Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 389–394
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

A Genetic Algorithm-Based Model for Product Platform Design for Hybrid

Manufacturing
Mostafa Moussaa, Hoda ElMaraghya*
a
Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Ave. Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: hae@uwindsor.ca

Abstract

Nowadays, manufacturers aim at satisfying diverse and changing customer demand in order to survive in the competitive market. An approach
that combines several manufacturing concepts, including product platform formation and hybrid manufacturing, is proposed in order to effectively
manage the product variety. A genetic algorithm-based model is introduced to design the optimal or near-optimal platform for large sets of
products and features that can be further manufactured by additive and/or subtractive manufacturing to be customized into different product
variants. An illustrative example is used to demonstrate the model. The proposed model leads to better management of product proliferation.

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: Product Platfrom; Delayed Product Differentiation; Hybrid Manufacturing; Additive Manufacturing

1. Introduction
Nowadays, there is an increasing pressure from the market
on manufacturers to offer variety. This pressure is a result of
the globalization in which different product requirements are
needed due to the differences in geography, culture,
government legislations and environmental regulations.
Moreover, even within the local markets, there is a pressure
since customers require different designs, functionalities, etc.
Thus, the manufacturers have to offer multiple variants within
the product family to fulfill different market needs [1, 2].
Product variety is a double edge weapon. The wide variety in
the offered products provides a competitive advantage to the
manufacturers since customers can choose products that fulfill
their specific needs. However, on the other side, it adds
complexity to designing, planning and manufacturing of
products and increases the managerial burdens [3, 4].
3D printing moves beyond the realm of prototyping to
manufacturing functional parts and products [5, 6]. This is
enabled by the exponential advances in additive manufacturing
in terms of faster processing, significant enhancement in the
printed part quality, increase in the range and types of printable
materials. Thus, the shift from traditional manufacturing to
hybrid manufacturing, in which the additive manufacturing is
combined with subtractive manufacturing, enabled by Industry
4.0 would fundamentally alter the way the part/ product is
realized and helps in handling manufacturing challenges in
more efficient way [7]. Hybrid manufacturing can defined as
the combination of two or more manufacturing operations, each
of which is from different manufacturing technologies and has
interactions with and influences on each other [8]. Combining
additive and subtractive manufacturing is among the most
commonly used hybrid manufacturing.
This paper aims at utilizing additive and subtractive
manufacturing in order to deal with the product proliferation
challenges. This can be achieved by designing a product
platform that includes common (core) features and can be
customized by additive and subtractive manufacturing based on
the customers’ demand. Product platform is defined as a set of
sub-systems (i.e. features or parts) and interfaces that form a
common structure from which a stream of derivative products
can be efficiently produced and developed [9].

2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
10.1016/j.procir.2020.04.044

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 390 Mostafa Moussa et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 389–394
A product platform is a cornerstone in delaying the product
differentiation, which is one of the effective strategies to handle
the problems arise from the product proliferation. The
manufacturers can benefit from mass-producing of the product
platform in terms of lower labour costs, faster rate of
production and efficiently utilizes resources. Moreover, they
benefit from the ability of hybrid manufacturing to customize
the product platform to satisfy the different customers’
demands. This is known as delayed product differentiation.
A genetic algorithm (GA)-based model that is able to design
a product platform for hybrid manufacturing is proposed. The
model objective is to design the additive/subtractive product
platform while minimizing the total manufacturing cost of the
customer demand.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The review of
the existing research on the product platform design is
discussed in Section 2. The additive/subtractive product
platform is described in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the
proposed GA-based model for the additive/subtractive product
platform design. Section 5 presents an illustrative example. The
summary and conclusions are outlined in Section 6.
2. Literature review
During the last decades, the product platform design has
gained much attention from the industry and academia. Thus,
there has been a significant amount of research conducted in
that area. This was the reason that derived many authors to
publish literature review papers that gives an overview of key
findings, concepts and developments in relation to the product
platform such as Simpson [10], Jose and Tollenaere [11], Jiao,
Simpson, and Siddique [12], Zhang [13], Facinet al. [14] and
Han et al. [15].
Moon et al. [16] proposed a dynamic multi-agent system
based on negotiation mechanisms to design a platform. The
developed model was applied to design a platform for a family
of power tools. The model is limited to small size problems.
Olivares-Benitez and Gonzalez-Velarde [17] developed a
metaheuristic approach based on Scatter Search and Tabu
Search to find a common platform for a modular product. The
selection of a common platform was based on the product
performance and manufacturing cost. Ben-Arieh et al. [18]
proposed a mathematical model and a GA model to determine
multiple platforms’ configuration for the production of a given
product family while minimizing the overall production cost.
The product variants are produced by assembling and/or
disassembling parts from the platforms. The number of the
platforms were specified a priori. A family of cordless drills
was used for illustration.
AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy [19] proposed a reactive design
methodology for the product platform. The methodology was
based on physical commonality rather than the commonality
index. Cladistics was used to design a core platform by
hierarchically clustering common components as well as
combine the common parts into integral parts and modules, if
possible. The model was capable of balancing between the
Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) and product
modularity. The proposed model was applied to household
kettles family. Hanafy and ElMaraghy [20] developed a
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
methodology using phylogenetic networks for forming product
platforms and determining the assembly line layout of modular
product families. The concept of assembly/disassembly
modular platforms was utilized. For the proposed model
demonstration, a family of household kettles was used.
ElMaraghy and Abbas [21] introduced a new methodology
called Co-platforming or mapping product features platform
and corresponding manufacturing system machines platform.
Zheng et al. [22] presented a conceptual framework of a
personalized product configuration system based on the
adaptable open architecture product platform. For validation,
the framework was applied to an illustrative example of a
personalized bicycle configuration. Zhang et al. [23] proposed
a method for product platform planning using the existing
product data in the product lifecycle management (PLM)
database. To show the effectiveness of the proposed method, it
was applied using the product data in the PLM database of a
valve company. Kim and Moon [24] presented a methodology
to identify a sustainable platform by integrating sustainability
values, risk values, and commonality.
Galizia et al. [25] proposed a decision support system for
product platforms design and selection in high variety
manufacturing. The proposed decision support system was
applied to a case study for a family of valves. ElMaraghy and
Moussa [26] introduced the notion of utilizing additive and
subtractive manufacturing in designing a product platform. A
mathematical programming model was proposed for that
purpose. A case study for a product family of the guiding
bushes was used for illustration.
The majority of the literature in the area of the product
platform focus on the assembly domain. Only ElMaraghy and
Moussa [26] considered additive/subtractive product platform
design. The critical limitation of their model is that the
proposed model has limited computational capacity. In other
words, it can design a product platform for a product family
with a limited number of product variants and features. This is
what the proposed work, based on utilizing a meta-heuristic
algorithm, is designed to overcome.
3. Product Platform for Hybrid Manufacturing
Manufacturers strive to increase their competitiveness and
responsiveness. Adopting the exponential technological
advances such as additive manufacturing can boost the
manufacturers’ competitiveness. In this paper, an
additive/subtractive product platform concept is introduced.
The product platform can be customized by adding features
through additive manufacturing and/or removing features
through subtractive manufacturing to obtain different product
variants that fall within a considered product family. This
product platform plays a vital role in applying the delayed
product differentiation strategy in which the manufacturers
benefit from mass-producing the product platform and the
ability of its customization.
Fig. 1 shows an example to illustrate the proposed product
platform for hybrid manufacturing. The product platform in the
figure is for a family consists of three product variants. This
product platform is formed of features F1, F2, F3 and F4. In
order to obtain product variant 1, features F2 and F4 are
 Mostafa Moussa et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 389–394
removed from the product platform by subtractive
manufacturing, and feature F5 is added to the product platform
by additive manufacturing. Product variant 2 is produced using
subtractive manufacturing to remove feature F4 from the
product platform. Finally, subtractive manufacturing is used to
remove features F3 and F4 from the product platform, and
additive manufacturing is used to add feature F6 to the product
platform to have product variant 3.
Fig. 1. Additive/Subtractive Product Platform.
Fig. 2. IDEF0 for the proposed work.
Fig. 2 shows an IDEF0 diagram that summarizes the
proposed work. The inputs are each product variant
decomposed into the product family features, the demand for
each variant and the features precedence Feature precedence is
the logical and technological sequential relationships between
the features. For instance, if feature A is built on top of feature
B, then feature B must exist first before adding feature A. Other
inputs are the costs of the mass-producing, additive and
subtractive manufacturing of the product family features. The
constraints are the capabilities of the additive manufacturing
(i.e. the building direction, number of material in a single build,
surface roughness, part volume constraint and ability to build
overhanging features building direction) and the subtractive
manufacturing (i.e. machine axes and working envelope
dimensions). The mechanism is the GA-based model that is
detailed in the next section. The output is the product platform
that can be further manufactured by additive and/or subtractive
manufacturing into different product variants.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
391
The problem considered in this work can be described as:
for a product family which consists of K product variants and
a total of J features, a product platform that is made of a set of
features can be formed and further transformed with minimum
cost into product variants of the considered family.
4. Genetic Algorithm-based model for Product Platform
Design
The increase of the number of features and the number of
variants within the considered family enlarges the solution
space. The problem in this study is an NP hard problem that is
why mathematical optimization models, such as the model in
[26], are not able to find the optimal solution for large solution
spaces in a reasonable time. GAs are capable of finding
solution to NP hard problems in a reasonable time [27]. GAs
are the most powerful unbiased optimization techniques for
sampling a large solution space [28]. Thus, GA-based model is
used to find optimum or near optimum product platform for
product family with large numbers of product variants and
features. GA is a search heuristic that mimics the natural
selection process.
4.1. Chromosome representation
A chromosome representation of each individual in the GA
population plays an essential role in the selection of the genetic
operators and has a direct effect on the problem structure. Each
chromosome mirrors a possible product platform and is made
up of a sequence of genes. Each gene represents one of the
features of the product family that takes a binary value (0 or 1).
If the feature is found in the possible product platform, then the
gene value is 1, while the value zero is assigned to the gene
when the feature is not included in the possible product
platform. Fig. 3 illustrates the chromosome representation for
a possible product platform for a product family of total five
(5) features. The possible product platform in Fig. 3 consists of
the 2nd, 3rd and 5th features.
Fig. 3. Example of possible product platform chromosome.
4.2. Initial population
The initial population is made of a set of possible product
platforms. These possible product platforms consist of
randomly generated binary values (0 and 1) for each feature.
Afterwards, the feasibility of each possible product platform is
checked. The feasibility check is performed by making sure
that if feature A is dependent on feature B and feature A is
included in the platform, then feature B must be included in the
platform as well. If the dependent feature (A) takes value 1
then feature (B), which feature A depends on, must be 1. This
feasibility check is also performed between each two
successive generations (i.e. after applying the crossover and
mutation).
 392 Mostafa Moussa et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 389–394

4.3. Fitness function 4.5. Crossover

The fitness function is used to calculate the total
manufacturing cost for the product family. The lowest total
manufacturing cost the better fitness of the possible product
platform (solution). The fitness function is represented in
equation 1. The first term represents the cost of having features
in the product platform. The second term is for the cost of
adding features to the platform to form the required quantity of
each variant, while the third term is for the cost of removing
features from the product platform to obtain the demand of each
variant.
�� � ∑�
�
����∑��� Cp�
�
x� D� � ∑��� Ca� a�� D� �
� features, the random point falls between the 4th and 5th features.
∑��� Cr� r�� D� � (1)
The crossover is the genetic operator responsible for
combining the features from two-parent possible product
platforms from one generation to obtain a new offspring
possible product platform. The single point crossover, which is
one of the popular crossovers, is applied. It can be summarized
as a point is randomly selected on both parent product
platforms, then the features fall on the right of that point are
swapped between the two-parent product platforms. The results
of this crossover are two offspring product platforms; each
carrying some features from both parents. Fig. 4 shows an
example for the single point crossover applied to two-parent
product platforms. Each product platform is formed of 7

where,
TC Total Manufacturing cost
K the set of product variants in the product family, k ∈
K.
J the features set, j ∈ J.
Dk the demand of the kth product variant (units).
Cpj the cost of mass production of the jth feature using a
platform.
Fig. 4. Single point crossover applied to two-parent product platforms.
Caj the cost of adding the jth feature/material to form a
product variant (Caj>Cpj)
Crj the cost of removing the jth feature/material (Crj > 4.6. Mutation
Cpj) from the platform to form a product variant
The mutation is the genetic operator used for preserving and
xj to indicate that feature j is included in the platform; introducing diversity within GA. The flip bit mutation, in
1 if the platform i contains feature j which the value of one or more randomly selected features’
x� � � positions within a parent product platform is inverted (i.e. if the
0 otherwise
feature value is 1, it is changed to 0 and vice versa), is applied.
ajk to denote that feature j is added to the platform to
This results in an offspring product platform with one or more
customize it to form product variant k;
a�� features are altered from its parent. Fig. 5 shows an example
for the flip bit mutation applied to a parent product platform
1 if feature j is added to the platform to form product includes 8 features. The 3rd, 5th and 8th features are randomly
� � variant k
selected.
0 otherwise
rjk to show that feature k is removed from the platform to 3rd 5th 8th
customize to form product k.
r�� 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

1 if feature j is removed from the platform to form Parent Product Platform

� � product variant k 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
0 otherwise
Offspring Product Platform

Fig. 5. Flip bit mutation applied to a parent product platform.

4.4. Selection
4.7. Stopping conditions
The tournament method is used to choose the possible
product platform for later using the genetic operators;
The process of the genetic search is repeated until the best
crossover and mutation. It can be described as two possible
(elite) possible product platform are remained unchanged for
product platform from a population are randomly chosen. The
1000 generations.
possible product platform with the least total manufacturing
Finally, the developed model is implemented using
cost among the both is considered as a winner of the
MATLAB® programming and numerical computational
tournament and used in the crossover and mutation.
software.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Mostafa Moussa et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 389–394 393

5. Illustrative Example Table 2. Features precedence and the costs for adding, removing and mass-
producing each feature.
Consider an example of 14 product variants (V1 to V14) Feature Precedence Cp Ca Cr
involving a total of 12 different features (F1 to F12). The F1 - 1 5 1.1
product variants are shown in Fig. 6 and the product variant- F2 F1 0.45 2.25 0.50
feature incidence matrix is given in Table 1. The features
F3 F1 0.45 2.25 0.50
precedence and the costs for adding, removing and mass-
F4 F1 0.45 2.25 0.50
producing each feature are presented in Table 2. The
corresponding costs for using each manufacturing F5 F6 0.65 3.25 0.70
method/technology (mass production, additive and subtractive) F6 - 1 5 1.1
are assumed based on the cost study of Manogharan et al. [29]. F7 F6 0.65 3.25 0.70
F8 F6 0.65 3.25 0.70
F9 F1 1 5 1.1
F10 F1,F6 0.75 3.75 0.80
F11 F1,F6 0.75 3.75 0.80

Table 3. Demand Scenarios for the product variants.

Demand Scenario
Variant
1 2 3
V1 142 50 200
V2 142 100 25
V3 142 25 45
V4 142 50 25
V5 142 23 100
V6 142 15 75
Fig. 6. Product variants for the illustrative example.
V7 142 75 200

Table 1. Product Variant-Feature incidence matrix of the illustrative example. V8 142 100 50

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 V9 142 500 18

V10 142 450 150
V1 1 1 1
V11 142 75 20
V2 1 1
V12 142 450 80
V3 1 1 1 1 1
V13 142 50 500
V4 1 1 1 1 1
V14 142 25 500
V5 1 1 1 1
Total 1988 1988 1988
V6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
V7 1 1 1 1 1
Table 4. Product platform and minimum total cost for each scenario.
V8 1 1 1 1 1 1
Scenario Product Platform Features Total Cost
V9 1 1 1 1
1 F1, F2,F3,F5,F6,F7,F8,F9 20788.8
V10 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 F1,F3, F6, F7,F9,F10 17532.35
V11 1 1 1 1 1
3 F1,F3,F6 F7,F8 17548.95
V12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
V13 1 1 1
V14 1 1

Various cases of demand scenarios are examined to

illustrate the sensitivity of the product platform to the change
in the demand of the product variants. Three demand scenarios
are examined and shown in Table 3.
The optimum product platform and the minimum total cost
for each scenario were obtained in 2 seconds on a PC of Intel
Core i7 3.40 GHz processor and 16 GB Ram and are presented
in Table 4. Fig. 7 shows the designed product platform for each
scenario.
Fig. 7. Product platforms for each scenario.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 394 Mostafa Moussa et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 389–394
By conducting a comparison between both the mathematical
model in [26] and the proposed GA-based model, both models
were able to optimally solve the considered scenarios.
However, there was a huge reduction of computational time of
around 98% when the GA-based model was used. Thus, the
GA-based model can handle larger problems in much less
computational time than the mathematical model with the
increase in the number of variants and features.
6. Conclusions
This paper addressed the design of a product platform that
can be customized by additive and subtractive manufacturing
to obtain product variants which fall within a considered
product family. A GA-based model is developed for that
purpose while minimizing the total cost of mass-producing the
product platform and the further customization costs of the
product platform to produce the demand of the different
product variants. Furthermore, since the proposed model is a
meta-heuristic algorithm, it can overcome the limited
computational capacity of mathematical programming model
presented earlier by ElMaraghy and Moussa [26]. Thus, it can
handle practical problem sizes (i.e. product family formed of
tens of product variants with tens of features).
Applying the proposed product platform design model
should improve the flexibility, responsiveness and productivity
of the manufacturing system and hence support cost-effective
production. A quantitative assessment of the achievable
benefits through the proposed model is currently being studied.
Inventory management can be considered in the future work by
adding representative terms to the objective function. Only a
single product platform was analyzed with this GA-based
model. The demand of all product variants is limited to a single
production period.
Acknowledgements
Funding of the presented research project by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) is acknowledged.
References
[1] M. Moussa and H. ElMaraghy, "Master assembly network for alternative
assembly sequences," Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 51, pp. 17-28,
2019.
[2] H. ElMaraghy, G. Schuh, W. ElMaraghy, F. Piller, P. Schönsleben, M. Tseng,
et al., "Product variety management," CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology,
vol. 62, pp. 629-652, 2013.
[3] M. Abbas and H. ElMaraghy, "Synthesis and optimization of manufacturing
systems configuration using co-platforming," CIRP Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Technology, vol. 20, pp. 51-65, 2018.
[4] M. Moussa and H. ElMaraghy, "Master Assembly Network Generation,"
Procedia CIRP, vol. 72, pp. 756-761, 2018.
[5] W. Gao, Y. Zhang, D. Ramanujan, K. Ramani, Y. Chen, C. B. Williams, et al.,
"The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering,"
Computer-Aided Design, vol. 69, pp. 65-89, 2015.
[6] L. J. Kumar, P. M. Pandey, and D. I. Wimpenny, 3D printing and additive
manufacturing technologies: Springer, 2019.
[7] D. Stewart. (2019, 10 January 2020). 3D printing growth accelerates again.
Available:
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-
media-and-telecom-predictions/3d-printing-market.html
[8] Z. Zhu, V. Dhokia, A. Nassehi, and S. T. Newman, "A review of hybrid
manufacturing processes–state of the art and future perspectives," International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 26, pp. 596-615, 2013.
[9] M. H. Meyer and A. P. Lehnerd, The power of product platforms: Simon and
Schuster, 1997.
[10] T. W. Simpson, "Product platform design and customization: Status and
promise," Ai Edam, vol. 18, pp. 3-20, 2004.
[11] A. Jose and M. Tollenaere, "Modular and platform methods for product family
design: literature analysis," Journal of Intelligent manufacturing, vol. 16, pp.
371-390, 2005.
[12] J. R. Jiao, T. W. Simpson, and Z. Siddique, "Product family design and
platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review," Journal of
intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 18, pp. 5-29, 2007.
[13] L. L. Zhang, "A literature review on multitype platforming and framework for
future research," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 168, pp.
1-12, 2015.
[14] A. L. F. Facin, L. A. de Vasconcelos Gomes, M. de Mesquita Spinola, and M.
S. Salerno, "The evolution of the platform concept: a systematic review," IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 63, pp. 475-488, 2016.
[15] X. Han, R. Li, J. Wang, G. Ding, and S. Qin, "A systematic literature review
of product platform design under uncertainty," Journal of Engineering Design,
pp. 1-31, 2019.
[16] S. K. Moon, J. Park, T. W. Simpson, and S. R. Kumara, "A dynamic multiagent
system based on a negotiation mechanism for product family design," IEEE
Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 234-244,
2008.
[17] E. Olivares-Benitez and J. L. Gonzalez-Velarde, "A metaheuristic approach for
selecting a common platform for modular products based on product
performance and manufacturing cost," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol.
19, pp. 599-610, 2008.
[18] D. Ben-Arieh, T. Easton, and A. Choubey, "Solving the multiple platforms
configuration problem," International journal of production research, vol. 47,
pp. 1969-1988, 2009.
[19] T. AlGeddawy and H. ElMaraghy, "Reactive design methodology for product
family platforms, modularity and parts integration," CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and technology, vol. 6, pp. 34-43, 2013.
[20] M. Hanafy and H. ElMaraghy, "Developing assembly line layout for delayed
product differentiation using phylogenetic networks," International Journal of
Production Research, vol. 53, pp. 2633-2651, 2015.
[21] H. ElMaraghy and M. Abbas, "Products-manufacturing systems Co-
platforming," CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, vol. 64, pp. 407-410,
2015.
[22] P. Zheng, X. Xu, S. Yu, and C. Liu, "Personalized product configuration
framework in an adaptable open architecture product platform," Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, vol. 43, pp. 422-435, 2017.
[23] Q. Zhang, W. Peng, J. Lei, J. Dou, X. Hu, and R. Jiang, "A method for product
platform planning based on pruning analysis and attribute matching," Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 30, pp. 1069-1083, 2019.
[24] S. Kim and S. K. Moon, "Sustainable platform identification for product family
design," Journal of cleaner production, vol. 143, pp. 567-581, 2017.
[25] F. G. Galizia, H. ElMaraghy, M. Bortolini, and C. Mora, "Product platforms
design, selection and customisation in high-variety manufacturing,"
International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1-19, 2019.
[26] H. ElMaraghy and M. Moussa, "Optimal platform design and process plan for
managing variety using hybrid manufacturing," CIRP Annals, vol. 68, pp. 443-
446, 2019.
[27] G. Panchal and D. Panchal, "Solving np hard problems using genetic
algorithm," Transportation, vol. 106, pp. 6-2, 2015.
[28] M. Tabassum and K. Mathew, "A genetic algorithm analysis towards
optimization solutions," International Journal of Digital Information and
Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), vol. 4, pp. 124-142, 2014.
[29] G. Manogharan, R. A. Wysk, and O. L. Harrysson, "Additive manufacturing–
integrated hybrid manufacturing and subtractive processes: economic model and
analysis," International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 29,
pp. 473-488, 2016.