Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A new hybrid decision-making strategy of cutting fluid selection for manufacturing environment

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, for a manufacturing environment, the choice of cutting fluids is vital. The desired cutting fluid provides excellent surface quality and better tool life. In this research, a new decision support system was proposed to select different cutting fluids in the manufacturing environment. In this context, three studies were taken from the literature. Fifteen different multi-criteria decision-making techniques and four normalization methods were used to determine the best conditions for these studies. In terms of weighting criteria, a new hybrid criteria weighting method was proposed. The obtained rankings were compared with the Spearman correlation test. Compared to the literature results, the proposed strategy produced consistent results in terms of rankings (p < 0.05).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cakir O, Yardimeden A, Ozben T and Kilickap E 2007 Selection of cutting fluids in machining processes. J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 25(2): 99–102

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lee C W and KwakN K 1999 Information resource planning for a health-care system using an AHP-based goal programming method. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 50: 1191–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Meciarova J and Stanovsky M 2011 Cutting fluids evaluation based on occupational health and environmental hazards. Eng. Rural Dev. 26: 418–422

    Google Scholar 

  4. Axinte D A, Belluco W and Chiffre De 2001 Reliable tool life measurements in turning—an application to cutting fluid efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 41(7): 1003–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sales W F, Diniz A E and Machado A R 2001 Application of cutting fluids in machining processes. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. 23(2): 227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Soković M and Mijanović K 2001 Ecological aspects of the cutting fluids and its influence on quantifiable parameters of the cutting processes. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 109(1–2): 181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Chiffre L and Belluco W 2002 Investigations of cutting fluid performance using different machining operations. Lubr. Eng. 58: 22–29

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jayal A D and andBalaji AK, 2009 Effects of cutting fluid application on tool wear in machining: interactions with tool-coatings and tool surface features. Wear 267(9–10): 1723–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sutherland J W, Cao T, Daneil C M, Yue Y, Zheng Y, Sheng P, Bauer D, Srinivasan M, DeVor R E, Kapoor S G and Skerlos S J 1997 CFEST: An internet-based cutting fluid evaluation software testbed. N. Am. Manuf. Res. Inst. Soc. Manuf. Eng. 25: 243–248

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sun J, Ge P and Liu Z 2001 Two-grade fuzzy synthetic decision-making system with use of an analytic hierarchy process for performance evaluation of grinding fluids. Tribol. Int. 34(10): 683–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rao R V and Gandhi O P 2001 Digraph and matrix method for selection, identification and comparison of metal cutting fluids. J. Eng. Tribol. 215(1): 25–33

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tan X C, Lin F, Cao H J and Zang H 2002 A decision-making framework model of cutting fluid selection for green manufacturing and a case study. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 129(1–3): 467–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abhang L B and Hameedullah M 2012 Selection of lubricant using combined multiple attribute decision making method. Adv. Product. Eng. Manag. 7(1): 39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar E S R R and Prasad J S R 2014 A novel approach of obtaining theoretical values in selection of cutting fluid attributes. IOSR J. Math. 10(5): 1–4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Chakraborty S and Zavadskas E K 2014 Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. Informatica 25(1): 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jagadish and Ray A 2014 Cutting fluid selection for sustainable design for manufacturing: an integrated theory. Proc. Mater. Sci. 6: 450–459

  17. Jagadish and Ray A 2014 Green cutting fluid selection using MOOSRA method. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 3(3): 559–563

  18. Tiwari V V and Sharma A 2015 MADM for selection of vegetable based cutting fluids by SAW method and WPM method. Int. J. Res. Technol. Manag. 1(1): 16–27

    Google Scholar 

  19. Prasad K and Chakraborty S 2016 Aquality function deployment-based model forcutting fluid selection. Adv. Tribol.. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3978102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Makhesana M A and Patel K M 2020 Experimental investigations and selection of solid lubricant assisted lubrication strategy in machining with the use of PROMETHEE. In: Advanced Engineering Optimization Through Intelligent Techniques Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (eds) Venkata Rao R and Taler J, vol 949. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rao R V and Patel B K 2010 Decision making in the manufacturing environment using an improved PROMETHEE method. Int. J. Product. Res. 48(16): 4665–4682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jahan A and Edwards K 2013 Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the Selection of Engineering Materials in Product Design, 1st Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, UK, Elsevier, 1–108

  23. Kaliszewski I and Podkopaev D 2016 Simple additive weighting—a metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 54: 155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brauers W K M and Zavadskas E K 2006 The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern. Syst. Res. Inst. Pol. Acad. Sci. 35(2): 445–469

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Opricovic S and Tzeng G H 2004 Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparativeanalysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(2): 445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ustinovichius L, Zavadskas E K and Podvezko V 2007 Application of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction. Control Cybern. 36(1): 251–268

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Hwang C L and Yoon K 1981 Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, 1–259

  28. Zelany M 1974 A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Comput. Oper. Res. 1: 3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pamucar D and Čirovič G 2015 The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centres using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst. Appl. Int. J. 42: 3016–3028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Brans JP, Vincke Ph. and Mareschal B 1986 How to select and how to rank projects: The ORESTE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24: 228–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ghorabaee M K, Zavadskas E K, Turskis Z and Antucheviciene J 2016 A new COmbinative Distance-based ASsessment (CODAS) method for multi criteria decision-making. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 50(3): 25–44

    Google Scholar 

  32. Deng J L 1989 Introduction to grey system. J. Grey Syst. 1(11): 1–24

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Karami A and Johansson R 2014 Utilization of multi attribute decision making techniques to ıntegrate automatic and manual ranking of options. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 30: 519–534

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jahan A, Edwards K, Bahraminasah M 2016 Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the Selection of Engineering Materials in Product Design, 2nd edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, UK, Elsevier, 1–238

  35. Gravvetter F and Wallnau L 2008 “Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Science, Sixth edition, Cengage Learning, US, 1-592

  36. Rao R V 2007. Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, Springer-Verlag London, 1–346

  37. MukhametzyanovI 2021. MCDM tools (https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/65742-mcdm-tools), MATLAB Central File Exchange. Retrieved March 10, 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering Department, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey

    Mehmet Alper Sofuoğlu

Authors
  1. Mehmet Alper Sofuoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Alper Sofuoğlu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sofuoğlu, M.A. A new hybrid decision-making strategy of cutting fluid selection for manufacturing environment. Sādhanā 46, 94 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01618-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01618-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation