Improvement by Genetic Algorithm in Finding the

Optimum Surface Finish When End Milling Ti64 using

SNTR coated tools
A.S Mohrunia , S. Sharif, M.Y. Noordinb A .Novliantaa

Faculty of Engineering,
Sriwijaya University,
Indralaya, 30662 OI-Indonesia
E-mail : Anggaimoetskali4@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In this works, surface roughness for end milling of Ti-6Al-4V under wet conditions were optimized.
Genetic algorithm (AG) was used for finding the optimum cutting conditions such as cutting speed
(V), feed per tooth (fz), and radial rake angle (γo). The optimized results were compared to that had
been generated using response surface methodology (RSM). It has been proven that AG-results
showed more accurate than RSM-results which have been validated using data taken according to
the design of experiments (DOE).

Keywords: Surface Roughness, End Milling, Titanium Alloys, Genetic Algorithm, Response
Surface Methodology

Introduction materials. Base on these facts, it is necessary to take part in

Titanium alloys are used widely known as difficult to
cut materials, especially at higher cutting speeds, due to
their several inherent properties. Among the titanium alloys,
Ti-6Al-4V is the most widely used in the aerospace,
chemical and ship building industry because of their
superior mechanical properties, heat and corrosions
resistance, so it has been chosen as the workpiece in this
study.[1].
Due their low machinability of the alloy under study,
selecting the machining conditions and parameters is
crucial. According to the past reports, the range of feeds
and cutting speeds which provide a satisfactory tool
performance is very limited. On the other hand, adequate
tool, coating, geometry and cutting flow materials should
be used [2].
contribution of providing such lack in information
Procedure of Experiments
MAHO 700S CNC machining center for side milling
operation was used. The grade K-30 solid carbide end mill
cutters, with PVD Supernitride coated which were prepared
with different radial rake angle according to DOE, were
used for experimentation.
Surface roughness of the machined surface was
measured using portable Taylor Hobson Surftronic +3.
Before conducting the measurement, the instrument was
calibrated using a standard specimen roughness delivered to
ensure the consistency and accuracy of surface roughness
values. .

The study of [3] has pioneered in finding of the
optimum cutting conditions for machining processes using
response surface methodology, which are followed by [4]-
[5]. After that, [6]-[8] have begun with the researches using
titanium alloy as workpiece. Recently, it has begun to
explore the study using non-conventional algorithm in [9]-
[11]. Furthermore, according to the previous studies, there
is no researcher employed genetic algorithm in searching
the optimum cutting conditions for machining of aerospace
There are three cutting parameters used in this
study, such as cutting speed, feed rate, and radial rake
angle. Machining conditions used in this optimization study
for each cutting parameters are :
• Cutting speed V : 130 - 160 m/min.
• Feed rate fz : 0,03 - 0,07 mm/teeth.
• Radial rake angle : 7 - 13o
 Cutting parameters such as cutting speed, feed rate, and Genetic Algorithm (AG) inspired from biological
radial rake angle are coded using transformed equation (1) evolution where the evolution is the method of searching
according to circumstance of limitation of the milling among en enormous number possibilities for solutions. AG
machine. is the algorithm of searching base on selection and genetic
ln xn − ln xn0 mechanism.
x= (1)
ln xn1 − ln xn0
The solution found by Genetic Algorithm is coded to
Where x the coded variable of any factor binary numbers called chromosomes. The fitness value of
corresponding to its natural is xn, xn1 is the natural value at each chromosome evaluated by an objective function.
the +1 level and xn0 is the natural value of the factor Selected individuals are then reproduced, the selecting
corresponding to the base or zero level. The level of usually in pairs through the application of genetic operator.
independent variables and coding identification are shows These operators are applied to copulate of individuals with
in Table 1. a given probability, and result in new offspring. The
offspring from reproduction are then evaluated by mutation
and elitism probability, and then these new individuals are
Table 1. Levels of independent variables for end milling Ti6Al4V prime for the next generation. Selection, reproduction and
Level in coded form evaluation processes are repeated until some termination
criteria are achieved. The flow chart of AG method is
Independent Variable
-α -1 0 1 α showed by figure 1.

V (mm. min −1 ) x1 124.5 130 144.2 160 167.03

3 2
To solve the problem in this optimization study, it’s
important to pick out the following parameters that take
fz (mm.tooth −1 ) x 2 0.025 0 0.046 0 0.083 crucial part of AG, such as population size, maximum
.03 .07 number of generation, total string length, crossover
probability, mutation probability, and elitism probability.
γο (°) x3 6.2 7.0 9.5 1 14.8
It’s important to acquire the best solutions. To solve the
3.0
problem in this optimization study, it’s important to pick
out the following parameters that take crucial part of GA,
such as population size, maximum number of generation,
total string length, crossover probability, mutation
probability, and elitism probability. It’s important to acquire
the best solutions.
Research Methodology
Parameters used in this study using GA that must determine
are [13]:
The mathematical model used in this study is 2nd CCD
surface roughness model. Genetic algorithm result • Population size = 80
compared to the response surface methodology. The • Maximum generation = 15
mathematical model shown by equation (2) • Crossover probability (Pc) = 0.45
Ў2 = -1.0014 – 0.085531x1 + 0.43082x2 - 0.070215x1 +
2
• Mutation probability (Pm) = 0.25
2
0.057597x2 -0.016614x1x3 - 0.020616x2x3 - • Elitism probability (Pe) = 0.5
0.0752385x12 + 0.0787339x1x2
(2)

Thus model is valid for end milling of titanium alloy,

Ti-6Al-4V using Supernitride coated carbide tools under
wet conditions with the following range of respective
cutting speed (V, fz, and γ) : 130 ≤ V ≤ 160 m/min; 0.03 ≤
fz ≤ 0.07 mm/teeth; 7 ≤ γ ≤ 13 (o) for std order 1 to std
order 24.
2nd order CCD surface roughness model also used for std
order 13 to std order 24 with the following range of
respective cutting speed (V, fz, and γ) : 124.53 ≤ V ≤
167.03 m/min; 0.025 ≤ fz ≤ 0.083 mm/teeth; 6.2 ≤ γ ≤
14.8 (o).
 Initial Population 14 Axial -1.1412 0 0 0,320
15 Axial 1.1412 0 0 0,272
Gen =0 16 Axial 1.1412 0 0 0,288
17 Axial 0 -1.1412 0 0,230

Evaluate Solution 18 Axial 0 -1.1412 0 0,234

19 Axial 0 1.1412 0 0,640
20 Axial 0 1.1412 0 0,696
Gen=gen+1 Reproduction
21 Axial 0 0 -1.1412 0,361
22 Axial 0 0 -1.1412 0,360
Crossover 23 Axial 0 0 1.1412 0,368

No 24 Axial 0 0 1.1412 0,360

Mutation Table 3 shows the optimization result of RSM and AG,

and then compared to find out root mean square error
Termination (RMSE) of RSM and AG method.
yes Table 3: The optimization result for RSM and GA
Stop Std Experimenta
RSM Ra AG Ra
Order l Ra
Figure 1: Genetic algorithm flow chart
1 0,284 0,282 0,284

2 0,196 0,193 0,197

3 0,668 0,639 0,635

Results and Discussion
4 0,624 0,600 0,617

Surface roughness experimental result for Supernitride 5 0,280 0,282 0,280

coated solid carbide tools showed by table 2. This result 6 0,190 0,193 0,190
used for validate the comparison between Response Surface
Methodology and Genetic Algorithm. 7 0,612 0,639 0,612

8 0,576 0,600 0,576

Table 2: Surface roughness result for Supernitride coated solid 9 0,329 0,380 0,346
carbide tools 10 0,416 0,380 0,415
Std V fz (mm/
Type γ (⁰) Ra (µm) 11 0,352 0,380 0,352
Oder (m/min) tooth)

1 Factorial -1 -1 -1 0,284 12 0,400 0,380 0,403

2 Factorial 1 -1 -1 0,196 13 0,344 0,360 0,362

3 Factorial -1 1 -1 0,668 14 0,320 0,360 0,361

4 Factorial 1 1 -1 0,624 15 0,272 0,282 0,283
5 Factorial -1 -1 1 0,280 16 0,288 0,282 0,285
6 Factorial 1 -1 1 0,190
17 0,230 0,224 0,224
7 Factorial -1 1 1 0,612
18 0,234 0,224 0,225
8 Factorial 1 1 1 0,576
19 0,640 0,758 0,641
9 Center 0 0 0 0,329
20 0,696 0,758 0,696
10 Center 0 0 0 0,416
21 0,361 0,367 0,368
11 Center 0 0 0 0,352
12 Center 0 0 0 0,400 22 0,360 0,367 0,368

13 Axial -1.1412 0 0 0,344 23 0,368 0,367 0,368

 144,234973 0,02545413 9,54293385
24 0,360 0,367 0,368 17 6 2 5 0,224
144,234973 0,02549252 9,54293385
18 6 9 5 0,225
Table 4: The Optimization Result for RSM 144,234973 0,07356909 9,54293385
19 6 5 5 0,641
144,234973 0,07815443 9,54293385
fz 20 6 5 5 0,696
NO V (m/min) (mm/tooth γ (0) Ra (µm)
)

1 160,00 0,030000 8,3130 0,19298 RMSE comparison of RSM and GA about experimental
2 160,00 0,030000 9,3537 0,19298 data from the previous research showed by Table 4.
12,822
3 160,00 0,030000 0 0,19298 Table 6: Comparison between Response Surface Methodology
validate with experimental result
4 160,00 0,030000 11,0570 0,19298
Std Experime
10,990 RSM AG Estimated Estimated
Orde n
5 160,00 0,030000 0 0,19298 Ra Ra Error RSM Error AG
r tal Ra
10,447
6 160,00 0,030000 0 0,19298 1 0,284 0,282 0,284 4,03254E-06 1,86539E-07
10,416
7 160,00 0,030000 0 0,19298 2 0,196 0,193 0,197 9,13705E-06 1,05855E-06

8 160,00 0,030000 7,9021 0,19298 3 0,668 0,639 0,635 0,000818617 0,001059942

12,920
9 160,00 0,030000 0 0,19298 4 0,624 0,600 0,617 0,000599008 4,79605E-05

10 160,00 0,030000 9,0691 0,19298 5 0,280 0,282 0,280 3,96759E-06 3,17621E-08

6 0,190 0,193 0,190 8,86399E-06 6,29325E-05

7 0,612 0,639 0,612 0,000750131 5,12766E-08

Table 5 : The Optimization Result for AG
fz 8 0,576 0,600 0,576 0,000553443 1,69157E-07
NO V (m/min) γ (0) Ra (µm)
(mm/tooth) 9 0,329 0,380 0,346 0,002605034 0,000300692
0,03163089 7,24614747
1 132,906315 4 9 0,284 10 0,416 0,380 0,415 0,001293155 1,37661E-06
158,559030 0,03033763 7,02737840 11 0,352 0,380 0,352 0,000786215 5,11355E-08
2 9 1 5 0,197
130,977652 0,06957743 8,16452547 12 0,400 0,380 0,403 0,00039842 7,9734E-06
3 9 2 5 0,635
146,016759 0,06989131 13 0,344 0,360 0,362 0,00026509 0,00031128
4 3 5 9,53713297 0,617
131,377499 0,03062453 14 0,320 0,360 0,361 0,001622606 0,001657032
5 6 5 9,623519611 0,280 15 0,272 0,282 0,283 0,000101215 0,000124301
159,802941 0,03076269 9,65539131
6 3 1 4 0,190 16 0,288 0,282 0,285 3,52771E-05 1,21589E-05
134,125845 0,06761216 12,6585162
7 7 4 7 0,612 17 0,230 0,224 0,224 3,43118E-05 3,16323E-05
145,543298 0,06591816 12,4248268
8 2 6 8 0,576 18 0,234 0,224 0,225 9,71729E-05 8,8526E-05
158,268258 0,04618864 9,56871480 19 0,640 0,758 0,641 0,013947146 9,31132E-07
9 6 3 6 0,346
0,05190277 10,4244459 20 0,696 0,758 0,696 0,003856166 4,19497E-08
10 153,709782 9 9 0,415
155,151448 0,04603766 9,54573594 21 0,361 0,367 0,368 4,05103E-05 4,48784E-05
11 3 6 2 0,352
22 0,360 0,367 0,368 5,42398E-05 5,97878E-05
0,05141653 10,3526380
12 156,813422 1 1 0,403 23 0,368 0,367 0,368 4,03517E-07 9,05191E-08
13 124,526509 0,04616723 9,54 0,362
24 0,360 0,367 0,368 5,42398E-05 5,92767E-05
0,04600321 9,55385571
14 124,526509 7 9 0,361 Mean Square Error 0,0011641 0,000161348
167,027957 9,54293385
15 1 0,046193011 5 0,283 RMSE 0,034118912 0,0127023
166,733424 9,54293385
16 7 0,046 5 0,285
The result from Table 4. shows that Genetic Algorithm is
better than response Surface Methodology. It can be seen
from RMSE from RSM and AG method.
Comparison of RSM and AG method about experimental
data showed by Figure 2.
Figure 2: Comparison of RSM and AG method validate out with
experimental result.
Based on the results above, optimum combination of
cutting conditions such as cutting speed, feed rate, and
radial rake angle for achieving minimum surface roughness
value for machining Ti-6Al-4V, can be found by AG
method.
Conclusions
Overall performance of optimizing the cutting
conditions using genetic algorithm has shown slightly
better results than those using response surface
methodology. This can be recognized from the root
mean squared error (RMSE) of AG which is 0,0127023,
when compared to the RMSE of RSM 0,034118912.
Additionally AG showed also more precise than RSM in
finding of the minimum surface roughness value.
Genetic algorithm can accomplish the optimization of
surface roughness in machining of aerospace materials
with adequate accuracy, which is required in industry..
The optimum cutting condition found using genetic
algorithm is as follows : cutting speeds V = 159,8
m/min, feed per tooth fz = 0,0307mm/tooth and radial
rake angle γ0 = 9,6550.
References
Z.A. Zoya and R. Krishnamurty, “The Performance of CBN
Tools in the Machining of Titanuim Alloys”, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 100, pp. 80-86,
2000.
L.N. Lopez de lacalle, J. Perez, J.I. Llorente, J.A. Sanchez,
“Advanced Cutting Condtions for the Milling of
Aeronautical Alloys”, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, Vol. 100, pp. 1-11, 2000
K.C. Lo and N.N.S. Chen, “Prediction of Tool Life in Hot
Machining of Alloy Steel”, International Journal fro
production research, Vol. 15, pp. 47-63, 1977.
M. Alauddin, M.A. El-Baradie, M.S.J. Hasjhmi, “Modeling
of Cutting Force in End Milling Inconel 718”, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 58, pp. 100-108,
1996.
M. Alauddin,-M.A. Mazid, M.A. El-Baradie, M.S.J.
Hasjhmi, “Cutting Forces in End Milling Inconel 718”,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 77, pp.
153-159, 1998.
Z.G. Wang, M. Rahman, Y.S. Wong, “Tool Wear
Characteristics of Binderless CBN Tools Used ib High
Speed Milling of Titanium Alloys”, Wear, Vol.258, pp. 752-
758, 2005.
T.L. Ginta, A.K.M.N. Amin, A.N.M. Karim, M.h.
Istihtiyaq, “Modeling for Surface ted WC-Co and
Roughness in End Milling of Titanium Alloy Ti-6Al-4V
Using Uncoated PCD Inserts”, Proceeding of The 4th
International Conference of Leading Edge Manufacturing
in 21st Century, CP 7A(103), Fukuoka, 7-9 November,
Japan, 2007.
A.S. Mohruni, S. Sharif, and M.y. Noordin, “Mathematical
Modeling of Cutting Force un End Milling Titanuim Ti-
6Al-4V using Supernitride Coated Carbide Tools”,
Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical &
Manufacturing Engineering (ICME2008), ISBN: 97-98-
2963-59-2, Johor Bahru, 21-23 May, MFG ID 0394, 2008.
N. Baskar, P. Asokan, r. Saravanan, G. Prabhaharan,
“Optimization of Machining Parameters for Milling
Operations Using Non-Conventional Methods:,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1078-1088, 2005
N.S.K. Reddy and P.V. Rao, “A Genetic Algorithm
Approach for Optimization of Surface Roughness
prediction Model in Dry Milling”, Machining Science and
Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 63-84, 2005.
N.K. Jain, V.K. Jain, K. Deb, “Optimization of process
Parameters of Mechanical Type Advanced Machining
Processes using Genetic Algorithms”, International Journal
of Machine Tools & Manufacture, Vol. 47, pp. 900-919,
2007.