Milling surface roughness prediction using

evolutionary programming methods

Oguz C olak
a,
*
, Cahit Kurbanoglu
b
, M. Cengiz Kayacan
a
a
University of Suleyman Demirel, CAD/CAM Research and Application Center, 32300 Isparta, Turkey
b
University of Suleyman Demirel, Mechanical Engineering Department, 32300 Isparta, Turkey
Received 31 January 2005; accepted 7 July 2005
Available online 26 August 2005
Abstract
CNC milling has become one of the most competent, productive and exible manufacturing methods, for complicated or sculp-
tured surfaces. In order to design, optimize, built up to sophisticated, multi-axis milling centers, their expected manufacturing out-
put is at least benecial. Therefore data, such as the surface roughness, cutting parameters and dynamic cutting behavior are very
helpful, especially when they are computationally produced, by articial intelligent techniques. Predicting of surface roughness is
very dicult using mathematical equations. In this study gene expression programming method is used for predicting surface rough-
ness of milling surface with related to cutting parameters. Cutting speed, feed and depth of cut of end milling operations are col-
lected for predicting surface roughness. End of the study a linear equation is predicted for surface roughness related to experimental
study.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Surface roughness; CNC end milling; Genetic expression programming
1. Introduction
To maintain appropriateness to global rivalry condi-
tions of manufacturing conditions, customer related,
fast and agile manufacturing strategies are becoming
an unelectable manufacturing philosophy. To maintain
agile and responsive manufacturing, relationships in
manufacturing steps should be determined in a fast, ex-
act and reliable way. Therefore it is a known fact that
there are some limitations in agile and responsive man-
ufacturing. To overcome limitations for agile and
responsive manufacturing, all manufacturing parame-
ters must be supervised on electronically environment.
This is called electronically manufacturing. To achieve
this process, all eective manufacturing parameters must
be transferred to electronically environment by help of
intelligent systems. If it is to be evaluated in the view
of business management, determination and control of
performance values of elements used in process period
and determination of conjectural economical life period
on electronically environment are important to maintain
agile and responsive manufacturing. Especially, inspec-
tion and determination of surface roughness in metal
working which has an important place in manufacturing
industry has very high importance in the view of eco-
nomical manufacturing. In surface roughness, cutting
parameters (cutting velocity, feed, depth of cut, cutting
force, etc.), types of cutting material and tool are eec-
tive parameters.
Surface nish is important factor in evaluating the
quality of products. Surface roughness (Ra) most used
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2005.07.004
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 246 211 1674.
E-mail addresses: ocolak@mmf.sdu.edu.tr (O. C olak), kurban@
mmf.sdu.edu.tr (C. Kurbanoglu), ckayacan@mmf.sdu.edu.tr
(M.C. Kayacan).
www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes
Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666
Materials
& Design
index to determine the surface nish. Many dierent
attributes of the product, including surface friction,
wearing, heat transmission, the ability to distribute
and hold a lubricant, the ability to accept a coating,
and the ability to resist fatigue, are at least partially dis-
tinguished by how well the surface nish is produced,
due to the fact that surface roughness aects several
functional attributes of products. Consequently, the de-
sired surface roughness value is usually specied for an
individual part, and specic processes are selected in or-
der to achieve the specied nish. Surface specication
can also be a good reference point in determining the
stability of a production process, because the stability
of the machine is contingent on the quality of the oper-
ating part [1].
Standard roughness measurement procedures depend
heavily on stylus instruments which have only limited
exibility in handling dierent parts. Furthermore, the
procedure is a post-process approach, which is not ame-
nable for automation, and the measurement is also rela-
tively slow. In recent years, the modeling and prediction
problems of surface roughness of a workpiece by com-
puter vision in turning operations have received a great
deal of attention [2,3]. Although it has been shown that
the surface roughness is strongly characterized by the
surface image, practical surface roughness measure-
ments based on computer vision technology are still dif-
cult [2]. The main problem is how to accurately obtain
the actual surface roughness of a workpiece using sur-
face images and various parameters of cutting
operations.
Many researchers have studied the end milling pro-
cess in the past few years. Kline et al. [5] investigated
the eect of vibration, deection and chatter of the
workpiecetool system in the end milling process on
surface roughness. Alauddin et al. [6] established a
mathematical model that predicts the surface roughness
of 190 BHN steel after end milling. The prediction
model was expressed via cutting speed, feed rate and
depth of cut. The researchers also used response sur-
face methodology (RSM) to explore the eect of such
cutting parameters as cutting speed, feed rate and
depth of cut on surface roughness. Alauddin et al. [7]
also established a mathematical model for predicting
the tool in the end milling process of 190 BHN steel
under dry cutting conditions. The model included the
following variables: cutting speed, feed rate and axial
depth of cut. It also veried the suitability of the pre-
diction model via ANOVA. Fuh and Hwang [8] used
RSM to construct a model that can predict the milling
force in end milling operations. They considered the
speed of spindle rotation, feed per tooth and axial
and radial depth of cut as the three major factors that
aect the milling force. Comparison between the exper-
imental data and the values predicted by this prediction
model showed the models accuracy to be as high as
95%. Lin [9] studied the issue of inverse heat conduc-
tion in end milling process. He used the inverse nite
element method to estimate the transient tool face tem-
perature and heat dissipation to workpiece during the
end milling processes. The ndings indicate that the re-
sults of the end milling of both steel and aluminum al-
loy derived by the numerical prediction method are a
close match to the experimental result. Chiang et al.
[10] used two dierent kinds of neural networks to cal-
culate the optimal cutting conditions online. They used
a Back-Propagation Network with three inputs and
four outputs to simulate the cutting process, and an-
other kind of neural network to calculate the optimal
cutting parameters to achieve the goal of maximizing
the material removal rate. Luo et al. [11] used a neural
network to simulate the cutting force and contour error
in an end milling experiment. They used two sets of
neural networks in the study. The rst set of networks
derived the feed rate by a parametric interpolation
algorithm along the direction of feed axes to obtain
the desired cutting force and workpiece geometric
shape. The second set is used to make corrections to
the feed rate components specied by the parametric
interpolation algorithm to minimize the contour error
caused by the dynamic lag of the closed-loop servo sys-
tems controlling the feed drives. Alauddin et al. [12]
developed a mathematical model that predicts the aver-
age tangential cutting force in the uncoated carbide in-
set end milling process of Inconel 718 workpiece under
dry conditions. The predictive cutting force model has
been developed in terms of cutting speed and axial
depth of cut by RSM. Lou and Chen [13] studied the
eect of spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut on
the surface roughness of end milling processes. They
used in-process surface roughness recognition (ISRR)
and a neural fuzzy system to predict the workpiece sur-
face roughness [14].
This research investigates to predicting surface
roughness with a new approach method called gene
expression programming (GEP). Three milling parame-
ters have been selected. The parameters and their mean-
ings are listed in Table 1. Based on these three milling
parameters and another important parameter on surface
roughness are investigating how to use GEP for surface
roughness prediction.
Table 1
Parameters used in GEP
Parameter Meaning
Sp Spindle speed (rpm)
Fe Feed rate (mmpm)
Dep Depth of cut (mm)
Ra Roughness (lm)
658 O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666
2. Measurement of surface roughness
There are various simple surface roughness amplitude
parameters used in industry, such as roughness average
(Ra), root-mean-square (rms) roughness (Rq), and max-
imum peak-to-valley roughness (Ry or Rmax), etc. (PDI
Webmaster, 2000). The parameter Ra is used in this
study. The average roughness (Ra) is the area between
the roughness prole and its mean line, or the integral
of the absolute value of the roughness prole height over
the evaluation length (Fig. 1) [4]. Therefore, the Ra is
specied by the following equation:
Ra
1
L
Z
L
0
jY xj dx; 1
where Ra is the arithmetic average deviation from the
mean line, L is the sampling length, and Y is the ordi-
nate of the prole curve.
There are many methods of measuring surface rough-
ness, such as image processing, microscopes, stylus type
instruments, prole tracing instruments, etc. A Pocket
Surf stylus type instrument (produced by Hommel
Verke T500) was used in this study.
In Fig. 2 several types of surface roughness forma-
tions given related to DIN 4760 standard.
3. Prediction of surface roughness for end milling
operations
Surface quality of machined part depends on stability
of CNC, cutting parameter, cutting tool, workpiece
Y
Roughness center line
X
Y: Profile curve
X: Profile direction
Z: Average roughness height
L: Sampling length
H: Profile height
L
Z
H
Cutoff Length
Fig. 1. Surface roughness prole [4].
Fig. 2. Classication of surface roughness formation related to DIN 4760 Standart.
O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666 659
material and tool path. In this study Hadrford VMC
1020 Vertical machining center is used for experimental
study.
When the cutting speed increases, surface quality also
increases in CNC end-milling operations. Depth of cut is
indirectly eect surface quality. Cutting forces, vibration
and cutting temperature are increase with higher depth
of cut. Therefore surface roughness of machined part
is increased with dept of cut.
Experimental study shows that surface roughness is
increase with increasing feed. Cutting edge of cutting
tool and cutting tool radius is eective factor for sur-
face roughness variation as depth of cut. Tool wear
is also increase surface roughness. In Fig. 3 eective
parameters shbone diagram on surface roughness is
seen. [15]
Dynamic parameters of machining, like cutting forces
are eect indirectly surface roughness variation [15].
4. Genetic expression programming (GEP)
GEP algorithm is a solution method which makes a
global function search for the problem, developed as a
resultant of genetic algorithm(GA) and genetic program-
ming (GP) algorithms. Characteristic of GA algorithms
is a linear array of constant length chromosomes. Despite
of they could be manipulated by genetic operators easily
these are not functional in non-linear problems. GP algo-
rithms try to nd a suitable solution using parse three
which they create to dene relations between dierent size
and shape non-linear variables. Advantages of GA and
GP algorithms are jointed in GEP algorithm. Relation-
ships of non-linear variables which are characteristically
Process Kinemtics
Cutting Fluid
Depth of Cut
Feed Rate
Stepover
Tool Angle
Cutting Speed
Vibrations
Friction in the cutting zone
Cutting Force Variation
Accelerations
Chip Formation
Workpiece
Hardness
Workpiece Lenght
Tool Material
Tool Shape
Nose Radius
Ranout Errors
Surface Roughness
Machining Parameters
Cutting Tool Properties
Workpiece Properties
Cutting Phenomena
Workpiece width
Fig. 3. Fishbone diagram with the parameters that aect surface
roughness [15].
Fig. 4. (a) Example crossovers for GEP algorithm: (a-1) program ET, (b-2) program ET, (c) crossover ET, (d) result program ET. (b) Experimental
setup.
660 O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666
in dierent size and shape are derived in order to convert
constant size and linear arrays using suitable function ge-
netic operators [10].
GEP algorithm can be handled as a common applica-
tion of GA and GP algorithms. The genetic algorithm
(GA) is applied to solve the expression tree. GEP can
be applied to the application of conventional genetic
algorithm and genetic programming (GP). GEP genes
are composed of a list of operators, functions, constants
and variable names as chromosomes. Firstly GEP is
produced randomly program depends on this operators
and data sets. The derived programs mutate until the
program with best tness value among them is found.
The program with the best tness value is taken as the
last result. The results can be compared by applying
the mathematical relation obtained from the program
with the best tness value in the proposed computer
program [10].
Crossover is determined by choosing two ET (expres-
sion tree) based on tness and generating for each ET
the crossover point (node) at random. For example:
consider the following ETs (Fig. 4) with crossover points
2 and 3. The sub-tree of ET 1 starting from crossover
point 2 will be swapped with the sub-tree of ET 2 at
crossover point 3. In this study 80% of test data are se-
lected for training GEP algorithm and the other 20%
data are selected for test value.
Table 2
Experimental cutting tool
Spindle speed (rpm) Feed (mm/min) Depth of cut (mm)
750 152 0.25
1000 228 0.76
1250 305 1.26
1500 381
457
533
610
Table 3
Workpiece composition
Workpiece Composition
%Component Value
Aluminum 6061-T8
Dimensions: 35 50 30 mm Aluminum, Al 98
Chromium, Cr 0.040.35
Copper, Cu 0.150.4
Iron, Fe 0.7
Magnesium, Mg 0.8
Using area:
Aircraft ttings, camera lens
mounts, couplings, hydraulic
pistons, appliance ttings,
valves and valve parts, etc.
Manganese, Mn 0.15
Silicon, Si 0.40.8
Titanium, Ti 0.15
Zinc, Zn 0.15
Fig. 5. GEP algorithm model of experimental surface roughness study.
Table 4
Used GEP parameter
Experimental GEP
optimization values
Settings
Number of terminals: 3 Number of Chromosomes: 50
Number of training values: 56 Number of genes: 7
Number of test values: 28 Head size: 8
Linking function: +
Mutation rate: 0.044
One-point recombination rate: 0.3
Two-point recombination rate: 0.3
Gene recombination rate: 0.1
Gene transposition rate: 0.1
IS transposition rate: 0
Number of IS elements: 0
IS elements: 0
RIS transposition rate: 0
Number of RIS elements: 0
RIS elements: 0
Error type: relative
Precision: 0
Selection range: 100
Fitness cases: 56
Max. tness: 5600
O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666 661
5. Implementation of surface roughness to the GEP
The experimental design of this study consisted of
cutting parameters is given in Table 2. Experimental val-
ues are consisted of 84 pieces of machined part. Surface
roughness value (Ra) of each machined part measured
by Hommel Verke T500 Stylus prolometer.
Hardware of this study:
Hardford VMC 1020 Vertical Machining Centre.
Computer boards DAS-6071 32/8 DAQ A/D PCI
Converter CARD.
Pentium III, 800 MHz PC computer.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
D.O.C=0.25 mm Expr. Ra D.O.C=0.25 mm GEP Ra D.O.C=0.76 mm Expr. Ra
D.O.C=0.76 mm GEP Ra D.O.C=1.27 mm Expr.Ra D.O.C=1.27 mm GEP Ra
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
D.O.C=0.25 mm Expr. Ra D.O.C=0.25 mm GEP Ra D.O. C= 0. 76 mm Expr. Ra
D.O.C=0.76 mm GEP Ra D.O.C=1.27 mm Expr .Ra D.O. C= 1. 27 mm GEP Ra
a
b
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and GEP predicted surface roughness value related to spindle speed and DOC. (a) Experimental and GEP
predicted surface roughness values (spindle speed = 750 rpm). (b) Experimental and GEP predicted surface roughness values (spindle
speed = 1000 rpm). (c) Exprimenatl and GEP predicted surface roughness values (spindle speed = 1250 rpm). (d) Experimental and GEP predicted
surface roughness values (spindle speed = 1500 rpm).
662 O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666
Software of this study:
NET Platform for collecting signal and processing.
Automatic Problem Solver Academic version V2.0
for gene expression programming running.
Aluminum 6061 T8 is used for workpiece. Specica-
tion of workpiece is given in Table 3.
Ten millimeter diameter HSS end-mill cutting tool
used for this study. A new end mill is used after each
experiment. A cutting tool is used for only nine pieces
of workpiece to eliminate tool wear eect. There fore
nine new tools are used for this study.
The view of experimental study is shown in Fig. 4.
Measured surface roughnesses of parts are used for
output of algorithm. 84 experimental data is used to
establish GEP algorithm. Eighty percent of experimen-
tal data is used for training of system the other values
used for testing. GEP modeling of surface roughness
prediction is shown in Fig. 5.
GEP algorithm uses some setting parameters such as
chromosomes, gene, mutation rate, one-point recombi-
nation rate, etc. Setting parameter of this study shown
in Table 4.
Experimental data has been evaluated in APS 2.0
software and surface roughness function derived for
end-milling operations.
To derive surface roughness function for end milling
with 92% straightness is derived using GEP algorithm
at the end of 1,121,737 iterations of 50 chromosomes
size. The GEP function after optimization of GEP
operator parameters are given below. The C++ code
which is produced after the training using GEP
algorithm:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
D.O.C=0.25 mm Expr. Ra D.O.C=0.25 mm GEP Ra D.O.C=0.76 mm Expr. Ra D.O.C=0.76 mm GEP Ra
D.O.C=1.27 mm Expr.Ra D.O.C=1.27 mm GEP Ra
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
D.O.C=0.25mm Expr. Ra D.O.C=0.25 mm GEP Ra D.O.C=0.76 mm Expr. Ra
D.O.C=0.76mm GEP Ra D.O.C=1.27 mm Expr.Ra D.O.C=1.27 mm GEPRa
c
d
Fig. 6 (continued)
O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666 663
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e


R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
Spindle=750 rpm Expr. Ra Spindle=750 mm GEP Ra Spindle=1000 rpm Expr. Ra
Spindle=1000 rpm GEP Ra Spindle=1250 rpm Expr.Ra Spindle=1250 rpm GEP Ra
Spindle=1500 rmp Expr. Ra Spindle=1500 rpm GEP Ra
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
Spindle=750 rpm Expr. Ra Spindle=750 mm GEP Ra Spindle=1000 rpm Expr. Ra Spindle=1000 rpm GEP
Spindle=1250 rpm Expr.Ra Spindle=1250 rpm GEP Ra Spindle=1500 rmp Expr. Ra Spindle=1500 rpm GEP
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Feed (mm/min)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(
m
i
c
r
o
m
m
)
Spindle=750 rpm Expr. Ra Spindle=750 mm GEP Ra
Spindle=1000 rpm Expr. Ra Spindle=1000 rpm GEP Ra
Spindle=1250 rpm Expr.Ra
Spindle=1250 rpm GEP Ra
Spindle=1500 rmp Expr. Ra Spindle=1500 rpm GEP Ra
a
b
c
Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental and GEP predicted surface roughness value related to dierent spindle speed and DOC. (a) Experimental and
GEP predicted surface roughness values (DOC = 0.25 mm). (b) Experimental and GEP predicted surface roughness values (DOC = 0.76 mm). (c)
Experimental and GEP predicted surface roughness values (DOC = 1.26 mm).
664 O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666
where;
input variables which is in code: d[0] = cutting speed,
d[1] = feed rate, d[2] = DOC,
output of this function gives predicted surface
roughness.
6. Results and conclusion
By using GEP algorithm non-linear relation between
cutting forces and cutting parameters could be expressed
as a function. This would facilitate prediction of surface
roughness and cost in manufacturing experimental data
is evaluated in GEP algorithm. Then the function in
C++ language is determined. Results of experimental
data and values that function evaluated are compared
in graphical representations. The evaluated C++ func-
tion, gives the relation between cutting parameters and
surface roughness in a high accuracy, as a rate of 91%.
This study simplies surface roughness process
monitoring.
In Fig. 6, the eect of feed rate on surface roughness
is given for various cutting speed (750, 1000, 1250 and
1500 rpm) and at depth of cut at 0.25, 0.76 and
1.27 mm. Due to this graphic in high cutting speed val-
ues, there is good relation between functional data and
experimental data, but in lower cutting speed values
some dierences are seen in this relation. In nish pro-
cess of machining operations, where low surface rough-
ness is aimed, always high cutting speed values is
preferred, therefore the tting problem of the function
determined and experimental data is not much impor-
tant at all. High precision tting of GEP algorithm
and experimental data on surface roughness related to
cutting speed will decrease need have high cost experi-
mental studies.
Some dierences is shown between experimental and
GEP predicted in low spindle speed and DOC. But there
is a good correlation in high speed and high DOC as
seen in Fig. 7.
In manufacturing environment prediction of surface
roughness is important for product quality and produc-
tion time. In this study, as a conclusion, using GEP
algorithm, surface roughness prediction has been done
using a few experimental data. GEP is coming from its
ability to generate mathematical equations that can be
easily programmed even into programming for use in
monitoring of surface quality.
Acknowledgement
This study is supported by Prime Ministry State Plan-
ning Organization (TR) (Project Nos: DPT 2003
K121020 and 98K123040).
References
[1] Chen JC, Huang LH, Lan AX, Lee S. Analysis of an eective
sensing location for an in-process surface recognition system in
turning operations. J Ind Technol 1999;15(3).
[2] Lee BY, Tarng YS. Surface roughness inspection by computer
vision in turning operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
2001;41:125163.
[3] Kiran MB, Ramamoorthy B, Radhakrishnan V. Evaluation of
surface roughness by vision system. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
1998;38(5):68590.
[4] Yang JL, Chen JC. A systematic approach for identifying
optimum surface roughness performance in end-milling opera-
tions. J Ind Technol 2001;17(2).
[5] Kline WA, DeVor RA, Shareef IA. The prediction of surface
geometry in end milling. ASME J Eng Ind 1982;104:2728.
[6] Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MSJ. Computer-aided
analysis of a surface-roughness model for end milling. J Mater
Process Technol 1995;55:1237.
[7] Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MSJ. Prediction of tool life
in end milling by response surface methodology. J Mater Process
Technol 1997;71:45665.
[8] Fuh KH, Hwang RM. Predicted milling force model for high-
speed end milling operation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
1997;37(7):96979.
double APSCfunction(double d[])
{
double dblTemp = 0;
dblTemp += ((d[1] 1/((sqrt(d[0]) + pow(d[2],d[1])))) d[1]);
dblTemp += (tan(1/((d[0]/d[1])))* log 10((cos(d[2]) * (d[1] + d[1]))));
dblTemp += tan(tan(((tan(d[2])/(d[1]/d[2]))/tan(sin(d[1])))));
dblTemp += 1/((1/(fmod((d[1] d[2]),log(d[2]))) > oor(pow(d[0],d[2]))?1/(fmod((d[1] d[2]),log(d[2]))):
oor(pow(d[0],d[2]))));
dblTemp += sin(cos(tan(log10(((log(d[2]) + d[1])*(d[0] + d[0]))))));
dblTemp += tan(log10(1/((fmod((d[0]+d[0]),(d[1] + d[1])) + (d[0] d[2])))));
dblTemp += sin(sqrt((d[0]/(((d[1]*d[2])*d[2]) + ceil(d[1])))));
return dblTemp;
}
O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666 665
[9] Lin J. Inverse estimation of the toolwork interface temperature
in end milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1995;35(5):75160.
[10] Chiang ST, Liu DI, Lee AC, Chieng WH. Adaptive control
optimization in end milling using neural networks. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 1995;35(4):63760.
[11] Luo T, Lu W, Krishnamurthy K, McMillin B. Neural network
approach for force and contour error control in multi-dimen-
sional end milling operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
1998;38:134359.
[12] Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MSJ. Modelling of cutting
in end milling Inconel. J Mater Process Technol 1996;58:1008.
[13] Lou SJ, Chen JC. In-process surface roughness recognition
(ISRR) system in end-milling operation. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 1999;15:2009.
[14] Ferreira C. Gene expression programming: new adaptive algo-
rithm for solving problems. Complex Systems 2001;13(2):87129.
[15] Benardos PG, Vosniakos G. Predicting surface roughness in
machining: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2003;43:83344.
666 O. C olak et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 657666