Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

International Journal of Production Research

Optimization of the EDM process parameters using a multiobjective simulated annealing - based back propagation neural network

Date Submitted by the Author: Complete List of Authors:

rP Fo
Journal: Manuscript ID: Manuscript Type: Keywords: Keywords (user):

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

International Journal of Production Research TPRS-2008-IJPR-1002 Original Manuscript 11-Dec-2008

Laha, Dipak; Mechnical Engineering Department Banerjee, Simul; Mechanical Engineering Pal, Amit; Mechanical Engineering META-HEURISTICS, MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING, NEURAL NETWORK APPLICATIONS, SIMULATED ANNEALING electrical discharge machining (EDM), optimization, multi-objective simulated annealing (MOSA), back propagation neural network

rR

ev

ie w On ly

Page 1 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Optimization of the EDM process parameters using a multi-objective simulated annealing - based back propagation neural network

Amit Kumar Pal, Dipak Laha*, Simul Banerjee Department of Mechanical Engineering Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India

*Communicating author; e-mail: dipaklaha_jume@yahoo.com; Phone / Fax: + 91 33 2414 6890

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee rR ev ie w On ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 2 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Optimization of the EDM process parameters using a multi-objective simulated annealing - based back propagation neural network

Abstract This paper attempts to optimize the response parameters, namely, material removal rate (MRR) and centre line average value of surface roughness (Ra), of the electrical discharge machining (EDM) process using a multi-objective simulated annealing - based neural network. In this study, the back propagation neural network is selected for the purpose of modeling due to its good learning ability and to predict the relationships between the input and the output variables of the highly complex and stochastic EDM process. A multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm is subsequently applied to the developed model for searching of a Pareto optimal solution set. Based on this set a process engineer can take decision regarding the optimal setting of the process parameters for a specific need-based requirement.

Keywords: electrical discharge machining (EDM), optimization, multi-objective simulated annealing (MOSA), back propagation neural network (BPNN).

*Communicating author; e-mail: dipaklaha_jume@yahoo.com; Phone / Fax: + 91 33 2414 6890

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 3 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Introduction Electrical discharge machining (EDM) process is extensively used in the machining industry for the manufacture of mould, die, automotive, aerospace and surgical component. The material is removed in this process by the erosive action of spatially discrete and chaotic [1] high-frequency electrical discharges (sparks) of high power density between a tool electrode and the work-piece electrode with a dielectric fluid in the gap between them. The application of dielectric fluid makes it possible to flush away eroded particles from the gap and cool it. The process has the capacity of producing complex three-dimensional shapes on any material regardless of its hardness, strength and toughness provided its electrical resistivity is not more than 100 ohm-cm [2]. This is a costly process and optimal selection of process parameters is very much essential to meet the specific requirement of process engineer for removal rate and the desired surface integrity of work-piece. These performance parameters, however, are conflicting in nature.

In the EDM process, material removal rate (MRR), centre line average value of surface roughness (Ra) and fractal dimension (Rf) are the important response parameters to evaluate the machining performance. Since the EDM process is complex and stochastic in nature, modeling and determining the optimal machining performance is

reasonably difficult.

However, based on modeling and optimization, several researchers have proposed various methodologies for improving the performance of the EDM process. Back propagation neural network (BPNN) [3] and response surface methodology have been successfully used to model and predict the complex relationships between the EDM

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 4 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

process parameters and its machining performances [4]. It is revealed from the literature [5-8] that among the optimization techniques so far applied to the EDM process, the nondominating sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) [9] is one of the most widely used methods for generating a Pareto optimal solution set to resolve the multi-objective optimization problem in EDM. Mandal et al. [5] used artificial neural network (ANN) and non-dominating sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) to model and optimize machining parameters in EDM process considering material removal rate and absolute tool wear rate as cutting parameters. The ANN model has been trained based on experimental data. The NSGA-II with multi-objective functions was adopted to neural network to obtain a Pareto optimal solution set of response parameters.

Yuan et al. [6] proposed a predictive reliability multi-objective optimization procedure based on Gaussian process regression (GPR), in an attempt to optimize the high-speed wire-cut EDM process (WEDM-HS). Material removal rate and surface roughness were taken as response parameters. In order to obtain an accurate estimation, the non-liner electrical discharging and thermal erosion process of the WEDM-HS with measurement noise is identified by the multiple GPR models. The experimental results reveal that GPR model is better than other regressive models with respect to the model

accuracy, feature scaling and probabilistic variance.

Optimization of machining parameters in WEDM using NSGA has been studied by Kuriakose and Shunmugam [7]. They considered surface roughness and cutting speed as the output parameters. A multiple regression model is used to represent the relationship between input and output parameters. NSGA is then applied to optimize the WEDM

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 5 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

process. Thirty-six non-dominated solutions, thus obtained, have been reported in this study. Kanagarajan et al. [8] used NSGA-II to optimize the machining parameters of the EDM process with WC/Co composites considering the input parameters as pulse current, pulse on time, electrode rotation and flushing pressure. Based on experimental data, a second order polynomial regression equation is developed for predicting different process characteristics. The NSGA-II was applied to the regression equation to optimize the processing conditions. Finally, a non-dominated solution set has been proposed. However, to the best of the authors knowledge, no literature is available where multi-objective simulated annealing (MOSA) was applied to generate a pareto-optimal solution set for optimizing response parameters in electrical discharge machining process. It is to be noted here that a pareto-optimal solution set assists a process engineer to select the optimal parameter setting for a specific need-based requirement. In the present study, therefore, the electrical discharge machining process is modeled using back propagation neural network (BPNN) procedure and optimized by multiobjective simulated annealing (MOSA). The back propagation neural network (BPNN) model is developed with current setting, pulse-on time and pulse-off time as the input process parameters to predict material removal rate (MRR), centre line average value of surface roughness (Ra) and fractal dimension (Rf) of the work-piece. MOSA is then applied to the trained back propagation neural network model to search for a set of Pareto optimal solutions for two conflicting responses; material removal rate and surface finish of the work-piece machined by EDM process.

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 6 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

2. The BPNN for modeling the EDM process The feed forward BPNN is used in the present work to predict the EDM process outputs, namely, MRR, Ra, and Rf taking a set of input process parameters consisting of current setting (C), pulse-on time (Ton) and pulse-off time (Toff). The neural network, selected in the present study, is comprised with a chosen input layer, one or more hidden layers (to be decided with the number of neurons during the process of modeling) and a chosen output layer as shown in Figure 1. [Insert Figure 1 here]

Each neuron in the input layer contains specific information (e.g. current setting) to receive the input data. Lines joining each of the neurons from the input layer to the hidden layer and to the output layer denote the connection weights that are used to associate the synaptic strength (activation level) of the neurons connecting one layer to the next. A neuron may or may not be active depending upon the activation levels of the neurons in the previous layer. The neuron-bias at each input and hidden layers allow for a more rapid convergence of the learning process. The hidden layer consists of neurons and the weight values are modified as the network is getting trained. The output layer consists of three neurons as three of the output parameters of the EDM process are considered. The neural network predicts these output parameters using back propagation algorithm based on gradient descent technique with backward error correction during learning.

2.1. The back propagation learning method The feed forward back propagation algorithm is used to adjust the connection weights in the network so that completely new information in the input layer will minimize the objective function (sum-of -squares error). This error is simply the difference between the

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 7 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

actual output and the desired output (e.g., a known MRR) value. The error is calculated by training the network in the forward pass from the input layer, to the hidden layer, and finally, to the output layer and this error is propagated backward from the output layer to the hidden layer and then the input layer for adjusting the weights by means of the gradient descent algorithm. In the training process, the weights are initially randomized and then adjusted using the delta rule. As the number of iterations for training the network increases this error is gradually decreasing and finally, the network converges to a steady state of weights between any two consecutive layers with a minimum corresponding error.

During the forward pass, the EDM process information enters the input layer through neuron in where n = 1, 2, , k, k being the number of neurons in the input layer. Each of the input process parameters is applied to each neuron in the input layer. A variable, Y, is calculated for the input to each neuron in the hidden layer by summing up the product of input vectors supplied to the input layer neurons and the corresponding weights

associated with the hidden neurons.

For instance, the variable Y for the first neuron in the hidden layer is calculated

where, xn = the input vector supplied to nth input neuron, wnh1 = the weight connected between nth neuron in the input layer and h1th neuron in the hidden layer, wbias-h1 = bias at the h1th neuron in the hidden layer. A transfer function (sigmoid) is used to transfer the combined effects into an output signal represented by variable OUTh1 for each neuron in the hidden layer. The output value of OUTh1 of the activation function is the input of the neuron in the consecutive

rP Fo
k

wnh1 x n + wbiash1 as Yh1 = n =1

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

.(1)

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 8 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

layer. OUTh1 for each neuron in the hidden layer is then multiplied by its weight connecting to the output layer, and these products are then summed to produce in Yo for the lone neuron in the output layer. Applying the same logic, an OUTo for this neuron is obtained.
OUT h1 = f (Yh1 ) = tanh( Yh1 ) = exp(Y h1 ) - exp(-Y h1 ) exp(Y h1 ) + exp(-Y h1 ) .......... .......... .(2)

The activation function is used to check whether the neuron is activated or nonactivated to show its contributory effects on the consecutive layers neurons. Usually, the activation function of a neuron is represented by a sigmoid function. Since it is continuous, nonlinear, and easily differentiable, it can be suitably applied to the modeling of a complex system such as the EDM process. However, the activation function, hyperbolic tangent, is considered here to obtain the output of the neuron lying between two extreme saturated portions of the hyperbolic tangent curve; namely, -1 and 1, representing the state of its activation level and contributes to the next layers neurons. The backpropagation algorithm uses the gradient descent search method to minimize an objective function (here, the error function). The most popular error function used, i.e., mean squared error (MSE) is calculated using the following formula:

where, N is the number of training patterns, Tpj is the desired output value of the jth neuron for pattern p, OUTpj is the actual output of the jth neuron, and m is the number of neurons in the output layer. Batch mode of training has been used for the training of the network. The back propagation algorithm uses the following delta rule to minimize the error function E:

rP Fo
MSE =

1 1 N m 1 2 (Tpj OUT pj ) N m p=1 j=1 2

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

(3)

On

ly

Page 9 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

[w ]

ji k + 1

E + [w ji ] k w ji

.......... .......... ....(4)

where, [wji]k+1 is the adjustment of weight for each weight between neurons i and j for the (k+1)th iteration, wji is the weight connected between neurons i and j, is the learning rate, and is the momentum coefficient. The constants and are chosen between 0 and 1 in a manner that optimizes learning speed and accuracy. The learning rate, , dictates how greatly the weights are varied, whereas the momentum coefficient, , filters out high frequency changes in w [10].

3. Experimentation and the neural network modeling The first objective of the present investigation is to develop a model of the electric discharge machining process for predicting material removal rate, surface roughness and fractal dimension using artificial neural network. The input variables chosen in this study are the current setting, the pulse on time and the pulse off time in the roughing and semifinishing region. A full factorial (4x4x4) design is selected for conducting the

experiments for this purpose.

The equipment used to perform the experiments is an EDM machine (Tool Craft A25 EDM Machine). The machine operates with commercially available kerosene oil as dielectric medium and an open circuit voltage of 70 volts. High speed steel of specification C-0.80%, W-6%, Mo-5%, Cr-4%, V-2% equivalent to grade M2 was chosen as the work-piece material. The density of material is 8144 kg/m3. The tool material selected is electrolytic copper [11] with density 8904 kg/m3 and has circular

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 10 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

cross section of 14 mm. The polarity of the tool electrode is set as positive while that of work-piece as negative. For the purpose of determining the material removal rate the mass is measured by DHONA Instrument Calcutta, Model No. DND 200. It is then divided by the density of work-piece material in order to convert it into volumetric term and is further divided by the actual machining time to obtain the material removal rate in terms of mm3/min. The surface roughness of the machined work piece and the fractal dimension are then evaluated by the Taylor Hobson Precision Surtronis 3+ Roughness Checker. Here a sample length of 4 mm was taken and stylus tip radius of 5 m was used. The value of surface roughness parameter Ra in micron and fractal dimension for each experiment was obtained directly from the Taly-profile software integrated with the machine. The arithmetic mean of the values of the measurements taken along three mutually 1200 apart directions over the area subjected to the EDM process was taken as the representative value of Ra and fractal dimension.

Data set (60 of 68 out of which 64 data is based on the full factorial design) as shown in Table 1 containing input and output parameters of the EDM process, is presented for the training of the network. The rest data set shown in Table 2 is used for testing the accuracy of training of the network model. Usually, it is desirable to consider the input parameters small in magnitude for the network otherwise they will swamp the activation function and make the learning very difficult [12]. It is, therefore, necessary to scale the input values so that they lie approximately between 1.0 and 1.0 as referred in Table 3. The initial weight values connected between two neurons in two consecutive layers have been chosen randomly between 1.0 and 1.0.

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 11 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

[Insert Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 here] Neural networks varying the learning rate, the momentum coefficient, number of hidden layers and number of hidden neurons in each hidden layer were trained to investigate the effect of these parameters on the overall performance of the EDM model. The performance of different network architectures are studied with the learning rate and the momentum coefficient both varying in the range 0.5 to 0.9. The number of iterations for training each of the networks is chosen as 5000 for the purpose of drawing a comparison among the different architectures. A program was written in the MATLAB environment to simulate the BPNN and was run on Pentium 4, 2.2 GHz Computer. Some typical results are shown is Table 4. Figures 2 through 4 show the performance of the single layer and the double layer architectures with respect to the error function (equation 3). It is observed from the results of Table 4 and Figures 2 through 4 that the network architecture with 3 9 9 3 yields the least sum-of-squares error for the learning rate of 0.9 and the momentum coefficient of 0.5 and therefore, is selected for modeling. [Insert Figures 2 - 4 here] Table 5 summarizes results of the performance of the 3 9 9 3 back propagation neural network to compare with the experimental results as referred in Table 2. For the purpose of testing the network, the absolute percent error (APE) is considered, as it is perhaps the easiest measure to interpret and does not depend on the magnitude of the item (e.g., MRR) being predicted. It is calculated as
actual value predicted actual value value * 100 ..(5)

rP Fo
APE =

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 12 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

[Insert Table 5 here] Comparing with the experimental results (Table 2) as referred in Table 5 it is observed that the 3 9 9 3 back propagation neural network performs quite well with the mean absolute percent error of 4.13 for the MRR, 4.12 for the Ra and 1.63 for the Rf. Figures 5 through 7 show the comparison of the absolute actual values of the experimental results and the absolute predicted values using the neural network for the outputs MRR, Ra, and the Rf respectively. The proposed BPNN model, therefore, performs comparable to the experimental results by learning the unknown correlation between the input and the output parameters of the highly complex and stochastic EDM process and selected further for multi-objective optimization by simulated annealing and prediction of pareto optimal solution set to fulfill different specific need-based requirements.

4. Multi-objective optimization for the EDM process

The EDM process can be considered as a system with multiple inputs and multiple outputs. Since EDM is a complex process and the outputs are conflicting in nature, it is desirable to optimize multiple outputs simultaneously rather than single output to obtain the best machining performance. Usually, it is observed that as the MRR increases the Ra also increases. However, the optimum machining performance depends on the higher value of MRR and lower value of Ra. In the present study, these two conflicting process outputs are considered, as because higher MRR results in higher productivity, whereas lower Ra leads to the better surface characteristics. So, the multi-objective optimization problem takes the following form:

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

[Insert Figures 5 - 7 here]

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 13 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Minimize

{ f1 (x),

f 2 (x) }
f1 (x ) = 1 MRR
a where, x is a vector of input parameters.

where,

(x) = R

Let x0, x1, x2 S and S be a feasible solution space. x0 is called optimal solution [13] in the minimization problem if the following two conditions hold. [1] If fi (x2) < fi (x2), for all i {1, 2,, k} and fi (x2) < fi (x1) for at least one i {1, 2,., k} then x2 is said to dominate x1 . 2. If there is no x S so that x dominates xo, then xo is the Pareto optimal solution. So, if a set of input parameters or vector x/ is not dominated by other sets of input vectors (x) of the multi-objective optimization problem, then the solution x/ is called a non-dominated solution or Pareto optimal solution. The set of non-dominated solutions of the multi-objective problem is also referred to as Pareto optimal solutions. The proposed MOSA based neural network tries to determine a set of non-dominated or Pareto optimal solutions for the EDM process that considers three input parameters (within working conditions) and two output functions.

5. SA algorithm

Simulated annealing (SA) of Metropolis et al.[14] and Kirkpatrick et al.[15] is a metaheuristic based computational search process that has been found effective for solving various optimization problems. It is based on the work of Metropolis et al.[14] in statistical mechanics. It simulates the annealing of physical system by controlling a temperature parameter following the Boltzmann probability distribution. Kirkpatrick et

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 14 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

al. [15] pointed out the relevance of simulated annealing in optimization problems. Van Laarhoven and Aarts [16] have reviewed a wide variety of applications of the SA. It attempts to overcome the disadvantage of the gradient descent method. The unique characteristic of the SA is that it considers the probability of accepting a worse point by means of uphill move to approach global optimization instead of getting trapped in a local optimum. At the beginning of the SA run, the probability of accepting an inferior solution is high. In order to have high probability, a control parameter, called the temperature (analogous to the temperature of the physical process) is kept high initially. As the number of SA run increases, the probability is reduced due to the gradual reduction of temperature according to a cooling (annealing) schedule.

5.1 Marching procedure

For the multi-objective optimization of the EDM process outputs, the SA algorithm begins with the randomly generated initial point (solution) x1 (C1, Ton1, Tof1), known as the current solution and a high temperature T1. An adjacent solution x2 (C2, Ton2, Tof2) in the neighborhood of the current solution is then generated using the normal distribution. The response f(x1) and f(x2) are evaluated using a well-trained back propagation neural network from the control points x1 and x2 respectively. The difference in the function values at these two solution points (E = f(x2) f(x1)) is calculated. If E < 0, i. e., the neighbor is found to be better than the current point and it is unconditionally accepted as the new current point. Otherwise, it is rejected outright, but accepted with a probability exp(-E/T). The neighborhood point x2 is generated randomly using the normal distribution [17] as follows.

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 15 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

n n + ri , 2 i=1

where, n = number of random numbers, ri = ith random number, and

2 = variance of a parameter =

The SA algorithm is described as follows: Choose an initial solution x1 and a high initial temperature T1. while not yet frozen perform loop k times perform the following loop m times generate randomly a neighboring point (x2 ) of x1 using the normal distribution and E = E (x2 ) E (x1).

if E < 0 (downhill move) then set x1 = x2

if E 0 (uphill move)

then set x1 = x2 with probability e-E/T

set T = c * T (reduction in temperature) /* c is the cooling factor */ return the best point as the final solution (x1).

The procedure for implementing the SA algorithm is shown in Figure 8. The multiobjective SA algorithm in the MATLAB environment was run on Pentium 4, 2.2 GHz Computer. The parameters used in the SA algorithm are given as: T1 = 2C, k = 60, m = 20, and c = 0.95. In the present study, the geometric cooling schedule considered is T = c * T as suggested by Collins et al. [18]. It is selected because of its simplicity, rapid cooling and good performance in solving various optimization problems. The SA

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

xxxx

xxxx

2222

1111

maximum value minimum value . 6

rP Fo

ee

rR ev ie w On ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 16 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

algorithm is then applied to the BPNN for searching for the Pareto optimal process parameters with the optimal EDM process outputs. [Insert Figure 8 here]

6. Pareto optimal solution set for the EDM process Since the present study considers multi-objective optimization problems, in most cases, there could be a number of optimal solutions as compared to obtaining an optimal solution for the single-objective problems. Single optimal solution sometimes restricts the choice of the users for setting the input control parameters. However, multiple optimal solutions are desirable for setting the control parameters depending on the requirement of the process engineers. Table 6 shows the initial optimal solution set of different process parameters with the process outputs. Also, the optimal solution points for the EDM process are given in Figure 9. Using MOSA-based back-propagation network technique, 46 initial optimal solution sets are obtained. Among the 46 solution sets over the feasible region, only 19 solution sets are Pareto optimal solution, and none of these solutions is better than any other solutions in the set and hence these solutions are called nondominated or Pareto optimal solutions. Figure 10 displays the Pareto optimal set for the EDM process. Therefore, any of them can be considered as an alternative accepted

solution to meet the requirement of the desired EDM process performance. [Insert Figures 9 and 10 here]

From the experimental results presented in Table 1, the input parameters of the experiment number 8 gives the MRR of 9.0118 mm3/min and Ra of 8.26 m for the EDM surface. Using the MOSA-based BPNN models, it can be observed from the serial

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 17 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

number 1, Table 7 that the MRR could be increased to 13.553mm3/min even with the lower value of Ra as 8.19 m. Also, from Pareto optimal solution set in Table 7, it can be seen that there exists two more solution sets (serial no. 17 and 18) when values of MRR are more than 9.0118mm3/min yet the resultant Ra values are considerably low.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, an intelligent modeling and optimization for the EDM process using a multi-objective simulated annealing-based back propagation neural network have been proposed. The back propagation network have been trained to model and found effective with the network architecture of 3-9-9-3 with the learning rate of 0.9 and the momentum coefficient of 0.5. Finally, a set of Pareto optimal solutions, using multi-objective simulated annealing based on the developed network, is obtained by optimizing both the output measures of the EDM process, namely, MRR and Ra simultaneously.

References

[1] P. C. Chang, J.-C. Hsieh, S.-G. Lin, The development of gradual-priority weighting approach for the multi-objective flowshop scheduling problem, International Journal

of Production Economics 79 (2002) 171 183.

[2] W.-C. Chiang, T.L. Urban, W. Baldridge, A neural network approach to mutual fund net asset value forecasting, Omega, International Journal of Management Science 24 (2) (1996) 205-215.

rP Fo

[Insert Tables 6 and 7 here]

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

w On ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 18 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

[3] N.E. Collins, R.W. Egless, B.L. Golden, Simulated annealing-an annoted bibliography, American Journal of Mathematical and Management Science 8 (1988) 209-307. [4] A. Hart, Using neural networks for classification tasks-some experimental datasets and practical advice. Journal of Operational Research Society 43 (3) (1992) 215-226. [5] D. Kanagarajan, R. Karthikeyan, K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim, Optimization of electrical discharge machining characteristics of WC/Co composites using nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 36 (2008.) 1124-1132. [6] S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt Jr, M.P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220 (1983) 671-680.

[7] W. Konig, D. Dauw, G. Levy, U. Panten, EDM future steps towards the machining of ceramics, Annals of CIRP, 37 (2) (1988) 623-630. [8] M. Kunieda, B. Lauwers, K.P. Rajurkar, B.M. Schumacher, Advancing EDM through fundamental insight into the process, Annals of CIRP 54(2) (2005) 599-622. [9] S. Kuriakose, M.S. Shunmugam, Multi-objective optimization of wire-electro discharge machining process by non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 170 (2005) 133-141.

[10] S.H. Lee, X.P. Li, Study of the effect of machining parameters on the machining characteristics in electrical discharge machining of WC, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 115 (2001) 344-358. [11] D. Mondal, S.K. Pal, P. Saha, Modeling of electrical discharge machining process using back propagation neural network and multi-objective optimization using non-

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

Page 19 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

dominating sorting genetic algorithm-II, Journal of materials processing Technology 186 (2007) 154-162. [12] N. Metropolis, A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller, E. Teller, Equation of state calculation by fast computing machines, Journal of Chemical Physics 21 (1953) 1087-1092. [13] D.K. Panda, R.K. Bhoi, Artificial neural network prediction of material removal rate in electro discharge machining, Materials and Manufacturing Processes 20 (2005) 645-672.

[14] D. Rumelhart, J. McCelland, Parallel distributed processing. Vol. 1(1986) MIT

Press Cambridge.

[15] P. Sathiya, S. Aravindan, A. Noorul Haq, K. Paneerselvam, Optimization of friction welding parameters using evolutionary computational techniques, Journal of Materials processing Technology (2008) (in press). [16] P.J.M. Van Laarhoven, E.H.L. Aarts, Simulated annealing: Theory and

Applications, Holland 1987: Reidel Dordrecht.

[17] J. Yuan, K. Wang, T. Yu, M. Fang, Reliable multi-objective optimization of highspeed WEDM process based on Gaussian process regression, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 47-60.

[18] N. Srinivas, K. Deb, Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evolutionary Computation 2(30) (1994) 221 248.

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev

ie

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 20 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

neuron : bias

neuron : bias current

MRR

on-time Ra off-time

neuron h1 output layer hidden layer input layer Figure 1. The backpropagation neural network for single hidden layer

SSE

Figure 2. Change in SSE with the number of hidden neurons for single layer

rP Fo
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 x 10
-3

Rf

ee
2 3
10

rR ev
4 5
9 11

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0.7 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

ie w
6 7

On
8

ly

12 13 14 Hidden Neurons

15

16

17

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

Page 21 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4

0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

11 10 8 7 9

SSE

Figure 4. Minimum value of SSE with respect to the single and double hidden layers

rP Fo

SSE

6 5

Figure 3. Change in SSE with the hidden neurons for double layer

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee rR
3 14 3 = 0.9 = 0.8

ev
2

ie w On
399-3 = 0.9 = 0.5

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 22 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

14 12 10 (mm3/min) 8 6 4 2 0 Experimental Predicted

Figure 5. Comparison between the experimental and the predicted MRR values

Ra (micron)

Figure 6. Comparison between the experimental and the predicted Ra values

rP Fo
MRR 1 2

Test pattern

ee
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

rR
4 5

Test pattern

ev
6

ie
7

w
8 3

Experimetal Predicted

On

ly

Page 23 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1.34 1.32 Fractal Dimension 1.3 1.28 1.26 1.24 1.22 Experimental Predicted

Figure 7. Comparison between the experimental and the predicted Rf values

rP Fo
1.2 1.18 1 2

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

Test Pattern

rR

ev ie w On ly
4

International Journal of Production Research

Page 24 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Initialization: Set an initial solution x1S (S is the feasible solution region), initial temperature T1>0, number of iterations k, epoch length m, cooling factor Set=x1, T = T1

Randomly generate a neighborhood solution x2 using normal distribution.

rP Fo
No No

Evaluate f(x2) and f(x1) (Evaluate these response values by the welltrained back-propagation network). Compute E = f(x2) f(x1)

Figure 8: The schema of the SA algorithm


http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee
Obtain the optimal solution and predicted response.

rR
E<0 Yes Set=x = x2
m is reached

No

Generate a random number r, 0<r<1.

Se T = T

k is reached

ev
Yes Yes 5

Yes

r<e-E/T

ie w

No

On ly

Page 25 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Pareto-optimal set for ANN


9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Surface Roughness

Surface Roughness

rP Fo
0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0

10

12

14

Material Removal Rate

Figure 9. Optimal solution for the MOSA based BPN model

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee
2

Figure 10: Pareto-optimal set

rR ev ie w On ly
4 6
3

10

12

14

MRR (m m /m in)

International Journal of Production Research

Page 26 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Table 1. Experimental data for the training of the BPNN model Experiment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 C (A) 3 6 12 9 3 9 3 12 6 9 9 6 3 12 6 12 12 3 9 6 12 12 3 9 6 12 12 9 3 6 3 9 6 9 3 9 12 6 3 3 12 9 Ton (s) 50 100 200 200 100 100 150 150 200 50 200 50 200 200 100 50 150 200 200 200 200 200 50 100 150 100 100 150 150 200 200 100 50 150 50 100 50 100 100 100 100 50 Toff (s) 50 100 200 200 100 100 200 200 200 200 50 200 100 100 50 200 50 50 100 100 50 150 200 50 50 150 50 200 50 50 200 150 150 100 100 200 100 150 150 200 200 150 MRR (mm3/min) 0.3427 4.886 11.1278 6.1896 0.6497 8.1302 0.4738 9.0118 2.7525 3.0221 9.1232 1.9181 0.5306 15.3242 5.7718 4.8901 18.8113 0.3924 9.4129 4.6276 17.2259 15.3902 0.4229 11.4031 5.1503 10.8249 14.1423 5.0682 0.7899 4.1619 0.5608 7.5987 2.6178 8.4306 0.7731 5.0313 7.8381 3.5916 0.7061 0.4599 7.1771 5.108 Ra (m) 2.31 4.36 8.78 6.12 2.41 6.15 2.77 8.26 5.25 5.63 5.34 4.87 1.92 9.07 5.02 5.97 7.45 2.40 6.77 5.21 8.35 7.79 2.78 6.65 4.33 7.28 6.53 5.89 2.48 4.33 2.15 6.24 4.59 6.46 2.57 6.16 6.62 4.81 2.48 2.58 6.56 5.83 Rf 1.353 1.303 1.243 1.243 1.35 1.283 1.323 1.25 1.247 1.29 1.247 1.317 1.3 1.23 1.3 1.277 1.24 1.227 1.247 1.277 1.243 1.223 1.263 1.263 1.283 1.263 1.28 1.263 1.33 1.267 1.297 1.27 1.307 1.247 1.357 1.277 1.283 1.297 1.33 1.333 1.257 1.297

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR ev
1

ie

On

ly

Page 27 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Table 1: Continued Experiment Number 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 C (A) 6 3 3 6 12 9 12 9 12 9 3 6 6 12 3 6 6 9 Ton (s) 100 150 200 200 150 50 50 200 150 50 100 50 150 50 50 50 150 150 Toff (s) 200 100 150 150 100 50 50 150 150 100 50 50 200 150 150 100 100 50 MRR (mm3/min) 2.7543 0.6099 0.6134 3.3422 12.6351 6.5304 11.7172 7.8196 12.3972 5.3188 0.9071 3.7873 2.7029 8.2535 0.8559 2.4466 3.7811 10.1742 Ra (m) 5.03 2.22 2.24 4.75 6.51 5.34 5.65 6.46 7.18 5.88 2.57 4.54 4.99 5.77 2.90 4.54 4.77 6.29 Rf 1.283 1.297 1.293 1.27 1.26 1.31 1.3 1.25 1.26 1.293 1.36 1.307 1.273 1.3 1.36 1.303 1.29 1.257

Table 2. Experimental data for testing the BPNN model

Experiment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

rP Fo
C (A) 9 6 12 3 3 4.5 4.5 10.5

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee
Ton (s) 150 150 100 150 200 75 200 50

rR
Toff (s) 150 150 100 150 75 75 50 50

ev
2

ie

MRR (mm3/min)

Ra (m) 7.25 4.88 7.33 2.22 2.29 3.40 3.11 6.21

Rf 1.25 1.27 1.27 1.323 1.30 1.32 1.30 1.30

8.3452 1.9007 12.7374 0.4239 0.7454 1.6699 1.594 11.4686

On

ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 28 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Table 3. Factors and levels of the input parameters for the BPNN model Factors -1 C (A) Ton (s) Toff (s) 3 50 50 -0.3333 6 100 100 Levels +0.3333 9 150 150 +1 12 200 200

Table 4. Results of different architectures of the BPNN model Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Network architecture 3-8-3 3-10-3 3-11-3 3-12-3 3-13-3 3-14-3 3-15-3 3-16-3 3-17-3 3-4-4-3 3-7-7-3 3-9-9-3 3-9-9-3 3-9-9-3 3-9-9-3 3-9-93 3-10-10-3 3-11-10-3 3-10-9-3 3-9-10-3 3-8-8-3 3-9-8-3 3-6-7-3 3-5-6-3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 SSE after 5000 iterations 0.0124 0.0088 0.0090 0.0087 0.0072 0.0053 0.0058 0.0057 0.0061 0.0131 0.0058 0.0033 0.0033 0.0030 0.0032 0.0036 0.0032 0.0034 0.0032 0.0032 0.0049 0.0050 0.0059 0.0079

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev
3

ie

On

ly

Page 29 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Table 5. Comparison between the experimental test data and the BPNN based predicted data
Sl. No C (A) Ton (s) Toff (s) Exp. MRR (mm3/min) Predicted MRR by BPN (mm3/min) % APE Exp. Ra (m) Predicted Ra by BPN (m) % APE Exp. Rf Predicted Rf by BPN % APE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9 6 12 3 3 4.5 4.5 10.5

150 150 100 150 200 75 200 50

150 150 100 150 75 75 50 50

8.3452 1.9007

8.0635 1.9481

3.37 2.49 12.1 4.34 3.61 3.69 0.51 2.90

7.25 4.88 7.33 2.22 2.29 3.40 3.43 6.21

7.48 4.94 7.02 2.31 2.37 3.57 3.11 6.06

3.17 1.23 4.23 4.05 3.49 5.0 9.33 2.42

1.25 1.27 1.27 1.32 1.30 1.32 1.30 1.30

1.24 1.268 1.26 1.29 1.26 1.33 1.24 1.29

0.8 0.157 0.78 2.27 3.07 0.75 4.62 0.77

rP Fo
12.7374 0.4239 0.7454 1.6699 1.5594 11.4686

11.1985 0.4055 0.7185 1.7315 1.5515

Average APE of predicted MRR = 4.13 %

Overall average prediction error of the ANN model = 3.29 %

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee
11.8015

rR
4

Average APE of predicted Ra = 4.12 %

Average APE of predicted fractal dimension = 1.63 %

ev

ie w On ly

International Journal of Production Research

Page 30 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Table 6. Non-dominated solution set for the MOSA - based BPNN model
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. C (A) 11.91 10.79 7.75 4.82 7.06 5.32 4 4.43 4.89 5.33 3.42 3.40 4.53 3.94 3.82 4.99 5.21 4.40 4.01 3.92 5.92 4.81 3.23 7.59 6.99 7.86 10.11 9.97 8.71 8.83 6.95 6.42 6.38 5.35 5.44 5.62 3.42 3.73 3.66 3.67 3.39 3.12 3.53 3.18 3.23 3.07 Ton (s) 198.76 189.24 192.53 169.87 52.22 151.28 166.54 151.21 106.93 106.63 86.46 161.52 175.27 138.05 95.34 118.45 136.68 155.26 56.02 184.96 82.9 74.20 72.04 186.52 129.23 117.25 69.97 112.79 137.35 145.75 126.10 136.36 106.10 199.91 181.69 186.14 177.69 184.40 153.53 147.16 151.83 150.19 196.74 190.05 185.57 199.40 Toff (s) 199.48 145.97 75.87 82.18 67.64 50.79 129.93 119.50 191.17 106.88 69.95 134.84 85.55 198.94 167.83 157.76 98.97 71.98 101.86 188.77 100.87 51.17 138.67 181.01 100.20 82.24 55.81 67.16 52.72 111.42 133.08 192.57 188.94 158.61 154.17 139.20 150.76 128.46 154.59 131.26 128.11 150.51 130.72 82.03 61.86 61.10 MRR (mm3/min) 11.2576 13.1553 8.2703 1.325 4.7733 4.3255 0.4683 0.5588 0.7943 2.3576 0.8460 0.4203 0.9466 0.6013 0.5034 0.7176 1.3889 1.0759 1.0805 0.5468 3.6366 2.0954 0.5329 4.6293 6.8787 8.3682 13.0602 11.2459 10.2723 9.1282 6.9803 3.5165 2.9994 1.3788 1.0787 1.3225 0.4221 0.4664 0.4517 0.4489 0.4230 0.4119 0.4840 0.6253 0.6253 0.6428 Ra (m) 8.41 8.19 5.88 3.07 5.55 3.87 2.44 2.78 3.34 3.96 2.72 2.32 2.73 2.83 2.78 3.18 3.39 2.66 2.88 2.61 4.52 3.73 2.75 5.92 5.68 6.16 6.83 6.87 6.22 6.91 6.99 5.22 5.21 3.52 3.47 3.57 2.31 2.29 2.51 2.49 2.35 2.34 2.26 2.30 2.31 2.31

rP Fo

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee

rR

ev
5

ie

On

ly

Page 31 of 31

International Journal of Production Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Table 7: Pareto optimal solution set for the MOSA-based BPNN model Sl. No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

C(A)
10.79 7.75 4.82 7.06 4

Ton(s)
189.24 192.53 169.87 52.22 166.54 106.63 86.46 161.52 175.27 136.68 56.02

Toff(s)
145.97 75.87 82.18 67.64 129.93 106.88 69.95 134.84 85.55 98.97 101.86 188.77 100.87 51.17

MRR(mm3/min)
13.1553 8.2703 1.325 4.7733 0.4683 2.3576 0.8460 0.4203 0.9466 1.3889 1.0805 0.5468 3.6366 2.0954 6.8787 8.3682 11.2459 10.2723 0.4230

Ra (m)
8.19 5.88 3.07 5.55 2.44 3.96 2.72 2.32 2.73 3.39 2.88 2.61 4.52 3.73 5.68 6.16 6.87 6.22 2.35

rP Fo
5.33 3.42 3.40 4.53 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 5.21 4.01 3.92 5.92 4.81 6.99 7.86 9.97 8.71 3.39

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tprs Email: ijpr@lboro.ac.uk

ee
184.96 82.9 74.20 129.23 117.25 112.79 137.35 151.83

rR

100.20 82.24 67.16 52.72

ev
128.11

ie

w On ly
6

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi