Optimizing Material Selection Using a Hybridized Multi-attribute Decision Making Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Material selection is a very entangled and decisive stage in the design and development of products. There are large numbers of on hand and newly developed materials available in the market. In addition, inability to select the correct materials adversely affects the reputation and profitability of the company. Thus, designers need to study and trace the performance of available materials with appropriate functionalities. Thus, this research aims at establishing an efficient and systematic platform for the optimum selection of materials while accommodating the designated conflicting performance requirements. The developed model encompasses designing a hybrid decision support system in an attempt to circumvent the shortcomings of single multi-criteria decision making-based (MCDM) models. First, the objective relative importance weights of attributes are interpreted capitalizing on Shannon entropy algorithm. Then, an integrated model that encompasses the utilization of six different types of multi-criteria decision making algorithms is designed to create a reliable selection of material alternatives. The utilized MCDM algorithms comprise weighted product method (WPM), simple additive weighting (SAW), additive ratio assessment (ARAS), new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS), complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). Afterwards, COPELAND algorithm is exploited to generate a consensus and distinct ranking of material alternatives. Eventually, Spearman’s rank correlation analysis is used to evaluate the rankings obtained from the MCDM algorithms. Five numerical examples in diverse fields of material selection are tackled to examine the features and efficiency of the developed integrated model. Results illustrated that the developed model was able to solve the five material selection problems efficiently. On the other hand, no individual MCDM algorithm was able to solve all the assigned material selection problems. For instance, CODAS and TOPSIS only succeeded in solving one and two material selection problems, respectively. It was also inferred that notable differences and perturbations are encountered between the rankings of MCDM algorithms in the first, third, fourth and fifth numerical examples, which necessitates the implementation of COPELAND algorithm. It was also revealed that the highest correlation lied between COPRAS and WPM with an average Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of 92.67%. On the other hand, the correlation between TOPSIS and CODAS attained the lowest rank with an average Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of 18.95%. Results also demonstrated that COPRAS accomplished the highest Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient with 59.54%. Hence, it is the most efficient MCDM algorithm among the five algorithms which can serve as a reference for solving material selection problems. It can be also deduced that CODAS and TOPSIS are not advised to be implemented in solving similar material selection problems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».