Modeling Approach of Cloud 4D Printing Service Composition Optimization Based on Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III

Jiajia Liu; Edi Syams  Zainudin; Azizan  As'arry; Mohd Idris Shah Ismail

doi:10.15282/ijame.21.3.2024.1.0884

Authors

Jiajia Liu Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Edi Syams Zainudin Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7425-4183
Azizan As'arry Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6804-3697
Mohd Idris Shah Ismail Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6254-0278

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15282/ijame.21.3.2024.1.0884

Keywords:

CMfg, 4D printing, C4DPS, NSGA-III, Service Composition Optimization

Abstract

The manufacturing industry is currently experiencing a paradigm shift from traditional centralized systems to distributed, personalized, and cloud-based intelligent manufacturing ecosystems. The advent of 4-dimensional (4D) printing technology introduces dynamic characteristics to manufacturing design and functionality, necessitating the effective management of these emergent 4D printing services. This study aims to bridge the gap between the static nature of existing cloud manufacturing services and the dynamic requirements imposed by 4D printing technology. We propose a comprehensive multiobjective optimization model for cloud-based 4D printing service portfolios, incorporating the intricate complexities of 4D printing services and assessing the efficacy of the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III (NSGA III) in optimizing these service portfolios to meet dynamic demands. In this research, the NSGA III algorithm is employed to develop a multiobjective optimization framework for 4D printing service portfolios, addressing critical issues such as service cost, time, quality, adaptability, and overall service optimization amidst fluctuating demand and service availability. The findings indicate that the NSGA III algorithm demonstrates superior performance in terms of generational distance (GD) and inverted generational distance (IGD), particularly excelling in convergence and diversity for high-dimensional optimization problems when compared to the comparison algorithms. The study concludes that the NSGA III algorithm exhibits significant potential in optimizing the orchestration of cloud-based 4D printing service portfolios, underscoring its effectiveness in managing the complexities associated with these services. This research provides valuable insights for the advancement of intelligent cloud-based 4D printing systems, paving the way for future developments in this field.

References

M. Kumar, N. Tsolakis, A. Agarwal, and J. S. Srai, “Developing distributed manufacturing strategies from the perspective of a product-process matrix,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 219, pp. 1-17, 2020.

J. Siderska and K. S. Jadaan, “Cloud manufacturing: a service-oriented manufacturing paradigm. A review paper,” Engineering Management in Production and Services, vol. 10, pp. 22-31, 2018.

B. Subeshan, Y. Baddam and E. Asmatulu, “Current progress of 4D-printing technology,” Progress in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 6, pp. 495-516, 2021.

Y. Zhang, D. Xi, H. Yang, F. Tao, and Z. Wang, “Cloud manufacturing based service encapsulation and optimal configuration method for injection molding machine,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 30, pp. 2681-2699, 2019.

A. J. Miriam, R. Saminathan and S. Chakaravarthi, “Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-III) for effective resource allocation in cloud,” Evolutionary Intelligence, vol. 14, pp. 759-765, 2021.

J. Cui, L. Ren and L. Zhang, “Cloud Manufacturing Service Selection Model Based on Adaptive Variable Evaluation Metrics,” in Theory, Methodology, Tools and Applications for Modeling and Simulation of Complex Systems: 16th Asia Simulation Conference and SCS Autumn Simulation Multi-Conference, AsiaSim/SCS AutumnSim 2016, Beijing, China, October 8-11, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 16, 2016, pp. 13-19.

S. Ding, Z. Guo, H. Wang, and F. Ma, “Multistage Cloud-Service Matching and Optimization Based on Hierarchical Decomposition of Design Tasks,” Machines, vol. 10, p. 775, 2022.

F. Li, L. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Laili, and F. Tao, “A clustering network-based approach to service composition in cloud manufacturing,” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 30, pp. 1331-1342, 2017.

C. Zhang, C. Zhang, J. Zhuang, H. Han, B. Yuan, J. Liu, K. Yang, S. Zhuang, and R. Li, “Evaluation of cloud 3D printing order task execution based on the AHP-TOPSIS optimal set algorithm and the baldwin effect,” Micromachines, vol. 12, p. 801, 2021.

A. A. Khan, M. Naeem, M. Iqbal, S. Qaisar, and A. Anpalagan, “A compendium of optimization objectives, constraints, tools and algorithms for energy management in microgrids,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 58, pp. 1664-1683, 2016.

F. Cheng, F. Ye and J. Yang, “Multiobjective optimization of collaborative manufacturing chain with time-sequence constraints,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 40, pp. 1024-1032, 2009.

R. Khanam, R. R. Kumar and B. Kumari, “A novel approach for cloud service composition ensuring global QoS constraints optimization,” in 2018 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), 2018, pp. 1695-1701.

R. Azzouz, S. Bechikh, L. B. Said, and W. Trabelsi, “Handling time-varying constraints and objectives in dynamic evolutionary multiobjective optimization,” Swarm and evolutionary computation, vol. 39, pp. 222-248, 2018.

R. Jing, X. Zhu, Z. Zhu, W. Wang, C. Meng, N. Shah, N. Li, and Y. Zhao, “A multiobjective optimization and multi-criteria evaluation integrated framework for distributed energy system optimal planning,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 166, pp. 445-462, 2018.

K. Deb and H. Jain, “An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 18, pp. 577-601, 2013.

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, pp. 182-197, 2002.

X. Cai, Y. Xiao, M. Li, H. Hu, H. Ishibuchi, and X. Li, “A grid-based inverted generational distance for multi/many-objective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 25, pp. 21-34, 2020.

H. Ishibuchi, R. Imada, Y. Setoguchi, and Y. Nojima, “Reference point specification in inverted generational distance for triangular linear Pareto front,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 22, pp. 961-975, 2018.

H. Ishibuchi, Y. Setoguchi, H. Masuda, and Y. Nojima, “Performance of decomposition-based many-objective algorithms strongly depends on Pareto front shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 21, pp. 169-190, 2016.

S. Jiang, Y. Ong, J. Zhang, and L. Feng, “Consistencies and contradictions of performance metrics in multiobjective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 44, pp. 2391-2404, 2014.

Y. Sun, G. G. Yen and Z. Yi, “IGD indicator-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization problems,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 23, pp. 173-187, 2018.

H. Ishibuchi, R. Imada, N. Masuyama, and Y. Nojima, “Comparison of hypervolume, IGD and IGD+ from the viewpoint of optimal distributions of solutions,” in Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization: 10th International Conference, EMO 2019, East Lansing, MI, USA, March 10-13, 2019, Proceedings 10, 2019, pp. 332-345.

G. Li, G. Wang, J. Dong, W. Yeh, and K. Li, “DLEA: A dynamic learning evolution algorithm for many-objective optimization,” Information Sciences, vol. 574, pp. 567-589, 2021.

P. Zhang, Y. Qian and Q. Qian, “Multiobjective optimization for materials design with improved NSGA-II,” Materials Today Communications, vol. 28, p. 102709, 2021.

H. Ishibuchi, R. Imada, Y. Setoguchi, and Y. Nojima, “Performance comparison of NSGA-II and NSGA-III on various many-objective test problems,” in 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2016, pp. 3045-3052.

S. Tong, Y. Ma, M. Guo, Y. Tian, W. Song, H. Wang, J. Le, and H. Zhang, “Optimization of aero-engine combustion chambers with the assistance of Hierarchical-Kriging surrogate model based on POD downscaling method,” Advances in Aerodynamics, vol. 5, p. 20, 2023.

I. Khettabi, L. Benyoucef and M. Amine Boutiche, “Sustainable multiobjective process planning in reconfigurable manufacturing environment: adapted new dynamic NSGA-II vs New NSGA-III,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 60, pp. 6329-6349, 2022.

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, and A. Fast, “Nsga-ii,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, pp. 182-197, 2002.

M. Li, S. Yang and X. Liu, “Diversity comparison of Pareto front approximations in many-objective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 44, pp. 2568-2584, 2014.