Modeling and optimization of surface roughness in keyway milling using ANN, genetic algorithm, and particle swarm optimization

  • Gourhari GhoshEmail author
  • Prosun Mandal
  • Subhas Chandra Mondal


This paper emphasizes on the development of a combined study of surface roughness for modeling and optimization of cutting parameters for keyway milling operation of C40 steel under wet condition. Spindle speed, feed, and depth of cut are considered as input parameters and surface roughness (Ra) is selected as output parameter. Surface roughness model is developed by both artificial neural networks (ANN) and response surface methodology (RSM). ANOVA analysis is performed to determine the effect of process parameters on the response. Back-propagation algorithm based on Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) and gradient descent (GDX) methods is used separately to train the neural network and results obtained from the two methods are compared. It is found that network trained by the LM algorithm gives better result. ANN model (trained by the LM algorithm) is coupled with genetic algorithm (GA) and RS model is further interfaced with the GA and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to optimize the cutting conditions that lead to minimum surface roughness. It is found that RSM coupled with PSO gives better result and the result is validated by confirmation test. Good agreement is observed between the predicted Ra value and experimental Ra value for RSM-PSO technique.


Surface roughness Keyway milling Artificial neural network Genetic algorithm Particle swarm optimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors acknowledge the kind support and cooperation provided by the technical staffs of the workshop in IIEST, Shibpur. The author sincerely thanks Mr. Tapan Kumar Das, workshop inspector, IIEST, Shibpur, for his kind help during experimentation.


  1. 1.
    Koshy P, Dewes RC, Aspinwall DK (2002) High speed end milling of hardened AISI D2 tool steel (~58 HRC). J Mater Process Technol 127(2):266–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhandari VB (2007) Design of machine elements. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Noordin MY, Venkatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A (2004) Application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. J Mater Process Technol 145(1):46–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tzeng CJ, Chen RY (2013) Optimization of electric discharge machining process using the response surface methodology and genetic algorithm approach. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 14(5):709–717. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suresh PVS, Rao PV, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42(6):675–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prakasvudhisarn C, Kunnapapdeelert S, Yenradee P (2009) Optimal cutting condition determination for desired surface roughness in end milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41(5-6):440–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng ZH, Zhang XH, Liu W, Cao H (2009) A hybrid model using genetic algorithm and neural network for process parameters optimization in NC camshaft grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 45(9-10):859–866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oktem H (2009) An integrated study of surface roughness for modeling and optimization of cutting parameters during end milling operation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43(9-10):852–861. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2012) Integrated ANN–GA for estimating the minimum value for machining performance. Int J Prod Res 50(1):191–213. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oktem H, Erzurumlu T, Kurtaran H (2005) Application of response surface methodology in the optimization of cutting conditions for surface roughness. J Mater Process Technol 170(1-2):11–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dikshit MK, Puri AB, Maity A (2014) Analysis of cutting forces and optimization of cutting parameters in high speed ball-end milling using response surface methodology and genetic algorithm. Procedia Mater Sci 5:1623–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsai YH, Chen JC, Lou SJ (1999) An in-process surface recognition system based on neural networks in end milling cutting operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39(4):583–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MS (1996) Prediction of tool life in end milling by response surface methodology. J Mater Process Technol 71:456–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Zubaidi S, Ghani JA, Haron CH (2013) Optimization of cutting conditions for end milling of Ti6Al4V alloy by using a gravitational search algorithm (GSA). Meccanica 48(7):1701–1715. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeyakumar S, Marimuthu K, Ramachandran T (2015) Optimization of machining parameters of Al6061 composite to minimize the surface roughness–modelling using RSM and ANN. Indian J Eng Mater Sci 22:29–37Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Premnath A, Alwarsany T, Abhinav T, Krishnakant CA (2012) Surface roughness prediction by response surface methodology in milling of hybrid Al composites. Procedia Eng 38:745–752. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhong ZW, Khoo LP, Han ST (2006) Prediction of surface roughness of turned surfaces using neural networks. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(7-8):688–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang BP, Chen JC, Li Y (2008) Artificial-neural-network-based surface roughness Pokayoke system for end-milling operations. Neurocomputing 71(4-6):544–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Piscataway NJ:1942–1948Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raja SB, Baskar N (2011) Particle swarm optimization technique for determining optimal machining parameters of different work piece materials in turning operation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54(5):445–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raja SB, Baskar N (2012) Application of particle swarm optimization technique for achieving desired milled surface roughness in minimum machining time. Expert Syst Appl 39(5):5982–5989. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hrelja M, Klancnik S, Irgolic T, Paulic M, Balic J, Brezocnik M (2014) Turning parameters optimization using particle swarm optimization. Procedia Eng 69:670–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang W, Ma D, Wei JJ, Liang HF (2014) A parameter selection strategy for particle swarm optimization based on particle positions. Expert Syst Appl 41(7):3576–3584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malviya R, Pratihar DK (2011) Tuning of neural networks using particle swarm optimization to model MIG welding process. Swarm Evol Comput 1(4):223–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2011) Integration of simulated annealing and genetic algorithm to estimate optimal solutions for minimising surface roughness in end milling Ti-6AL-4V. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 24(6):574–592. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tamang SK, Chandrasekaran M (2017) Integrated optimization methodology for intelligent machining of inconel 825 and its shop-floor application. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39:865–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Malghan RL, Rao KMC, Shettigar AK, Rao SS, Souza RJD (2016) Application of particle swarm optimization and response surface methodology for machining parameters optimization of aluminium matrix composites in milling operation. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 1–13Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar AH, Subba Rao G, Rajmohan T (2015) Comparison of optimum cutting parameters for AISI1042 in turning operation by genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization. Appl Mech Mater 813–814:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Selaimia AA, Yallese MA, Bensouilah H, Meddour I, Khattabi R, Mabrouki T (2017) Modeling and optimization in dry face milling of X2CrNi18-9 austenitic stainless steel using RMS and desirability approach. Meas J Int Meas Confed 107:53–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gareta R, Romeo LM, Gil A (2006) Forecasting of electricity prices with neural networks. Energy Convers Manag 47(13-14):1770–1778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kalogirou SA (2003) Artificial intelligence for the modeling and control of combustion processes: a review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 29(6):515–566. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karataş C, Sozen A, Dulek E (2009) Modelling of residual stresses in the shot peened material C-1020 by artificial neural network. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3514–3521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Asiltürk I, Çunkaş M (2011) Modeling and prediction of surface roughness in turning operations using artificial neural network and multiple regression method. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5826–5832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khalid HH, Ghulam Z, 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):1847–1856Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mousavi SM, Hajipour V, Niaki STA, Alikar N (2013) Optimizing multi-item multi-period inventory control system with discounted cash flow and inflation: two calibrated meta-heuristic algorithms. Appl Math Model 37(4):2241–2256. MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    David LC (1997) Genetic algorithms. University of Illinois, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ozcelik B, Oktem H, Kurtaran H (2005) Optimum surface roughness in end milling Inconel 718 by coupling neural network and genetic algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27(3-4):234–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen WC, Nguyen MH, Chiu WH, Chen TN, Tai PH (2016) Optimization of the plastic injection molding process using the Taguchi method, RSM, and hybrid GA-PSO. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(9–12):1873–1886. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mousavi SM, Sadeghi J, Niaki ST, Alikar N, Bahreininejad A, Metselaar HS (2014) Two parameter-tuned meta-heuristics for a discounted inventory control problem in a fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 276:42–62. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sadeghi J, Mousavi SM, Niaki ST, Sadeghi S (2013) Optimizing a multi-vendor multi-retailer vendor managed inventory problem: two tuned meta-heuristic algorithms. Knowl-Based Syst 50:159–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mousavi SM, Hajipour V, Niaki ST, Aalikar N (2014) A multi-product multi-period inventory control problem under inflation and discount: a parameter-tuned particle swarm optimization algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(9–12):1739–1756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mousavi SM, Alikar N, Niaki ST, Bahreininejad A (2015) Optimizing a location allocation-inventory problem in a two-echelon supply chain network: a modified fruit fly optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 87:543–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Montgomery D, Altintas Y (1991) Mechanism of cutting forces and surface generation in dynamic milling. ASME J Eng Ind 113(2):160–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MSJ (1995) Computer-aided analysis of a surface-roughness model for end milling. J Mater Process Tech 55(2):123–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bhardwaj B, Kumar R, Singh PK (2013) Effect of machining parameters on surface roughness in end milling of AISI 1019 steel. Proc Inst Mech Eng part B: J Eng Manuf 228:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang M-Y, Chang H-Y (2004) Experimental study of surface roughness in slot end milling AL2014-T6. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44(1):51–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mansour A, Abdalla H (2002) Surface roughness model for end milling: a semi-free cutting carbon case hardening steel (EN32) in dry condition. J Mater Process Tech 124(1-2):183–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ghani JA, Choudhury IA, Hassan HH (2003) Application of Taguchi method in the optimization of end milling parameters. J Mater Process Tech 145:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pathak L, Singh V, Niwas R, Osama K, Khan S, Haque S, Tripathi CK, Mishra BN (2015) Artificial intelligence versus statistical modeling and optimization of cholesterol oxidase production by using Streptomyces Sp. PLoS One 10(9):e0137268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gourhari Ghosh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Prosun Mandal
    • 1
  • Subhas Chandra Mondal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, ShibpurHowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations