Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-5248-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CNC micromilling properties and optimization
using genetic algorithms
A. A. Krimpenis & N. A. Fountas & I. Ntalianis &
N. M. Vaxevanidis
Received: 11 March 2013 / Accepted: 5 August 2013 / Published online: 29 August 2013
# Springer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract Micromachining operations are mainly restricted to
precision machining of two-dimensional microparts, usually
performed on microelectrical discharge machining or
microlaser computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools.
However, micromilling can fully exploit computer-aided
design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software abili-
ties, in order to achieve more complex three-dimensional
micropart geometries. After fully defining the micromilling
process parameters and related constraints, optimization meth-
odologies, such as genetic algorithms, can be coupled with
CAM software, thus obtaining optimal process parameters
with very small calculation cost. In this study, CNC
micromilling process is systematically presented, along with
respective micromilling tools and the necessary industrial
equipment for the processes. Genetic algorithm code was
developed in Visual Basic, which optimizes the process and
ultimately yields optimal parameter values, including all pro-
cess particulars. Two test cases were presented, and results
were discussed in terms of micropart quality, production time,
and calculation cost.
Keywords CNC . CAM . Micromilling . Genetic algorithm .
Optimization . Surface roughness
1 Introduction
Constant demand to reduce energy consumption and material
usage leads to a general tendency of producing smaller parts
and machine components. Miniaturization offers the advan-
tages of high portability and production cost reduction, since
A. A. Krimpenis : N. A. Fountas : I. Ntalianis :
N. M. Vaxevanidis (*)
Department of Mechanical Engineering Educators, School of
Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE), N. Heraklion,
141-21 Athens, Greece
e-mail: vaxev@aspete.gr
less material is needed and thus resources are saved. This
tendency has also set foot in manufacturing industry, while it
constitutes a driving factor in recently evolving production
processes. Necessity for microparts production originates
from specifications set by high quality manufacturing do-
mains, like electronics, aerospace and defense, medical, auto-
motive industries, etc. Micromachining is characterized by
microsized part production, ranging from tens of micrometers
to few millimeters, submicrometer tolerances, and superior
surface quality. More or less, micromachining is a modern
and partially unexplored field. There are numerous directions
that have not yet been fully investigated, thus making
micromachining (and especially micromilling), an open do-
main for research and development in manufacturing
processes.
The current study examines parameter optimization of
computer numerical control (CNC) micromilling processes
using an efficient and a low-cost methodology that has been
extensively applied in CNC machining, that is, genetic algo-
rithms (GAs). In [1], Sreeram et al. aimed at optimizing three
basic cutting parameters (feed rate, depth of cut, and spindle
speed) for micromilling with the objective of minimum pro-
duction cost for a single part. The authors mainly focused on
the productive character of the process; however, part surface
quality was not undertaken in the study. Results prove that
optimal depth of cut values are higher than the ones proposed
by tool manufacturers. Liu et al. [2] examined a multiobjective
optimization for micromilling operations with adaptive data
modeling based on process simulation. This model managed
depth of cut, spindle speed, and feed rate, while the objective
was to obtain a Pareto front using two conflicting criteria:
minimal surface location error and minimal total tooling cost.
Surface location error is one of the most influential factors on
surface quality of a machined part. Natarajan et al. [3] created
statistical models for material removal rate (MRR) and mean
surface roughness (R a) using central composite design with
three-level factors. The researchers utilized response surface
158
methodology (RSM) to optimize the machining parameters.
The targets were maximum MRR and minimum surface
roughness (R a). The investigated parameters were also spindle
speed, feed rate, and depth of cut. Although width of cut plays
an important role on cutting forces magnitude and conse-
quently on surface quality, it was omitted in [3]. It was
concluded that for moderate spindle speeds and depths of
cut (>20 m), MRR increases. Moreover, R a is reduced as
feed rates take smaller values without the effect of cutting
velocitys magnitude. Bissacco [4] approached the surface
generation in micromilling through experimental investiga-
tion and modeling of surface topography and cutting forces.
This studys results led to the conclusion that micromilling can
be effectively used as a tooling technology in the microinjec-
tion molding process chain.
Latest interest focuses on proper structural design of
micromilling CNC machines, since their structural character-
istics strongly influence micropart quality. Jang et al. [5]
presented a structural design optimization of a micromilling
machine for minimum weight and maximum compliance. In
order to achieve this, researchers implemented a GA, driven
by a dynamic penalty function. Towards the same direction,
Huo et al. [6, 7] developed an integrated dynamic modeling
and design approach for the analysis and optimization of a
five-axis ultraprecision micromilling machine tool.
Optimization of micromilling tool geometry has also drawn
the attention of many researchers. Fleischer et al. [8] designed,
tested, and manufactured a single edged cutter to reduce
inherent process drawbacks, such as high tool wear and per-
formance durability of conventional micromilling tools. Ver-
ification of their model included finite element simulation
with the goal of maximum stability. Further on, milling tests
were performed that reveal the models advantages, in terms
of functionality and efficiency. Like conventional (or mac-
ro) machining operations, micromachining may be opti-
mized through various modules based on artificial intelli-
gence. In [9], Chiou et al. presented a computer program of
a genetic algorithm, which utilized Pareto fronts for solution
classification, in terms of MRR and tool life.
Prior to any effort to optimize CNC micromilling opera-
tions, one should thoroughly understand the basic principles
and fundamentals of this specific technology, the applied
tools characteristics, and other special requirements. In the
next sections, micromilling concepts are briefly presented,
before the developed optimization methodology is discussed.
2 Micromilling technology
Before presenting the optimization methodology further, it is
important to point out the specifics of micromilling that render
these manufacturing operations slightly different than typical
CNC milling operations, as well as commenting on tools and
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
tool wear, spindle speeds, and cutting fluids. This leads to a
better understanding of the process and offers a background in
machine tool modelling process for micromilling.
CNC micromilling appears to be one of the most flexible
micromachining operations. It offers the advantage of produc-
ing complex three-dimensional (3D) forms, while almost all
other micromachining operations do not seem to share this
ability, or, if they do, it is technologically too demanding and
costly. Even though micromachining processes are widely
used, they are limited as far as cutting material and part
geometry are concerned. They are usually confined to just
two-dimensional patterns. In addition, costs associated with
most micromachining equipment are very high. On the other
hand, micromills can cut almost any material, varying from
soft plastic to very hard metal alloys, even ceramic materials.
They can precisely cut more complex 3D parts, since flexibil-
ity of computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAM) technology can be fully exploited.
2.1 Microtooling and microtool wear
Micromachining is more than a miniaturization of the con-
ventional mill cutting technology, so are microtools. In gen-
eral, two cutting edges can be found in micromilling cutters.
Microtools solid body is similar to macromilling tools in
terms of geometry and dimensions. The difference is that
cutting edges of microcutters are found at the extension of a
conical feature that starts from the end of the tool body
(Fig. 1). Geometrical accuracy of microtools, which fluctuates
between 5 and 10 m is a critical technological constraint.
Further on, thermal processes should be conducted on
microtools during their manufacturing, thus enhancing
microtool cutting performance [10]. In addition, several grain
sizes can be used for microtools amelioration; these act upon
the stability of the process, in contrast to macromilling tools
[11].
Owing to small tool tip size, wear detection on tool cutting
edges and tool breakage are very difficult to detect and hence
to predict, since sensor technology in microscale is limited.
Small damage on the cutting edge of a standard tool
(macrotool) possibly produces inferior surface quality. How-
ever, in a microtool such damage leads to cutting edge de-
struction, thus gravely increasing cutting force magnitude on
the other cutting edge (in general, microtools are two fluted).
This phenomenon ends up with total microtool breakage.
Right before total damage of the cutting edge, microtool
changes form into a more rounded shape. Increased cutting
forces cause undesirable tool deflection, which in turn may
seriously change a micropart geometry.
Two major phenomena take place regarding tool wear. The
first is chip clogging, and the second is tool run-out. Chip
cloggings worst characteristic is the fact that is very difficult
to predict; the tool breaks just few seconds after chip clogging
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171 159

Fig. 1 Typical milling cutters for

micromilling operations

appears [3, 4]. Run-out also affects microtool life. Tool run-
out is caused by the inclination of tool axis, tool holder, and
spindle shaft. In standard CNC milling, run-out is not notice-
able, while in micromachining, it can dramatically affect final
micropart dimensions and tool life. Special tool holding and
spindle speed systems are used in order to deal with this
drawback.
2.2 Spindles of CNC micromilling machine tools
As stated in [11], micromilling operations require high spindle
speeds, thermal stability, and accuracy. Although pneumatic
and air turbine systems are very fast, they cannot provide
sufficiently high torque. Consequently, they are not appropri-
ate for cutting hard materials, such as hardened steel and
titanium, which are typical materials for micromachining op-
erations. Even though air driven or turbine driven spindle
systems are not powerful enough, they offer advantages in
cutting soft materials, such as plastic, aluminum alloys, etc.
When it comes to hard material cutting, the need for higher
torque is vital and DC electric motors appear to be the appro-
priate spindle choice for micromilling machine tools. Despite
the fact that DC electric motors produce lower spindle speeds,
they offer better spindle speed accuracy and control. Besides,
thermal expansion of the spindle may be critical, so lubrica-
tion and temperature control are very important issues for
successful micromilling operations.
petroleum-based ones. However, two main reasons have led
the micromilling industry to start using a new method called
micromist [13]. The first one concerns cost; researches
came to the conclusion that lubrication comprises the 17 %
of the total micromilling operation cost. Thus, minimum
amount of lubricant must be utilized in the most effective
way. The second reason is related to hygiene and work safety.
Workers receive all toxic consequences of lubricants and as a
result, lubricant quantity reduction through micromist tech-
nology significantly contributes to human protection and en-
vironmental preservation.
2.4 CNC micromachine tool 3D modeling
Taking under consideration all related technical requirements,
a typical CNC micromilling machine tool was modeled in a
modern 3D CAD system, as seen in Figs. 2 and 3. It must be
noted that 3D modeling of this machine is not a copy of an
existing CNC micromill model, but it is inspired by typical
ones and the demands of micromilling processes. Although it

2.3 Cutting fluids in micromachining

In microscale, friction force effect is comparable to part size;

this makes cutting fluid a necessity. Friction significantly
increases when surface quality is poor. With cutting fluid,
better surface quality is achieved, that is because low viscosity
fluids can penetrate surface cavities in microscale. Wrong
selection or inappropriate usage of cutting fluids can be de-
structive for the tool, as cutting forces increase dramatically. A
new trend is to use vegetable oils [12]. They offer better
lubrication and they are more environment friendly than the Fig. 2 Simplified 3D assembly of a CNC micromilling machine
160
Fig. 3 a Spindle and tool holder
assembly and b microtool special
geometry
is a simplified assembly of an actual working CNC machine
tool, this model implements proper axes movement,
microtool, and spindle characteristics. Electronic systems for
micromachine tools were not studied in depth, as this exceeds
the aim of this study, but their volumes were included in the
model as black boxes.
3D modeling of the CNC micromachine tool helps in better
understanding of micromilling principles, as far as kinematics
and visualization were concerned, thus obtaining an on hand
perception of the process and the machine tool, as well as the
specifics that make micromilling processes different and
unique compared to standard CNC milling. Table 1 presents
some key elements in the 3D modeling of the CNC
micromachine tool.
As stated previously, micromilling is more demanding and
requires exceptionally tight fits between moving parts com-
pared to normal-scale CNC milling machine tools. Small
deficiencies in a single moving part of the machine tool lead
to noticeable dimensional or shape inaccuracies and therefore
the machining operations total failure. Thus, a micromill
consists of top quality parts that are tightly and accurately fit
together, in order to instill and assure efficiently. It goes
without saying that micromilling machine tool geometry is a
very important factor as it affects stiffness, accuracy, thermal
ability, and control.
Table 1 Characteristics of CNC micromilling machine tool 3D model
Table size 20070 mm
XY travel 13446 mm
Z-axis total travel 370 mm
Max. rotational speeda 24,000 rpm
Powera 100 W
Voltagea 110120 V or 220240, 60 Hz
Weighta 7 kg
a
Taken from literature and are typical for this type of machine tools
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
Micromilling machine tools are usually vertical C frame
or bridge type. C frame machine tools (see Fig. 3) are more
light weighted, offering better stiffness and accuracy. This
advantage disappears when large stepdown values are applied
in machining strategy, since in this manner stiffness is negated
[14]. If high stepdown values cannot be excluded from the
machining process, bridge-type CNC micromilling machine
tools should be preferred.
3 Finding optimal parameter values for CNC micromilling
processes
Whenever it is possible, conventional CNC milling compo-
nents like machine tools, tool holders, parts, and milling
cutters can be scaled down to generate micromilling ones.
CAD/CAM systems may suitably support such operations
by enhancing abilities and options like data translation (i.e.,
maintaining the geometry integrity when translating features
of a part), tolerancing (i.e., tool path calculations with toler-
ance demands down to 0.01 m), and special machining
strategies to provide cutting modes able to sustain chip load
and allow variations to feeds and speeds. Moreover, tool
motions in micromilling is of paramount importance since
rounding in microparts with a smaller value than the stepover
may lead to sharp edges while rounding with larger values
than the stepover can generate excessive scallops.
It is questionable, however, whether such special demands
can be specified by experience, experiments, or trial and error
strategies. Enhancing performance of micromilling operations
can be carried out by mathematical algorithms, after quantiz-
ing the effect of various process parameters on micropart
surface quality and process productivity. Artificial intelligence
techniques, especially GAs, have been proven to be quite
promising in this direction, since they are renowned to per-
form well in finding optimal solution in vast (or even un-
known) solutions spaces at small calculation cost. Besides,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171 161

GAs have been widely used in the field of machining process-

INITIALIZATION
es. Since micromilling falls into this general category, com-
mon research issues on application fields may be investigated.
In general, research work about optimization concerning
micromilling is relatively poor so far; hence, there is need to
intensify the efforts towards process optimization.
For i = 1 to n
The main thrust of the paper is to propose a systematic
methodology for micromilling modeling and optimization
using GAs, as well as developing the efficient GA code to
perform it. Specific optimization operators and schemes are
introduced and utilized, but there is still room to investigate Calculate
whether these schemes are the best. In manufacturing terms, Fitness Function

this study aims at finding optimal micromilling process pa-

rameter values, so as to achieve minimum machining time and
optimal surface quality.
Termination YES
Criterion

4 Genetic algorithms
NO

GA is a stochastic search methodology that obtains the most

efficient solution(s) in a given space for a complex problem.
Crossover
GAs practically imitate natural species evolution on com-
puters. They act as a set of solutions known as individuals of
a population that mate, reproduce, etc. Ultimately, after a
number of generations, the fittest individual solution survives
(survival of the fittest). GAs first appearance was during Mutation
1950s by biologists who tried to simulate the genetic species
evolution using computers. They were formulated in detail by
John Holland in the early 1970s [15] and were refined by
Goldberg [16]. The following points give a generic view of
Generate new
how GAs operate (see Fig. 4): population

& A population of individuals (solutions) is created that

consists of random individuals (initialization).
& A function or a model (objective function) measures indi-
vidual performance and determines their ability to survive NO Check whether the size of
the new population is
and reproduce. equal to n
& Individuals are ranked (ranking) and the best/fittest indi-
viduals (according to a fitness function, which is an ob-
YES
jective function transformation) are chosen (selection op-
erator) to mate in pairs (crossover operator) and thus create
new individuals, therefore a whole new population. Every Calculate
Fitness Function
new individual (offspring) carries genetic characteristics
from both parents. Slight mutation (mutation operator)
occurs from generation to generation with given probabil-
ity. Other population diversion operators, such as inver-
sion, etc., may be applied to the offspring. END
& In order to satisfy the criteria of the objective function,
increasing competition among individuals leads to sur-
Fig. 4 A basic genetic algorithm structure
vival of the fittest. This way, one generation after the
other tends to have better genetic material (or characteris-
tics) that help them survive. Individuals with best charac- An individual is a random solution of the problem. It
teristics constitute the best solution to the problem. comprises of problems parameters or variables. In GAs,
& This procedure repeats until convergence criteria are met. individuals exist in two different forms: phenotype and
162
chromosome. Phenotype includes the actual values of the
problem parameters. Chromosome is an encoded form of the
phenotype. All operators modify the encoded population in
chromosome form, but final population and optimal results are
presented in their phenotypic form, so they can clearly be
understood. Chromosomes can be found in one of the follow-
ing three different encodings:
1. Real encoding: parameter values are expressed as real
numbers between 0 and 1.
2. Binary encoding: parameter values are expressed as
strings of 0 and 1.
3. Gray binary encoding: a variation of the binary encoding [17].
4.1 Genetic algorithm structure and basic genetic operators
A basic GA comprises of a selection (reproduction) mecha-
nism, a crossover (recombination) mechanism, and a mutation
mechanism (operator). Each of these basic operators works on
strings in a population only with simple bit changes. Note that
in the explanation of the algorithm and its operators, binary (or
Grey binary) coding is implied for simplicity reasons. More
on real encoding can be found in [18]. Figure 4 depicts the
optimization procedure that a basic GA follows.
In order to improve GA efficiency and convergence speed,
several advanced genetic operators and their variations have
been introduced and applied by researchers so far. Mecha-
nisms of genetic operators are based on biology, genetics and
ecology. Moreover, advanced operators in GAs are applied to
address difficulties related to premature convergence and
minimal deceptive problems. The following sections describe
some of the most known and implemented schemes that are
integrated in GA architecture.
4.1.1 Selection
After initialization, GA procedure continues with reproduc-
tion, recombination and mutation. Selection simulates the
process of natural selection and GAs need a similar mecha-
nism to make a population evolve towards a better direction of
optimal solutions. The main procedure of a selection module
is to reproduce a population by preselecting an individual with
a selection probability proportional to its fitness value. In this
kind of selection, an individual with higher fitness can pro-
duce more than one offspring. Since selection is performed
stochastically, a number of identical (or the exactly same)
individuals may be chosen by chance. Most common types
of selection schemes are listed below [15, 16]:
1. Roulette wheel selection scheme : this scheme selects an
individual with probability in proportion to its fitness
values.
2. Elitist selection scheme: this scheme preserves the fit-
test individual through all generation t, that is, the fittest
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
individual is certainly selected prior to others into the next
generation.
3. Tournament selection scheme: the individual with the
highest fitness value between m randomly pre selected
individuals is selected. Note that m is the number of
competing individuals.
4. Ranking selection scheme: this scheme is based on the
ranking of individual fitness values. Additionally, individ-
uals are selected by the number of their reproduction into
the next generation based on a predefined ranking table.
5. Expected value selection scheme: this scheme is based
on the expected value of individual fitness. According to a
probability, the expected value of an individual is calculat-
ed. Then, the probability of the selected individual is de-
creased by a predefined number, e.g., 0.5. Thus, this selec-
tion scheme relatively prevents individuals from being
selected more than twice in the population (occupation).
4.1.2 Crossover
Crossover operator generates new individuals as candidate
solutions in GAs. GAs search the solution space mainly using
one of the crossover operators. Absence of crossover opera-
tors would make GAs random search algorithms. Crossover
operator exchanges substrings between two individuals and
replaces old individuals with others that have new genotypes.
Recombination between two strings is performed according to
the type of crossover operator. Depending on the number of
break points among individuals, crossover mechanism
recombines strings of their genotype. Several crossover types
can be implemented. Most common crossover types in GAs
are enumerated below: [15, 16].
1. One point crossover is one of the basic crossover opera-
tors. By choosing a break point as a cross site, the one point
crossover recombines substrings between two individuals.
2. Multipoint crossover is a crossover operator with more
than one break points on a string. Multipoint crossover
recombines some substrings, which are cut by some break
points between individuals.
3. Uniform crossover: in uniform crossover operator, a
mask pattern is randomly generated including 0 and
1. Recombination between two individuals is then
achieved by exchanging the characters in the genotype
string according to the mask pattern.
4. Cycle crossover operator first selects a starting point
(not a crossing site). Then, it makes a closed round of
substrings between individuals.
5. Partially matched crossover (PMX): the PMX cross-
over operator is performed by executing two procedures.
Like the cycle crossover operator, PMX is a special
mechanism, which may be applied in order to overcome
permutation problems.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171 163

Fig. 5 a Coding type selection. b

Determination of limits for
variable values

4.1.3 Mutation
Mutation simulates replicating errors in nature. In GAs, mu-
tation operator replaces a randomly selected character on the
string with another one, e.g., bit 0 with 1 and vice versa.
Mutation is performed regardless of an individual fitness
values. The most common mutation operation is the one
point changing per individual. Several mutation types are
met in nature, such as inversion, translocation, and duplica-
tion. These are also the mutating mechanisms applied to GAs
to simulate these phenomena [15, 16].
1. Inversion: inversion partially changes a character se-
quence from one direction to the opposite. At first, two
points are chosen randomly and the string is cut at these
points. Then the substring is linked in the reverse direction
into the remaining one.
2. Translocation (or shift): this operator changes the
character sequence by moving to a different position in
the individual. During translocation, a substring is chosen
randomly as described in inversion. The substring is then
translocated to a randomly chosen break point (or locus).
3. Duplication : this mechanism overlaps the same
substring on a string. The substring is randomly chosen
as in inversion. The substring is then overwritten to a
randomly selected locus.
limits can be defined on user friendly forms (see Fig. 5).
Hence, a convenient environment is provided with the opti-
mization module. This implies that no specialization is needed
in order to use the optimization algorithm, as it is build to
guide even inexperienced users to calibrate it at will on their
own specific micromilling optimization problems. The devel-
oped GA supports both real and binary encoding.
5.1 Machining parameters as problem variables
The developed GA manages five variables, which are the
undertaken problem parameters:
1. Cutting tool: cutting tool parameter includes diameter and
operational properties of the tool such as maximum feed
rate, cutting forces etc.
2. Stepover: this specifies the distance of parallel passes in
XY plane (tool engagement).
3. Stepdown: this defines the distance of parallel passes in Z
direction (axial depth of cut).
4. Feed rate: feed rate is the cutting tool movement velocity.
5. Spindle speed: this is the rotational speed of the spindle.
Cutting tools are chosen from a simple database which
consists of eight different tools. These tools are solid carbide
end mills, TiAlN coated, and able to be operated under dry
cutting conditions. Their characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Database of used micromilling tools

5 CNC micromilling optimization
Cutting tool Cutting Shank Flute Overall
number diameter diameter length length
As stated before, the main goal of this study is to propose a
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
systematic methodology that obtains optimal process param-
eter values for CNC micromilling operations using GAs. This 1 0.25 3.18 1.50 38.17
methodology has been proven both efficient and reliable in 2 0.40 3.18 1.52 38.17
standard CNC machining process optimization. The devel- 3 0.51 3.18 3.23 38.17
oped GA is a variation of an original one proposed in [18]. 4 0.80 3.18 6.60 38.17
Through appropriate modifications, the GA code meets the 5 1.00 3.18 6.35 38.17
requirements set by micromachining operations, it is more 6 1.27 3.18 6.36 38.17
user friendly than its previous version and allows the user to 7 1.59 3.18 12.70 38.17
better constrain, define, and exploit the final results, thus 8 2.00 3.18 9.69 38.17
offering better handling and calibration. Parameter value
164
Stepover value is expressed as percentage (%) of the tool
diameter. Stepdown value was chosen as constant at 0.1 mm.
This is because some microtools cannot reach any random
stepdown value. In addition, the CAM system had trouble
dealing with very small stepdown values, and this led to
premature convergence of the GA. Thus, the best alternative
was to keep stepdown values fixed and let the algorithm
manage the rest four variables (cutting tool, stepover, feed
rate, and spindle speed). Besides, preparatory GA runs con-
cluded that stepdown value of 0.1 mm is the optimal one for
almost all best solutions for the studied test cases. A fixed
stepdown value was thus a safe decision that facilitates and
accelerates algorithm convergence. Feed rate was expressed
as percentage (%) of the maximum microtool feed rate. Max-
imum feed rate was calculated reckoning a usual CNC
micromilling machine and the microtool characteristics.
All process parameters were subjected to technological con-
straints that stem from micro-NC machine tools. To perform
evaluations using the proposed GA for both real and binary
encoding, lower and upper limits were programmed for machin-
ing parameters to specify their value range. Hence, spindle speed
settings were set from 10,000 to 24,000 rpm, feed rate from 1 to
100 (as a percentage of the tools maximum feed for a given
work material), stepover from 1 to 100 (as a percentage of the
tools cutting diameter) and stepdown (depth of cut)=0.1 mm.
5.2 Quality objectives for optimization
Two quality objectives were considered in the optimization
study. The first was machining time (t m), as a means to measure
process productivity, and the second mean surface roughness
(R a) of the machined part as an attribute that reflects part
quality. It is well known that surface roughness is measured
by appropriate measuring devices. Hence, it cannot be chosen
as an optimization criterion when using CAM systems by
default because they inherently lack the ability to predict phe-
nomena probabilistic in nature, such as unpredictable factors
that appear during machining and strongly influence quality.
Dimensional accuracy of microparts is also a parameter that
cannot be calculated by CAM software, and even though R a
may be expressed through predictive models, dimensional
Fig. 6 3D models of a microgear
and b jewelry micropart
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
accuracy is difficult to be encoded. Several analytical models
for surface quality prediction have been proposed in literature
[19]. In order to test the GAs attitude and performance, an
exponential mathematical prediction model for R a prediction
was used. The specific model was formulated by conducting
actual experiments and processing the results through regres-
sion analysis and RSM.
5.2.1 Machining time
Machining time (t m) describes the time at which the CNC
machine tool operates, in order to remove unnecessary material
from a part. It includes tool changes and rapid tool movements,
but no other machine idle times, such as part loading, part
unloading and setup times. Its magnitude is automatically
calculated on both CNC machine control units and CAM
systems after tool path calculation. It is thus easy to figure out
when and where productivity decelerates and how it can be
improved. Hence, t m should be introduced as an optimization
objective. Alternatively, some researchers use MRR to measure
productivity, but this is not very helpful when the machining
process is a part of an overall manufacturing procedure.
5.2.2 Mean surface roughness
Mean surface roughness (R a) best represents surface quality,
and it is widely adopted almost in all machining optimization
methodologies. To facilitate computations, an exponential
prediction model was implemented. The basic equation that
calculates R a is:
Ra k 1 nk 2 sk 3 ak 4 1
where R a is the mean surface roughness (m), n is the spindle
speed (rpm), s is the feed rate (mm/rev), a is the depth of cut
(mm), and k 1, k 2, k 3, and k 4 are constants
Equation 1 implements the exponents/constants (k 1, k 2, k 3,
and k 4) to both facilitate mathematical computations (through
logarithmic properties) and determine the arithmetic magni-
tude of each independent variable (machining parameters) so
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
as to finally generate a number as close as possible to the
actual one for a given quality objective. Note that Eq. 1 is
typically applied to all cutting processes where the inputs
(operational parameters) of the process, i.e., spindle speed
(rpm), feed rate (mm/rev), and depth of cut affect the outputs
such as surface roughness and/or cutting force components.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use Eq. 1 as the starting point
for this analysis. Utilizing experimental results mentioned
above and applying standard mathematical approaches,
Eq. 1 is transformed to the R a analytical model of Eq. 2 [19]:
Ra 90:63224n0:31871 s0:62663 a0:1677 2
Even though the analytical model of R a presented above is
not fully dedicated to micromachining; yet, high speed ma-
chining operations share many similarities in terms of cutting
mechanics. Besides, it is the GAs functionality that is tested
regardless of the analytical expression reflecting the fitness.
What is investigated is the utilization of exploitable mathe-
matical models in an alternative methodology, such as GAs,
which complies with modern CNC technology and high-
speed cutting instead of obsolete ones. As it is in the nature
of exponential models to predict more efficient optimum
solutions to a machining optimization problem (better curve
fitting and regression), they are extensively utilized for
such issues either as process models or as objective functions
for intelligent algorithms. Eq. 2 used in this paper is such a
function. As such, it practices the exponents (k 1, k 2, k 3, and
k 4) to both facilitate mathematical computations (through
logarithmic properties) and determine the arithmetic magni-
tude of each independent variable (machining parameters) so
as to finally generate a number as close as possible to the
actual one for a given quality objective.
5.3 Microparts for optimization
Two microparts were chosen as test cases for the developed
optimization method. These parts were selected keeping in
mind modern industrial needs. For instance, microgears are
used in a wide range of products, such as micromechanisms of
Fig. 7 Engineering drawings of
a microgear and b jewelry
micropart
165
watches, microelectronics, etc. Miniatures of jewels have also
drawn the interest of consumers. Hence, these microparts
cover two major manufacturing fields: functional
micromechanisms and aesthetics. The studied microgear has
a diameter of 2 mm and thickness of 2 mm. The jewelry piece
is 7 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness. The raw stock
selected was supposed to be Aluminum 6061-T6 series alloy
for CAM software simulations. The parts are shown in Fig. 6
(3D CAD models) and Fig. 7 (detailed drawings).
5.4 GA optimization of microparts
As stated previously, the main drive for this study was to create
an optimization algorithm, which can offer optimal CNC
micromilling parameter values for 3D microparts, such as the
ones seen in Fig. 6. In order for this to work, a platform is
needed on which the optimization algorithm can interact with a
given CAM system. The platform has already been developed
and was presented in previous work [20], but it was properly
modified, so that it copes with the specific demands of
micromilling processes. The code of the communication plat-
form feeds the CAM system with all necessary information
related to machining strategies and parameter values and ex-
tracts numerical results from it, such as machining time, pro-
cess statistics, and 3D models of part geometries. Calibration of
the platform on micromilling processes was a result of exten-
sive experimentation with the CAM system itself. Although
both t m and R a were considered, the developed GA performs
single objective optimization, as will thoroughly be explained
in the following sections. The proposed genetic algorithms
workflow and system structure is depicted in Fig. 8.
5.4.1 Solver description and objective function formulation
A key point in the optimization algorithm is to properly define
the objective function, as this is the criterion that calculates the
performance of candidate solutions. The programmed com-
munication platform operates as the intermediate between the
GA and the CAM system. This is known as the solver, and it
is called every time the GA asks for objective function values.
When the solver is called by the GA, a programming function
166 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171

Fig. 8 Flowchart of the genetic

algorithm and its interaction with INITIALIZATION Population.dat
the CAM system

For i = 1 to 40

Coding Phenotype.dat

Objective Function Transition to CAM

calculation environment

Ascending ranking Raw material

creation

Fitness Function Machining parameters

selection

Roulette Wheel Tool path

selection calculation

Machining time
Crossover
calculation

Mutation Surface roughness

calculation

NewPopulation.dat Creation of new Weighted sum

population calculation

Weighted sum is
END
returned to GA

loads the 3D part geometry and the phenotype values of the
variables. This function checks if the values lie inside the
chosen variable limits and if there is a previous run of the GA
with the same variable values. In case that variable values lie
outside these limits, the solver returns a penalized value (e.g.,
1020) for the objective function. This prevents populations of
following generations from taking variable values in the vicin-
ity that offers penalized objective values. If there is a previous
run with the same variable values, the solver outputs the results
of the specific previous run. This way, total execution time of
the algorithm is seriously reduced. If none of these assumptions
is satisfied, then the CAM system imports the part, creates the
raw stock model, sets machining strategy and machining pa-
rameters from variable values, and the machining simulation
begins. When simulation comes to an end, the CAM system
outputs the machining time. The solver handshakes with the
CAM system and takes up machining time values. Then the
solver proceeds with calculation of R a, according to Eq. 2,
presented in Section 5.2.2. In GAs, single objective philosophy
dictates that these two values of t m and R a must be normalized
before they are combined. A typical way to normalize these
values is by dividing them with an accordingly high value, so
that the normalized value is bigger than 0 and smaller than 1.
Thus, the objective function is a weighed sum of normalized R a
and t m values and takes the form of Eq. 3.
WS w1  Ra w2  t m WS 0:7  Ra 0:3  t m 3
where WS is the weighed sum, the objective function of the
GA, R a is the normalized mean surface roughness, t m is the
normalized machining time, and w 1 andw 2 are the weighing
coefficients of R a and t m, respectively.
It should be noted that the weights are based on researcher
experience and/or the overall goals of the optimization
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
procedure. In the current study, the value of w 1 is significantly
larger than that of w 2 because in microparts milling, it is
important to obtain optimal surface finish, especially in func-
tional parts, rather than the machining time needed without
neglecting production time. To emphasize this assumption, the
value for w 1 was set to 0.7 (surface roughness) while w 2 was
set to 0.3 (machining time).
For the normalization procedure, an analytical expression
was utilized aiming at normalizing the values subjected to a
range between 0 and 1. This expression is given in Eq. 4:
xN max xN min
xR xmin xN min 4 produce minimum machining time and minimum surface
xmax xmin
where X R is the real value of a parameter before normaliza-
tion, X min and X max are the minimum and maximum values of
a parameters value range obtained from a data set of prelim-
inary experiments, xN min and xN max are the minimum and maxi-
mum normalized values of a parameter X (0<xN min <xN max <1).
The two criteriasurface roughness and machining
timeare conflicting each other, meaning that they can never
be achieved simultaneously; very fine surface part finishes
always take very long to machine and small machining times
always lead to evidently scalloped parts. The weighing coef-
ficient values were obtained after experimentation, and they
are more or less qualitative, in the sense that R a is a more
important factor than t m. When a GA utilizes an equation such
as Eq. 3, it tries to locate the search space locus that satisfies
both criteria linearly combined by their respective weighing
coefficients.
5.4.2 Implementing GA operators
A careful review of the respective literature concerning GA
applications for machining optimization problems may lead to
suitable selections for operators. The implemented operators
along with their particular characteristics are described in the
following sections:
A. Initialization: in the initialization routine, population size
and variable number are decided. The latter is an imme-
diate result of the problem modeling. Initial population
contains random values for the four variables within the
selected value limits. The GA was encoded both by real
numbers and binary digits. The underlying thought was
to investigate and compare the performance of both
encoding types, in terms of convergence speed, calcula-
tion cost and result quality. Users are prompted to choose
encoding type from a form at the beginning of the GA
execution (Fig. 5). Further on, chromosomes are
transformed to their phenotypes to facilitate variable as-
signment to the CAM system, which cannot read chro-
mosome values.
167
B. Evolution: the developed GA incorporates an evolution-
ary module, which determines the total number of gener-
ations, and it also manages the execution sequence of all
other operators. The population emerges in chromosome
form and is transformed to phenotype. The solver is then
called and objective function values are obtained. The
phenotypic values along with objective values are written
to an output file, so that can be readable in terms of
process variables and machining criteria (actual machin-
ing time and mean surface roughness). The optimal
values are the machining parameters that simultaneously
roughness of the machined part, as described in
Section 5.4.1.
C. Ranking : ranking operator ranks individuals in an as-
cending order based on objective function values.
D. Fitness function : the calculation of each individuals
fitness depends on its place in ranking. Highly ranked
individuals are more fit than others. During the optimi-
zation flow, values emerged after ranking have very small
differences. To tackle this problem, an exponential func-
tion was used to separate best individuals from the rest.
FF i RSexp2RF i 5
where
RS is the sum of all ranking function individuals
RF i is the value of ranking function for i individual
E. Selection : the implemented selection scheme was of
roulette wheel selection type; specifically the stochas-
tic sampling with partial replacement one. According to
this scheme, selected individuals are pointed out by a
random number generator. This generator is biased to-
wards the fittest individuals. Each time an individual is
chosen, its reselection probability is reduced, so that best
individuals do not prevail in the selection process, thus
avoiding strong elitism and solution capturing in local
optima in the GA.
F. Crossover: the developed GA uses two different cross-
over functions, depending on the encoding type. If vari-
able encoding is binary, then single point crossover
operator is used. If encoding is carried out with real
numbers, then a uniform crossover operator is used. In
both cases, two individuals (parents) produce two new
ones (offspring). Couples of individuals are selected
Table 3 Real and binary encoding GA run times for the two microparts
Encoding Jewelry part Microgear
Real 17 min, 32 s 14 min, 12 s
Binary 21 min, 35 s 16 min, 36 s
168 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171

Table 4 GA optimal cutting

conditions and optimal criteria Optimal variable values Optimal
values for the microgear part results

Encoding Cutting Stepover Stepdown Feed rate Spindle speed Ra tm

tool (%) (mm) (%fmax) (rpm) (m) (s)

Real 6 41 % (0.52 mm) 0.1 32 % (0.406 mm/rev) 19,381 1.8 87

Binary 4 76 % (0.61 mm) 0.1 12 % (0.096 mm/rev) 17,905 1.1 102

randomly. Crossover results in a new population which is 6.1 Microgear

twice in size than the original one. Calculation of the
objective function, ranking and selection, takes place
again for the new population. For the parents, objective
function values are not recalculated. Crossover probabil-
ity is 100 % for both crossover functions.
G. Mutation : as in crossover, two alternative mutation
schemes take place for real and binary encoding respec-
tively. Mutation arguments that define the operator are
number of individuals, number of variables, and mutation
rate. In real encoding, individuals and variables to be
mutated are picked, but the best individual remains intact
(elitism). Mutation rate reduces from generation to gen-
eration. If binary encoding is chosen, the number of
individuals to be mutated is selected and the mutation
rate is adjusted. In general, high mutation rates facilitate
GA exploration. Mutation rate starts at 10 % and gradu-
ally reduces to 0 % in the last generations. Mutation does
not occur to each generation best solution (elitism).
When it comes to binary encoding, mutation rate takes
random values limited to 10 %. This unique strategy was
chosen after experimental runs showed that it leads to
better exploration and results.
6 Results and discussion
The proposed genetic algorithm was implemented real number
and binary digit encoded GA runs took place for each micropart.
The population consisted of 40 individuals and the algorithm
was allowed to evolve for 40 generations. Previous runs showed
that these conditions ensure achievement of global minima. The
runs took place on an Intel Pentium CPU at 2.80 GHz with
4 GB RAM. The GA run times are shown in Table 3.
A single phase machining strategy was considered and just
one cutting tool performed the whole machining (no tool
change). The original material stock was a rectangular block
with dimensions of 222 mm. The machining strategy was
an offset type (parallel passes in XY planes) and was selected
due to its capability of leading to smaller machining times and
better final parts over alternatives, as deducted from prelimi-
nary inspection and experimentation. Figure 9a depicts the
machined part after the end of simulation on the CAM system.
The GA encoded with real numbers managed to locate the
global optimum locus in just few generations, while the binary
encoded one arrived at the locus a bit after the 20th generation.
The results that emerged, though, have small differences as far
as process variable values are concerned. This can be
explained by the fact that two or more alternative machining
scenarios can lead to the same (or in the same locus) optimal
solution. Real number encoded GA resulted in a higher ma-
chining time than that of the binary encoded one, but mean
surface roughness was better. This is absolutely expected,
since t m and R a are two conflicting criteria and the objective
function includes them both in linear combination; weighed
sum is about the same for the two criteria. For this part, the GA
encoded with real numbers proved to be more efficient and
less costly, since it managed to achieve global minimum in
just a faction of computation time of the binary encoded one.
6.2 Jewelry micropart
As with the microgear machining, a single phase machining
strategy was considered and just one cutting tool performed
the whole machining. The original material stock was also a
rectangular block with dimensions of 7.572 mm. The

Table 5 GA optimal cutting conditions and optimal criteria values for the jewelry part

Optimal variable values Optimal results

Encoding Cutting tool Stepover (%) Stepdown (mm) Feed rate (%fmax) Spindle speed (rpm) R a (m) t m (s)

Real 7 53 % (0.84 mm) 0.1 24 % (0.38 mm/rev) 18,874 1.8 84

Binary 1 51 % (0.13 mm) 0.1 8 % (0.02 mm/rev) 23,821 1.7 115
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
Fig. 9 Machined microparts as
shown in CAM software: a
microgear and b jewelry
micropart
applied tool-path strategy was an offset one (parallel passes in
XY planessee Fig. 10) and was selected for the reason
explained above in the case of the microgear part. Figure 9b
depicts the machined part after the end of simulation on the
CAM system, while Fig. 10 illustrates the trajectory lines of
this particular tool path.
GA results for microgear and jewelry part are presented in
Tables 4 and 5 respectively .
The GA evolution diagrams (Fig.11a, b) illustrate that both
GA encodingsreal and binaryconverge in the same glob-
al optimum for both parts, although the two GA runs started
from a different point due to the random initialization of the
algorithm.
Real and binary encoded GAs reached the same global
minimum from different evolution paths. Stepdown, feed
rate, and spindle speed are practically the same and the only
difference appears in cutting tool and stepover values. Binary
encoding ended in a smaller tool and stepover value, so
Fig. 10 Depiction of tool path for offset strategy
169
consequently, although mean surface roughness is approxi-
mately the same, machining time is almost twice as much.
The GA evolution diagram presents the GA convergence and
optimal results per generation. The binary encoded GAs
evolution diagram does not follow a constant descending
direction. In about 33th generation, the GA loses its way
and creates a small hill. This probably happened because of
mutation operator, which totally altered the population char-
acteristics, since convergence was trapped in a local mini-
mum. Thus, in very few generations, the GA managed to
escape the local minimum and found the path to the global
minimum. This proves the importance of mutation operators
in GAs.
The performance of GAs applied to general machining
optimization problems, as far as quality of the results is
concerned, is more or less expected, as this has been
already proved in numerous machining optimization studies.
However, since the GA used in this work optimizes a
micromachining operation, it was not a priori known wheth-
er the implementation of GAs would be just as effective.
Nevertheless, the results obtained from experimental runs
on the two microparts have indicated that optimizing
micromachining operations with GAs is just as beneficial
as in conventional macromachining.
The proposed optimization concept can greatly facilitate
the industrial machining field, since the whole module can
operate on CAM systems, found in all workshops of the
manufacturing field. Apart from the well integrated nature of
the proposed optimization approach, results for machining
time and surface quality were obtained in a quite short run
time using a typical PC, in about 20 min. A drawback of the
proposed approach is that it runs under a particular CAM
system. This occurs because each system determines and
handles its own automation objects within the Application
Program Interface. It is a future perspective of the authors to
further develop the whole notion and expand the communi-
cation platform, so that it will be capable of cooperating with
several commercially available CAM systems.
170
Fig. 11 Evolution diagrams for:
a the microgear milling
optimization and b for the jewelry
part milling optimization
7 Conclusions
In the present study, micromilling operations were presented
and discussed in detail, as far as process parameters, tool
properties, machine tool and part characteristics are
concerned. Specifics for these operations were undertaken,
in order to create a prototype 3D model of a CNC
micromachine tool. Moreover, a genetic algorithm was devel-
oped in order to obtain optimal micromilling process param-
eters. Machining time and mean surface roughness R a were
both used as optimization criteria formulating a single objec-
tive optimization problem after appropriate normalization,
weighing, and linear combination. These criteria reflect pro-
cess productivity and surface quality, respectively, both of
which are key elements in machining operations and ought
to be satisfied simultaneously. However, should optimization
requirements are considered otherwise; the objective function
is reformulated, while the overall methodology still remains
the same. Multiobjective optimization was avoided so as to
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
simplify calculations, minimize perplexity, and accelerate
convergence of the algorithm. The study considered five
CNC milling key parameters: cutting tool, stepover, feed rate,
and spindle speed and stepdown. However, stepdown param-
eter that often appears in milling optimization problems was
considered fixed in value because of programming and CAM
system limitations. Acting as the GA solver, a communication
platform was also developed, which interacts with (a) the user
who defines parameter value limits and GA variable encoding
and (b) the CAM software which is fed with process param-
eter values and returns optimization criteria values to the GA.
The optimization methodology was implemented on two
typical microparts: a microgear, such as the ones used in
micromechanisms, and a small jewelry part. Real and binary
encoded GAs were both tested, resulting in the same global
optima for each micropart. The optimization process was
successful and converged at very low calculation cost on
typical personal computers (between 14 and 21 min of CPU
time) making it a very promising tool for everyday industrial
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:157171
usage. Thus, the yielded optimization results are reliable
enough to satisfy the special specifications of micromilling
operations even in demanding environments, reducing ma-
chining times and achieving good surface quality. Several
works are to be presented in the future in terms of process
optimization with the use of other artificial intelligence tech-
niques. Their main thrust will be to examine whether the
presented optimization tool is able to tackle with other
manufacturing processes. As far as the optimization method-
ology is concerned, there are not any noticeable differences in
the workflow between CNC micromilling and normal CNC
milling. The points on which the two work methods are
different from each other are parameter value limits, tool-
path strategy specifics and vibrations that affect the final
product quality. However, the latter cannot be calculated by
typical CAM software since it involves stochastic phenomena
that are not implemented in todays CAM software.
References
1. Sreeram S, Senthil K, Rahman M, Zaman MT (2006) Optimization
of cutting parameters in micro end milling operations under dry
cutting conditions using genetic algorithms. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 30(11 12):10301039. doi:10.1007/s00170-005-0148-0
2. Liu X, Zhu W, Zaloom V (2011) Multi objective optimization for the
micro milling process with adaptive data modeling. ASME Int Conf
Manuf Sci Eng, 1317 June 2011, Corvallis, OR, USA
3. Natarajan U, Periyanan PR, Yang SH (2011) Multiple response
optimization for micro end milling process using response surface
methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 56(1 4):177185. doi:10.
967-1007/s00170-011-3156-2
4. Bissacco G (2004) Surface generation and optimization in
micromilling. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark,
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management
5. Jang SH Kim SM, Kim SG, Choi YH, Park JK (2009) Optimization
of a micro milling machine for minimum weight and vibrations. Tran
Korean Soc Mach Tool Eng 18(1):103109
6. Huo D, Cheng K, Wardle F (2010) Design of a 5 axis ultraprecision
micro milling machineUltraMill: Part 1: holistic design approach,
design considerations, and specifications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
47(9 12):867877. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2128-2
171
7. Huo D, Cheng K, Wardle F (2010) Design of a 5 axis ultraprecision
micro milling machineUltraMill: Part 2: integrated dynamic
modelling, design optimization and analysis. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 47(9 12):879890. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2128-2
8. Fleischer J, Deuchert M, Khlewein C, Ruhs C, Halvadjiysky G,
Schmidt C (2008) Design and manufacturing of micro milling tools.
Microsyst Technol 14(9 11):17711775. doi:10.1007/s00542-008-
985-0652, 10.1007/s00542-008-0652-x
9. Chiou NH, Weigh GT (2012) Optimization of micro milling process
with genetic algorithm. Adv Mater Res 383(390):71117116. doi:10.
4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.383-390.7111
10. Schmidt J, Bouzakis KD, Efstathiou K, Tritschler H (2003)
Computer based prediction and experimental analysis of microend
milling of steel. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on
High Aspect Ratio Micro Structure Technology 259
11. Fleischer J, Kotschenreuther J (2007) The manufacturing of micro
molds by conventional and energy assisted processes. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 75(1 2):7585. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0596-1
12. Kennedy B, DeVor R, Rosochowski A (2010) First place finish;
imparting fine surface finishes when micromilling. Micromanufacturing
3(1):2932
13. Hung NP, Lamere R, SanMiguel G (2010) Impact of micromist in
CNC machining. Forth Annual HTEC Conference, Detroit, MI,
USA, July 2010
14. Zurek G. Understanding micro milling technology. http://www.
productionmachining.com
15. Holland J (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, 2nd
edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge
16. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and
machine learning. Addison Wesley, Boston
17. Caruana RA, Schaer JD (1988) Representation and hidden bias: gray
vs. binary coding for genetic algorithms. Proc. 5th International
Conference on Machine Learning, Los Altos, CA, USA, Morgan
Kaufmann, pp. 153161
18. Krimpenis A (2008) CNC rough milling optimization of complex
sculptured surface parts using artificial intelligence algorithms. PhD
Thesis, National Technical University of Athens, School of
Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing Technologies Division,
Athens, 2008
19. Vaxevanidis NM, Galanis NI, Petropoulos GP, Karalis N,
Vasilakakos P, Sideris J (2010) Surface roughness analysis in high
speed dry turning of a tool steel. Proc. 10th Biennial Conference on
Engineering Systems Design and Analysis ASME ESDA, 1214
July 2010, Istanbul, Turkey
20. Krimpenis A, Vosniakos GC (2009) Rough milling optimization for
parts with sculptured surfaces using genetic algorithms in a
Stackelberg game. J Intell Manuf 20(4):447461. doi:10.1007/
s10845-008-0147-8