Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262

www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Optimization of fuzzy rules design using genetic algorithm

S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda*
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Malaysia
Received 1 March 1999; received in revised form 11 May 1999; accepted 17 October 1999

Abstract
Fuzzy rules optimization is a crucial step in the development of a fuzzy model. A simple two inputs fuzzy model will have more than ten
thousand possible combinations of fuzzy rules. A fuzzy designer normally uses intuition and trial and error method for the rules assignment.
This paper is devoted to the development and implementation of genetic optimization library (GOL) to obtain the optimum set of fuzzy rules.
In this context, a fitness calculation to handle maximization and minimization problem is employed. A new fitness-scaling mechanism named
as Fitness Mapping is also developed. The developed GOL is applied to a case study involving fuzzy expert system for machinability data
selection (Wong SV, Hamouda AMS, Baradie M. Int J Flexi Automat Integr Manuf 1997;5(1/2):79–104). The main characteristics of genetic
optimization in fuzzy rule design are presented and discussed. The effect of constraint (rules violation) application is also presented and
discussed. Finally, the developed GOL replaces the tedious process of trial and error for better combination of fuzzy rules. q 2000 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fuzzy-rules optimization; Genetic algorithms; Genetic optimization; Fitness mapping

1. Introduction result being the development of the so-called fuzzy logic

Fuzzy logic, initially introduced in Zadeh’s pioneering
work in mid-1960s [2], and later explored by Mamdani to
control a simple laboratory steam engine [3], has established
itself as a suitable solution to a range of challenging indus-
trial problems [4]. Fuzzy logic is a mathematical theory of
inexact reasoning that allows us to model the reasoning
process of humans in linguistic terms. It is suitable in defin-
ing the relationship between the system inputs and the
desired system outputs. Fuzzy logic is one of the most
successful of today’s technologies for developing sophisti-
cated control systems. It is also popular, as its capability for
developing rule-based expert systems. Fuzzy controllers and
fuzzy reasoning have found particular applications in indus-
trial systems that are very complex and cannot be modeled
precisely even under various assumptions and approxima-
tions [1]. The control of such systems by experienced
human operators was proven to be in many cases more
successful and efficient than by classical automatic control-
lers. The human controllers employ experiential rules that
can be cast into the fuzzy logic framework. These observa-
tions inspired many investigators to work in this area with
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1603-948-6101; fax: 1603-948-8939.
E-mail address: hamouda@eng.upm.edu.my (A.M.S. Hamouda).
0965-9978/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0965-997 8(99)00054-X
and fuzzy rule-based control. Munakata and Jani reported in
Ref. [5] that over a thousand commercial and industrial
fuzzy systems have been successfully developed in the
last few years. The main reason behind this lies on the
unique characteristics of fuzzy logic. There are two general
methodologies for generating fuzzy model. The first one
requires expert information to construct the model, whereas
the second lets the system adjust the fuzzy components from
representative numerical samples. The first approach
requires a prior expert knowledge about the system. It has
been a good form to collect expert information from experi-
enced experts, as it is much nearer to human normal
communication. The main drawbacks of this approach are
subjectivity and dependence on expert’s knowledge, which
might not be the best at most of the time.
The second method has been applied to construct a fuzzy
model from the available input–output results. A lot of
works has been carried out to adjust and/or to generate
input membership functions, output membership functions,
and/or fuzzy rule sets [6–9]. Tang et al. suggested hierarch-
ical genetic algorithms to minimize the number of fuzzy
memberships and fuzzy rules in Ref. [10]. The main draw-
back of this approach is that the representative data is not
really representative in an overall manner. Besides that,
almost all the systems in reality are non-linear and subjected
to many unknown variables, which are normally ignored
252 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262

during idealization of the problem. Thus, the so-called of a population. The second class is called “Population”,
representative data is not always representative. consists of all individuals as its members.
Fuzzy rules design is never an easy task especially
subjected to complex real world problems. Fuzzy if-then 2.1. Chrom class
rules were derived from human experts in most fuzzy-
In microbiological world, chromosomes are composed of
based systems. Each fuzzy model described in Ref. [1]
genes, which may take on some number of values called
will have more than 2 × 1029 possible sets of fuzzy rules.
alleles. The Chrom class only stores a series of such coded
A simple two-inputs-one-output fuzzy model normally has
information, in reality. Designation of allele has to be
more than ten thousand possible combinations. Although
carried out before hand by the designer. In natural world,
applying common sense and expert knowledge would
the data or information mentioned is referring to the feature
normally narrow down the scope, but the selected fuzzy
carried with the particular value of the allele, such as brown
rules are normally not the best fitted.
eyes. The definition of the alleles is not provided in the
Recently, several approaches were suggested for generat-
Chrom class, as it is common for the entire population (simi-
ing the fuzzy rules from the numerical data automatically.
lar individual or member of the population). All the infor-
Wang and Mendel have described a general method to
mation carried by an individual is collected in the
generate fuzzy rules from the numerical data in Ref. [11].
chromosome in a standard sequence, which can be defined
Jang [12] and Berenji and Khedkar [13] have proposed self-
freely by the user of the GOL.
learning methods for adjusting membership functions of
All the information stored in the chromosome is in bit
fuzzy sets in fuzzy if-then rules. According to the authors’
form, means a series of ‘1’ and ‘0’ are used for representa-
opinion, automatically generating fuzzy rules will lose one
tion of an individual’s characteristics or features. The data
of the most important features in fuzzy logic. One of the
has been arranged in such a way as to cope up with different
main features of fuzzy logic is its ability of describing the
types of information representation. It could be a Boolean,
system in a linguistics term. This enables the design of such
an integer or even a real number. The user of the GOL has
system with more human-like reasoning, especially with the
all the flexibility to define his/her own definitions for every
fuzzy if-then rules.
single allele. In the present work, the authors have chosen
Genetic algorithm (GA) is now a very popular tool for
binary numbering, as it is the most fundamental in comput-
solving optimization problems. It has been used to effec-
ing world. It can represent any kind of information, ranging
tively find optimal solutions for a variety of problems (e.g.
from its own binary data to real number. In addition, it will
operations research, hybrid techniques, image processing,
gain more efficient computer resources utilization. The user
etc.). Genetic algorithms are based on the mechanics of
has to define the length of every single allele for the chro-
natural selection and natural genetics. With GA’s capabil-
mosome. The user has to bear in mind that, all the indivi-
ities, it has been extended to be a novel optimization algo-
duals in the population are similar, thus share similar
rithm. GA has been applied in solving mathematical
chromosome pattern. In addition, the user has to decide
problems, medical problems, engineering problems and
the length of every individual allele in advance. The calcu-
even political science problems [14–17]. Genetic algo-
lated fitness and penalty factors are stored as member vari-
rithms have been employed for generating and/or adjusting
ables in Chrom class as well. A series of member functions
membership functions of fuzzy sets. Karr [6] adjusted fuzzy
are created to abstract and to store allele information from
membership functions and Nomura et al. [18] determined
and into the chromosome. The implementation of these
fuzzy partition of input spaces by genetic algorithms.
functions requires providence of predetermined initial posi-
In this paper, the authors use the genetic algorithm
tion and ending position of the allele in a chromosome.
approach in fuzzy rules design. The genetic optimization
replaces the tedious process of trial and error for better 2.2. Population class
combination of fuzzy rules. Representative data are used
from real world or reliable resources for genetic optimiza- Population class consists of two generations, new genera-
tion. Studies are carried out based on fuzzy models from tion and present generation. Each generation consists of
Refs. [1,19]. Both newly suggested algorithms, chromo- corresponding individuals (chromosomes) of same kind
some-length independent mutation operation and Fitness and each individual carries a series of genes. New genera-
Mapping mechanism, are described and discussed. tion is breed from the present generation. All the chromo-
somes belong to Chrom class, thus carrying all the Chrom
class features and functions.
Population class carries a number of member variables.
2. Development of GOL They can be divided into two main groups, which are static
and dynamic, respectively. The static variables are pre-
There are two main classes in GOL. The first one is determined or calculated at the initialization stage and
named as Chrom, containing all the necessary information used for the rest of the following processes. While on the
about a chromosome that belongs to an individual member contrary, dynamic variables are altered in every generation.
 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262 253

Table 1
Important member variables of Population class

Static variable Description Dynamic variable Description

Imember Number of individuals / AvgFitness Average fitness of the present generation

chromosomes in a generation
Iallele Number of allele in a chromosome MaxFitness Maximum fitness of the present generation
LengthAllele Length of a particular allele in a FitChrom Chromosome which has the highest fitness
chromosome, in term of binary unit
pCross Probability of occurring cross over Ncross Number of cross over occurrence
pMutation Probability of occurring mutation NMutation Number of mutation occurrence

Table 1 shows crucial static and dynamic member variables
of the Population class.
Several member functions are included in the Population
class. These member functions are used to implement what
is shown in Fig. 1. Some of them are standard and are used
within the GOL. The inheritance and polymorphism of OOP
enable overriding and customizing of the member functions
to cope with different needs. Some of the common functions
are reproduction, select, mutation, crossover, fitness calcu-
lation, etc.
Common genetic operations are crossover and mutation.
They are handled by crossover function and mutation func-
tion in Population class. The user can select single bit point
crossover or double bit point crossover. Whole allele instead
of bit crossover is available. While for mutation operation, a
user can choose bit mutation or allele mutation, a single bit
of the whole chromosome will be altered to its reverse in bit
mutation. While, the whole allele will be altered arbitrary to
any possible value within the allele length in terms of bits in
allele mutation. User of GOL can even override the opera-
tions to have his/her custom made genetic crossover and
mutation operation.
Fitness calculation is a problem-oriented process. It has to
be overridden by the user according to the requirement of
the system. Fitness of an individual is calculated in terms of
real number. Fitness calculation is generally grouped into
two main purposes, maximizing and minimizing the solu-
tion. The nature of GOL is for maximization fitness, means,
the evolution of generations tends towards maximizing the
fitness of the entire population. Minimizing problems can be
solved with the following general equation
FitnessFinal ˆ K 2 FitnessTrial …1†
Fitness Trial is calculated before hand based on a minimiz-
ing problem consideration. The final fitness, Fitness Final,
is calculated with Eq. (1) with a constant value K. The
value of K must be greater than the worst predicted
value of Fitness Trial. In solving a maximizing problem,
Fitness Final is equal to Fitness Trial.
Constraints (or penalty for rules violation) can be applied
in the process of genetic optimization. Penalty factor of each
individual is stored in respective object, an instance of
Chrom class. When a constraint or a rule is violated, a
certain amount of penalty is applied towards the final fitness
calculation. Penalty treatments are carried out either with
single collection or accumulative collection. In single
collection, the penalty factor is applied once only, no matter
how many constraints is violated. Thus, penalty will be the
same regardless the violating degree. On the contrary, with
accumulative collection, each violation will cause a certain
amount of penalty. At the end, all the penalties are summed
up for the final fitness calculation. Eq. (2) shows the fitness
calculation for minimizing problem with accumulative
penalty collection.
X
FitnessFinal ˆ K 2 FitnessTrial 2 PFi …2†

PFi is the penalty factor of an individual i.

Fig. 1. Genetic optimization flow chart. Constraint(s) or rules violation implementation is useful
254 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262

Table 2
Inputs fuzzy expression

First input (material hardness) Second input (depth of cut) Index representation
for both inputs
Abbreviation Expression Abbreviation Expression

VS Very soft VS Very shallow 0

S Soft S Shallow 1
MD Medium MD Medium 2
H Hard D Deep 3
VH Very hard VD Very deep 4

especially in fuzzy rules design. It incorporates expert
knowledge into the optimization process. Penalty factor
calculation should be overridden for customization purpose.
The penalty value must not be too small, which will not
cause significant effect. It must not be too large as well,
which will cause the whole optimizationP process inefficient.
The summation of all penalty values ( PFi in Eq. (2)) must
not be greater than the difference between the value of K and
the mean of all absolute error percentages. To reduce the
unwanted effects from value K, Eq. (3) is suggested
AdjFitnessi ˆ FitnessFinal
i 2 min…FitnessFinal
0 n21 †
…FitnessFinal
…3†
AdjFitnessi is the adjusted final fitness value for a parti-
cular member i of the population. Fitnessi is the value calcu-
lated from Eq. (2) for member i.
min(FitnessFinal …FitnessFinal
0 n21 ) is a function which will
yield the minimum value from FitnessFinal 0 n21 :
to FitnessFinal
The value n is the size of the population.
2.3. Implementation of GOL
Fig. 1 shows a flow chart of a typical genetic optimization
algorithm. It starts with static variable initialization. All the
static and dynamic variables are initialized in the GOL
constructor. The GOL uses bit-wise interpretation, which
Table 3
Output fuzzy expression for cutting speed fuzzy model (cutting speed)
means, the length of a particular allele is expressed in
terms of bit. If an allele carries a possible value from 0 to
7 (or 8 possible features), the length of the allele is then
three. Calculations are then being carried out for some other
static variables, such as the length of a chromosome. Initial
individuals or chromosome of the members in a population
have to be defined. They can be generated randomly,
supplied by the user or partially generated randomly with
partial user input. Fitness of initial chromosomes is calcu-
lated with the overridden fitness calculation function,
including the penalty factor calculation.
The Reproduction’s main function is to generate the new
generation from the present generation. It consists of selec-
tion, mutation and crossover operations. With analogy to the
biological world, stronger individual stands higher chance
in natural selection for breeding. Thus, individual with
better fitness will stand higher chance to be selected in the
selection operation. Stochastic sampling with replacement
method is used. Crossover and mutation may happen while
breeding. The success of crossover and mutation process is
depending on the pre-defined mutation probability and
crossover probability, respectively. The breeding of new
generation is continuing until the population size reaches
its limit. All the new generation will replace the present
generation in the generation change process. Then the
global population information is updated. The whole
processes are repeated for the desired number of generation.

Abbreviation Expression Index representation

3. GOL application
EVS Extremely very slow 0
ES Extremely slow 1
GOL has successfully optimized the fuzzy models used in
VVS Very very slow 2
VS Very slow 3 Refs. [1,19]. Tables 2 and 3 show the fuzzy expressions for
S Slow 4 the inputs and output memberships, respectively. While
QS Quite slow 5 Table 4 shows the minimum–maximum range of the
AS A bit slow 6 fuzzy membership functions for four different tool types.
MD Medium 7
The fuzzy models are common in inputs and output
AF A bit fast 8
QF Quite fast 9 membership pattern, but different in range. The inputs and
F Fast 10 output memberships are equal-sided triangle in shape and
VF Very fast 11 well distributed. Different set of fuzzy rule is assigned for
VVF Very very fast 12 each respective tool. Table 5 shows fuzzy rules for high-
EF Extremely fast 13
speed tool fuzzy model. The fuzzy rules design was based
EVF Extremely very fast 14
on intuition with trial and error for fine-tuning.
 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262 255

Table 4
Min–max range of fuzzy membership functions for cutting speed fuzzy model

Tool type First input Second input depth of cut (mm) Output cutting speed (m/min)
material hardness
(BHN)

Min Max Min Max Min Max

High-speed steel 85 275 0 16 16 59

Uncoated brazed carbide 85 275 0 16 60 172
Uncaoted indexable carbide 85 275 0 16 63 225
Coated carbide 85 275 0 16 105 336

3.1. Fuzzy set handling class
A simplified fuzzy set handling class (FSH class) has
been developed and incorporated into the optimization
process described in this paper. The FSH class is developed
using C11 programming language. The members of the
FSH store the properties of a fuzzy membership. The simpli-
fied FSH class can only handle triangle and truncated trian-
gle fuzzy shapes. Some common operations like truncation
and truth degree calculation are also included.
All the calculations described in this paper are based on
Max–Min Inference Method. In order to save processing
time, Weighted Centroid Output Defuzzification method
has been used. The use of Weighted Centroid Output Defuz-
zification compared to Union Centroid Output Defuzzificai-
ton has proven to cause an insignificantly small difference as
reported in Ref. [19].
3.2. GOL initialization
The fuzzy models consist of five fuzzy memberships in
the input and fifteen in the output. The system required 25
fuzzy rules with 15 possibilities each. Thus, the total
number of possible fuzzy rules combination will be 1525 ˆ
2:525 × 1029 : For initialization, 25 alleles were required and
the length of each allele is 4 bits in order to cope with 15
possible values. Index representations in Tables 2 and 3 are
used. In addition, the initialization of the alleles, the prob-
ability of crossover, the probability of mutation, and the size
of the population are needed. The proper size of the popula-
tion and probabilities will yield better optimization results.
In this study, the population consists of 80 individuals (sets
of fuzzy rule), the crossover probability and the mutation
Table 5
Fuzzy rules for high-speed steel fuzzy model (with abbreviation indication)
Material hardness Depth of cut
VS S MD D VD
VS EVF MD AS QS
S F QS S VS
MD F S S VVS
H QF S VS VVS
VH MD ES ES ES
probability are set as 0.6 and 0.009, respectively. Single bit
point crossover operation and allele mutation operation are
used. The fuzzy rules from Ref. [1] are assigned as one of
the initial members. The rest of the rules are generated
automatically and randomly. Basically, the size of a popula-
tion is fixed. Each individual has its own chromosome,
which consists of certain fixed-number of alleles. The
genetic optimization processes are repeated for 10 000
generations.
3.3. Fitness calculation
Calculation of an individual’s fitness involves extracting
data from the individual’s chromosome, translating the
value of all the alleles and assigning the represented fuzzy
rules into the FSH class. Then fuzzy operations are
performed with the predetermined inputs (work piece mate-
rial and depth of cut) to yield the output (cutting speed). The
number of predetermined sets of inputs is 80. Forty sets of
representative data are extracted from Machining Data
Handbook [20]. Additional 40 sets for uncovered region
are obtained through linear interpolation. Calculation of
absolute error percentage compared to the result from the
above mentioned 80 sets of data is carried out. The opera-
tions iterate until finished assessing all the predetermined
sets of inputs. The mean of all the individual absolute error
percentage is calculated. The mean of absolute error percen-
tage is a suitable fitness representation of the particular
member (chromosome) in the population. Orientation of
fitness consideration in the developed GOL is, higher the
value of fitness the better. To cope with this scenario, the
fitness is obtained through Eq. (4)
X
n
…abs_error%†i
iˆ0
X
Fitness ˆ K 2 2 penalty_factor …4†
n11
where 0 # i # n
Penalty factor is for rules violation (or constraints). The
VS value K is an arbitrary selected positive value. K is defined
VVS as 1000 for the purpose of this application. Generally, lower
VVS mean absolute error percentage, higher fitness value and
ES
nearer to K. For the final consideration of the fitness in the
EVS
competition of reproduction selection, Eq. (4) is employed.
256 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262
Fig. 2. Mean absolute error percentage versus generation with power trend-lines.
3.4. Pattern violation (constraint) penalties
The genetic optimization class allows the control of fuzzy
rules pattern, means, the designer can provide his/her expert
knowledge in specifying the relationship between the inputs
and the outputs. For the purpose of this paper, the authors
have included four general constraints for the fuzzy rules,
which are:
• harder the workpiece material, faster cutting speed;
• softer the workpiece material, slower cutting speed;
• shallower the depth of cut, faster cutting speed;
• deeper the depth of cut, slower cutting speed.
Constraints are applied with accumulative penalty collec-
tion. Each violation will cause a penalty value of 25 in the
summation of error factor in Eq. (4). Thus, more number of
violations will cause lower fitness. Pattern validation is
carried out during the assignment of fuzzy rules into the
FHS class from the value of alleles. The penalty value
must not be too small, which will not cause any significant
effect. It must not be too large as well, which will make the
whole optimization process inefficient. The summation of
all penalty values must not be greater than the difference
between the value of K and the mean of all absolute error
percentages.
3.5. Results of GOL implementation
Better results from the trial and error fuzzy rules with
genetic optimization are achieved. Table 7 shows the
summary of validation results, comparing the genetic opti-
mized fuzzy model from the literature [1,19]. Note that all
the fuzzy models in the literatures were fine-tuned through
trial and error. Significantly improved fuzzy rules are
suggested after genetic optimization for each fuzzy model.
4. GOL characteristics and operations discussion
General characterization of fuzzy rules genetic optimiza-
tion is carried out with the high-speed steel fuzzy model
from literature [1] as test media. As a typical situation, a
genetic model with relatively huge chromosome is involved.
The example fuzzy model requires 25 alleles in a chromo-
some, and each allele consists of 4 bits. As for characteriza-
tion tests, no constraint (penalty) is applied. Initial
individuals in the initial population are generated randomly.
4.1. Efficiency and repeatability
Ten independent runs are carried out to verify genetic
optimization’s performance in fuzzy rules design. The
number of generation is set to be 200. All the runs share
the same genetic parameters, such as the number of indivi-
duals in the population and mutation probability, but have
different random seeds. The random seed is used to generate
random number. Fig. 2 shows a chart P based on the mean
absolute error percentage, which is (abs_error%)/(n 1 1)
in Eq. (4). Generation average, generation the best and over-
all the best are shown in terms of mean absolute error
percentage. They are calculated as the mean value from
the ten independent runs. Trend-lines are inserted in Fig. 2
assuming negative power relationship between mean abso-
lute error percentage with the number of generation.
Randomly generated initial fuzzy rules have an average
value of 40% in mean absolute error percentage with stan-
dard deviation of 1.5. The algorithms have significantly
narrowed down the search and led to a reduction in the
average mean absolute error percentage to around 20% in
the first 10 generations. The performance of the genetic
optimization reduces when evolving for finer solution.
The value only improved 1.26% in the second 100 genera-
tions. Smaller improvement degree is experienced when the
 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262 257

Fig. 3. Performance comparison between random generated population and single strong individual.

whole population evolves further. This shows that genetic
optimization is performing with excellent phase initially,
and the improvement deteriorates from generation to
generation till it reaches its optimum point.
4.2. Importance of initial population
A good initial population will improve the optimization
process. A strong individual in fitness is placed in the initial
population, which consists of 79 other individuals that
generated randomly. The strong individual is selected
from the corresponding sets of fuzzy rules from Ref. [1].
Averages of generation, average mean absolute error
percentage, and the best mean absolute error percentage
are calculated from three independent runs under the same
environment. Comparison has been made with 80 randomly
generated individuals. Fig. 3 shows that there is a significant
improvement in performance by having a single strong indi-
vidual in the initial population. The points shown in Fig. 3
are the average value of mean absolute error in the respec-
tive generation. The optimization reduced in mean absolute
error percentage from more than 40–8% in the first 10
generations, whilst comparing the randomly selected
model, only reduced to 20%. Fig. 3 shows that the single
individual-selected population starts staggering from the
50th generation. In the 200th generation, random model
achieved 4.3% in mean absolute error percentage while
3.2% with the other model.
4.3. Crossover, mutation and population size
Good genetic algorithm performance requires the choice
of a high crossover probability, a low mutation probability
(inversely proportional to the population size), and a moder-
ate population size. De Jong [21] suggested crossover prob-
ability of 0.6. Later, Grefenstette [22] proved that higher

Fig. 4. Performance comparison with different crossover probabilities.

258 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262

Fig. 5. Performance comparison with different mutation probabilities.

crossover rates are better when the stochastic errors of
sampling are reduced through the use of more accurate
selection procedures. Genetic optimization with large chro-
mosome is having the same characteristic in selecting cross-
over probability especially at the initial evolutions. This is
illustrated in Fig. 4. As for high crossover probability, the
chance of an individual surviving (with same chromosome
pattern) for the next generation is low. Thus, maintaining
the strong individual in evolution process is hard with
stochastic sampling with replacement selection. In this
study, Elitist selection model is applied to overcome the
problem [17].
Mutation probability controls the rate of mutation in the
process of reproduction. Chance of mutating allele is higher
with huge chromosome. Thus, mutation probability should
be lower in huge chromosome. Too low probability will
cause insufficient diversity for continued improvement.
Fig. 5 shows change in performances affected by different
mutation rates. A mutation rate around 0.01 is recom-
mended.
The basic mutation operation is defined as number of
mutation over number of allele involved in reproduction
[16]. To solve the chromosome-length dependent mutation
operation, the authors suggest a new mutation operation.
Mutation rate is defined as the number of mutation over
the number of generated individuals. If a mutation is
‘decided’ to take place on an individual, an allele of the
individual is selected randomly. Thus, the mutation rate is
independent from the size of the chromosome. From the
recommended mutation rate, 0.01 mutation per allele, prob-
ability for an individual to experience a mutation is 0:01 ×
25 ˆ 0:25: Thus, chromosome-length independent mutation
rate is 0.25. This means, every reproduction of four indivi-
duals, one of them will get mutated in one of the alleles. The

Fig. 6. Performance comparison with different population sizes.

 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262
Fig. 7. Performance comparison with Fitness Mapping and random generated initial population.
new length-independent mutation operation prohibits more
than one allele mutation of an individual at one time, which
may occur with the conventional mutation operation. De
Jong [21] has shown the relationship between population
size and optimization performance for off-line system. He
reported that bigger the population size, better the optimiza-
tion performance, however, more computation effort is
required. Fig. 6 shows the fuzzy rules genetic optimization
in particular and huge chromosome genetic optimization in
general follows the pattern. Larger population size requires
more computation efforts to reproduce a generation. In addi-
tion, too large a population will cause reduction in the opti-
mizing performance, as shown in Fig. 6 and Ref. [19].
4.4. Fitness adjustment
Eq. (4) alone will lead to inefficiency selection operation
during reproductions. The fitness calculated is high in value
and difference between minimum fitness and maximum
fitness is small compared to the fitness value. The value of
K in Eq. (3) leads to such phenomena. In order to improve
the efficiency of the genetic optimization, the authors have
introduced Eq. (5) to eliminate the effect of K.
The authors have also found that Eq. (4) is not efficient
enough. The optimization process reaches the premature
staggering region without any further improvement. While
the population evolves, the average generation fitness is
moving closer to the best of generation fitness, as shown
in Fig. 2. Thus, no significant advantage of an individual
with maximum fitness compares to an average individual.
As a result, selection for improvement becomes a random
walk among the mediocre. To overcome such a situation, a
few methods have been suggested [17,18,21,22]. The
process is called fitness scaling. The common scaling
mechanism is linear scaling. Sigma truncation and power
law scaling are among the others.
The authors have developed their own fitness scaling
259
mechanism, named Fitness Mapping. There are three main
objectives to be achieved:
• No extraordinary individuals would take over a large
proportion of the finite population in a single generation,
which may cause of premature convergence. With the
conventional (common) scaling method, this could
happened when an outfitted individual suddenly turn up
in the population at the beginning of the evolution, where
the average fitness is near to the lowest fitness.
• Minimize the effects from random walk when the
average fitness is near to the maximum fitness.
• Eliminate the effects from huge fitness value.
In Fitness Mapping, fitness of an individual is mapped to
a range from 0 to1, where 0 will be the weakest representa-
tion and 1 will be the strongest representation. The average
fitness will be mapped to 0.5. Linear interpolation is used for
mapping at present for simplicity purpose. Complex rela-
tionships such as quadratics can be used. Eq. (5) is
suggested as follows:
8
> …Fitnessi 2 Fitnessmin †
>
> ; Fitnessi # Fitnessavg
< 2…Fitnessavg 2 Fitnessmin †
MappedFitnessi ˆ
>
> …Fitnessmax 2 Fitnessi †
>
: 0:5 1 ; Fitnessi . Fitnessavg
2…Fitnessmax 2 Fitnessavg †
…5†
Fitnessi is the individual final fitness calculated by using
Eq. (3). Fitnessmin, Fitnessmax, and Fitnessavg are the genera-
tion weakest fitness, generation the best fitness and genera-
tion average fitness, respectively. Figs. 7 and 8 are plotted to
illustrate the effectiveness of linear fitness mapping algo-
rithms. Fig. 7 shows the results using normal fitness calcu-
lation and mapped fitness calculation with random
generated initial population. It can be seen that there is a
significant improvement with Fitness Mapping. The Fitness
Mapping mechanism enables the population to evolve
further compared to the conventional fitness scaling
260 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262

Fig. 8. Performance comparison with Fitness Mapping and single strong individual in initial population.

Table 6
Results summary

Tool material Mean absolute error percentage

40 Checking points 80 Checking points

Union centroid [1] Weighted centroid [19] Weighted centroid Weighted centroid with
genetic optimization

High-speed steel 4.208 4.068 5.812 4.946

Uncoated brazed carbide 3.330 3.138 4.194 3.866
Uncoated indexable carbide 3.836 3.790 5.759 4.511
Coated carbide 2.950 2.971 3.081 2.946

calculations. With a strong individual in the initial popula-
tion, the system will reach its optimum stage faster where
the generation average fitness starts to stagger. Fig. 8 shows
the efficiency of Fitness Mapping compared to the conven-
tional fitness scaling with a single good individual in the
initial population. The Fitness Mapping demonstrates
improvements even in the region where normal fitness starts
staggering. Fitness Mapping not only provides better
genetic optimization result at the rough searching stage,
also in the staggering region where significant improvement
is hardly found with the conventional fitness scaling. Other
common scaling mechanisms such as linear scaling are not
capable of handling huge size fitness with stochastic
sampling (with replacement). Fitness Mapping efficiency
compared to other scaling mechanisms is beyond the discus-
sion of this paper.
optimization with the constraints and optimization without
constraint are carried out. The high-speed steel fuzzy model
is selected for the comparison tests. Better fuzzy rules
recommended after 100 generations, which improved the
mean absolute error percentage from 5.8 to 3.7%. A
36.2% improvement was achieved and Table 7 shows the
corresponding fuzzy rules. The bolded fuzzy rules do not
obey the predetermined constraints. Fig. 9 shows the
relationship between the cutting speed and the depth of
cut for high-speed steel. The bolded trend line is within
Table 7
Optimized fuzzy rules for high-speed steel fuzzy model, without constraint
application (with abbreviation indication)
Material hardness Depth of cut

VS S MD D VD
4.5. Fuzzy rules constraints (rules violations)
VS VF AF QS QS VS
The results shown in Table 6 are bound to the constraints S QF QS VVS VS ES
described in Section 3.4. Capability of constraint appli- MD AF MD S S VS
H AF VS VVS VVS EVS
cation in GOL is useful for a fuzzy designer. To show its
VH AS VS ES ES EVS
efficiency and effectiveness, comparison study between
 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262
Fig. 9. Cutting speed against depth of cut (data from Machining Data handbook) with polynomial trend-lines.
the bolded fuzzy rules’ region. The bolded trend line
shows a continuous increase from negative slope in 8-
mm depth of cut to positive in 16-mm depth of cut. The
rest of the trend lines do not show this pattern. The
bolded trend line has crossed the 175–225 BHN trend
line, where the constraints mentioned in Section 3.4 are
violated. The violation region in the graph (bolded trend
line, 8–16 mm depth of cut) is the same to the corre-
sponding violated region in the fuzzy rules (bolded
fuzzy rules in Table 6). This explained the reason that
raised the violation of the constraints in the fuzzy rules.
It shows the general ‘rules’, described in Section 3.4
which lead to the development of the constraints, do
not work well in all regions. This also gives some idea
to the fuzzy designer that his/her expert knowledge does
not work in a specific region. Better relationships or fuzzy
rules are suggested through the optimization processes.
This paper showed the possibility of developing new
rules of thumb in cutting, which are as follows:
• harder the workpiece material, faster cutting speed;
• softer the workpiece material, slower cutting speed;
• shallower the depth of cut, faster cutting speed;
• deeper the depth of cut, slower cutting speed;
• the first four relationships are valid for very soft and very
hard materials;
• the first four relationships are valid for very shallow to
medium depth of cut;
• the first four relationships are valid for very deep depth of
cut;
261
• the first four relationships are no longer valid for medium
hardness materials with deep depth of cut.
The above mentioned relationships are purely based
on the genetic optimized fuzzy models. Further investi-
gation has to be carried out for verification of the
relationships.
5. Conclusions
An optimization method for fuzzy rules is presented. The
method is called Genetic Optimization Library (GOL) and is
incorporated into the fuzzy expert system previously
developed by the authors [1]. The validity and versatility
of the developed GOL have been demonstrated by applica-
tion to machinability data selection problem. Four improved
fuzzy models have been developed for four different types
of cutting tools. The developed models are validated with
data from the literature.
The effect of varying, checking point density, initial
population, crossover-rate, and mutation rate are examined
and discussed. A new mutation operation and a new fitness
scaling mechanism (Fitness Mapping) are also presented
and discussed. The developed fitness mapping was found
to be more superior compared to other conventional scaling
methods.
Genetic optimization as a post-fuzzy rules design tool has
yielded better fuzzy rules combinations and succeeded in
replacing the trial and error process. Both expert knowledge
and representative data are included in the designing of the
262 S.V. Wong, A.M.S. Hamouda / Advances in Engineering Software 31 (2000) 251–262
fuzzy rules, which conventionally involves only expert
knowledge.
References
[1] Wong SV, Hamouda AMS, El Baradie MA. Development of a fuzzy-
based expert system for metal cutting data selection. Int J Flexi
Automat Integr Manuf 1997;5(1/2):79–104.
[2] Zadeh LA. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex
systems and decision processes. In: Yager RR, Ovchinnikov S,
Tong RM, Nguyen HT, editors. IEEE transactions systems, man,
cybernetics. SMC-3. Fuzzy sets and applications, 1973. p. 28–44.
[3] Mamdani EH. Applications of fuzzy algorithms for simple dynamic
plants. Proc IEE 1974;121:1585–8.
[4] Bonissone PP, Badami V, Chiang KH, Khedkar PS, Marcelle KW,
Schuten MJ. Industrial applications of fuzzy logic at general electric.
Proc IEEE 1995;83(3):450–65.
[5] Munakata T, Jani Y. Fuzzy systems: an overview. Commun ACM
1994;37(3):69–76.
[6] Karr CL. Design of an adaptive fuzzy logic controller using a genetic
algorithm. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms, San Diego, 13–16 July 1991:450–7.
[7] Karr CL, Gentry EJ. Fuzzy control of pH using genetics algorithms.
IEEE Trans Fuzzy Systems 1993;1(1):46–53.
[8] Ishibuchi H, Nozaki K, Yamamoto N, Tanaka H. Selecting fuzzy if-
then rules for classification problems using genetic algorithms. IEEE
Trans Fuzzy Systems 1995;3(3):260–5.
[9] Pernel C, Themlin JM, Renders JM, Acheroy M. Optimization of
fuzzy expert systems using genetic algorithms and neural networks.
IEEE Trans Fuzzy Systems 1995;3(3):300–12.
[10] Tang K, Man K, Liu Z, Kwong S. Minimal fuzzy memberships and
rules using hierarchical genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
1998;45(1):162–9.
[11] Wang LX, Mendel JM. Generating fuzzy rules by learning from
examples. IEEE Trans Systems, Man, Cybern 1992;22(6):1414–
27.
[12] Jang JRS. Self-learning fuzzy controllers based on temporal back
propagation. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 1992;3(5):714–23.
[13] Berenji HR, Khedkar P. Learning and tuning fuzzy logic controllers
through reinforcements. IEEE Trans on Neural Networks
1992;3(5):724–40.
[14] Barricelli NA. Numerical testing of evolution theories. ACTA
Biotheor 1962;16:69–126.
[15] Fraser AS. Simulation of genetic systems. J Theor Biol 1962;2:329–
45.
[16] Holland JH. Genetic algorithms and the optimal allocation of trials.
SIAM J Comput 1973;2(2):88–105.
[17] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and
machine learning, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[18] Nomura H, Hayashi I, Wakami N. A self-tuning method of fuzzy
reasoning by genetic algorithms. Proc 1992 Int Fuzzy Systems Int
Contr Conf, Louisville, 16–18 March 1992:236–45.
[19] Wong SV, Hamouda AMS. A fuzzy logic based expert system for
machinability data-on-demand on the Internet. In: Hamouda AMS,
editor. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference Advances
in Material Processing and Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
24–28 August, 2. 1998. p. 1048–58.
[20] Metcut Research Associates Inc. Machining Data Handbook, 3rd
edition, vols 1 and 2, Cincinnate, 1980.
[21] De Jong KA. An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive
systems, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan) Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1975;36(10):5140B.
[22] Grefenstette JJ. Optimization of control parameters for genetic
algorithms. IEEE Trans Systems, Man, Cybern 1986;16(1):122–8.