在机械制造中选择最好的机床

N. H. Son, T. Hieu, N. M. Thang, H. N. Tan, Nguyen Tien Can, Pham Thi Thao, Nguyen Chi Bao
{"title":"在机械制造中选择最好的机床","authors":"N. H. Son, T. Hieu, N. M. Thang, H. N. Tan, Nguyen Tien Can, Pham Thi Thao, Nguyen Chi Bao","doi":"10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Machine tools are indispensable components and play an important role in mechanical manufacturing. The equipment of machine tools has a huge effect on the operational efficiency of businesses. Each machine tool type is described by many different criteria, such as cost, technological capabilities, accuracy, energy consumption, convenience in operation, safety for workers, working noise, etc. If the selection of machine is only based on one or several criteria, it will be really easy to make mistakes, which means it is not possible to choose the real best machine. A machine is considered to be the best only when it is chosen based on all of its criteria. This work is called multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). In this study, the selection of machine tools has been done using two different multi-criteria decision-making methods, including the FUCA method (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) and the CURLI method (Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Intergration). These are two methods with very different characteristics. When using the FUCA method, it is necessary to normalize the data and determine the weights for the criteria. Meanwhile, if using the CURLI method, these two things are not necessary. The selection of these two distinct methods is intended to produce the most generalizable conclusions. Three types of machine tool, which are considered in this study, include grinding machine, drilling machine and milling machine. The number of grinders that were offered for selection was twelve, the number of drills that were surveyed in this study was thirteen, while nine were the number of milling machines that were given for selection. The objective of this study is to determine the best solution in each type of machine. The results of ranking the machines are very similar when using the two mentioned methods. Specially, in all the surveyed cases, the two methods FUCA and CURLI always find the same best alternative. Accordingly, it is possible to firmly come to a conclusion that the FUCA method and the CURLI method are equally effective in machine tool selection. In addition, this study has determined the best three machines corresponding to the three different machine types","PeriodicalId":11804,"journal":{"name":"EUREKA: Physics and Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing the best machine tool in mechanical manufacturing\",\"authors\":\"N. H. Son, T. Hieu, N. M. Thang, H. N. Tan, Nguyen Tien Can, Pham Thi Thao, Nguyen Chi Bao\",\"doi\":\"10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002771\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Machine tools are indispensable components and play an important role in mechanical manufacturing. The equipment of machine tools has a huge effect on the operational efficiency of businesses. Each machine tool type is described by many different criteria, such as cost, technological capabilities, accuracy, energy consumption, convenience in operation, safety for workers, working noise, etc. If the selection of machine is only based on one or several criteria, it will be really easy to make mistakes, which means it is not possible to choose the real best machine. A machine is considered to be the best only when it is chosen based on all of its criteria. This work is called multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). In this study, the selection of machine tools has been done using two different multi-criteria decision-making methods, including the FUCA method (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) and the CURLI method (Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Intergration). These are two methods with very different characteristics. When using the FUCA method, it is necessary to normalize the data and determine the weights for the criteria. Meanwhile, if using the CURLI method, these two things are not necessary. The selection of these two distinct methods is intended to produce the most generalizable conclusions. Three types of machine tool, which are considered in this study, include grinding machine, drilling machine and milling machine. The number of grinders that were offered for selection was twelve, the number of drills that were surveyed in this study was thirteen, while nine were the number of milling machines that were given for selection. The objective of this study is to determine the best solution in each type of machine. The results of ranking the machines are very similar when using the two mentioned methods. Specially, in all the surveyed cases, the two methods FUCA and CURLI always find the same best alternative. Accordingly, it is possible to firmly come to a conclusion that the FUCA method and the CURLI method are equally effective in machine tool selection. In addition, this study has determined the best three machines corresponding to the three different machine types\",\"PeriodicalId\":11804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EUREKA: Physics and Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EUREKA: Physics and Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002771\",\"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":"EUREKA: Physics and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002771","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: 5

摘要

机床是机械制造中不可缺少的部件,起着重要的作用。机床设备对企业的运营效率有着巨大的影响。每种机床类型都有许多不同的标准来描述,如成本、技术能力、精度、能耗、操作的便利性、工人的安全性、工作噪音等。如果选择机器只是根据一个或几个标准,真的很容易出错,这意味着不可能选择真正最好的机器。一台机器只有在它的所有标准的基础上被选择时才被认为是最好的。这项工作被称为多标准决策(MCDM)。在本研究中,机床的选择使用了两种不同的多准则决策方法,包括FUCA方法(Faire Un Choix adsamquat)和CURLI方法(协作无偏秩表集成)。这是两种特点截然不同的方法。在使用FUCA方法时,需要对数据进行归一化并确定标准的权重。同时,如果使用CURLI方法,则不需要这两件事。选择这两种不同的方法是为了得出最具普遍性的结论。本研究考虑的机床类型有磨床、钻床和铣床三种。可供选择的磨床数量为12台,在本研究中调查的钻头数量为13台,而可供选择的铣床数量为9台。本研究的目的是确定每种类型机器的最佳解决方案。当使用上述两种方法时,对机器进行排名的结果非常相似。特别的是,在所有的调查案例中,FUCA和CURLI两种方法总是找到相同的最佳选择。因此,可以坚定地得出结论,即FUCA方法和CURLI方法在机床选择中同样有效。此外,本研究还确定了三种不同机器类型所对应的最佳三种机器
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Choosing the best machine tool in mechanical manufacturing
Machine tools are indispensable components and play an important role in mechanical manufacturing. The equipment of machine tools has a huge effect on the operational efficiency of businesses. Each machine tool type is described by many different criteria, such as cost, technological capabilities, accuracy, energy consumption, convenience in operation, safety for workers, working noise, etc. If the selection of machine is only based on one or several criteria, it will be really easy to make mistakes, which means it is not possible to choose the real best machine. A machine is considered to be the best only when it is chosen based on all of its criteria. This work is called multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). In this study, the selection of machine tools has been done using two different multi-criteria decision-making methods, including the FUCA method (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) and the CURLI method (Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Intergration). These are two methods with very different characteristics. When using the FUCA method, it is necessary to normalize the data and determine the weights for the criteria. Meanwhile, if using the CURLI method, these two things are not necessary. The selection of these two distinct methods is intended to produce the most generalizable conclusions. Three types of machine tool, which are considered in this study, include grinding machine, drilling machine and milling machine. The number of grinders that were offered for selection was twelve, the number of drills that were surveyed in this study was thirteen, while nine were the number of milling machines that were given for selection. The objective of this study is to determine the best solution in each type of machine. The results of ranking the machines are very similar when using the two mentioned methods. Specially, in all the surveyed cases, the two methods FUCA and CURLI always find the same best alternative. Accordingly, it is possible to firmly come to a conclusion that the FUCA method and the CURLI method are equally effective in machine tool selection. In addition, this study has determined the best three machines corresponding to the three different machine types
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
EUREKA: Physics and Engineering
EUREKA: Physics and Engineering Engineering-Engineering (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Application of the multi-criteria analysis method mairca, spotis, comet for the optimisation of sustainable electricity technology development Investigation and establishment of rational geometric factors of die in the deep drawing without a blank holder A rheophysical study of the non-newtonian behavior of water flow in thin channels Study of the influence of the technical level of railway vehicles on braking characteristics The study of the efficiency evaluation of the ventilation system of the poultry house in the summer
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1