzzy C- mean

clustering. Each cluster techniques had different weights (connections) and the fuzzy

structure of each technique varied. The analytical description of hybrid neuro-fuzzy

techniques is discussed in brief. For each machining vector fuzzy structure learns

machining data sequentially. From the RSM model thousand machining data for learning

were generated. These vectors were randomly permutated and split into training (850

samples), testing (150 samples) and validated on complete machining vector.

tabulated in table 4.3.4 (a) fuzzy structure. For each machining vector following plots

were drawn.

(ii) Errors between the target-output.

(iii) Normal density fit between mean error and standard deviation.

At each epoch the error between targets and output while learning was calculated and

error gradients were minimized through hybrid leaning and back propagation algorithm.

In table 4.3.4 (b) statistical errors in training, testing and validating for each objective in

35HRC is listed and mean error for each vector were as low of order 10-5 these statistical

results are plotted in Fig.4.36-Fig.4.60.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

199

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Same architect and fuzzy structure is utilized for learning machining pattern for 45 HRC.

The statistical error in training, testing and validation for each objective is tabulated in

table 4.3.4 (c) the error for was as low as low as 10-5 and plots for each objective are

illustrated in between Fig.4.61-Fig.4.85.

The developed structure for subtractive clustering is illustrated in fig.4.86, fuzzy structure

implemented is tabulated in table 4.3.16 (a) and in table 4.3.16 (b) &4.3.16 (C) statistical

errors in training, testing and validating for objective in 35 HRC and 45HRC respectively

is listed and these statistical results are plotted for each objective.

reduced to order of 10-7.for 35 HRC and 10-6 in 45 HRC showing improvement in leaning

ability. The plots for each objective and their corresponding figures for 35HRC and

45HRC steel acquired from ANFIS subtractive Clustering are illustrated in figures

Fig.4.87-Fig.4.136.

The developed structure for FCM clustering is shown in fig.4.137 and fuzzy structure

implemented is tabulated in table 4.3.27 (a). In table 4.3.27 (b) & 4.3.27 (C) statistical

errors in training, testing and validating for both steels is listed. The learning error in

FCM was further reduced to order of 10-8 in both the steels though not for all vectors The

mean error in all vectors was of similar order (10-6) showing similar results as that of

subtractive clustering. The plots for each objectives and their corresponding figures for

35HRC and 45HRC steel obtained from ANFIS FCM are shown in Fig.4.138-Fig.4.187.

The developed predictive model was tested on Experimental statistics and a statistical

analysis of the errors in predictions was made for each model. Comparison graphs for

each objective in each technique were plotted (fig.4.188-fig.4.219). The Mean errors and

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

200

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

their standard deviations of each objectives in both the steel are listed in table (6.5) and

the means squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE) is tabulated in table.

Table.6.5 Mean error and Standard Deviation between Experimental and Predicted

statistics

Machining Neural ANFIS ANFIS ANFIS Neural ANFIS ANFIS ANFIS

Objective Network Grid Sub FCM Network Grid Sub FCM

Measure

Ra(m) 0.0442 -0.2308 -0.226 -0.2339 1.0814 0.5964 0.5964 0.5964

Ra(m) -0.1700 -0.9278 -0.947 -0.856 0.2769 0.5964 0.594 0.596

ng Networ Network

Objectiv k Grid Sub FCM Grid Sub FCM

e

Error Mean Square Error Root Mean Square Error

Measure

Ra(m) 1.1130 0.3912 0.3875 0.392 1.0550 0.6255 0.6225 0.6266

4

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

201

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

4

3

Though the statistical errors in neural network was relatively in comparison to ANFIS

models the relative change in error at each prediction points in neural network is higher

than the ANFIS models and the curve traced by neural network in both the steels did not

match well when compared to curved traced by ANFIS models. This observation can be

inferred by analyzing corresponding comparison graphs for each objectives in specific

techniques. The error plots for each technique are drawn in Fig.4.188-4.219.

The results obtained from the prediction models were accurate enough to predict around

the experimental statistics, though the relative degree of accuracy varied for different

learning technique. The mean error of neural network was less than the neuro-fuzzy but

the prediction curve could not trace well with the experimental curve in converse the mean

error of ANFIS was comparatively larger but the prediction curve traced well with the

experimental curve.

6.3 Synergies of CI

improve results in pattern learning of current machining statistics The combination of

synergies applied is shown in Fig.5.1 results of each combination is discussed

individually.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

202

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

6.3.1 EA-NN

weights. The applied architect is shown in Fig.5.2. The network description, calibrated

weights of combined network is listed in table 5.2.2 (a) and 5.2.3 (b).The optimized

populations from NSGAII were given input to neural network at each epoch and

depending on drop in error gradients the weights were adjusted and fed to NSGA II for

optimization. The optimized solution space (1000 population) of NSGA II are permutated

randomly and split into training (700) testing (150) and validating samples. These

samples would adjust weights accordingly at every epoch.

The mean square error for network converged to order of 10-3 just in 300 epoch exhibiting

good convergence in network error. The plot for network performance is in Fig.5.3.The

training state plots is illustrated in Fig.5.4 the error gradient dropped to 0.194 which is

lesser than the neural network. Likewise the error plots and regression for each vector is

in Fig.5.5-Fig.5.15.

Same architect is utilized for 45 HRC steel the learning performance was better than the

exclusive neural network with mean square error as low as 10-4 in training, testing,

validation stages. The performance plot is drawn in Fig.5.16 and the training state plots

are in Fig.5.17, error gradients were also found to be minimized to gradient as low as 10 -,

error and regression plots for each vector are in Fig.5.16-Fig.5.41.

6.3.2 SI-NN

Applied architect for PSO-NN combination is illustrated in Fig.5.29. The best solutions

in archive elements of PSO were utilized for network learning. The archive had 500

elements out of which 350 samples were utilized for training, 75 samples for testing and

75 samples for validation. The network description and calibrated weights are tabulated

in table 5.3.1 (a) and table.5.3.1 (b). Two hidden layers were defined for network to work

accurately since the examples provided by PSO were less compared to NSGA II. For

each input and output vectors 20 weights were utilized for mapping and 10 bias were

added at each hidden layer.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

203

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

The network performance of combined SI-NN was better than NN with mean square

error dropping as low as 10-4 in all the learning state and error gradient going as low as

10-4 at final epoch. The performance plot of network is illustrated in Fig.5.30 and training

state plots are in Fig.5.31.The overall network performance was better than the exclusive

neural network.

To enhance ANFIS, GA and PSO are applied to optimize membership function, FCM

structure from previously developed model was utilized for combination. The applied

strategy utilized for ANFIS-GA is explained in Fig.5.42, the architect utilized is same as

that of ANFIS-FCM. Thousand learning samples were generated from RSM model these

exemplars were randomly permuted and used for leaning. Out of thousand exemplars 700

were split for training sets and 300 for testing. Since fuzzy maps only one vector per

training the multi objective NSGA was reduced to single objective GA with no change in

genetic and selection operators.

From the error table 5.3.1 (a) the mean error for each vector of 35HRC dropped to order

of 10-13 which is way better compared to exclusively applied ANFIS (10 -6) demonstrating

excellent improvement in pattern learning ability. The error plots for each vector are

drawn in Fig.5.44-Fig.5.64.Similarly for 45 HRC from the Table.5.3.7 mean error for

each vector dropped to order of 10-13 exhibiting better leaning than exclusive ANFIS.

samples employed in ANFISGA is used for ANFIS-PSO learning. From table 5.4.7 the

learning error was reduced to order of 10-14 exhibiting better learning ability The error

plots for both the techniques is represented in Fig.5.44-Fig.5.125.

The developed predictive model was tested on Experimental statistics and a statistical

analysis of the errors in predictions was made for each model. Comparison graphs for

each objective in each technique were plotted (fig.4.188-fig.4.219).The Mean errors and

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

204

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

their standard deviations of each objectives in both the steel are listed in table 6.7 and the

means squared error(MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE) is tabulated in table 6.8

Table.6.7 Mean error and Standard Deviation between Experimental and Predicted

statistics

Machinin NSG PSO-NN ANFIS- ANFIS- NSGA PSO-NN ANFIS ANFIS-

g A-NN GA PSO -NN -GA PSO

Objective

Error Mean Error Standard Deviation

Measure

Comparison Errors for 35 HRC AISI 4340 Steel

Ra(m) -0.221 1.749 -0.1572 0.1578 0.979 0.732 0.4507 0.4494

Ft (N) 42.67 -53.25 17.6 17.13 86.21 104.6 57.06 57.16

Fa (N) 156.2 138.22 136.152 135.9 49.56 40.44 51.87 52

Fr (N) -0.723 40.08 11.065 10.89 14.77 64.63 20.54 70.79

Comparison Errors for 45 HRC AISI 4340 Steel

Ra(m) -0.355 0.0371 0.0372 0.378 0.4507 0.2796 0.2798

Ft (N) -57.23 -21.84 -27.34 128.36 57.06 107.08 106.19

Fa (N) -13.57 -45.95 -46.83 38.046 51.87 41.46 41.55

Fr (N) -11.74 -0.91 -0.747 35.99 20.54 36.86 36.77

Table.6.8 Mean Square Error and Root Mean Square Error between Experimental and

Predicted statistics

ng NN GA NN NN GA S-PSO

Objectiv

e

Error Mean Square Error Root Mean Square Error

Measure

Comparison Errors for 35 HRC AISI 4340 Steel

Ra(m 0.960 3.56 0.2177 0.2168 0.980 1.88 0.466 0.4656

)

Ft (N) 8.88*103 1.32*104 3.4*103 3.398*103 94.24 115.04 58.3 58.29

4 4 4

Fa (N) 2.67*10 2.06*10 2.109*10 2.11*104 114.49 43.73 145.2 145.4

Fr (N) 206.55 5.57*103 523. 517 14.37 74.66 22.87 22.75

Comparison Errors for 45 HRC AISI 4340 Steel

Ra(m 0.262 0.075 0.075 0.512 0.2751 0.275

)

Ft (N) 1.89*104 1.64*104 1.14*104 137.58 107.76 107.05

Fa (N) 1.55*103 3.74*103 3.83*103 39.488 61.19 61.91

3

Fr (N) 1.36*10 1.29*103 1.28*103 36.99 35.93 35.84

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

205

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

From table 6.7 the values of mean error and standard deviations of ANFIS combinations

were less than the Neural Network synergies. Similarly (table 6.8) the mean square error

and root mean square error for ANFIS synergies were lesser compared to Neural

Network Synergies. The amplitude of error between experimental and predicted statistics

was shorter compared to Neural Network.

The ANFIS combination performed better than the NN combination this enhancement is

possibly due to the optimization of adaptive layers. Though the statistical error is not very

large when compared in magnitude the curve traced by ANFIS synergies were found to

better than the curve traced by NN synergies. The error plots for each technique are

illustrated in Fig.5.126-Fig.5.153.

In brief the combinations of ANFIS performed better than the combinations of Neural

Network. However the developed prediction techniques were accurate enough to learn

experimental machining statistics.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

206

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

On an overview the work dealt with optimizing machining performance in hard turning

of AISI 4340 steel and building accurate predictive models by applying intelligence

learning techniques.

From the results of optimization the best tradeoffs among machining objectives was

obtained by NSGA II solution space, followed by PSO while solution space of

SPEA2 was biased toward surface roughness recommending lower tool life in most

of its best solution.

The difference in tradeoffs recommended by algorithms is due to the degree of

elitism demonstrated by algorithms Elitism is similar to a pseudo memory that is

associated to algorithm by which it recognizes the best individual so that it doesnt

search for same individual in again in consecutive reducing exploration time for

searching best individual.

The elitism in NSGA II was implemented by tournament selection where

consecutive best individuals selected at each tournament are preserved by

replacement of chromosome in intermediate solution. Elitism was performed on

single set of population i.e. both fittest individuals and intermediate chromosomes

were members of chromosome. Though achieving elitism by single set of

chromosome slowed down the convergence while recursion. This drawback was

overcome by providing randomness in genetic operator. The mutation operator acted

as agent of entropy in solution space when elite individuals enveloped to local

minimums.

While in PSO the elitism was carried out by introducing pbest and gbest population

sets where the local minimum were stored in pbest and global minimum in gbest.

The repository element in PSO was elite members which contained gbest

populations. The elite mechanism in PSO was dynamic compared to NSGA II in

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

207

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

PSO, the gbest and pbest attractor in neighborhood topology acted as initiator for

gathering elite members. The problem of local minimum was overcome by the

swarm movement equation Unlike NSGA, PSO doesnt have genetic operator so

when the size of elite members exceeded inertia damping co efficient controlled it,

for better convergence a pseudo mutation on particles were introduced.

Similarity in solution space in NSGA II and PSO could be justified by finding

analogies between both algorithms. The best parents in NSGA acted as pseudo

particle attractor in recognizing elite members which is similar to the gbest and pbest

attractor in grid topology and the genetic operator is similar to that of swarm

movement operator Since the elite members in both the algorithms were same (i.e.,

500) which justly supports analogy.

But when solution space of SPEA 2 is compared the fittest individuals is quite

different from NSGA and PSO algorithm it shows inclination towards one vector

weakening other vector even though elitism is fairly applied. This behavior is drawn

from the niche behavior of fit individuals in archive (elite members).

machining statistics. Initially neural network and ANFIS were applied exclusively

for learning machining examples. The accuracy of learnt networks were tested on

experimental statistics both techniques gave similar results in prediction. Neural

network gave relatively lower errors in comparison to ANFIS.

Among the different clustering techniques used in ANFIS the FCM clustering

technique gave relatively lesser errors in learning hence demonstrating better leaning

ability than among three techniques. To further improve the learning ability

combination of optimization and learning techniques were utilized Both EA and SI

coupled learning techniques were applied.

For both the leaning techniques (NN & ANFIS) collaborative combination was

utilized. The optimization technique was secondary technique while the leaning

technique was primary. In neural network the NSGA II and PSO optimized were

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

208

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

used to optimize the weights in hidden layer and reduce the error between targets and

outputs the prediction results obtained from the NSGA-NN were better in

comparison to PSO-NN.

The ANFIS combination Technique exhibited better learning trends than the ANFIS

applied exclusively. Both the combinations ANFIS-GA and ANFIS-PSO gave better

results in comparison to experimental statistics. The accuracy of both techniques was

similar with minor difference in learning error. In comparison to neural network

synergies the ANFIS synergies gave better results on experimental statistics and

illustrated enhanced learning.

To summarize the combined predictive models performed better in comparison to the

exclusive techniques and in optimization techniques the NSGA II and PSO algorithm

gave relatively good tradeoffs in MOOPS when compared to SPEA2 algorithm.

Future Scope

The unexplored Meta heuristic techniques can be applied for much better tradeoffs in

MOOPS and further enhancement in learning technique is possible by applying further

introducing stronger coupling among the prediction and optimization techniques.

The applied strategy for current machining system can be generalized to other

conventional and non-conventional machining systems.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

209

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

REFERENCES

[1] Andries P. Engelbrecht Computational Intelligence An Introduction John Wiley &

Sons Ltd ISBN 978-0-470-03561-0.

[2] Satish Chinchanikar, S.K. Choudhury, Effect of work material hardness and cutting

parameters on performance of coated carbide tool when turning hardened steel: An

optimization approach Measurement 46 (2013) pp. 15721584.

[3] Wear behaviours of single-layer and multi-layer coated carbide inserts in high speed

machining of hardened AISI 4340 steel Journal of Mechanical Science and

Technology 27 (5) (2013) 1451~1459

[4] Satish Chinchanikar, S.K. Choudhury, Hard turning using HiPIMS-coated carbide

tools: Wear behaviour under dry and minimum quantity lubrication (MQL)

Measurement 55 (2014) 536548.

[5] Satish Chinchanikar, S.K. Choudhury Investigations on machinability aspects of

hardened AISI 4340 steel at different levels of hardness using coated carbide tools

Int. Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 38 (2013) 124133.

[6] Gaurav Bartarya S.K. Choudhury State of the art in hard turning International Journal

of Machine Tools & Manufacture 53 (2012) 114.

[7] Satish Chinchanikar, S.K. Choudhury Machining of hardened steel Experimental

investigations performance cooling techniques: A review International Journal of

Machine Tools & Manufacture 89 (2015) 95109.

[8] Satish Chinchanikar, S.K. Choudhury Cutting force modeling considering tool wear

effect during turning of hardened AISI 4340 alloy steel using multi-layer

TiCN/Al2O3/TiN-coated carbide tools Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2016) 83:1749

1762 DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-7662-5

[9] Predictive modeling for flank wear progression of coated carbide tool in turning

hardened steel under practical machining conditions Int. J Adv. Manuf. Technol.

(2015) 76:11851201 DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-6285-6

[10] T. G. Ansalam Raj & V. N. Narayanan Namboothiri, An Improved genetic

algorithm for the prediction of surface finish in dry turning of SS 420 materials Int J

Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 47:313324 DOI 10.1007/s00170-009-2197-2.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

210

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[11] Hesam Shahali, M Reza Soleymani Yazdi, Aminollah Mohammadi and Ehsan

Iimanian, Optimization of surface roughness and thickness of white layer in wire

electrical discharge machining of DIN 1.4542 stainless steel using micro genetic

algorithm and signal to noise ratio techniques Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering

Manufacture 226(5) 803812_ IMechE 2012.

[12] A. Garg & L. Rachmawati & K. Tai Classification-driven model selection

approach of genetic programming in modelling of turning process Int J Adv Manuf

Technol (2013) 69, pp. 11371151.

[13] Khaider Bouacha, Mohamed Athmane Yallese, Samir Khamel, Salim Belhadi

Analysis and optimization of hard turning operation using cubic boron nitride tool

Int. Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 45 (2014), pp. 160178.

[14] Yiit Karpat & Turul zel, Multi-objective optimization for turning processes

using neural network modelling and dynamic-neighbourhood particle swarm

optimization Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2007) 35, pp. 234247.

[15] M. Al-Ahmari Prediction and optimisation models for turning Operations ISSN:

0020-7543, pp. 1366-588

[16] Adel T. Abbas Karim Hamza Mohamed F. Aly and Essam A. Al-Bahkali,

Multiobjective Optimization of Turning Cutting Parameters for J-Steel Material

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering Volume 2016, Article ID 6429160, 8

pages Hindawi Publishing.

[17] ZhenhuaWang,Juntang Yuan, Zengbin Yin and Chao Li, Study on high-speed

cutting parameters optimization of AlMn1Cu based on neural network and genetic

algorithm Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2016, Vol. 8(4), pp. 112 .

[18] Yunguang Zhou & Yadong Gong& Zongxiao Zhu & Qi Gao & Xuelong Wen

Modelling and optimisation of surface roughness from micro grinding of nickel-based

single crystal super alloy using the response surface methodology and genetic

algorithm Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 85:2607 2622

[19] Shahram Saeidi & Maghsud Solimanpur & Iraj Mahdavi & Nikbakhsh Javadian

A multi-objective genetic algorithm for solving cell formation problem using a fuzzy

goal programming approach Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70, pp. 16351652.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

211

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Possibilistic programming and genetic algorithms Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213

Part B.

[21] Mohinder P Garg, Ajai Jain and Gian Bhushan Modelling and multi-objective

optimization of process parameters of wire electrical discharge machining using non-

dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering

Manufacture 226(12), pp. 19862001.

[22] A. Pramanick, N. Saha, P. P. Dey and P. K. Das Wire EDM Process Modelling

With Artificial Neural Network And Optimization By Grey Entropy-Based Taguchi

Technique For Machining Pure Zirconium Di-boride Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Research ISSN: 1943-8095.

[23] M. A. Sahali & I. Belaidi & R. Serra, New approach for robust multi-objective

optimization of turning parameters using probabilistic genetic algorithm Int J Adv

Manuf Technol (2016) 83:12651279.

[24] JS Dureja, VKGupta, Vishal S Sharma, Manu Dogra and Manpreet S Bhatti, A

review of empirical modelling techniques to optimize machining parameters for hard

turning applications Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2016, Vol.

230(3), pp. 389404.

[25] H. Ganesan G. Mohankumar, Optimization of Machining Techniques in CNC

Turning Centre Using Genetic Algorithm Arab J Sci. Eng. (2013) 38, pp. 15291538.

[26] I.S. Jawahir, X. Wang, Development of hybrid predictive models and

optimization techniques for machining operations Journal of Materials Processing

Technology 185 (2007) 4659 25.

[27] KA Sundararaman, K. P Padmanaban and M Sabareeswaran, Optimization of

machining fixture layout using integrated response surface methodology and

evolutionary techniques, Proc IMechE Part C:J Mechanical Engineering Science

2016, Vol. 230(13) 22452259 .

[28] Antonio Costa & Giovanni Celano & Sergio Fichera, Optimization of multi-pass

turning economies through a hybrid particle swarm optimization technique, Int. J

Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2011) 53:421433. DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-2861-6.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

212

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

technique for achieving desired milled surface roughness in minimum machining

time, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 5982.

[30] S. Bharathi Raja, N. Baskar Optimization techniques for machining operations:a

retrospective research based on various mathematical models, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.

Technol. (2010) 48:10751090.

[31] S. Bharathi Raja, N. Baskar, Particle swarm optimization technique for

determining optimal machining parameters of different work piece materials in

turning operation Int. J Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2011) 54:445463. DOI

10.1007/s00170-010-2958.

[32] M. Chandrasekaran& M. Muralidhar&C. Murali Krishna & U. S. Dixit

Application of soft computing techniques in machining performance prediction and

optimization: a literature review Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2010) 46:445464,

DOI 10.1007/s00170-009-2104.

[33] G. Prabhaharan , K. P. Padmanaban, R. Krishnakumar Machining fixture layout

optimization using FEM and evolutionary techniques, Int. J Adv. Manuf. Technol.

(2007) 32: 10901103, DOI 10.1007/s00170-006.

[34] Farahnakian M., Razfar, M. R., Moghri, M., &Asadnia, M. (2011),The selection

of milling parameters by the PSO-based neural network modeling method.

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1-12.

[35] Yang, W., Guo, Y., & Liao, W. (2011a). Optimization of multi-pass face milling

using a fuzzy particle swarm optimization algorithm. International Journal of

Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(1-4), 45.

[36] Escamilla, I., Perez, P., Torres, L., Zambrano, P., & Gonzalez, B. (2009),

Optimization using neural network modeling and swarm intelligence in the machining

of titanium (ti 6al 4v) alloy. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence,

MICAI 2009, 33-38.

[37] Li, J. G., Yao, Y. X., Gao, D., Liu, C. Q., & Yuan, Z. J. (2008), Cutting

parameters optimization by using particle swarm optimization (PSO), Applied

Mechanics and Materials Vols. 10-12 (2008), pp. 879-883.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

213

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[38] Chen, Z. and Li, Y. (2008). An improved particle swarm algorithm and its

application in grinding process optimization, Proceedings of the 27th Chinese Control

Conference. 2-5

[39] Rajkamal Shukla, Dinesh Singh Experimentation investigation of abrasive water

jet machining parameters using Taguchi and Evolutionary optimization techniques

Swarm and Evolutionary Computation journal .via Taguchi method-based response

surface analysis. Measurement 45 (2012) 785794

[40] Ilhan Asiltrk a, Mehmet unkas, Modeling and prediction of surface roughness

in turning operations using artificial neural network and multiple regression method

Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 58265832

[41] N Senthilkumar, T Tamizharasan, Flank wear and surface roughness prediction

in hard turning Via artificial neural network and multiple regressions.

[42] Miron Zapciu Jean-Yves Knevez Alain Grard Olivier Cahuc Claudiu

Florinel Bisu Dynamic characterization of machining systems Int. J. Adv. Manuf.

Technol. (2011) 57:7383DOI 10.1007/s00170-011-3277-7.

[43] Dilbag Singh & P. Venkateswara Rao, Flank wear prediction of ceramic tools in

hard turning Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 50:479493 DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-

2550-5

[44] Yahya Isik, Investigating the machinability of tool steels in turning operations

Materials and Design 28 (2007) pp. 14171424.

[45] Hamdi Aouici, Mohamed Athmane Yallese, Kamel Chaoui, Tarek Mabrouki,

Jean-Franois Rigal. Analysis of surface roughness and cutting force components in

hard turning with CBN tool: Prediction model and cutting conditions optimization

Measurement 45 (2012), pp. 344353.

[46] Suha K. Shihab, Zahid A. Khan, Aas Mohammad and Arshad Noor Siddiquee,

Investigations on the Effect of CNC Dry Hard Turning Process Parameters on Surface

[47] Waleed Bin Rashid & Saurav Goel & J. Paulo Davim & Shrikrishna N.Joshi

Parametric design optimization of hard turning of AISI 4340 steel (69 HRC) Int J

Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 82, pp. 451462.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

214

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

process of nanostructured hard-facing materials through hybrid techniques

Measurement 94 (2016) pp. 4659.

[49] Emre Yu cel and Mustafa Gunay Modelling and optimization of the cutting

conditions in hard turning of high-alloy white cast iron (Ni-Hard) Proc IMech E Part

C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 227(10) 22802290.

[50] Ilhan Asiltrk, Sleyman Neseli, Multi-responseoptimization of CNC turning

parameters via Taguchi method-based response surface analysis, Measurement 45

(2012), pp. 785794.

[51] Gaurav Bartarya S.K. Choudhury State of the art in hard turning International

Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 53 (2012) 114.

[52] Ashvin J. Makadia, J. I. Nanavati, Optimisation of machining parameters for

turning operations based on response surface methodology Measurement 46 (2013),

pp. 15211529.

[53] Ilhan Asilturk, Harun Akku, Determining the effect of cutting parameters on

surface roughness in hard turning using the Taguchi method. Measurement 44 (2011)

pp. 16971704.

[54] Aman Aggarwal and Hari Singh, Optimization of machining techniques A

retrospective and literature review Sadhana Vol. 30, Part 6, December 2005, pp. 699

711.

[55] Chinmaya R. Dandekar, Yung C. Shin, JohnBarnes, Machinability improvement

of titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) via LAM and hybrid machining, International Journal

of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 174182.

[56] X. Wang, Z.J. Da, A.K. Balaji, I.S. Jawahir, Performance-Based Predictive

Models and Optimization Methods for Turning Operations and Applications: Part 3

Optimum Cutting Conditions and Selection of Cutting Tools, Journal of

Manufacturing Processes Vol. 9/No. 1 2007.

[57] Devinder Priyadarshi, and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Effect of type and percentage

of reinforcement for optimization of the cutting force in turning of Aluminum matrix

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

215

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Science and Technology 30 (3) (2016) 1095~1101.

[58] Ersan Aslan, Necip Camus cua, Burak Birgoren, Design optimization of cutting

parameters when turning hardened AISI 4140 steel (63 HRC) with Al2O3 + TiCN

mixed ceramic tool, Materials and Design 28 (2007) 16181622.

[59] Hashimoto, Y.B. Guo, A.W. Warren, Surface Integrity Difference between Hard

Turned and Ground Surfaces and Its Impact on Fatigue Life The Timken Company,

Canton, Ohio 44706, USA

[60] T. Ozel, Y. Karpat, A. Srivastava, Hard turning with variable micro-geometry

PcBN tools CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 57 (2008) pp. 7376.

[61] Ravinder Kumar, Santram Chauhan, Study on surface roughness measurement for

turning of Al 7075/10/SiCp and Al 7075 hybrid composites by using response surface

methodology (RSM) and artificial neural networking (ANN).

[62] Mozammel Mia, Nikhil Ranjan Dhar Prediction of surface roughness in hard

turning under high pressure coolant using Artificial Neural Network Measurement 92

(2016) 464474

[63] Fabrcio Jos Pontes b, Anderson Paulo de Paiva a, Pedro Paulo Balestrassi a,

Joo Roberto Ferreira a,,Messias Borges da Silva b Optimization of Radial Basis

Function neural network employed for prediction of surface roughness in hard turning

process using Taguchis orthogonal arrays Expert Systems with Applications 39

(2012) 77767787.

[64] Vinayak Neelakanth Gaitonde S. R. Karnik & Luis Figueira & J. Paulo Davim

Performance comparison of conventional and wiper ceramicinserts in hard turning

through artificial neuralnetwork modeling Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:101

114 DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-2714-3.

[65] Xiaoyu Wang Wen Wang Yong Huang Nhan Nguyen Design of neural network-

based estimator for tool wear modeling in hard turning Intell Manuf (2008) 19:383

396 DOI 10.1007/s10845-008-0090-8.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

216

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

predicting subsurface residual stresses and the desired cutting conditions during hard

turning Journal of Materials Processing Technology 189 (2007) 14315

[67] Ravinder Kumar, Santram Chauhan, Study on surface roughness measurement for

turning of Al 7075/10/SiCp and Al 7075 hybrid composites by using response surface

methodology (RSM) and artificial neural networking (ANN).

[68] Ali R. Yildiz Hybrid Taguchi-differential evolution algorithm for optimization of

multi-pass turning operations Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 14331439.

[69] F. Kara K. Aslantas A. Cicek ANN and multiple regression method-based

modelling of cutting forces in orthogonal machining of AISI 316L stainless steel

Neural Comput & Applic (2015) 26:237250 DOI 10.1007/s00521-014-1721-

[70] Sener Karabulut Optimization of surface roughness and cutting force

duringAA7039/Al2O3 metal matrix composites milling using neural networks and

Taguchi method Measurement 66 (2015) 139149.

[71] Deb, K. (2008) Multi-objective Optimisation using Evolutionary Algorithms, 2nd

ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan,

T. (2002) A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE

Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182197.

[72] Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T. (2002) A fast and elitist

multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary

Computation, 6(2), 182197.

[73] Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M. and Thiele, L. (2001) SPEA2: Improving the strength

Pareto evolutionary algorithm. Proceedings of the Evolutionary Methods for Design,

Optimization, and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems, EUROGEN

2001, Athens, Greece, pp. 95100.

[74] S.Milad.Nayyer Sabeti 1 and MR.Deevband 2 Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms

based on PSO-GA for Training ANFIS Structure International Journal of Computer

Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 5, September 2015.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

217

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

[75] Yosra JARRAYA, Souhir BOUAZIZ, Adel M. ALIMI Ajith ABRAHAM Fuzzy

Modeling System based on Hybrid Evolutionary Approach Machine Intelligence

Research Labs, WA, USA.

[76] J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle Swarm Optimization, From Proc. IEEE Intl.

Conf. on Neural Networks (Perth, Australia), IEEE Service Centre, Piscataway, NJ,

IV:19421948, 1995.

Conferences

Information Technology, Pune on 17th Feb. 2017.

Research, Pune on 20th June 2017.

Chennai on 7th July 2017.

University on Aug 2017.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

218

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Vidyapeetham University on Aug 2017 and will be published in Materials Today:

Proceedings.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

219

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

APPENDIX: B CERTIFICATES

Engineering and Research, Pune on 20th June 2017.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

220

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

221

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Institute of Information Technology, Pune on 17th Feb. 2017.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

222

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

March 2017.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

223

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

224

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Technology Madras, Chennai on 7th July 2017.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

225

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Institute of Information Technology, Pune on 2nd December 2016.

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

226

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Appendix

ANFIS Algorithm

//Load data

//Shuffle data

S=randompermutation([data])

[Inputs, Targets]=[Inputs(S,:),Targets(S,:)]

Do Training objectives

Switch case

Case 1

Params

No of mf nmfs : 5

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

227

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Rule_n=prod(nmfs)

Fis.name=anfis

Fis.and method=prod

Fis.implication method=prod

Fis.agrregation=max

Case 2

Cluster method

Influence Radius

Case 3

No of clusters (ncluster)

Maximum no of iteration

Fis = generate fis(Train input, Train target ,ncluster, FCM options,Optimization method)

Training params [max epoch, error goal,initial step size, step size decreament rate, step

size increament rate]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

228

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

//Statistical Analysis

ANFIS-GA/PSO Algorithm

ANFIS GA/PSO

//Load data

//Shuffle data

S=randompermutation([data])

[Inputs, Targets]=[Inputs(S,:),Targets(S,:)]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

229

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Switch case

Case 1

Case 2

Switch case

Case 1

Params

No of mf nmfs : 5

Rule_n=prod(nmfs)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

230

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Fis.name=anfis

Fis.and method=prod

Fis.implication method=prod

Fis.agrregation=max

Case 2

Cluster method

Influence Radius

Case 3

No of clusters (ncluster)

Maximum no of iteration

P=x*p0

X=data.Train inputs

t=data.Train targets

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

231

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Y=evaluate(x,fis)

Error :[t]-[y]

MSE : mean(Error)

P=[]

N=size[fis.input]

For i [1-N]

Nmfs =size[fis.Input[i].mf]

For j [1-nmfs]

P=[p, fis.Input[j].mf.params]

Noutput=size[fis.output]

For i [1-noutputs]

Nmfs =size[fis.output[i].mfs.params]

For j [1-nmfs]

P=[p, fis.Input[j].mf.params]

P0=[]

X= data.Train Inputs

Y=data.Train Targets

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

232

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Nvar=size(p0)

Max it=50

N=25 // no of pop

Nc=2*round(pc*N/2)

Nm =round(pm*N)

=0.7

//Initialize population

Pop.position=[]

Pop.cost=[]

For i [1-N]

If it>1

//Evalute

//sort Population

Pop=pop[sort order]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

233

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

//Best cost

Best pop=pop[1]

Worst pop=pop[end]

Main Loop

* best cos t

p exp( )

worst cos t

p

P N

p

n 1

//Mutate

Pop=[pop,popc,popm)

Parametrs :(,range)

:random(-,1+,N)

y1 * p1 (1 )* p 2

y 2 * p 2 (1 )* p1

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

234

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Y1=min[max(y1,range)]

Y2=min[max(y2,range)]

Parameters : , range

Rmin=min(range)

Rmax=max(range)

dr=Rmax-Rmin

: *dr

y=p1+*random(Nm)

y=min(max(y,range))

nvar =size(p0,1)

range(min, max)

max it =50

Particle.Bestcost, Particle.Is Dominated, Particle.Grid Index, Particle.Grid Subindex.}

For i :[1-N]

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

235

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Pop[i].position=random[Range,N]

Pop[i].velocity : zeros[N]

Pop : domination(pop,N)

For i:[1-N]

For j:[i+1-N]

True(pop[j] Is dominated)

Else if dominates(pop[j],pop[i])

True(pop[i] Is dominated)

b=dominates(pop[i],pop[j])

b= all(x<y)&&any(x<y)

For i : [1-N]

//Select Leader

leader=Select leader(rep, )

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

236

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

* pop i .Best.Position pop i .Position c 2* rand VarSize .

* leader.Position pop i .Position

pop i .Position pop i .Position pop i .Velocity

pop i .Position max pop i .Position, VarMin

pop i .Position min pop i .Position, VarMax

pop i .Cost Train fis cost pop i .Position

New pop=mutatute(pop,pm,Range)

Determine domination(pop)

If dominates(New.pop.position, pop.position)

Pop[i].Position = max(particle[i].Position,Rmin);

pop[i].Position = min(particle[i].Position,Rmax);

if particle(i).Cost<particle(i).Best.Cost

pop(i).Best.Position=particle(i).Position;

pop(i).Best.Cost=particle(i).Cost;

if pop(i).Best.Cost<BestSol.Cost

BestSol=pop(i).Best

Neural network

//Load data

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

237

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Hidden layers

//network type

nnetparamsInfo.hiddensize

nnetparamsInfo.hidden layers

nnetparamsInfo.nntype

nnetparamsInfo.Train func

net.divide params.testratio=0.15

//performance function

Net.perform fucn=MSE

//test network

Y=net(x)

E=[t]-[y]

EANNHRC(x)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

238

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

//Input layer 1

X1_step1_xoffset=[Input]

X1_step1_gain=[e]

X1_step1_ymin=-1

//Layer 1

//Layer2

//output layer

Y1_step1_ymin=-1

Y1_step1_gain=[]

Y1_step1_xoffset=[outputs]

//simulation

For i:[1-size(output)]

//Input1

Xp1=mapminmax_apply([x1,i],x1_step1_gain, x1_step1_xoffset,x1_step1_ymin)

//Layer 1

A1=tansig_apply((b1,1,q)+IW1*xp1)

//layer 2

A2=[b1,1,q]+lw1*a1

//output 2

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

239

Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-Objective Optimization: Modelling and Comparative Evaluation

Y(1,t,s)=mapminmax(a2,y1_step1_gain,y1_step1_xoffset,y1_step1_ymin)

Mapminmax_apply(x,settings_gain,settings_xoffset,setting_ymin)

Y=bsxfun(@minus,x,setting_x_offset)

Y=bsxfun(@times,y,setting_gain)

Y=bsx(@plus,y,setting_ymin)

Tansig_apply(x)

Mapminmax_reverse(y,setting_gain,setting_xoffset,setting_ymin)

X=bsxfun(@minus,y,setting_x_offset)

x=bsxfun(@times,x,setting_gain)

x=bsx(@plus,x,setting_ymin)

M.E. (Mechanical) (Design Engineering)

240

- bat algorithmUploaded byDennis Mads Makhandia
- Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Economic Load DispatchUploaded bySatyendra Pratap Singh
- Computational Methods and Applied ComputingUploaded byAshok Yadav
- DEA2012-Proceedings.pdfUploaded byBaljinder Singh
- 9 Sept 2016 NS Neural NetworkUploaded byPranavSharma
- A Price-Based Unit Commitment Model Considering Uncertainties with a Fuzzy Regression ModelUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- Genetic-algorithm-approach-for-solving-a-cell-formation-problem-in-cellular-manufacturing_2009_Expert-Systems-with-Applications.pdfUploaded byBhanuprakashReddyDandavolu
- Chapter 1Uploaded byRagas
- Mar 818 ExamUploaded byThan Htet
- An ion Stratigy for Industrial Metal FormingUploaded byaraveeti
- Petrel Reservoir EngineeringUploaded bymanish.7417
- Flow Discharge Modeling in Open Canals Using ANew Fuzzy Modeling Technique (SMRGT)Uploaded byAll Entertainment
- An Adaptive Optimization Technique for Dynamic EnvironmentsUploaded bylliuncsu
- saber1Uploaded byIzudin Softić
- Unit Commitment With v2g Using PsoUploaded byWoldemariam Worku
- 9Uploaded byDhruvin Doshi
- -A Novel PSO Based Approach With Hybrid of Fuzzy C-Means and Learning Automata -46481-69094-3-PBUploaded byminoofam
- Reviewing the Multiobjective Optimization Package of modeFrontier in Energy Sector.pdfUploaded byAmir Mosavi
- Compensation Map Calibration of Engine Management Systems Using Least-Squares Support Vector Committee Machine and Evolutionary OptimizationUploaded byJean Carlos Pineda
- Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byvaijayanthi_r_1994
- Assignment ProblemUploaded byDrRitu Malik
- brinUploaded bybrinthaveni
- 38-M415Uploaded bybebo_ha2008
- 66Uploaded bypearl301010
- Chapter 8Uploaded byJunior Loarte Trujillo
- Annie7Uploaded byshantidsa
- solomon vandiUploaded byBouchra Ghailan
- Materi New ApproachUploaded byYogi Nugraha
- Physical Layer Security and Optimal Multi-Time-Slot Power Allocation of SWIPT System PoweredUploaded byhendra lam
- curriculum-computational-engineering-and-networking.pdfUploaded byVijay Shankar

- Vadodara Municipal Street Light Project and Product Support JMVUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Presentation ESE Type Lightning Protecton Year 2017-1Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Presentation Indian Railway Electrical and S&T-1Uploaded byMahesh Chandra Manav
- Swagat Nahi Karoge Mein Bullet Train HoonUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Solar Latest JMV Products and Services Information With SECI Specication Solar PV Sept 2017Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Electric CAR Revolution in IndiaUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Presentation Hyper Loop TrainUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Presentation Hyper Loop Train-1Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Electric CAR Revolution in IndiaUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Presentation Hyper Loop TrainUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Thanks You All for Visiting REI EXPO 2017 at Greator Noida Exibition (20th-22nd Sept 2017)Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Welcome to Engineers World 2017-1Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Exibition and Importance Renewable Solar Exibition Noida September 2017(20th-21st)Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Power of Sun and Solar Energy (India Power)Uploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra
- Solar PV Plant and IndiaUploaded byManav Mahesh Chandra

- 1.2 Algebraic Limits and ContinuityUploaded byVhigherlearning
- Jh AnswerUploaded bynislam57
- Modern Algebra Problem SetUploaded byhkle14
- INTEGERS HandoutsUploaded byGelyn Lanuza
- An Extended K-Means Clustering with Genetic Algorithm and Min-Max ApproachUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- AlgorithmUploaded bysankar_mca227390
- Java - Help Converting Math Function Into Code _ Linear Kalman Particle Swarm Optimization - Stack OverflowUploaded bySilvister Stalon
- 2130 Lecture32!7!6 Complex EigenvaluesUploaded bylakubo
- Quiz _ Digital Signal Processing.pdfUploaded byRbKahn
- exp1Uploaded byKaran Jahl
- Lecture2-ClassificationPredictionUploaded bysyed yaqub
- Tutorial 7 Mal101Uploaded byrishu2525
- MATH10 Lesson 5Uploaded byBea Oro
- 2016 Che 151 Homework 5Uploaded byDan Mc
- SRM 524Uploaded byTijoy Tom
- AlgebraUploaded byNirmal Prasad
- tentnov2009.pdfUploaded bykishh28
- Matrix Done (3)Uploaded byVenkataLakshmiKorrapati
- MATH_F341_1472Uploaded byViral Jain
- EE555 Project 5 Report - MattMcTTimHackettKennyDacumosUploaded byMatthewMcT
- Add Maths Form 4Uploaded byBelle85
- TI89 for Linear AlgebraUploaded bypfeffer92
- ControlUploaded byolivieralain
- Minimization Maximization and Lagrange Multiplier ProblemsUploaded byAjay Deva
- tnn99.pdfUploaded byJuan Perez
- Elzaki Transform Homotopy Perturbation Method for Solving Porous Medium EquationUploaded byesatjournals
- Cee 253 NotessUploaded byPasha Tan
- Course of Modern an 00 WhitUploaded byGuomin Ji
- 3_Kinematics.pdfUploaded byalvaroroman92
- Help - fsolve_MATLABUploaded bygandertyb