ARTICLE IN PRESS

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133

www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimization of cutting

parameters in turning processes
Ramón Quiza Sardiñas, Marcelino Rivas Santana, Eleno Alfonso Brindis
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Matanzas, Autopista a Varadero km 3 1/2, Matanzas 44740, Cuba
Received 24 March 2004; received in revised form 4 June 2005; accepted 15 June 2005

Abstract

Determination of optimal cutting parameters is one of the most important elements in any process planning of metal parts. This
paper presents a multi-objective optimization technique, based on genetic algorithms, to optimize the cutting parameters in turning
processes: cutting depth, feed and speed. Two conflicting objectives, tool life and operation time, are simultaneously optimized. The
proposed model uses a microgenetic algorithm in order to obtain the non-dominated points and build the Pareto front graph. An
application sample is developed and its results are analysed for several different production conditions. This paper also remarks the
advantages of multi-objective optimization approach over the single-objective one.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Turning processes; Multi-objective optimization; Genetic algorithms.

1. Introduction mathematical and numerical optimization techniques

The selection of optimal cutting parameters, like the
number of passes, depth of cut for each pass, feed and
speed, is a very important issue for every machining
processes. In workshop practice, cutting parameters are
selected from machining databases or specialized hand-
books, but the range given in this sources are actually
starting values, and are not the optimal values (Dereli
et al., 2001).
Optimization of cutting parameters is usually a
difficult work (Kumar and Kumar, 2000), where the
following aspects are required: knowledge of machining;
empirical equations relating the tool life, forces, power,
surface finish, etc., to develop realistic constrains;
specification of machine tool capabilities; development
of an effective optimization criterion; and knowledge of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +53+45+261432;
fax: +53 45 253101
E-mail address: quiza@umcc.cu (R. Quiza Sardiñas).
(Sönmez et al., 1999).
In any optimization procedure, it is a crucial aspect to
identify the output of chief importance, the so-called
optimization objective or optimization criterion. In
manufacturing processes, the most commonly used
optimization criterion is specific cost, which has been
used by many authors, from the beginning of the
researches in this branch (Taylor, 1907) to some of the
most recent works (Liang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2002;
Saravanan et al., 2003; Cus and Balic, 2003; Amiolem-
hen and Ibhadode, 2004).
Sometimes, other criteria like machining time (Chua
et al., 1991), material removal rate (Ko and Kim, 1998;
Chien and Tsai, 2003) or tool life (Molinari and Nouari,
2002) have been used too. However, these single-
objective approaches have a limited value to fix the
optimal cutting conditions, due to the complex nature
of the machining processes, where several different
and contradictory objectives must be simultaneously
optimized.

0952-1976/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2005.06.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
128 R. Quiza Sardiñas et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133

Nomenclature T tool life (min)

v cutting speed (m min
1)
a depth of cut (mm) V volume of the removed material (mm3)
CT, CF coefficients for tool life and cutting force x decision variables vector
equations ZT, ZL+O tool cost; labour and overhead cost ($)
D dynamic population size zT cost per tool edge ($)
f feed rate (mm/rev) zL, zO specific labour and overhead cost ($/min)
FC, FMAX cutting force and maximum allowed force a, a0 exponents for cutting speed in tool life and
(N) cutting force equations
g(x) constraint function b, b0 exponents for feed rate in tool life and cutting
K number of epoch in each evolutionary period force equations
M material removal rate (mm3 min) g, g0 exponents for depth of cut in tool life and
P, PMOT power required for machining and motor cutting force equations
power (kW) Gi unfeasibility index for the ith individual
Qi dynamic population for the ith epoch Z machine tool transmission efficiency
QEST static population x used tool life
QPAR Paretian population t production rate (time per part) (min)
R, RMAX surface roughness and maximum allowed tS set-up time (min)
roughness (mm) tTC tool change time (min)
rE tool nose radius (mm) t0 time during which the tool do not cut (min)

Some multi-objective approaches have been reported 2. Cutting process model

in cutting parameters optimization (Lee and Tarng,
2000; Zuperl and Cus, 2003; Cus and Balic, 2003), but 2.1. Decision variables
mainly they use a priori techniques, where the decision
maker combines the different objectives into a scalar In the constructed optimization problem, three
cost function. This actually makes the multi-objective decision variables are considered: cutting speed v, feed
problem, single-objective prior to optimization (Van f, and cutting depth, a. These really are the cutting
Veldhuizen and Lamont, 2000). parameters of the process.
On the other hand, in the a posteriori techniques, the
decision maker is presented with a set of non-dominated 2.2. Objective functions
optimal candidate solutions and chooses from that set.
These solutions are optimal in the wide sense that no Two different, mutually conflicting objectives are
other solution in the search space are superior to them optimized in this model. The first objective is the
when all optimization objectives are simultaneously production rate, t, measured as the entire time required
considered (Abbass et al., 2001). They are also known as to carry out the process:
Pareto-optimal solutions.
Comparing citations by technique, in the last years, V
tTC 
t ¼ tS þ 1þ þ t0 , (1)
evidences the popularity of a posteriori techniques (Van M T
Veldhuizen and Lamont, 2000). In dealing with multi- where tS, tTC and t0 are the set-up time, the tool change
objective optimization problems, classical optimization time, and the time during which the tool does not cut
methods (weighted sum methods, goal programming, respectively; V is the volume of the removed metal; T the
min–max methods, etc.) are not efficient, because they tool life, and M the material removal rate. The tool life
cannot find multiple solutions in a single run, thereby is related with the cutting parameters by the Taylor’s
requiring them to be applied as many times as the extended law
number of desired Pareto-optimal solutions.
On the contrary, studies on evolutionary algorithms T ¼ C T v a f b ag (2)
have shown that these methods can be efficiently used to
eliminate most of the above-mentioned difficulties of and the material removal rate can be computed by the
classical methods (Soodamani and Liu, 2000). In this expression
paper, a multi-objective optimization method, based on M ¼ 1000vfa. (3)
a posteriori techniques and using genetic algorithms, is
proposed to obtain the optimal parameters in turning The second objective is the used tool life, x,
processes. considered as the part of the whole tool life which is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Quiza Sardiñas et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133 129

consumed in the process constraints, some mechanisms based on the improve-

V ments proposed by Kurpati et al. (2002) were added,
x¼ 100%. (4) which are based on the following principles:
MT
Usually, for a particular cutting process, tS, tTC, t0  In a given population, feasible solutions are preferred
and V can be considered constant values, so that the over infeasible solutions, i.e. feasible solutions should
objectives are functions of T and M, and, consequently, have a better rank than the infeasible ones.
they depend upon the decision variables v, f and a.  The amount of infeasibility (or the extent of
constraint violation) is an important piece of
2.3. Constrains information and should not be ignored while hand-
ling constraints.
There are some constraints which affect the selection  The number of violated constraints is also an
of the optimal cutting conditions and will be taken into important piece of information and should be taken
account. In the first place, they are the allowed values into consideration while handling them.
for the cutting parameters, given by the tool maker, and
restricted by the bottom and top permissible limits: A relevant aspect of the Coello and Toscano’s micro-
aMIN papaMAX , (5a) GA is the use of a static population, which does not
change in all the processes. This static population
f MIN pf pf MAX , (5b) allows, in each new evolutionary period, the addition
of a set of ‘‘fresh’’ individuals, using few computational
vMIN pvpvMAX . (5c) resources.
Also there are some constraints related to the machine Fig. 1 shows the block diagram of the proposed genetic
features. The cutting force, FC, must not be greater than algorithm, which will be explained, in the next sections.
a certain maximum value, FC
MAX, given by the
strength and stability of the machine and the cutting 3.2. Generation of the initial populations
tool. The cutting force is computed from empirical
expressions in the form: The first step in the proposed GA is the generation of
0 0 0 the individuals for the initial populations. In fact, two
F c ¼ C F v a f b ag , (6) populations must be created: static and dynamic. For
0 0 0
where CF, a , b and g are coefficients experimentally each individual in both populations, values for the
obtained. decision variables are randomly selected from the valid
Another machine-related constraint is the maximum range, taking into account the restrictions given by Eqs.
allowable value for cutting power, P, which must not (5a)–(5b):
surpass the machine motor power, PMOT (considering x1 ¼ rndðaÞ : aMIN papaMAX , (9a)
the friction losses in the transmission):
vF C PMOT Z x2 ¼ rndðf Þ : f MIN pf pf MAX , (9b)
P¼ 4
p . (7)
6  10 100 x3 ¼ rndðvÞ : vMIN pvpvMAX . (9c)
Finally, in the finishing operations, the obtained
The three values of each individual are encoded to
surface roughness, R, must be smaller than the specified
form a code string that represents itself. This code
value, RMAX, given by technological criteria, so that the
string, the so-called ‘‘chromosome’’, is composed by
following equation is satisfied:
binary elements (0 or 1), and has 96 characters (32 for
125f 2 each decision variable).
R¼ pRMAX , (8)
rE
3.3. Evaluation of the individuals
where rE is the tool nose radius.
For each individual in the dynamic population, the
objective functions (production rate and used tool life)
3. Optimization algorithm implementation are evaluated, using the corresponding values of cutting
parameters (decision variables).
3.1. General description Three constraints are also evaluated. In order to
facilitate handling, these constraints were scaled result-
The proposed genetic algorithm is based on the ing in the form
micro-GA, developed by Coello and Toscano (2001).
This is an elitist algorithm with a technique to maintain 100P
g1 ¼
1p0, (10a)
adequate population diversity. In order to handle ZPMOT
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
130 R. Quiza Sardiñas et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133

3.4. Selection, crossover and mutation

By selection, crossover and mutation it is possible to a

obtain new population from the current one. In this
approach, selection was carried out by tournament. To
create each individual, for the new population, two
couples of candidates to parents must be randomly
selected. In each couple, both candidates are compared,
taking into account the following rules:

 A feasible individual is always better than an

unfeasible one.
 In a couple of feasible individuals, one of them is
better if it dominates the other one. If no individual
dominates the other, both are equally good.
 In a couple of unfeasible individuals, the best is the
one which has the smaller unfeasibility index.

Crossover operator combines the code strings of the

two ‘‘victorious’’ candidates (one for each couple). In
the proposed approach, a two-point crossover is
implemented, because in this way it is less disruptive
than multi-point crossover, and it helps the diversity
preservation better than the single-point one.
Finally, by mutation it is possible to obtain some
random changes in the code string of the new
individuals. This is a technique that helps to introduce
new features in the population. Of course, there is no
guaranty that these new features would be advanta-
geous; therefore, the mutation likelihood should be kept
very low as the high value will destroy good individuals,
and degenerates the genetic algorithm into a random
search method (Cus and Balic, 2003). In the proposed
micro-GA, a mutation likelihood of 10
4 was selected.

3.5. Update of the elitist population

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the proposed genetic algorithm.

The maintenance of an elitist population (so-called

FC Paretian population) is a common technique to preserve
g2 ¼
1p0, (10b) the fittest individuals. At the end of each evolutionary
F MAX
period, the non-dominated individuals (Paretian solu-
R tions) are selected from the dynamic population and
g3 ¼
1p0. (10c) added to the elitist one.
RMAX
After the addition of new individuals, the elitist
For the unfeasible individuals, i.e. those that violate populations should be filtered in order to eliminate
at least one constraint, the unfeasibility index, repre- dominated and staked individuals.
senting the ‘‘amount’’ of unfeasibility, is computed. For
the ith individual, this index, Gi, can be computed as
P3   3.6. Creation of the new dynamic population
j¼1 max gj ðxi Þ; 0
Gi ¼ 1 PD P3  , (11) At the end of an evolutionary period, and to begin the
D k¼1 j¼1 max gj ðxk Þ; 0
following one, a new dynamic population is created, to
where xi represents the vector of decision variables for carry out the evolution process anew. This new dynamic
the ith individual xi ¼ (x1i, x2i, x3i); and D, the dynamic population is generated by the random selection from
population size. The unfeasibility index allows one to the whole set composed by the individuals of the static
compare two unfeasible individuals. population and the current dynamic population.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Quiza Sardiñas et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133 131

This kind of selection enables one to begin the new
evolutionary period with an initial population contain-
ing individuals near the Pareto front and ‘‘fresh’’
individuals, avoiding the convergence to a limited sector
of the Pareto front.
These evolutionary processes are repeated while the
elitists population form a uniform Pareto front. The
process is stopped after a maximum number of
evolutionary processes is achieved.
4. An application sample
On a CNC lathe, it will be machined a steel bar by
means of a P20 carbide tool. The lathe has a 10 kW
motor and a transmission efficiency of 75%. A
maximum cutting force of 5000 N is allowed by the
part-tool-machine system. Empirical models were ex-
perimentally obtained for tool life and cutting force,
resulting in
5:48  109
T¼ , (12a)
v3:46  f 0:696  a0:460
6:56  103  f 0:917  a1:10
FC ¼ . (12b)
v0:286
Selected cutting tools have the following limits in its
allowed cutting parameters:
For the implementation of the genetic algorithm the
following parameters were established: static population
size: 500; dynamic population size: 10; maximum
Paretian population: 20; number of epochs: 25; number
of evolutionary periods: 100. The proposed algorithm
was implemented in C++.
In Table 1, the obtained Paretian points after the
evolutionary process are shown. As can be seen, the
limiting constraint was the cutting power.
In Fig. 2, the obtained non-dominated points were
plotted to form the Pareto front, which makes the
analysis and decision-making process easier.
Analysing the above figure, some interesting aspects
may be noted. First, the Pareto frontier has a typical
asymptotical profile, with two clearly defined zones:
1. From point 1 to 5: There is significant decrease in the
used tool life (over three times) and a corresponding
increase in the total operation time. It should be
pointed out that this time increase (about 12%) is
more moderate than used tool life decrease.
2. From point 5 to 14: Operation time increases by
about 10% and the used tool life has a small decrease.
An additional information can be extracted from a
cost graph, made from the above Pareto graph. Two
10
1

aMIN ¼ 0:5 mm; aMAX ¼ 6:0 mm; (13a) 8

2
 [%]

6
f MIN ¼ 0:15 mm=rev; f MAX ¼ 0:55 mm=rev; (13b)
3
4
vMIN ¼ 250 m=min; vMAX ¼ 400 m=min: (13c) 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314
3
In the considered operation 219,912 mm will be 2
removed. Set-up time, tool change time and the time 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

[min]
during which the tool does not cut have been assumed as
0.15, 0.20 and 0.05 min, respectively. Fig. 2. Pareto front.

Table 1
Paretian points obtained as outcomes from the optimization process

No. t (min) x (%) a (mm) f (mm/rev) v (m/min) M (mm3/min) T (min) F C ðNÞ P (kW)

1 0.85 9.22 1.6 0.55 400 346,520 6.9 1125 7.5

2 0.87 6.75 1.7 0.55 358 333,372 9.8 1257 7.5
3 0.91 3.90 1.9 0.55 294 311,495 18.1 1528 7.5
4 0.94 2.77 2.1 0.55 261 298,575 26.6 1727 7.5
5 0.95 2.46 2.1 0.55 250 294,281 30.3 1800 7.5
6 0.96 2.45 2.2 0.53 250 292,619 30.6 1800 7.5
7 0.98 2.39 2.5 0.45 250 284,831 32.3 1800 7.5
8 1.00 2.33 2.9 0.38 250 277,270 34.0 1800 7.5
9 1.02 2.28 3.3 0.32 250 270,135 35.7 1800 7.5
10 1.03 2.24 3.7 0.29 250 265,117 37.0 1800 7.5
11 1.06 2.18 4.3 0.24 250 256,782 39.4 1800 7.5
12 1.08 2.13 4.9 0.20 250 250,600 41.2 1800 7.5
13 1.10 2.08 5.5 0.18 250 244,608 43.2 1800 7.5
14 1.12 2.05 6.0 0.16 250 240,880 44.5 1800 7.5
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
132 R. Quiza Sardiñas et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
Cost ($)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4
main costs must be computed: tool cost, ZT, which is
computed by
Z T ¼ x  zT ,
where zT is the cost for each tool edge; and the labour
and overhead cost, ZL+O, which is computed by
Z LþO ¼ ðzL þ zO Þ  t,
where zL and zO are the specific labour and overhead
cost. For this sample, the cost for each tool edge has
been selected as 14.17$ and the labour and overhead
specific cost, as 0.26 and 0.18$/min, respectively.
In this graph (Fig. 3) tool cost and labour and
overhead cost, for each Paretian point, were plotted.
Obviously, from point 1 to 14, a continuous (but not
uniform) decrease in the tool cost is shown. On the
contrary, in this direction, an increase in the labour and
overhead cost can be noted. Furthermore, in points 5
and 6 the lowest total cost values are achieved.
Studying the forehand graphics, several decisions may
be made, depending on the real conditions. For instance,
if the considered workshop is working in ordinary
conditions, the most convenient cutting parameters
should correspond to points 5 or 6, which have a low
use of tool life and an acceptable operation time.
Moreover, in these points the lowest costs are reached.
On the contrary, if the workshop has small and
discontinuous productions, that do not cover all the
time, then there is no necessity to use low operation
times. In this case, to obtain a large tool life may be
more important, whence, cutting parameters matching
to point 1 must be selected.
Finally, in special conditions, such as wartime or
other emergencies, the production volume is the most
Labour and Overhead Cost
Tool Cost
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Points
Fig. 3. Cost graph.
significant element to select cutting parameters, ignoring
tool life and operation cost. Consequently, in these
circumstances, cutting parameters corresponding to
(14) point 14 must be selected, warranting the lowest cutting
time, despite its elevated tool consumption and high
cost.
(15)
5. Conclusions
As can be remarked in the exposed sample, a
posteriori multi-objective optimization offers greatest
amount of information in order to make a decision on
selecting cutting parameters in turning. By means of
Pareto frontier graphics, several different situations may
be considered, facilitating the choice of right parameters
for any condition.
The proposed micro-GA has shown obtain several,
uniformly distributed points, in order to arrange the
Pareto front, at a reasonably low computational cost.
Aspects like diversity maintenance and constraints
handling have been successfully sorted for the studied
problem.
Cost analysis can complement the Pareto front
information, and it helps the decision-making process.
The proposed model must be enlarged to include more
constraints, such as cutting surface temperature.
References
Abbass, H.A., Sarker, R., Newton, Ch., 2001. PDE: A Pareto–frontier
differential evolution approach for multi objective optimization
problems. Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computa-
tion, Vol. 2, Piscataway NJ, pp. 971–978.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Quiza Sardiñas et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 19 (2006) 127–133
Amiolemhen, E., Ibhadode, A.O.A., 2004. Application of genetic
algorithms—determination of the optimal machining parameters in
the conversion of a cylindrical bar stock into a continuous finished
profile. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture
44 (12–13), 1403–1412.
Chien, W.T., Tsai, C.S., 2003. The investigation on the prediction of
tool wear and the determination of optimum cutting conditions in
machining 17-4PH stainless steel. Journal of Material Processing
Technology 140 (1–3), 340–345.
Chua, M.S., Loh, H.T., Wong, Y.S., Rahman, M., 1991. Optimization
of cutting conditions for multi-pass turning operations using
sequential quadratic programming. Journal of Materials Proces-
sing Technology 28 (1–2), 253–262.
Coello, C.A., Toscano, G., 2001. A micro-genetic algorithm for
multiobjective optimization. In: Zitzler, E. (Ed.), First International
Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp. 126–140.
Cus, F., Balic, J., 2003. Optimization of cutting process by GA
approach. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19,
113–121.
Dereli, D., Filiz, I.H., Bayakosoglu, A., 2001. Optimizing cutting
parameters in process planning of prismatic parts by using genetic
algorithms. International Journal of Production Research 39 (15),
3303–3328.
Ko, T.J., Kim, H.S., 1998. Autonomous cutting parameter regulation
using adaptive modeling and genetic algorithms. Precision En-
gineering 22 (4), 243–251.
Kumar, R., Kumar, V., 2000. Optimum selection of machining
conditions in abrasive flow machining using neural networks.
Journal of Material Processing Technology 108, 62–67.
Kurpati, A., Azarm, S., Wu, J., 2002. Constraint handling improve-
ment for multiobjective genetic algorithms. Structural and Multi-
disciplinary Optimization 23, 204–213.
133
Lee, B.Y., Tarng, Y.S., 2000. Cutting-parameter selection for
maximizing production rate or minimizing production cost in
multistage turning operations. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 105 (1–2), 61–66.
Liang, M., Mgwatu, M., Zuo, M., 2001. Integration of cutting
parameter selection and tool adjustment decisions for multipass
turning. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-
nology 17, 861–869.
Molinari, A., Nouari, M., 2002. Modeling of tool wear by diffusion in
metal cutting. Wear 525, 135–149.
Saravanan, R., Asokan, P., Vijayakumar, K., 2003. Machining
parameters optimisation for turning cylindrical stock into a
continuous finished profile using genetic algorithm (GA) and
simulated annealing (SA). International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 21, 1–9.
Sönmez, A.I., Baykasoglu, A., Dereli, T., Filiz, I.H., 1999. Dynamic
optimization of multipass milling operation via geometric pro-
gramming. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufactur-
ing 39, 297–320.
Soodamani, R., Liu, Z.Q., 2000. GA-based learning for a model-based
object recognition system. International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning 23, 85–109.
Taylor, F.W., 1907. On the art of cutting metals. Transactions of the
ASME 28, 310–350.
Van Veldhuizen, D.A., Lamont, G.B., 2000. Multiobjective evolu-
tionary algorithms: analizing the state-of-the-art. Evolutionary
Computation 8, 125–147.
Wang, J., Kuriyagawa, T., Wei, X.P., Gou, G.M., 2002. Optimization
of cutting conditions using a deterministic approach. International
Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42, 1023–1033.
Zuperl, U., Cus, F., 2003. Optimization of cutting conditions during
cutting by using neural networks. Robotics and Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 19, 189–199.