278 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO.
4, NOVEMBER 1997
Using Genetic Algorithms in Process Planning for Job Shop Machining
F. Zhang, Y. F. Zhang, and A. Y. C. Nee
Abstract—This paper presents a novel computer-aided process
planning (CAPP) model for machined parts to be made in a
job shop manufacturing environment. The approach deals with
process planning problems in a concurrent manner in generating
the entire solution space by considering the multiple decision-
making activities, i.e., operation selection, machine selection,
setup selection, cutting tool selection, and operations sequencing,
simultaneously. Genetic algorithms (GA’s) were selected due to
their flexible representation scheme. The developed GA is able to
achieve a near-optimal process plan through specially designed
crossover and mutation operators. Flexible criteria are provided
for plan evaluation. This technique was implemented and its
performance is illustrated in a case study. A space search method
is used for comparison.
Index Terms— Computer-aided process planning, genetic al-
gorithm, job shop, operation selection, operation sequencing,
optimization.
I. INTRODUCTION
P ROCESS planning is an engineering task that determines
the detailed manufacturing requirements for transforming
a raw material into a completed part, within the available
machining resources. The output of process planning generally
includes operations, machine tools, cutting tools, fixtures,
machining parameters, etc. With the advent of computer tech-
nologies, there is a general demand for computer-aided process
planning (CAPP) systems to assist human planners and achieve
the integration of computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-
aided manufacturing (CAM). Moreover, the introduction of
new manufacturing technologies, such as computer-integrated
manufacturing systems (CIMS) and design for manufacturing
(DFM), causes an even greater demand for automated CAPP
systems. For example, to support DFM, the best process plan
for a given part must be generated and fed back to the
designer for evaluation. To support production scheduling,
process plans with alternative routes and sequences must be
generated to suit the changes in the workshop.
This paper presents a CAPP system for prismatic parts
machined in a conventional job shop. In this approach, the
process planning problem for a part is modeled in a network
by simultaneously considering the selection of operations,
machines, cutting tools, and operations sequence, as well as the
constraints imposed by the precedence relationships between
operations and available machining resources. Five aspects
of machining costs are introduced for plan evaluation: 1)
machines, 2) tools, 3) machine changes, 4) setup changes, and
Manuscript received January 21, 1997; revised July 31, 1997, November
29, 1997, and February 11, 1998.
The authors are with the Department of Mechanical and Production En-
gineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119620 (e-mail:
mpezyf@nus.edu.sg).
Publisher Item Identifier S 1089-778X(97)09445-9.
1089–778X/97$10.00  1997 IEEE
5) tool changes. A genetic algorithm (GA) is developed for
finding the optimal plan.
The remaining parts of this paper are arranged as follows:
Section II presents the background on related work in CAPP
and the GA. Section III describes the development of the
system. Section IV gives a case study by using the GA-based
planner to handle a part in a designated job shop. A space
search method is also used to solve the same case study to
assess the quality of the plan obtained by the GA approach.
Finally, Section V presents the conclusion and future work.
II. BACKGROUND
In process planning, a part is generally described by fea-
tures, which are geometric forms having machining meanings,
such as holes, slots, and bosses. Given a part and a set of
manufacturing resources, the process planning problem can be
defined as follows.
i) Operation selection—For each feature, determine one or
several operations required. This includes the selection
of machines, cutting tools, and tool approach directions
(TAD’s) based on the feature geometry and available
machining resources.
ii) Operation sequencing—Determine the sequence of ex-
ecuting all operations required for the part so that the
precedence relationships among all the operations are
maintained.
The decision-making tasks in i) and ii) must be carried
out simultaneously to achieve an optimal plan against a
predetermined criterion, such as minimum cost.
During the last two decades, CAPP has received significant
research attention that resulted in a large number of reported
process planning systems [1], [2]. Most of these systems,
however, focus on generating the optimal plan for individual
features. Recently, research has focused on process planning
optimization by considering some of the decision-making
tasks concurrently [3]–[11]. These efforts have undoubtedly
achieved certain success; however, few CAPP systems have
gained industry acceptance. This could be attributed to the
following shortcomings in terms of problem modeling.
i) Simple or limited machining environment—Most reported
CAPP systems are designed for handling planning tasks
within a rather simple machining environment, such
as a vertical milling center. To accommodate various
machining environments in different companies and/or
the change of machining capacity in the same company,
a CAPP system must be able to handle different job shop
environments.
ii) Feature being the basic element—Most existing CAPP
systems use features as the basic elements for process
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997
Fig. 1. An example part for the operations selection and precedence relationships identification. The through hole (F1) can in theory be reached by the
+ 0 +
TAD’s y and y ; however, a drill cannot access F1 along y , so this option is discarded. Features: F1 (through hole), F2 (slot), F3 (taper), F4 (blind
hole), and F5 (slot). technological attributes: “xxx” (positional tolerance between F4 and F2).
planning. In practice, human planners use operations for
process plans. The difference between using features
and operations as the basic elements occurs when a
feature needs two or more operations to be performed
on different machines. In such a situation, the optimum
plan in terms of minimum setups can never be reached
if features are used as the basic planning elements.
iii) Sequential decision making—Most existing approaches
treat the various decision-making activities of process
planning in a sequential manner. Although this strategy
may reduce the solution space significantly, the optimum
or even the feasible plans may well be lost on the way
to the final solution.
When the various decision-making tasks are carried out
simultaneously, process planning becomes a combinatorial
problem. During the last decade, GA’s have been applied to
many combinatorial problems. These include job shop sched-
uling [12], [13], the traveling salesman problem (TSP) [14],
and other NP-complete problems [15]. A process planning
problem (PPP) is similar to a TSP in that every operation has
to be traversed once and once only, although a PPP is more
complicated due to precedence constraints among operations
and nonfixed “distance” between operations (time required for
machine, setup, and tool change). It is expected that GA’s can
provide a valid option for solving the PPP’s so long as a suit-
able string representation and a corresponding search operator
can be devised. Recently, there have been reports on applying
GA’s to process planning [16]–[18]. These developed GA’s,
however, still suffer from the above-mentioned problems. The
system presented in this paper is developed to address these
problems comprehensively and effectively.
III. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
A. The Job Shop Process Planning Problem
1) The System Development Domain: In this paper, the
parts to be handled are prismatic parts, and the machining
environment is a job shop layout with both conventional
and computer numerical controlled (CNC) machine tools. The
279
machining resources are user specified, providing flexibility for
accommodating different job shops and changes in the same
job shop. A part is described using commonly used features
together with their technological attributes, such as tolerances
and surface finishes. The machining resources include current
available machines, cutters along with their technological
attributes such as the maximum size, achievable accuracy,
and surface finish.
2) Operation Selection—From Feature to Operations: The
mapping from a feature to operations can be carried out in
three steps.
i) Find all the operation types (OPT’s) that can achieve
the attributes (shape, dimensions, tolerances, and surface
finishes) of the feature. An OPT refers to an operation
without any attachment of machine (M), tool (T), and
tool approach direction (TAD), e.g., drilling and milling.
ii) For each OPT, find all the combinations of M’s and T’s
with which it can be executed.
iii) For each combination of (M, T), find all the feasible
TAD’s.
As a result, a feature may be mapped to one or several sets of
OPT’s. For example, a blind hole can be mapped to two sets
of OPT’s, i.e., (center-drilling, drilling, reaming) and (center-
drilling, milling). Similarly, an OPT can be realized by one or
more sets of (M, T). For prismatic parts, six possible TAD’s
are assumed, i.e., the six normal directions of a prismatic part
( ). For a tool acting on a feature alone, its TAD’s
are fixed. Interference may occur, however, when considering
the part and tool geometry. Therefore, interference must be
checked for every possible TAD of a (M, T) and a TAD
causing interference is discarded. An example is shown in
Fig. 1, where a drill for F1 (through-hole) has two possible
TAD’s, i.e., and , in theory. Since the drill cannot access
the hole along , however, is discarded.
The final result of operation selection for a feature is
expressed in a tree structure as shown in Fig. 2. It has three
levels: feature, OPT sets, and (M, T, TAD). For a feature,
different OPT sets may have different numbers of OPT’s. To
avoid this, the concept of a “dummy” operation is introduced,
280 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997

Fig. 2. Tree data structure of operation selection for a feature. The structure proceeds from features, to OPT sets, to collectors (M, T, TAD).

Fig. 3. The “M stage” network for the part in Fig. 1. Each M stage has its alternative sets of (M, T, TAD). The network is constrained by the procedure
relations between operations. F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5 as shown in Fig. 1; M1: vertical milling center, M2: drill press, T1: drill, T2: end mill, T3 drill,
T4: chamfer cutter, T5: ball-nose cutter, T6: T-slot cutter.

which incurs no machining cost and has no effects in terms of
machine, setup, and tool changes. By adding these operations
into the sets that have fewer OPT’s, each set will have the
same number of OPT’s. If we use the concept of “machining
stage” (M-stage) as a general term for any OPT, a feature can
then be represented by a fixed number of M-stages while each
M-stage has its alternative sets of (M, T, TAD). A part can
also be represented in the similar fashion.
3) Precedence Relationship Between Operations: The
precedence relationships (PR’s) between operations come
from geometrical and technological consideration to produce
every feature with the best possible accuracy. They must
be satisfied by the final operations sequence. In the present
approach, the PR’s between operations are identified from the
following.
i) Three types of constraints, i.e., fixture requirement, da-
tum requirement, and good manufacturing practice, are
considered to determine the precedence relationships
between features.
• Fixture Requirement: Precedence relationship be-
tween two features exists when machining one
feature first may cause another to be unfixturable.
An example is given in Fig. 1 where F1 (through-
hole) must be drilled before F2 (slot) is machined.
Otherwise, deformation of the slot shoulder would
occur.
• Datum Requirement: When two features have a di-
mensional or geometrical tolerance relationship, the
feature containing the datum should be machined
first. For example, F2 should be machined before F4
(blind-hole) since the bottom face of F2 is the datum
of F4 (see Fig. 1).
• Good Manufacturing Practice: Good manufacturing
practice or rules-of-thumb may also result in prece-
dence relationships between features. In Fig. 1, F4
sits on F3 (slant face). F4 should be drilled before F3
to avoid tool damage.
ii) PR’s among the set of OPT’s for a feature: for every
set of OPT’s obtained through mapping from a feature,
there exists a fixed precedence relationship among those
OPT’s, i.e., roughing operations come before finishing
operations. Some examples are drilling comes before
reaming, milling comes before grinding, etc.
It is worth noting that the determination of PR’s between
operations is also related to the selection of M, T, and
TAD. In the current approach, these two decision-making
activities are treated as independent to keep the problem
manageable. Finally, the identified PR’s are assigned to the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997 281

Fig. 4. Overview of the GA-based process planning system. The flow is described in the text.

relevant M-stages. For a part needing M-stages, all the T, TAD). There is a link between any two M-stages that
PR’s obtained can then be stored in an by matrix: represents the PR between them, i.e., the one that the arrow
PR . If M-stage must be points to must be performed after the other, while a link with
performed before M-stage , PR ; otherwise, PR . double arrows means that there is no PR between the two M-
4) The Process Planning Model—A Network Representa- stages it connects. An M-stage network for the part shown in
tion: Given a part needing M-stages, the process plan- Fig. 1 is generated as shown in Fig. 3.
ning problem can be conveniently described by a network 5) Flexible Process Plan Evaluation Criteria: The most
constrained by their PR’s. The network consists of M- commonly used criteria for process plan evaluation include
stages. Each M-stage consists of several combinations of (M, minimum number of setups, shortest process time, minimum
282 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997

Fig. 5. A string representing a process plan with six operations.

machining cost, etc. Since the detailed information on tool

paths and machining parameters is not available at this stage,
the total machining time cannot be used for plan evaluation.
Instead, the following five cost factors are identified as the
plan evaluation criteria.
i) Machine cost (MC)

MC MCI (1)

where is the total number of operations and MCI is

the machine cost index for using machine , a constant
for a particular machine.
ii) Tool cost (TC)
Fig. 6. An example of applying the cyclic crossover for changing operations
sequence.
TC TCI (2)

where TCI is the tool cost index for using tool , a

constant for a particular tool.
iii) Machine change cost (MCC): a machine change is
needed when two adjacent operations are performed
on different machines

MCC MCCI M M (3)

where MCCI is the machine change cost index and M

is the ID of the machine used to performed operation

if
(4)
if

iv) Setup change cost (SCC): a setup change is needed when

two adjacent operations performed on the same machine
have different TAD’s Fig. 7. An example of machine mutation with size operations.

SCC SCCI M M
These cost factors can be used either individually or collec-
TAD TAD (5) tively as a cost compound based on the actual requirement and
data availability of the job shop.
where SCCI is the setup change cost index, a constant. In summary, the process planning problem can be rephrased
v) Total tool change cost (TCC): a tool change is needed as “to identify a combination of (M, T, TAD) from every
when two adjacent operations performed on the same M-stage and put them into an order which does not violate
machine use different tools any precedence relationships between any two M-stages while
achieving the least cost compound (CC).” CC is a function of
the cost factors introduced above.
TCC TCCI M M

T T (6) B. Applying GA to the Process Planning Problem

Fig. 4 shows the schematic overview of the proposed
where TCCI is the tool change cost index, a constant. process planning system.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997
Fig. 8. The flowchart of the GA-based planner.
1) Knowledge-Based Representation of a Process Plan:
The first step in formulating a GA for process planning
is to map the problem solutions (process plans) to string
representations. Illuminated by the work of Bruns [19], a
knowledge-dependent string is used to represent a process
plan. For an -operation problem, the string is composed of
segments. Each segment contains a (M, T, TAD) from a
unique M-stage and its order in the string. This representation
is illustrated by an example of a six-operation problem shown
in Fig. 5. This string representation can cover all the solution
space due to the selection of machine tools, cutting tools,
TAD’s, and the sequence among operations.
2) Generation of Initial Population: To generate the initial
population of solutions that satisfy the PR’s, a method similar
to that reported in [20] is adopted. The algorithm is described
as follows.
Algorithm for Generating a Solution Based on Given PR’s:
Start with an empty sequence, repeat as long as there are
unhandled M-stages:
• select (at random) an M-stage (M, T, TAD) among those
which have “no predecessors” and append it to the end
of sequence;
• delete the M-stage just handled from the M-stage network,
as well as from the PR matrix.
3) Fitness Evaluation: Once all the solution strings in a
generation are generated, the cost compound (CC) for the
283
plan alternatives represented by these strings can be calculated
using (1)–(6). CC is used as the fitness of the solution
string.
4) Reproduction: The present reproduction operator works
in two steps. First, it applies “elitism” by copying the solution
string having the lowest cost value, thus keeping the cost
function nonincreasing. Second, it uses the “roulette wheel”
method for the reproduction of the remaining string solutions.
5) Crossover: The strings obtained from reproduction are
then mated at a given probability (crossover rate ). To ensure
that the crossover will not result in any violation of PR’s and
each operation in the offspring is executed once and only
once, the cyclic crossover operator proposed by Dagli and
Sittisathanchai [21] is adopted. The algorithm is described as
follows.
Algorithm for Crossover of String 1 and String 2:
1) Determine a cut point randomly from the all the posi-
tions of a string. Each string is then divided into two
parts, the left side and the right side, according the cut
point.
2) Copy the left side of string 1 to form the left side of
offspring 1. The operator constructs the right side of off-
spring 1 according to the order of operations in string 2.
3) Copy the left side of string 2 to form the left side of
offspring 2. The operator constructs the right side of off-
spring 2 according to the order of operations in string 1.
284 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997

This process is illustrated with an example shown in Fig. 6.

A pair of strings, parent 1 and parent 2, is under the crossover
operation in which the cut point is chosen between positions
3 and 4. The left side of parent 1, op4-op1-op2, is used to
form the left side of offspring 1. The order of the right side of
parent 1, op5-op7-op8-op3-op6-op9, is adjusted according to
the order of parent 2 to form the right side of offspring 1. By
doing so, the sequences among the operations in both parent 1
and parent 2 are maintained in offspring 1. A similar operation
is applied to parent 2 and parent 1 to form offspring 2.
6) Mutation: Three mutation operations were developed in
which the process planning heuristics are employed.
i) Machine mutation is used to change the machine to
perform an operation if more than one machine can be
Fig. 9. A prismatic part and all its features. F1: through hole, F2: through
applied. To reduce the total machine changes, machine hole, F3: chamfer, F4: step, F5: slot, F6: slot, F7: through hole, F8: pattern
mutation does not stop at the selected position. Instead, holes, F9: through hole, F10: slot, F11: through hole, F12: through hole, F13:
the machine alternatives for every other operation are slot, F14: step, F15: through hole, F16: through hole, F17: step, F18: blind
hole, and F19: blind hole.
also checked to determine if a mutation can heuristically
reduce machine changes. The algorithm is described as
follows.
Algorithm for Machine Mutation:
1) For every solution string, select an operation (a
position in the string) randomly and use a predeter-
mined probability (mutation rate) to determine
if the machine needs to be changed.
2) Randomly choose a machine (M-b) from all the
alternatives to replace the current machine (M-a).
3) Identify all the other operations in the same string
whose current machine is M-a. If any one of these
Fig. 10. Distribution of solutions for Criterion 1, i.e., minimizing total
operations has M-b as an alternative, assign M-b machining cost.
to replace M-a.
This mutation is illustrated with an example shown in process. Therefore, the three mutation probabilities should
Fig. 7. It can be seen that op3 (M1) is selected for be similar to the crossover rate. Through trial and error,
mutation where M1 is the current machine. M3 is then the three mutation rates were determined as
assigned to op3 to replace M1. It is also found that M1 is
currently used by op1, op4, op5, and op2. Among them, • Stopping criterion. According to our observation, all the
op1, op4, and op5 have M3 as one of their alternative cases (number of operations 40) tested achieved very
machines. Therefore, M3 is assigned to op1, op4, and good results after 8000 generations. The stopping criterion
op5 to replace M1. of 8000 generations was therefore selected.
ii) Tool mutation operates on the solution strings after ma- For more details on the selection of these parameters, see
chine mutation. It has a similar mechanism. [22].
iii) TAD mutation operates on the solution strings after both
machine mutation and tool mutation. It also has a similar C. Setup Plan Generation
mechanism. The output from the GA-based planner provides a set of
The flowchart of the GA-based planner (see Fig. 4) includ- sequenced operations, each of which is attached with M, T,
ing all the GA operations is shown in Fig. 8. and TAD. The setup plan can then be generated by grouping
7) GA Parameters: The settings of GA parameters were the neighboring operations sharing the same machine and TAD
as follows. into the same setup. The details are given in the following
• Population size . algorithm.
• Crossover probability In the present GA for- Algorithm for Setup Generation:
mulation, crossover is equivalent to a change of operation 1) Start with the first operation in the sequenced list. The
sequence that should therefore be vigorously performed first setup is specified by its M and TAD as (M, TAD).
to traverse more points in the solution space. This operation is called the Current Operation, and the
• Mutation probability. The three mutations play a similar setup is the Current Setup.
role as the crossover since the extended solution space 2) If the Current Operation is the last operation in the se-
due to the availability of alternative machines, tools, and quenced list, a solution has been found, stop. Otherwise,
TAD’s must be adequately traversed in the optimizing go to.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997 285

TABLE I
THE OPERATION SELECTION RESULTS FOR THE PART SHOWN IN FIG. 9

TABLE II
THE PRECEDENCE MATRIX BETWEEN OPERATIONS FOR THE PART SHOWN IN FIG. 9. A “1” BETWEEN AN OPX IN
THE FIRST COLUMN AND A OPY IN THE FIRST ROW MEANS THAT OPX MUST BE PERFORMED BEFORE OPY

3) Check the operation next to the Current Operation in 4) Go to 2).

the sequenced list. If it shares the same (M, TAD) with
the Current Setup, group it into the Current Setup and IV. PROCESS PLANNING FOR A SAMPLE PART
it becomes the Current Operation. Otherwise, a new
setup is identified with its (M, TAD) which becomes A. Problem Description
the Current Setup, the operation becomes the Current Fig. 9 shows a prismatic part and the description of its 19
Operation. features. The machining resources and the results of operations
286
(a)
(c)
Fig. 11. The mean performance curves for the GA with respect to the four different criteria listed in the text. Minimizing (a) total machining cost, (b)
number of machine changes, (c) number of setup changes, and (d) number of tool changes.
selection are given in Table I where columns 1 and 2 show
the features and the operations they are mapped to. Column
3 shows the possible TAD’s for each operation. The machine
alternatives for each operation are shown in column 4. The
tool alternatives for each operation are shown in column 5.
The machine types, tool types, and all the cost indexes (in
brackets) are shown in column 6. The precedence relationships
between the operations are then obtained as shown in Table II.
B. Results Against Different Evaluating Criteria
Various evaluating criteria were used to test the GA’s
capability and flexibility of handling process planning prob-
lems under different requirements. To evaluate the GA’s
performance, 60 trials were conducted for each criterion (same
set up, different random initialization seeds). The results are
presented as follows:
• Criterion 1: Minimizing total machining cost, i.e., CC
MC TC MCC SCC TCC. The average machining
cost over 60 trials is 1751, the minimum machining cost
among them is 1739, the maximum machining cost is
1789, and the standard deviation 15.08. Fig. 10 depicts
the distribution of solutions. Fig. 11(a) illustrates the
convergence characteristics of the optimization curve
(cost versus number of generations) which was produced
by averaging the 60 trials. One of the process plans with
a machining cost of 1739 is shown in Table III together
with its number of machine changes, setup changes, and
tool changes.
• Criterion 2: Minimizing number of machine changes only,
i.e., CC MCC. Each of the 60 trials finds a process plan
with zero machine changes. One of the process plans is
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997
(b)
(d)
shown in Table IV. It can be seen that only one machine
is selected, i.e., the CNC milling machine. The total
machining cost is higher, however, than that of any of
the plans generated against Criterion 1. The optimization
curve for these 60 trials is shown in Fig. 11(b).
• Criterion 3: Minimizing number of setup changes only,
i.e., CC SCC. Each of the 60 trials finds a process
plan with zero setup changes. One of the process plans
is shown in Table V. The total machining cost is again
higher than that of any of the plans generated against
Criterion 1. The optimization curve for these 60 trials is
shown in Fig. 11(c).
• Criterion 4: Minimizing number of tool changes only, i.e.,
CC = TCC. Each of the 60 trials finds a process plan with
zero tool changes. One of the process plans is shown
in Table VI. The total machining cost is also higher,
however, than that of any of the plans generated against
Criterion 1. The optimization curve for these 60 trials is
shown in Fig. 11(d).
For each trial of the above settings, the computation time
on a Pentium PC at 90 MHz was less than 12 min. For each of
the three criteria with a single optimization objective (Criteria
2, 3, and 4), the GA found the best solution in every trial. For
the more complicated optimization objective (Criterion 1), the
GA found the known best solution in more than 50% of the
trials.
C. Assessing the Quality of the Solutions
Using a State-Space Search Method
To assess the quality of the plan generated by the GA
planner, a space-state search algorithm has been developed
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997 287

TABLE III
THE PROCESS PLAN AGAINST CRITERION 1

TABLE IV
THE PROCESS PLAN AGAINST CRITERION 2

TABLE V
THE PROCESS PLAN AGAINST CRITERION 3

TABLE VI
THE PROCESS PLAN AGAINST CRITERION 4

to solve the above case. It is similar to the algorithm [23]
while enhancement has been made to consider the selection of
machine, tool, TAD, and operation sequence simultaneously.
1) The State-Space Graph: To reduce the search space,
each operation is first allocated to certain possible positions
in the entire sequence, based on the precedence relationships
among them. For the given problem, for example, only op5 and
op14 can be the first operation to be executed (see Table II).
A space graph can then be constructed from the start node to
the goal node through a series of operations. At the same time,
each operation is attached with its possible combinations of
(M, T, TAD). Any path from the start node to the goal node
with a (M, T, TAD) for each operation represents a single
plan. Since the entire state-space graph is too large to be
represented explicitly, its partial view is shown in Fig. 12
which shows only the first two levels of operations.
2) Search Strategy: With the space graph, the objective is
to find the path of determined (M, T, TAD) with the lowest
total machining cost, i.e., Criterion 1 in Section IV-B. The
state space, however, is too large to be searched exhaustively.
Therefore, the best first strategy was employed. Starting from
the start node, to select an arc which leads to the next
generation, the algorithm checks all the possible operations
and their (M, T, TAD) combinations, the operation that has
288 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997
Fig. 12. A partial view of the space graph generated from Tables I and II.
THE PROCESS PLAN FOUND BY THE
the minimum total cost, i.e., the actual plan cost so far, and
the estimated cost of completing the remaining operations. The
actual plan cost so far can be calculated directly; the remaining
cost is estimated by assuming every remaining operation to be
performed by its cheapest (M, T, TAD) and the cost due to
machine, setup, and tool change as zero.
3) Results: The plan generated by the state-space search
method is shown in Table VII. Compared to the plan found
by the GA (Table III), it has the same machine and setup
changes, but one additional tool change. On the other hand,
the plan from the GA involves a lower total machining cost
(1739) than the one from the state-space search (1784).
V. CONCLUSIONS
The GA approach presented here has advantages over
previous CAPP approaches in the following aspects.
i) A job shop is chosen as the manufacturing environ-
ment. Users, therefore, can modify the manufacturing
database to suit their need. This makes the system more
applicable compared to the approaches in which a fixed
manufacturing environment is assumed.
ii) By concurrently considering the selection of machines,
tools, TAD’s for each operation and the sequence among
the operations, the resulting process plan model suc-
cessfully retains the entire solution space. This makes
TABLE VII
SPACE SEARCH METHOD (AGAINST CRITERION 1)
it possible to find a globally optimal process plan for
a part.
iii) The GA has been successfully applied to search for the
globally optimal solution in the process planning model.
The specially developed GA operators make it possible
to traverse the entire solution space while maintaining
the precedence relationships among operations.
The experimental study indicates that the GA performed
efficiently and reliably on a reasonably complex part requiring
23 operations. Future work includes the development of the
algorithm for the automatic identification of the precedence
relationships between operations.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Alting and H. Zhang, “Computer-aided process planning: The state-
of-the-art survey,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 27, pp. 553–583, 1989.
[2] H. A. Eimaraghy, E. Agerman, and B. J. Davis, “Evolution and future
perspectives of CAPP,” Annals CIRP, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 739–751, 1993.
[3] C. Hayes, “Automating process planning: Using feature interactions to
guide search,” J. Manuf. Syst., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1990.
[4] P. Prabhu, S. Elhence, H. Wang, and R. Wysk, “An operations network
generator for computer aided process planning,” J. Manuf. Syst., vol. 9,
no. 4, pp. 283–291, 1990.
[5] S. K. Gupta and D. S. Nau, “Systematic approach to analyzing the
manufacturability of machined parts,” Comput. Aided Des., vol. 27, no.
5, pp. 323–342, 1995.
[6] C.-C. P. Chu and R. Gadh, “Feature-based approach for set-up mini-
mization of process design from product design,” Comput. Aided Des.,
vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 321–332, 1996.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, VOL. 1, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1997
[7] K. Y. Lee and M. Y. Jung, “Flexible process sequencing using petri net
theory,” Comput. Indust. Eng., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 279–290, 1995.
[8] Y. F. Zhang, A. Y. C. Nee, and S. K. Ong, “A hybrid approach for set-up
planning,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. vol. 10, pp. 183–190, 1995.
[9] S. E. Sarma and P. K. Wright, “Algorithms for the minimization of
setups and tool changes in simply fixturable components in milling,” J.
Manuf. Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, 1996.
[10] C. L. P. Chen and S. R. LeClair, “Integration of design and manu-
facturing: Solving setup generation and feature sequencing using an
unsupervised-learning approach,” Comput. Aided Des., vol. 26, no. 1,
1994.
[11] S. A. Irani, H.-Y. Koo, and S. Raman, “Feature-based operation se-
quence generation in CAPP,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 33, no. 1, pp.
17–39, 1995.
[12] L. Davis, “Job shop scheduling with genetic algorithms,” in Proc. 1st
Int. Conf. Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, J. J. Greferstette,
Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1985, pp. 136–140.
[13] J. E. Biegel and J. Davern, “Genetic algorithms and job scheduling,”
Comput. Indust. Eng., vol. 19, pp. 81–91, 1990.
[14] J. Y. Suh and D. Van Gucht, “Incorporating heuristic information
into genetic search,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Genetic Algorithms, J. J.
Greferstette, Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987, pp. 100–107.
[15] K. A. De Jong and W. M. Spears, “Using genetic algorithms to solve NP-
complete problems,” in Proc. Third Int. Conf. Genetic Algorithms, J. D.
289
Schaffer, Ed. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, pp. 124–132.
[16] J. Váncza and A. Márkus, “Genetic algorithms in process planning,”
Comput. Indust., vol. 17, pp. 181–194, 1991.
[17] B. Awadh, N. Sepehri, and O. Hawaleshka, “A computer-aided process
planning model based on genetic algorithms,” Comput. Oper. Res., vol.
22, no. 8, pp. 841–856, 1995.
[18] D. Yip-Hoi and D. Dutta, “A genetic algorithm application for sequenc-
ing operations in process planning for parallel machining,” IIE Trans.,
vol. 28, pp. 55–68, 1996.
[19] R. Bruns, “Direct chromosome representation and advanced genetic
operators for production scheduling,” in Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Genetic
Algorithms, S. Forrest, Ed. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1993,
pp. 352–359.
[20] E. Falkenauer and A. Delchambre, “A genetic algorithm for bin pack-
ing and line balancing,” in Proc. 1992 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and
Automation. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1992, pp.
1186–1192.
[21] C. Dagli and S. Sittisathanchai, “Genetic neuro-scheduler for job shop
scheduling,” Comput. Indust. Eng., vol. 25, no. 1/4, pp. 267–270, 1993.
[22] F. Zhang, “Genetic algorithm in computer-aided process planning,”
M.Eng. thesis, National Univ. Singapore, 1997.
[23] A. Barr and E. A. Feigenbaum, The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence,
vol. I. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.