Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:18:17.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Machining scheme selection based on a new discrete particle swarm optimization and analytic hierarchy process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2014

Yan-Juan Hu
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Changchun University of Technology, Changchun, China
Yao Wang
Affiliation:
College of Mechanical Engineering, Beihua University, Jilin, China
Zhan-Li Wang*
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Changchun University of Technology, Changchun, China
Yi-Qiang Wang
Affiliation:
Ningbo Institute of Technology, Zhejiang University, Ningbo, China
Bang-Cheng Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Changchun University of Technology, Changchun, China
*
Reprint requests to: Zhan-li Wang, School of Mechatronic Engineering, Changchun University of Technology, Changchun, 130012, China. E-mail:wangzl@mail.ccut.edu.cn

Abstract

The goal of machining scheme selection (MSS) is to select the most appropriate machining scheme for a previously designed part, for which the decision maker must take several aspects into consideration. Because many of these aspects may be conflicting, such as time, cost, quality, profit, resource utilization, and so on, the problem is rendered as a multiobjective one. Consequently, we consider a multiobjective optimization problem of MSS in this study, where production profit and machining quality are to be maximized while production cost and production time must be minimized, simultaneously. This paper presents a new discrete method for particle swarm optimization, which can be widely applied in MSS to find out the set of Pareto-optimal solutions for multiobjective optimization. To deal with multiple objectives and enable the decision maker to make decisions according to different demands on each evaluation index, an analytic hierarchy process is implemented to determine the weight value of evaluation indices. Case study is included to demonstrate the feasibility and robustness of the hybrid algorithm. It is shown from the case study that the multiobjective optimization model can simply, effectively, and objectively select the optimal machining scheme according to the different demands on evaluation indices.

Type
Regular Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babic, B.R., Nesic, N., & Miljkovic, Z. (2011). Automatic feature recognition using artificial neural networks to integrate design and manufacturing: review of automatic feature recognition systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 25(3), 289304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, F.T.S., Chung, S.H., & Wadhwa, S. (2005). A hybrid genetic algorithm for production and distribution. Omega 33(4), 345355.Google Scholar
Chen, Q., Worden, K., Peng, P., & Leung, A.Y.T. (2007). Genetic algorithm with an improved fitness function for (N) ARX modeling. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 21(2), 9941007.Google Scholar
Chen, Y.Y., & Lin, J.T. (2009). A modified particle swarm optimization for production planning problems in the TFT array process. Expert Systems With Applications 36(10), 1226412271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicirello, V.A., & Regli, W.C. (2002). An approach to a feature-based comparison of solid models of machined parts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(5), 385399.Google Scholar
Guo, P., & Zheng, W.W. (1995). Certain improvements in application of AHP. Systems Engineering 13(1), 2831.Google Scholar
Guo, Y.W., Li, W.D., Mileham, A.R., & Owen, G.W. (2009). Applications of particle swarm optimisation in integrated process planning and scheduling. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25(2), 280288.Google Scholar
Huang, C.C., Chu, P.Y., & Chiang, Y.H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega 36(6), 10381052.Google Scholar
Kalyani, S., & Swarup, K.S. (2011). Classifier design for static security assessment using particle swarm optimization. Applied Soft Computing 11(1), 658666.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R.C. (1995). Particle swarm optimization. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks. Perth, Australia: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Leung, C.W., Wong, T.N., Mak, K.L., & Fung, R.Y.K. (2010). Integrated process planning and scheduling by an agent-based ant colony optimization. Computers & Industrial Engineering 59(1), 166180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Fuh, J.Y.H., Zhang, Y.F., & Nee, A.Y.C. (2005). Application of genetic algorithm to computer-aided process planning in distributed manufacturing environments. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 21(6), 568578.Google Scholar
Li, X.Y., Shao, X.Y., Gao, L., & Qian, W.R. (2010). An effective hybrid algorithm for integrated process planning and scheduling. International Journal of Production Economics 126(2), 289298.Google Scholar
Marinaki, M., Marinakis, Y., & Stavroulakis, G.E. (2010). Fuzzy control optimized by PSO for vibration suppression of beams. Control Engineering Practice 18(6), 618629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melón, M.G., Beltran, P.A., & Cruz, M.C.G. (2008). An AHP-based evaluation procedure for innovative educational projects: a face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study. Omega 36(5), 754765.Google Scholar
Nagahanumaiah, Ravi B., & Mukherjee, N.P. (2007). Rapid tooling manufacturability evaluation using fuzzy-AHP methodology. International Journal of Production Research 45(5), 11611181.Google Scholar
Nelson, A.L., Barlow, G.J., & Doitsidis, L. (2009). Fitness functions in evolutionary robotics: a survey and analysis. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 57(4), 345370.Google Scholar
Rabbani, M., Bajestani, M.A., & Khoshkhou, G.B. (2010). A multi-objective particle swarm optimization for project selection problem. Expert Systems With Applications 37(1), 315321.Google Scholar
Rezaei, J., & Dowlatshahi, S. (2010). A rule-based multi-criteria approach to inventory classification. International Journal of Production Research 48(23), 71077126.Google Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (1985). Decision Making for Leaders to Make a Decision. Belmont, CA: Time Life.Google Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48(1), 926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salehi, M., & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2009). Application of genetic algorithm to computer-aided process planning in preliminary and detailed planning. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 22(8), 11791187.Google Scholar
Shao, X.Y., Li, X.Y., Gao, L., & Zhang, C.Y. (2009). Integration of process planning and scheduling—a modified genetic algorithm-based approach. Computers & Operations Research 36(6), 20822096.Google Scholar
Shi, Y.H., & Eberhart, R.C. (1998). A modified particle swarm optimizer. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Evolutionary Computation. Anchorage, AK: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Sibalija, T.V., Majstorovic, V.D., & Miljkovic, Z.D. (2011). An intelligent approach to robust multi-response process design. International Journal of Production Research 49(17), 50795097.Google Scholar
Sun, J.W., Chu, J.K., & Sun, B.Y. (2012). A unified model of harmonic characteristic parameter method for dimensional synthesis of linkage mechanism. Application Mathematical Modelling 36(12), 60016010.Google Scholar
Sun, J.W., Mu, D.Q., & Chu, J.K. (2012). Fourier series method for path generation of RCCC mechanism. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 226(C3), 816827.Google Scholar
Topaloglu, S. (2006). A multi-objective programming model for scheduling emergency medicine residents. Computers & Industrial Engineering 51(3), 375388.Google Scholar
Unler, A., & Murat, A. (2010). A discrete particle swarm optimization method for feature selection in binary classification problems. European Journal of Operational Research 206(3), 528539.Google Scholar
Vosniakos, G.-C., Galiotou, V., Pantelis, D., Benardos, P., & Pavlou, P. (2009). The scope of artificial neural network metamodels for precision casting process planning. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25(6), 909916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H.S., Che, Z.H., & Wu, C.W. (2010). Using analytic hierarchy process and particle swarm optimization algorithm for evaluating product plans. Expert Systems With Applications 37(2), 10231034.Google Scholar
Wu, Q. (2011). A self-adaptive embedded chaotic particle swarm optimization for parameters selection of Wv-SVM. Expert Systems With Applications 38(1), 184192.Google Scholar
Wu, Z.T., Zhang, E., & Jiang, C.W. (1994). Accuracy Standards of Gear and Inspection Manual. Beijing: China Metrology Publishing.Google Scholar
Yeh, W.C. (2009). A two-stage discrete particle swarm optimization for the problem of multiple multi-level redundancy allocation in series systems. Expert Systems With Applications 36(5), 91929200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeh, W.C., Chang, W.W., & Chung, Y.Y. (2009). A new hybrid approach for mining breast cancer pattern using discrete particle swarm optimization and statistical method. Expert Systems With Applications 36(4), 82048211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yıldız, A.R. (2009). A novel particle swarm optimization approach for product design and manufacturing. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 40(5–6), 617628.Google Scholar
Zhang, M.J., & Smart, W. (2006). Using Gaussian distribution to construct fitness functions in genetic programming for multiclass object classification. Pattern Recognition Letters 27(11), 12661274.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z.X. (1995). Process planning with multi-level fuzzy decision-making. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 8(4), 245254.Google Scholar