Sensitive Analysis on Selection of Piston Material Using MADM Techniques

Abstract

Decision making in material selection plays important role in selecting appropriate material based on design and manufacturing attributes. Proposing a new material is always a challenging task so the researchers used Decision making assistance tools. In the Present paper the application of Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) methods are applied to the piston material selection for optimal design process. Comparative study of subjective and objective criteria weights on selected MADM methods are done. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to prove the consistency in performance score ranking order as the criteria weights for each alternative varies.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Anup, K. S., Abijeet TK, Machado, J. W., Shrivathsa, TV. “Design and Analysis of Piston using Aluminum Alloys”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering 4 (4), pp. 1 – 6, 2017.

  • [2] Owsinski, R., Nieslony, A. “Identification of Fatigue Cracks On The Basis Of Measurable Changes in System Dynamics”, Strojnícky časopis – Journal of Mechanical Engineering 67 (2), pp. 77 – 84, 2017. DOI: 10.1515/scjme-2017-0020

  • [3] Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K. “Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications”, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9

  • [4] Xu, L., Yang, J.-B. “Introduction to Multi-Criteria Decision Making and the Evidential Reasoning Approach”,. Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, 2001. ISBN: 1 86115 111 X

  • [5] Aarushi, S. “Major MCDM Techniques and their application-A Review”, IOSR Journal of Engineering 4 (5), pp. 15 – 25, 2014. DOI: 10.9790/3021-04521525

  • [6] Zardari, N.H., Ahmed, K., Shirazi, S.M., Yusop, Z.B. “Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management”, 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2

  • [7] Cavallini, C., Giorgetti, A., Citti, P., Nicolaie, F. “Integral aided method for material selection based on quality function deployment and comprehensive VIKOR algorithm”, Materials & Design 47, pp. 27–34, 2013.

  • [8] Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S. “Material selection using preferential ranking methods”, Materials & Design 35, pp. 384–393, 2012.

  • [9] Chauhan, A., Vaish, R. “Magnetic material selection using multiple attribute decision-making approach”, Materials & Design 36, pp. 1 – 5, 2012.

  • [10] Jahan, A., Edwards, K. “VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria”, Materials & Design 47, pp. 759 – 765, 2013.

  • [11] Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Ismail, M. Y., Sapuan, S., Bahraminasab, M. “A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection”, Materials & Design 32, pp. 1215 – 1221, 2011.

  • [12] Vanko, B., Stanček, L., Moravčík, R. “En Aw-2024 Wrought Aluminum Alloy Processed By Casting With Crystallization Under Pressure”, Strojnícky časopis – Journal of Mechanical Engineering 67 (2), pp. 109 – 116, 2017. DOI: 10.1515/scjme-2017-0024

  • [13] Dwivedi, D. K., Sharma, A., Rajan, T.V. “Machining of LM13 and LM28 cast aluminium alloys: Part I”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 196, pp. 197 – 204, 2008.

  • [14] “What is the difference among MCDM, MADM, MODM and MAUT?”, https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_among_MCDM_MADM_MODM_and_MAUT

  • [15] Liu, H.-C., Mao, L.-X., Zhang, Z.-Y., Li, P. “Induced aggregation operators in the VIKOR method and its application in material selection”, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37, pp. 6325 – 6338, 2013.

  • [16] Mayyas, A., Shen, Q., Mayyas, A., abdelhamid, M., Shan, D., Qattawi, A., Omar, M. “Using Quality Function Deployment and Analytical Hierarchy Process for material selection of Body-In-White”, Materials & Design 32, pp. 2771 – 2782, 2011.

  • [17] Shanian, A., Milani, A. S., Carson, C., Abeyaratne, R. C. “A new application of ELECTRE III and revised Simos’ procedure for group material selection underweighting uncertainty”, Knowledge-Based Systems 21, pp. 709 – 720, 2008.

  • [18] Helff, F., Gruenwald, L., d’Orazio, L. “Weighted Sum Model for Multi-Objective Query Optimization for Mobile-Cloud Database Environments” Published in EDBT/ICDT Workshops, 2016, online: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1558/paper39.pdf

  • [19] Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C. “A multi-criteria classification approach based on a pairwise comparison”, European Journal of Operational Research 158, pp. 378 – 389, 2004.

  • [20] Hajkowicz S., Higgins, A. “A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management”, European Journal of Operational Research 184, pp. 255 – 265, 2008.

  • [21] Sameer Kumar, D., Suman K. N. S. “Selection of Magnesium Alloy by MADM Methods for Automobile Wheels”, IJEM 4 (2), pp. 31 – 41, 2014. DOI: 10.5815/ijem.2014.02.03

  • [22] Parnell, G., Trainor, T. “2.3.1 Using the Swing Weight Matrix to Weight Multiple Objectives”, INCOSE International Symposium 19, pp. 283 – 298, 2009. DOI: 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2009.tb00949.x

  • [23] Li, X., Wang, K., Liu, L., Xin, J., Yang, H., Gao, Ch., “Application of the Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method in Safety Evaluation of Coal Mines”, Procedia Engineering 26, pp. 2085 – 2091, 2011. DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410

  • [24] Lotfi, F. H., Fallahnejad, R. “Imprecise Shannon’s Entropy and Multi Attribute Decision Making”, Entropy 12, pp. 53 – 62, 2010. DOI: 10.3390/e12010053

  • [25] Rao, R. V., Davim, J. P. “A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method”, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35, pp. 751 – 760, 2008. DOI 10.1007/s00170-006-0752-7

  • [26] Swapna, D., Srinivasa Rao, Ch., Kumar, S., Radhika, S. “AHP and TOPSIS based selection of aluminium alloy for automobile panels”, Journal of Mechanical and Energy Engineering 3 (1), pp. 43 – 50, 2019. DOI: 10.30464/jmee.2019.3.1.43

  • [27] Gomes, L. F. A. M., Rangel A. D., Leal, M. da R. Jr.. “Treatment of uncertainty through the interval smart/swing weighting method: a case study”, Pesquisa Operational, 31 (3), pp. 467 – 485, 2011. DOI: 10.1590/S0101-74382011000300004

  • [28] Kumar D. S., Radhika, S., Suman, K. N. S. “MADM methods for finding the right personnel in academic institutions”, International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology 6 (5), pp. 133 – 144, 2013.

  • [29] Baragetti, S. “Analytic Hierarchy Process Application for the Selection of a Metal Matrix Composite”, The Open Materials Science Journal 8 (1), pp. 63 – 70, 2014. DOI: 10.2174/1874088X01408010063

  • [30] Žmindák, M. “Dynamic and Sensitivity Analysis General Non-Conservative Asymmetric Mechanical Systems”, Strojnícky časopis – Journal of Mechanical Engineering 68 (2), pp. 105 – 124, 2018. DOI: 10.2478/scjme-2018-0021

  • [31] Memariania, A., Aminib, A., Alinezhadc, A. “Sensitivity Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW): The Results of Change in the Weight of One Attribute on the Final Ranking of Alternatives”, Journal of Industrial Engineering 4, pp. 13 – 18, 2009.

  • [32] Alinezhada, A., Esfandiari, N. “Sensitivity Analysis in the QUALIFLEX and VIKOR Methods”, Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering 10, pp. 29 – 34, 2012.

  • [33] Yazdani, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Ignatius, J., Abad, M. D. “Sensitivity Analysis in MADM Methods: Application of Material Selection”, Engineering Economics Decisions 27 (4), 2016. DOI: 10.5755/j01.ee.27.4.14005

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search