Research Article

Designing a Cost-Time-Quality-Efficient Grinding Process Using MODM Methods

Meysam Mahjoob
University of Tehran, Fouman, Iran
Pouneh Abbasian
Texas A&M University, USA
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejeng.2022.7.2.2719

Read Counter
424

Downloads
318

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-01-21
Published 2022-03-04

Read counter = 424 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

In this paper, a multi-objective mathematical model is developed to optimize the grinding parameters Such as grinding time, cost, and related surface quality metrics such as workpiece speed, depth of cut and wheel speed. The mathematical model consists of three conflicting objective functions subject to wheel wear and production rate constraints. Exact methods cannot solve the NLP model in few seconds, therefore using Meta-heuristic algorithms that provide near-optimal solutions is not suitable. Considering this, five multi-objective decision-making (MODM) have been used to solve the multi-objective mathematical model using general algebraic modelling system (GAMS) software to achieve the optimal parameters of the grinding process. The MODM methods provide different effective solutions where the decision-maker (DM) can choose each solution in different situations. Different criteria have been considered to evaluate the performance of the five MODM methods. Also, a technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) has been used to obtain the priority of each method and determine which MODM method performs better considering all criteria simultaneously. The results indicated that the weighted sum method (WSM) and goal programming method (GP) are the best MODM methods, as both of them provide competitive solutions. In addition, these methods obtained solutions that have minimum grinding time, cost, and surface roughness among other MODM methods.

Keywords: Goal programming; Grinding; Multi-objective decision making; TOPSIS

References

  1. Khalilpourazari S, & Khalilpourazary S. SCWOA: an efficient hybrid algorithm for parameter optimization of multi-pass milling process. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 2018b;1-13.
     Google Scholar
  2. Baskar N, Saravanan R, Asokan P, Prabhaharan G. Ants colony algorithm approach for multi-objective optimisation of surface grinding operations. Int J Adv Manufact Technol. 2004; 23:311–317.doi:10.1007/s00170-002-1533-6.
     Google Scholar
  3. Saravanan R, Asokan P, Sachidanandam M. A multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) approach for optimization of surface grinding operations. Int J Mach Tools and Manufact. 2002; 42:1327–1334.doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(02)00074-3.
     Google Scholar
  4. Malkin S, Koren Y, Ber A. Off-line grinding optimization with a micro-computer. CIRP Annals – Manufact Technol. 1980; 29:213–216.doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61324-9.
     Google Scholar
  5. Slowik A, Slowik J. Multi-objective optimization of surface grinding process with the use of evolutionary algorithm with remembered Pareto set. Int J Adv Manufact Technol. 2008; 37:657–669.doi:10.1007/s00170-007-1013-0.
     Google Scholar
  6. Krishna AG. Optimization of surface grinding operations using a differential evolution approach. J Mater Process Technol. 2007;183: 202–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.10.010.
     Google Scholar
  7. Rabiei F, Rahimi AR, Hadad MJ, Ashrafijou M. Performance improvement of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) technique in surface grinding by modeling and optimization. J Cleaner Prod. 2015; 86:447-460. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.045.
     Google Scholar
  8. Zhang G, Liu M, Li J, Ming WY, Shao XY, Huang Y. Multi-objective optimization for surface grinding process using a hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2014; 71:1861-1872. doi: 10.1007/s00170-013-5571-z.
     Google Scholar
  9. Kwak JS. Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for geometric error in surface grinding process. Int J Mach Tools Manufact. 2005; 45:327–334. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.08.007.
     Google Scholar
  10. Kahhal P, Ahmadi Brooghani SY, Deilami Azodi H. Multi-objective optimization of sheet metal forming die using Genetic Algorithm Coupled with RSM and FEA. J Failure Analy Preve. 2013; 13:771–778.doi: 10.1007/s11668-013-9747-5.
     Google Scholar
  11. Kwak JS, Kim IK. Parameter optimization of surface grinding process based on Taguchi and response surface methods. Key Eng Mater. 2006; 306:709-714. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.306-308.709.
     Google Scholar
  12. Yusup N, Zain AM, Hashim SZM. Evolutionary techniques in optimizing machining parameters: Review and recent applications (2007–2011). Exp Sys Appl. 2012; 39:9909–9927.doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.109.
     Google Scholar
  13. Ben Fredj N, Amamou R. Ground surface roughness prediction based upon experimental design and neural network models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006; 31:24–36.doi:10.1007/s00170-005-0169-8.
     Google Scholar
  14. Lin X, Li H. Enhanced Pareto particle swarm approach for multi-objective optimization of surface grinding process. Proc. 2st Int. Conf. Intel Information Technol Appl. 2008; 1:618–623.
     Google Scholar
  15. Lee KM, Hsu MR, Chou JH, Guo CY. Improved differential evolution approach for optimization of surface grinding process. Exp Sys Appl. 2011; 38:5680–5686. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.067.
     Google Scholar
  16. Mukherjee I, Ray PK. Optimal process design of two-stage multiple responses grinding processes using desirability functions and metaheuristic technique. Appl Soft Comput. 2008; 8:402-421.doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.02.005.
     Google Scholar
  17. Khalilpourazari, S, & Khalilpourazary, S. A lexicographic weighted Tchebycheff approach for multi-constrained multi-objective optimization of the surface grinding process. Engineering Optimization. 2007; 49(5), 878-895.
     Google Scholar
  18. Khalilpourazari, S, & Khalilpourazary, S. Optimization of production time in the multi-pass milling process via a Robust Grey Wolf Optimizer. Neural Computing and Applications. 2016; 1-16.
     Google Scholar
  19. Khalilpourazari, S, & Khalilpourazary, S. A Robust Stochastic Fractal Search approach for optimization of the surface grinding process. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation. 2018a; 38, 173-186.
     Google Scholar
  20. Gholami MH, Azizi MR. Constrained grinding optimization for time, cost, and surface roughness using NSGA-II. Int J Adv Manufact Technol. 2014; 73:981–988.doi:10.1007/s00170-014-5884-6.
     Google Scholar
  21. Chang C-T. Multi-choice goal programming. Omega 2007; 35:389–396.
     Google Scholar
  22. Abbasian P, Mahdavi-Amiri N, Fazlollahtabar H. Multiple utility constrained multi-objective programs using Bayesian theory. Journal of Industrial Engineering International. 2018; 14(1):111-8.
     Google Scholar
  23. Abbasian P, Mahdavi-Amiri N, Fazllolahtabar H. Modeling and optimizing of a non-constrained multi-objective problem having multiple utility functions using the Bayesian theory. J Inf Sci Comput Technol. 2015; 4(3):332-42.
     Google Scholar
  24. Khalilpourazari, S, & Pasandideh, S H R. Multi-objective optimization of multi-item EOQ model with partial backordering and defective batches and stochastic constraints using MOWCA and MOGWO. Operational Research. 2018; 1-33.
     Google Scholar
  25. Khalilpourazari, S, & Pasandideh, S H R. Bi-objective optimization of multi-product EPQ model with backorders, rework process and random defective rate. In Industrial Engineering (ICIE), 2016 12th International Conference on. 2016; (36-40).
     Google Scholar
  26. Khalilpourazari, S, Pasandideh, S H R, & Ghodratnama. A. Robust possibilistic programming for multi-item EOQ model with defective supply batches: Whale Optimization and Water Cycle Algorithms. Neural Computing and Applications. 2018; 1-28.
     Google Scholar
  27. Hwang CL, Masud ASM. Multiple objective decision making, methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Lect Note Econ Math Sys. 1979.
     Google Scholar
  28. Khalilpourazari, S, & Khamseh, A A. Bi-objective emergency blood supply chain network design in earthquake considering earthquake magnitude: a comprehensive study with real world application. Annals of Operations Research. 2017; 1-39.
     Google Scholar
  29. Fazli-Khalaf, M, Khalilpourazari, S, & Mohammadi, M. Mixed robust possibilistic flexible chance constraint optimization model for emergency blood supply chain network design. Annals of Operations Research. 2017; 1-31.
     Google Scholar
  30. Pasandideh SHR, Niaki STA, Asadi K. Optimizing a bi-objective multi-product multi-period three echelon supply chain network with warehouse reliability. Exp Sys Appl. 2015; 42:2615-2623.doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.018
     Google Scholar
  31. Khalilpourazari, S, & Mohammadi, M. Optimization of closed-loop Supply chain network design: a Water Cycle Algorithm approach. In Industrial Engineering (ICIE), 12th International Conference. 2016; (pp. 41-45). IEEE.
     Google Scholar
  32. Khalilpourazari, S, & Pasandideh, S H R. Multi-item EOQ model with nonlinear unit holding cost and partial backordering: moth-flame optimization algorithm. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 2017; 34(1), 42-51.
     Google Scholar
  33. Khalilpourazari, S, & Khalilpourazary, S. An efficient hybrid algorithm based on Water Cycle and Moth-Flame Optimization algorithms for solving numerical and constrained engineering optimization problems. Soft Computing. 2017; 1-24.
     Google Scholar
  34. Khalilpourazari, S, Pasandideh, S H R., & Niaki, S T A. Optimization of multi-product economic production quantity model with partial backordering and physical constraints: SQP, SFS, SA, and WCA. Applied Soft Computing, 49. 2016; 770-791.
     Google Scholar
  35. Pasandideh, S H R, & Khalilpourazari, S. Sine Cosine Crow Search Algorithm: A powerful hybrid meta heuristic for global optimization. 2018; arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08485.
     Google Scholar
  36. Mohammadi, M, & Khalilpourazari, S. Minimizing makespan in a single machine scheduling problem with deteriorating jobs and learning effects. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications. 2017; (310-315). ACM.
     Google Scholar
  37. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. 1981; (vol 186). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-483.
     Google Scholar