Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A mathematical model for the joint optimization of machining conditions and tool replacement policy with stochastic tool life in the milling process

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One major problem in the machining process is the optimization of tool replacement policy and machining condition simultaneously. Although many studies have been developed to optimize the machining process considering the stochastic tool life, they have not optimized these two problems together. Therefore, unlike these investigations, the objective of this study is to develop an integrated mathematical model for joint-optimization of tool replacement policy and machining condition given the dependence between them and various costs in the machining process. In this paper, the dependence of cutting tool life distribution and surface roughness of workpiece to the machining conditions is modeled based on a five-step methodology initially. For this purpose, empirical data of a milling process obtained via design of experiments (DOE) based on Box-Behnken design (BBD) is used. These data, converted by total time on test (TTT), transform and using an optimization process based on golden section search (GSS), the relation between machining conditions and parameters of the tool life distribution is obtained as a full quadratic model. The R2 values for the surface roughness, shape, and scale parameters in the full quadratic models are 89.61, 92.52, and 96.80% respectively, which confirms the adequacy of the proposed methodology. Then, a mathematical optimization model is proposed for multi-pass machining with considering costs related to tool replacement policies, direct labor costs, machining costs, loading/unloading of workpiece costs, and quality costs in a machining process. The proposed model of this study can optimize both of the tool replacement policy and the machining conditions simultaneously and also it can lead to choosing the optimized policy of the continuous or the discrete tool condition monitoring approaches. This model is implemented on a case study and its result is reported. For solving the mathematical model, the electromagnetism-like mechanism algorithm is used that has the proper performance to optimize the continuous spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mukherjee I, Ray PK (2006) A review of optimization techniques in metal cutting processes. Comput Ind Eng 50(1):15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2005.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Davoodi B, Eskandari B (2015) Tool wear mechanisms and multi-response optimization of tool life and volume of material removed in turning of N-155 iron–nickel-base superalloy using RSM. Measurement 68:286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Li C, Xiao Q, Tang Y, Li L (2016) A method integrating Taguchi, RSM and MOPSO to CNC machining parameters optimization for energy saving. J Clean Prod 135:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Asiltürk I, Neşeli S, Ince MA (2016) Optimisation of parameters affecting surface roughness of Co28Cr6Mo medical material during CNC lathe machining by using the Taguchi and RSM methods. Measurement 78:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.09.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar R, Chauhan S (2015) Study on surface roughness measurement for turning of al 7075/10/SiCp and Al 7075 hybrid composites by using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural networking (ANN). Measurement 65:166–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shahabi HH, Ratnam MM (2010) Noncontact roughness measurement of turned parts using machine vision. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46(1–4):275–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2101-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shahabi HH, Ratnam MM (2016) Simulation and measurement of surface roughness via grey scale image of tool in finish turning. Precis Eng 43:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2015.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sen M, Shan HS (2006) Optimal selection of machining conditions in the electrojet drilling process using hybrid NN-DF-GA approach. Mater Manuf Process 21(4):349–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426910500411561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoon HS, Wu R, Lee TM, Ahn SH (2011) Geometric optimization of micro drills using Taguchi methods and response surface methodology. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 12(5):871–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-011-0116-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Guu YH, Deng CS, Hou MTK, Hsu CH, Tseng KS (2012) Optimization of machining parameters for stress concentration in microdrilling of titanium alloy. Mater Manuf Process 27(2):207–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2011.566657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liang YT, Chiou YC (2012) Parametric optimization of micro drilling using machine vision technique combined with Taguchi method. In advanced materials research. Trans Tech Publ 468:2487–2490

  12. Dureja JS, Gupta VK, Sharma VS, Dogra M, Bhatti MS (2016) A review of empirical modeling techniques to optimize machining parameters for hard turning applications. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 230(3):389–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405414558731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalpakjian S, Schmid S (2006) Manufacturing, engineering and technology SI 6th edition-Serope Kalpakjian and Stephen Schmid: manufacturing. Engineering and Technology, Digit Des. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2006.08.005

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hui YV, Leung LC, Linn R (2001) Optimal machining conditions with costs of quality and tool maintenance for turning. Int J Prod Res 39(4):647–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540010011063

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu W, Cao L (2015) Optimal tool replacement with product quality deterioration and random tool failure. Int J Prod Res 53(6):1736–1745. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.957878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang X, Wang B, Chunmei LV, Chen X, Zhang Y (2017) Research on tool change time and the dynamic reliability of the machining process based on sensitivity analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89(5–8):1535–1544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9177-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vagnorius Z, Rausand M, Sørby K (2010) Determining optimal replacement time for metal cutting tools. Eur J Oper Res 206(2):407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.023

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Rodriguez CEP, de Souza GFM (2010) Reliability concepts applied to cutting tool change time. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(8):866–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pearn WL, Hsu YC (2007) Optimal tool replacement for processes with low fraction defective. Eur J Oper Res 180(3):1116–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.05.030

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Hsu BM, Shu MH (2010) Reliability assessment and replacement for machine tools under wear deterioration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 48(1–4):355–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2257-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Salonitis K, Kolios A (2014) Reliability assessment of cutting tool life based on surrogate approximation methods. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(5-8):1197–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5560-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Conrads A, Scheffer M, Mattern H, König M, Thewes M (2017) Assessing maintenance strategies for cutting tool replacements in mechanized tunneling using process simulation. J Simul 11(1):51–61. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41273-016-0046-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gupta MK, Sood PK, Sharma VS (2016) Machining parameters optimization of titanium alloy using response surface methodology and particle swarm optimization under minimum-quantity lubrication environment. Mater Manuf Process 31(13):1671–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1117632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hashmi KH, Zakria G, Raza MB, Khalil S (2016) Optimization of process parameters for high speed machining of Ti-6Al-4V using response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 85(5–8):1847–1856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8057-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kant G, Sangwan KS (2014) Prediction and optimization of machining parameters for minimizing power consumption and surface roughness in machining. J Clean Prod 83:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yildiz AR (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm for the selection of optimal machining parameters in milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 64(1–7):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4013-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yildiz AR (2013) Hybrid Taguchi-differential evolution algorithm for optimization of multi-pass turning operations. Appl Soft Comput 13(3):1433–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ming X, Gao Q, Yan H, Liu J, Liao C (2017) Mathematical modeling and machining parameter optimization for the surface roughness of face gear grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(9–12):2453–2460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tan FP, Creese RC (1995) A generalized multi-pass machining model for machining parameter selection in turning. Int J Prod Res 33(5):1467–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207549508930221

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Shukla R, Singh D (2017) Selection of parameters for advanced machining processes using firefly algorithm. Eng Sci Technol Int J 20(1):212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shukla R, Singh D (2017) Experimentation investigation of abrasive water jet machining parameters using Taguchi and evolutionary optimization techniques. Swarm Evol Comput 32:167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2016.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jiang Z, Zhou F, Zhang H, Wang Y, Sutherland JW (2015) Optimization of machining parameters considering minimum cutting fluid consumption. J Clean Prod 108:183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Juan H, Yu SF, Lee BY (2003) The optimal cutting-parameter selection of production cost in HSM for SKD61 tool steels. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43(7):679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(03)00038-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Birbil Şİ, Fang SC (2003) An electromagnetism-like mechanism for global optimization. J Glob Optim 25(3):263–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022452626305

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Koupaei JA, Hosseini SMM, Ghaini FM (2016) A new optimization algorithm based on chaotic maps and golden section search method. Eng Appl Artif Intell 50:201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Standard ISO (1993) 3685. Tool-life Testing with Single Point Turning Tools. https://www.iso.org/standard/9151.html

  37. Rausand M, Arnljot HÃ (2004) System reliability theory: models, statistical methods, and applications, vol. 396. John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/enus/System+Reliability+Theory%3A+Models%2C+Statistical+Methods%2C+and+Applications%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780471471332

  38. Kiefer J (1953) Sequential minimax search for a maximum. Proc Am Math Soc 4(3):502–506. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1953-0055639-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Dimla DE (2000) Sensor signals for tool-wear monitoring in metal cutting operations—a review of methods. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40(8):1073–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(99)00122-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Song S, Coit DW, Feng Q, Peng H (2014) Reliability analysis for multi-component systems subject to multiple dependent competing failure processes. IEEE Trans Reliab 63(1):331–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2014.2299693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Song S, Coit DW, Feng Q (2014) Reliability for systems of degrading components with distinct component shock sets. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 132:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.06.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Budak E, Tekeli A (2005) Maximizing chatter free material removal rate in milling through optimal selection of axial and radial depth of cut pairs. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54(1):353–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60121-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Taguchi G, Elsayed EA, Hsiang TC (1989) Quality engineering in production systems, vol 173. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Brito TG, Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Gomes JHF, Balestrassi PP (2014) A normal boundary intersection approach to multi response robust optimization of the surface roughness in end milling process with combined arrays. Precis Eng 38(3):628–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2014.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kumar NS, Shetty A, Shetty A, Ananth K, Shetty H (2012) Effect of spindle speed and feed rate on surface roughness of carbon steels in CNC turning. Proced Eng 38:691–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.087

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave., Tehran, Iran

    Arash Zaretalab, Hamidreza Shahabi Haghighi, Saeed Mansour & Mohsen S. Sajadieh

Authors
  1. Arash Zaretalab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamidreza Shahabi Haghighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeed Mansour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohsen S. Sajadieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamidreza Shahabi Haghighi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaretalab, A., Haghighi, H.S., Mansour, S. et al. A mathematical model for the joint optimization of machining conditions and tool replacement policy with stochastic tool life in the milling process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96, 2319–2339 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1683-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1683-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation