Applying Cocoso, Mabac, Mairca, Eamr, Topsis and Weight Determination Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Hole Turning Process
Author:
Do Duc Trung1, Nguyen Nhu-Tung2
Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering , Hanoi University of Industry , Hanoi - , Vietnam 2. HaUI Institute of Technology – HIT , Hanoi University of Industry , Hanoi - , Vietnam
Abstract
Abstract
The ranking of solutions to determine the best one among many solutions is always the setting goal for all activities of all fields in general and in the turning process in particular. When a solution is evaluated by multiple criteria, this is known as “Multi-Criteria Decision Making - MCDM”. Many MCDM methods were proposed by scientists, however, the ranked results of the solutions are not the same. In addition, the ranked results of the solutions also depend on the weighting methods of the criteria. In this study, the ranking of the solutions in the hole turning process was performed by different MCDM methods and with different weighting methods. Five MCDM methods were mentioned in this study including COCOSO, MABAC, MAIRCA, EAMR, and TOPSIS. In this study, five weighting methods were also used including MEREC weight, EQUAl weight, ROC weight, RS weight, and FUCOM weight. The combination of MCDM and weighting methods creates twenty-five ranking results of the solutions. It is interesting to note that all twenty-five ranking results determine the same best solution. The stability in ranking the solutions by MCDM methods was also discussed in this study. From the obtained results, several recommendations were drawn. Some issues that have not been solved in this study and need to be done in near future are also mentioned in the last section of this study.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Mechanical Engineering
Reference49 articles.
1. [1] Constantin, Z., Michael, D. “Multiple Criteria Decision Making - Applications in Management and Engineering”, Springer, 2017. 2. [2] Morteza, Y., Pascale, Z., Edmundas, K. Z., Zenonas, T. “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems”, Management Decision, Emerald 57(9), pp. 2501 – 2519, 2019. DOI: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458 3. [3] Ayse, T. “Financial performance analysis of electricity generation companies with multi-criteria decision making: Entropy-based Cocoso method”, Business & Management Studies: An International Journal 9(2), pp.532–546, 2021. DOI: 10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1794 4. [4] Alptekin, U., Figen, B., Lutfu, S., Darjan, K., Dragisa, S., Gabrijela, P. “Selection of insulation materials with PSI-CRITIC based CoCoSo method”, Journal of Construction, 20(2), pp. 382 – 392, 2021. DOI: 10.7764/RDLC.20.2.382 5. [5] Erfan, B. T., Ali, E. T. “A Cluster-based Stratified Hybrid Decision Support Model under Uncertainty: Sustainable Healthcare Landfill Location Selection”, Applied Intelligence, pp. 1 – 10, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s10489-022-03335-4889866035280110
Cited by
22 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|