RAFSI与PIV方法在车削过程多准则决策中的比较

Q3 Engineering
D. Trung, H. Thinh, Le Dang Ha
{"title":"RAFSI与PIV方法在车削过程多准则决策中的比较","authors":"D. Trung, H. Thinh, Le Dang Ha","doi":"10.1051/ijmqe/2022014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are used in many fields so as to rank alternatives and find the best one. However, rank reversal after adding or removing an alternative can occur in using some of the methods. In this study, two methods RAFSI and PIV were compared for application of making multi-criteria decisions. They are known to be capable of avoiding rank reversal problems. Sixteen 9XC steel turning tests were performed for the experiment. Tool holder length, spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut are parameters that vary in each test. Three criteria for evaluating the turning process consist of MRR, RE and Ra. Four methods including MEREC, ROC, RS and EQUAL were used for determining weights of the criteria. The blend of two multi-criteria decision making methods (RAFSI and PIV) with four weight-determining methods resulted in eight ranking options. This is a new approach of the study. A positive outcome was reached that all eight ranking options identified the same best test. The best experiment must ensure to have maximum MRR and minimum RE and Ra simultaneously. A detailed discussion of the ranking results in each case was also carried out. Finally, the directions and issues that need to be studied further were pointed out in this paper as well.","PeriodicalId":38371,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the RAFSI and PIV method in multi-criteria decision making: application to turning processes\",\"authors\":\"D. Trung, H. Thinh, Le Dang Ha\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/ijmqe/2022014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are used in many fields so as to rank alternatives and find the best one. However, rank reversal after adding or removing an alternative can occur in using some of the methods. In this study, two methods RAFSI and PIV were compared for application of making multi-criteria decisions. They are known to be capable of avoiding rank reversal problems. Sixteen 9XC steel turning tests were performed for the experiment. Tool holder length, spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut are parameters that vary in each test. Three criteria for evaluating the turning process consist of MRR, RE and Ra. Four methods including MEREC, ROC, RS and EQUAL were used for determining weights of the criteria. The blend of two multi-criteria decision making methods (RAFSI and PIV) with four weight-determining methods resulted in eight ranking options. This is a new approach of the study. A positive outcome was reached that all eight ranking options identified the same best test. The best experiment must ensure to have maximum MRR and minimum RE and Ra simultaneously. A detailed discussion of the ranking results in each case was also carried out. Finally, the directions and issues that need to be studied further were pointed out in this paper as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2022014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Engineering\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2022014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

多准则决策(MCDM)方法用于对备选方案进行排序并找出最佳方案。然而,在使用某些方法时,在添加或删除一个选项后可能会发生排名反转。本研究比较了RAFSI和PIV两种方法在多准则决策中的应用。众所周知,它们能够避免秩反转问题。实验进行了16次9XC钢车削试验。刀柄长度、主轴速度、进给速度和切削深度是每次测试中变化的参数。车削过程的三个评价标准包括MRR、RE和Ra。采用MEREC、ROC、RS和EQUAL四种方法确定各指标的权重。两种多标准决策方法(RAFSI和PIV)与四种权重确定方法的混合产生了八个排名选项。这是一种新的研究方法。一个积极的结果是,所有八个排名选项都确定了相同的最佳测试。最好的实验必须同时保证最大MRR和最小RE和Ra。对每个案例的排名结果也进行了详细的讨论。最后,指出了本文需要进一步研究的方向和问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the RAFSI and PIV method in multi-criteria decision making: application to turning processes
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are used in many fields so as to rank alternatives and find the best one. However, rank reversal after adding or removing an alternative can occur in using some of the methods. In this study, two methods RAFSI and PIV were compared for application of making multi-criteria decisions. They are known to be capable of avoiding rank reversal problems. Sixteen 9XC steel turning tests were performed for the experiment. Tool holder length, spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut are parameters that vary in each test. Three criteria for evaluating the turning process consist of MRR, RE and Ra. Four methods including MEREC, ROC, RS and EQUAL were used for determining weights of the criteria. The blend of two multi-criteria decision making methods (RAFSI and PIV) with four weight-determining methods resulted in eight ranking options. This is a new approach of the study. A positive outcome was reached that all eight ranking options identified the same best test. The best experiment must ensure to have maximum MRR and minimum RE and Ra simultaneously. A detailed discussion of the ranking results in each case was also carried out. Finally, the directions and issues that need to be studied further were pointed out in this paper as well.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering
International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering Engineering-Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信