Comparision of both methods psi and curli: applied in solving multi-objective optimization problem of turning process

Abstract

Solving a multi-objective optimization problem involves finding the best solution to simultaneously satisfy multiple predefined objectives. Currently, various mathematical methods are available for solving optimization problems in general, and multi-objective optimization in particular. The comparison of mathematical methods when addressing the same problem has been explored in numerous studies. In this study, let’s conduct a comparison of two multi-objective optimization methods: the PSI method and the CURLI method. These two methods were applied collectively to tackle a multi-objective optimization problem related to a turning process. Experimental data were borrowed from a previous study, and a total of sixteen experiments were conducted. Roughness average (Ra), Roundness Error (RE), Tool Wear (VB), and Material Removal Rate (MRR) were the four output parameters measured in each experiment. The objective of solving the multi-objective optimization problem was to identify an experiment among the sixteen existing experiments that simultaneously minimized the three parameters of Ra, RE, and VB while maximizing MRR. The optimal results determined using the PSI and CURLI methods were also compared with the optimal results obtained through other methods (COCOSO, MABAC, MAIRCA, EAMR and TOPSIS) in published documents. The comparison results indicate that the optimal experiment found using the CURLI method consistently matches that of other methods. In contrast, the optimal results obtained through the PSI method differ significantly from those obtained through other methods. The Spearman correlation ranking coefficient between CURLI and the five methods COCOSO, MABAC, MAIRCA, EAMR, and TOPSIS is very high, ranging from 0.9 to 1. In contrast, this coefficient is very small when comparing PSI with the aforementioned five methods, falling within the range of –0.6088 to –0.3706 in this case. Ultimately, this study concludes that the CURLI method is suiTable for solving the multi-objective optimization problem in the turning process, whereas the PSI method is deemed unsuitable