See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313085178

Cutting tool material selection using TOPSIS method

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
3 487

4 authors, including:

Halil Çalışkan Bilal Kurşuncu

29 PUBLICATIONS   435 CITATIONS   
Bartin University
20 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High performance machining of carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites using coated carbide tools View project

Hi! my recent studies about different boron added cutting fluids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bilal Kurşuncu on 07 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Determination of Optimum Cutting Parameters Based on Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making Methods in Face Milling of Aluminum Alloy

Halil Çalışkana,*, Bilal Kurşuncua, Cahit Kurbanoğlub, Şevki Yılmaz Güvenc

a
Bartın University,74100, Bartın, Turkey
b
Đstanbul Medeniyet University, 34730, Đstanbul, Turkey
c
Süleyman Demirel University, 32100, Isparta, Turkey
*
E-mail: hcaliskan@bartin.edu.tr

Abstract
Determination of optimum cutting parameters
has great importance in manufacturing of machine
components as it provides longer tool life and
lower machining costs. Therefore, this paper
focuses on the application of two multi-criteria
decision-making methods for solving an optimum
cutting parameters selection problem in face
milling of series 2 aluminum alloy used in
aerospace applications. These are TOPSIS and
VIKOR methods. The cutting parameters, where
the depth of cut, the feed rate, the cutting speed,
the engagement, wear of the cutting tool and the
use of cutting fluid were changed according to the
principles of Taguchi design of experiments
method, were utilized as alternatives. Using the
two methods, a list of all the possible choices from
the best to the worst suitable parameters is
obtained taking into account the three components
of the cutting force, surface roughness and
material removal rate as criteria. The data used in
decision making process were derived from
experiments conducted on a CNC milling
machine. Based on the ranking results, the
optimum cutting parameters were obtained at the
condition where minimum feed rate, maximum
cutting speed, small tool wear, maximum depth of
cut, %100 engagement and no cutting fluid were
used.
1. Introduction
The manufacturing of the products with low
cost and high quality in short time is a target in
state-of-the-art industry. In order to reach this
target, automated and flexible CNC manufacturing
systems capable of achieving high accuracy and
very low processing time are used. Surface
roughness is a measure of the technological
quality of a product and a factor that greatly
influences manufacturing cost [1]. Cutting forces
also have significance on the cost of the products
as they cause the increasing tool wear and thus the
increasing manufacturing time. On the contrary,
there are some responses such as material removal
rate (MRR), the high values of which are
demanded in order to provide a competitive
advantage among manufacturers. Therefore, there
is a need to select the optimum of cutting
parameters for minimum of surface roughness and
cutting forces, while maximum of material
removal rate. However, there are no cutting
parameters which meet all these demands. Each
cutting parameter has different performance for
each response mentioned above. In addition, a
conflicting situation exists between these
responses (i.e. cutting forces/material removal
rate) and there is a necessity to decide which
response is more important than others. Using
simple and logical methods, the criteria that
influence cutting parameter selection for a given
engineering application must be identified to
eliminate unsuitable alternatives and the most
appropriate alternative must be selected [2, 3].
In order to solve the cutting parameter selection
issue in manufacturing of components, plenty of
optimization methods such as Taguchi [4, 5],
artificial neural network [1], response surface
methodology [6, 7] methods have been used. In
this study two of multi-criteria decision-making
methods were applied for solving an optimum
cutting parameters selection problem in face
milling of series 2 aluminum alloy used in
aerospace applications: TOPSIS (technique for
order performance by similarity to ideal solution)
[8-10], VIKOR (Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija
Kompromisno Resenje, means Multicriteria
Optimization and Compromise Solution) [11, 12].
In order to determine the criteria weights Entropy
method [13] was employed.
2. Multi-criteria decision-making 2.2. TOPSIS method
methods
The TOPSIS method is used to obtain a
2.1. Criteria weighting by the Entropy solution, which is closest to the ideal solution as
well as farthest from the negative ideal solution.
method
The method needs information on relative
importance of properties, considered in selection
Entropy measures the uncertainty in the
process, with respect to another [15].
information formulated using probability theory. It
The TOPSIS method consists of the following
indicates that a broad distribution represents more
steps [8]:
uncertainty than that of a sharply peaked one [13].
(a) The normalization of the decision matrix is
Eq. (1) shows the decision matrix A of multi-
performed using Eq. (6).
criteria problem with m alternatives and n criteria
[14]:
xij
x1 x2 ⋯ xn nij = j=1,2,…,n; i=1,2,…,m (6)
∑
m
xij 2
A1  x11 x12 ⋯ x 1n  i =1

A2  x 21 x 22 ⋯ x 2 n 
A= (1) (b) The columns of the normalized decision
⋮  ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 
  matrix are multiplied by the associated weights,
Am  x m 1 x m2 ⋯ x mn  wj, obtained in Eq. (5) and the weighted and
normalized decision matrix is obtained by Eq. (7):
where xij (i=1,2,…,m; j=1,2,…,n) is the
performance value of the ith alternative to the jth V ij = n ij w j j=1,2,…,n; i=1,2,…,m (7)
criteria.
In order to determine the weights by the (c) The ideal and nadir ideal solutions are
entropy method, the normalized decision matrix determined using Eq. (8) and (9), respectively:
Pij is calculated [13]. The aim of the normalization
is to obtain dimensionless values of different
criteria for making comporison between them. {V 1
+
,V 2 + ,… ,Vn + = }
   
 Max Vij j ∈ K  ,  Min Vij j ∈ K'  i = 1,2,..., m
Pij =
x ij
(2)  i  i  
(8)
∑
m
x ij2
i =1
{V1
−
,V 2 − ,… ,Vn − = }
The entropy value Ej of jth criteria can be    
 Min Vij j ∈ K  ,  Max Vij j ∈ K'  i = 1,2 ,..., m
obtained as:  i   i  
(9)
m
E j = −k ∑P ij ln( Pij ) j = 1,2 ,⋯ , n (3) where K is the index set of benefit criteria and
i =1 K ′ is the index set of cost criteria.
(d) The distances from the ideal and nadir
where k = 1 ln m is a constant that guarantees solutions are measured. The two Euclidean
0 ≤ E j ≤ 1 and m is the number of alternatives. distances for each alternative are computed as
given in Eq. (10) and (11), respectively:
The degree of divergence (dj) of the average
information contained by each criterion can be 0.5
obtained from Eq. (4):  n 2

+
Si = 
 j =1
∑(
Vij − V j + 

) (10)
d j = 1− Ej (4)
j=1,2,…,n;i=1,2,…,m
0.5
n − 2
Thus, the weight of entropy of jth factor can be
defined as:
S i = ∑ Vij − V j 
−
( ) (11)
 j =1 
j=1,2,…,n; i=1,2,…,m
dj
wj = n
(5)
(e) The relative closeness to the ideal solution
∑
j =1
dj is calculated as shown in Eq. (12):
 Si −
Ci = i=1,2,…m; 0 ≤ Ci ≤ 1
Si + + Si −
The higher values of Ci mean that the rank is
better.
2.3. VIKOR method
The VIKOR, the compromise solution method,
was introduced as one applicable technique to
implement within MCDM [13].
The main procedure of the VIKOR method is
described below [13]:
( )
a) First, the best, i.e. x ij max and the worst, i.e
(xij )min values of all criteria are determined from
decision matrix.
b) The values of Ei and Fi are calculated from
Eqs. (13) and (14), respectively.
n
Ei = ∑ w [(x )
j =1
j ij max ( )] [(xij )max − (xij )min ] (13)
− xij
Fi = Max n of
{w [(x )
j ij max ( )] [(xij )max − (xij )min ]}
− xij
j=1,2,…,n
c) The values of Pi are calculated.
Pi = v(( E i − E i − min ) /( E i − max − E i − min ))
+ ( 1 − v )(( Fi − Fi − min ) /( Fi − max − Fi − min ))
where Ei − max designates the maximum value of
E i , and E i − min designates the minimum value of
E i ; Fi − max is the maximum value of Fi , and
Fi − min is the minimum value of Fi . v is used as
the weight of the strategy of ‘the majority of
criteria’. The value of v is usually taken as 0.5,
while it can take any value from 0 to 1.
d) According to the values of Pi, Ei and Fi, the
alternatives are separately arranged in the
ascending order in order to obtain three ranking
lists. The compromise ranking list for a given v is
obtained by ranking with Pi measures. The best
alternative is determined as the one with the
minimum value of Pi in the P ranking.
e) The alternative ( x' ) with the minimum P
value is proposed as compromise solution for
given criteria weights, if conditions (1) and (2) are
satisfied [13, 16]:
C1. “Acceptable advantage”
P( x' ' ) − P( x' ) ≥ ( 1 /( m − 1 )) , where x' ' is the
second-best alternative in the ranking by P and m
is the number of alternatives.
C2. “Acceptable stability in decision making”:
(12) The alternative x' must also be the best ranked by
E and/or F. This compromise solution is stable
within a decision-making process, which could be:
“voting by majority rule” (when v > 0,5 is
needed) or “by consensus” (when v ≈ 0,5 ), or
“with veto” (when v > 0,5 ).
If one of the conditions is not satisfied, then a
set of compromise solutions is proposed, which
consists of:
• Alternatives x' and x' ' if only C2 is not
satisfied.
• Alternatives x' , x' ' ,..., x ( k ) if condition not
satisfied; x
(k)
is determined by the relation
(k )
P( x ) − P( x' ) < ( 1 /( m − 1 )) , the positions of
these alternatives are ‘‘in closeness’’.
3. Application of the methods to the
cutting parameter selection problem
The TOPSIS and the VIKOR methods were
applied to the cutting parameters selection
problem in face milling of series 2 aluminum alloy
used in aerospace applications. The cutting
parameters and the response data were obtained
(14) from Ref. [1]. The authors performed 27 cutting
tests by changing the depth of cut, the feed rate,
the cutting speed, the engagement, wear of the
cutting tool and the use of cutting fluid according
to the principles of Taguchi design of experiments
(15)
method. They measured cutting forces and surface
roughness as response. The design of experiments
and corresponding data used is given in Table 1.
In our study these 27 cutting tests were assumed
as alternatives, while cutting force components Fx,
Fy, Fz, surface roughness (Ra) and material
removal rate (MRR) as criteria. Low values of Fx,
Fy, Fz and Ra are demanded. Among six criteria,
MRR is beneficial criteria and its high values are
demanded.
None of the used alternative cutting parameters
meets all of these demands mentioned above. Each
has different performance for each property.
Therefore, some MCDM methods have been
developed in order to decide the best alternative
that has the highest degree of satisfaction for all
the relevant responses. The TOPSIS and the
VIKOR methods were used in our study to select
the best alternative or to rank a set of given
alternatives. Entropy method was utilized to
determine the criteria weights.
 Table 1. The design of experiments and corresponding data [1]
Test fz Vc Tool ap Engagement Cutting Max Fx Max Fy Max Fz Ra MRR
[mm/tooth] [m/min] wear [mm] [%] fluid [N] [N] [N] [µm] [mm3/min]
1 0,08 300 Small 0,25 30 Yes 344 368 98 0,347 2293
2 0,08 300 Average 0,75 60 No 379 452 206 0,3 13758
3 0,08 300 Small 1,2 100 Yes 385 354 87 0,393 36688
4 0,08 500 Small 0,75 60 Yes 423 619 83 0,287 22930
5 0,08 500 Average 1,2 100 Yes 337 486 161 0,473 61146
6 0,08 500 Small 0,25 30 No 280 297 91 0,18 3822
7 0,08 700 Small 1,2 100 No 250 366 76 0,233 85605
8 0,08 700 Average 0,25 30 Yes 373 296 198 0,467 5350
9 0,08 700 Small 0,75 60 Yes 287 477 107 0,247 32102
10 0,14 300 Small 0,75 100 No 307 387 165 0,8 40127
11 0,14 300 Average 1,2 30 Yes 835 601 320 0,4 19261
12 0,14 300 Small 0,25 60 Yes 309 451 83 0,393 8025
13 0,14 500 Small 1,2 30 Yes 810 747 77 0,407 32102
14 0,14 500 Average 0,25 60 No 241 387 207 0,467 13376
15 0,14 500 Small 0,75 100 Yes 290 450 81 0,52 66879
16 0,14 700 Small 0,25 60 Yes 269 347 79 0,827 18726
17 0,14 700 Average 0,75 100 Yes 344 491 156 0,773 93631
18 0,14 700 Small 1,2 30 No 718 598 121 0,98 44943
19 0,2 300 Small 1,2 60 Yes 811 760 140 1,807 55032
20 0,2 300 Average 0,25 100 Yes 269 255 137 0,633 19108
21 0,2 300 Small 0,75 30 No 685 556 139 0,82 17197
22 0,2 500 Small 0,25 100 No 133 289 45 1,067 31847
23 0,2 500 Average 0,75 30 Yes 628 642 234 0,72 28662
24 0,2 500 Small 1,2 60 Yes 729 1336 99 1,72 91720
25 0,2 700 Small 0,75 30 Yes 570 448 147 1,147 40127
26 0,2 700 Average 1,2 60 No 607 819 110 0,727 128408
27 0,2 700 Small 0,25 100 Yes 130 267 45 1,047 44586

4. Results and discussion
To demonstrate the applicability of TOPSIS
and VIKOR methods, the cutting parameter
selection problem is considered here. The different
steps involved in these methods are discussed
above. After the determination of the weights of
different criteria using the Entropy method, these
methods were applied to the problem.
4.1. Criteria weighting
At first, the relative weights of different
evaluation criteria for the cutting parameters were
obtained by Entropy method and these were given
in Table 2. The weights for each criterion are
wFx=0.213, wFy=0.222, wFz=0.215, wRa=0.194 and
wMRR=0.157. From the Entropy results, we can
understand that the most important two factors for
the cutting parameters are cutting force Fy (0.222).
On the other hand, the less important factor is
material removal rate (0.157).
Table 2. Criteria weighting by entropy method
Fx Fy Fz Ra MRR
Ej 2.325 2.382 2.342 2.206 1.978
dj 1.325 1.382 1.342 1.206 0.978
wj 0.213 0.222 0.215 0.194 0.157
4.2. TOPSIS method
In the application of the TOPSIS method the
decision matrix given in Table 1 was normalized
using Eq. (6) and the normalized decision matrix
were multiplied by the weights obtained by the
Entropy method. The weighted and normalized
decision matrix, Vij, is given in Table 3.
 Table 3. Weighted and normalized decision Table 5. Si+, Si- and Ci
matrix, Vij Test Si+ Si- Ci Rank
Test Fx Fy Fz Ra MRR 1 0.0809 0.1275 0.6120 15
1 0.0291 0.0286 0.0283 0.0164 0.0014 2 0.0878 0.1114 0.5594 19
2 0.0321 0.0351 0.0596 0.0142 0.0083 3 0.0621 0.1293 0.6754 5
3 0.0326 0.0275 0.0252 0.0186 0.0222 4 0.0751 0.1197 0.6144 14
4 0.0358 0.0481 0.0240 0.0136 0.0139 5 0.0601 0.1162 0.6592 7
5 0.0285 0.0378 0.0465 0.0223 0.0370 6 0.0778 0.1379 0.6395 9
6 0.0237 0.0231 0.0263 0.0085 0.0023 7 0.0306 0.1456 0.8263 1
7 0.0212 0.0284 0.0220 0.0110 0.0519 8 0.0902 0.1154 0.5614 18
8 0.0316 0.0230 0.0572 0.0221 0.0032 9 0.0649 0.1271 0.6621 6
9 0.0243 0.0371 0.0309 0.0117 0.0194 10 0.0725 0.1106 0.6042 16
10 0.0260 0.0301 0.0477 0.0378 0.0243 11 0.1228 0.0883 0.4181 25
11 0.0706 0.0467 0.0925 0.0189 0.0117 12 0.0775 0.1260 0.6193 13
12 0.0261 0.0351 0.0240 0.0186 0.0049 13 0.0915 0.1083 0.5421 20
13 0.0685 0.0581 0.0223 0.0192 0.0194 14 0.0862 0.1144 0.5703 17
14 0.0204 0.0301 0.0598 0.0221 0.0081 15 0.0466 0.1299 0.7361 2
15 0.0245 0.0350 0.0234 0.0246 0.0405 16 0.0751 0.1237 0.6223 11
16 0.0228 0.0270 0.0228 0.0391 0.0113 17 0.0541 0.1172 0.6843 3
17 0.0291 0.0382 0.0451 0.0365 0.0567 18 0.0875 0.0943 0.5187 22
18 0.0607 0.0465 0.0350 0.0463 0.0272 19 0.1162 0.0757 0.3946 27
19 0.0686 0.0591 0.0405 0.0854 0.0333 20 0.0754 0.1238 0.6215 12
20 0.0228 0.0198 0.0396 0.0299 0.0116 21 0.0946 0.0940 0.4984 23
21 0.0580 0.0432 0.0402 0.0387 0.0104 22 0.0720 0.1342 0.6508 8
22 0.0113 0.0225 0.0130 0.0504 0.0193 23 0.0998 0.0820 0.4510 24
23 0.0531 0.0499 0.0677 0.0340 0.0174 24 0.1251 0.0844 0.4026 26
24 0.0617 0.1038 0.0286 0.0813 0.0556 25 0.0862 0.0963 0.5276 21
25 0.0482 0.0348 0.0425 0.0542 0.0243 26 0.0676 0.1188 0.6373 10
26 0.0514 0.0637 0.0318 0.0343 0.0778 27 0.0653 0.1369 0.6771 4
27 0.0110 0.0208 0.0130 0.0495 0.0270
4.3. VIKOR method
The ideal and nadir ideal solutions, determined
by Eqs. (8) and (9), are presented in Table 4. The best and the worst of all criteria were
determined from decision matrix given in Table 1.
Table 4. The ideal and nadir ideal solutions Then, the values of Ei, Fi and Pi were calculated
Fx Fy Fz Ra MRR using Eqs. (13), (14) and (15) as shown in Table 6.
V+ 0.0110 0.0198 0.0130 0.0085 0.0778 The cutting parameters with the lowest Pi value
were given the best rank. According to the ranking
V- 0.0706 0.1038 0.0925 0.0854 0.0014 of alternatives by the VIKOR method presented in
Table 6, the ranking of the alternative cutting
The distances from the ideal (Si+) and nadir parameters is 15-18-7-13-5-12-1-19-8-9-26-14-24-
ideal solutions (Si-) and the relative closeness to 16-2-10-4-23-25-11-22-6-21-27-20-17-3 which
the ideal solution (Ci) are measured using Eqs. indicates that the optimum cutting parameters
(10), (11) and (12) and presented in Table 5. The were obtained at the condition where minimum
cutting parameters could be ranked by the relative feed rate, maximum cutting speed, small tool
degree of approximation and the ranking is shown wear, maximum depth of cut, 100% engagement
in the Table 5. The best and the worst alternative and no cutting fluid were used. On the contrary,
were found to be 7th and 19th cutting parameters, the worst parameters are maximum feed rate,
respectively. medium cutting speed, small tool wear, maximum
depth of cut, 60% engagement and cutting fluid depth of cut, 60% engagement and cutting fluid
usage. usage in the case of the VIKOR method. The only
difference at the worst alternatives is cutting
Table 6. Ei, Fi and Pi speed. The results show that the application of
Test Ei Fi Pi Rank high speed machining conditions at the machining
of 2 series aluminum alloys is useful. Namely, the
1 0.3060 0.1569 0.4614 15
usage of low values of feed rate and high values of
2 0.3984 0.1427 0.5062 18 cutting speed is advantageous.
3 0.2695 0.1141 0.3000 7 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient [17]
between the rankings was calculated. It is found
4 0.3367 0.1313 0.4142 13
that the Spearman’s rank correlation is 0.95 and
5 0.3191 0.0908 0.2775 5 this represents high association between the ranks.
6 0.2449 0.1550 0.3982 12
7 0.1428 0.0533 0.0000 1 Table 7. Rankings of the alternatives
Test TOPSIS VIKOR Test TOPSIS VIKOR
8 0.3887 0.1531 0.5280 19
1 15 15 15 2 2
9 0.2692 0.1198 0.3167 8
2 19 18 16 11 10
10 0.3580 0.1099 0.3707 9
3 5 7 17 3 4
11 0.6607 0.2152 0.9686 26
4 14 13 18 22 23
12 0.2990 0.1498 0.4337 14
5 7 5 19 27 25
13 0.4778 0.2050 0.7659 24
6 9 12 20 12 11
14 0.3646 0.1431 0.4757 16
7 1 1 21 23 22
15 0.2334 0.0766 0.1546 2
8 18 19 22 8 6
16 0.3008 0.1365 0.3959 10
9 6 8 23 24 21
17 0.3136 0.0869 0.2607 4
10 16 9 24 26 27
18 0.5061 0.1773 0.7103 23
11 25 26 25 21 20
19 0.6681 0.2053 0.9461 25
12 13 14 26 10 17
20 0.3038 0.1360 0.3972 11
13 20 24 27 4 3
21 0.5171 0.1673 0.6911 22
14 17 16
22 0.2336 0.1202 0.2840 6
23 0.5658 0.1501 0.6860 21
5. Conclusions
24 0.6735 0.2218 1.0000 27
25 0.4770 0.1326 0.5504 20 In this paper the cutting parameter selection
26 0.3754 0.1438 0.4879 17 problem for the face milling of series 2 aluminum
alloy has been solved utilizing the TOPSIS and the
27 0.2099 0.1043 0.2147 3
VIKOR methods. The alternative cutting
parameters are successfully evaluated using all the
4.4. Comparison of the methods considered methods. The best cutting parameters
were selected as the cutting parameters where
Table 7 and Fig. 1 show the rankings of all the minimum feed rate, maximum cutting speed, small
alternative cutting parameters derived using the tool wear, maximum depth of cut, 100%
two ranking methods. For all these methods, the engagement and no cutting fluid were used, and
cutting parameters where minimum feed rate, this remains the same for these two methods,
maximum cutting speed, small tool wear, while the worst selected cutting parameters has a
maximum depth of cut, 100% engagement and no difference at only cutting speed. It was validated
cutting fluid were used obtains the first rank. The that the MCDM approach is a viable tool in
worst cutting parameters are maximum feed rate, solving the complex cutting parameter selection
minimum cutting speed, small tool wear, problems. Spearman rank correlation coefficient is
maximum depth of cut, 60% engagement and found to be very useful to assess the correlation
cutting fluid usage in the case of the TOPSIS between two ranking methods.
method, while they are maximum feed rate,
medium cutting speed, small tool wear, maximum
 27
26
25 TOPSIS
24
23 VIKOR
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Rank

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Alternative
Figure 1. Comparison of rankings obtained with the MCDM methods

References selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (2012)

6857-6871.
[10] N. Gupta, Material selection for thin-film solar
[1] P.G. Benardos, G.C. Vosniakos, Prediction of
cells using multiple attribute decision making approach,
surface roughness in CNC face milling using neural
Materials & Design, 32 (2011) 1667-1671.
networks and Taguchi's design of experiments, Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 18 (2002) [11] A. Jahan, F. Mustapha, M.Y. Ismail, S.M. Sapuan,
M. Bahraminasab, A comprehensive VIKOR method
343-354.
for material selection, Materials & Design, 32 (2011)
[2] K.L. Edwards, Materials influence on design: A
1215-1221.
decade of development, Materials & Design, 32 (2011)
[12] R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh, Application of fuzzy
1073-1080.
VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material
[3] P. Chatterjee, S. Chakraborty, Material selection
selection of an automotive component, Materials &
using preferential ranking methods, Materials & Design,
Design, 37 (2012) 478-486.
35 (2012) 384-393.
[13] R.V. Rao, Decision Making in the Manufacturing
[4] J. Kopač, P. Krajnik, Robust design of flank milling
Environment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple
parameters based on grey-Taguchi method, Journal of
Attribute Decision Making Methods, Springer-Verlag
Materials Processing Technology, 191 (2007) 400-403.
[5] J.Z. Zhang, J.C. Chen, E.D. Kirby, Surface London Limited, 2007.
roughness optimization in an end-milling operation [14] Y.-C. Chou, H.-Y. Yen, C.-C. Sun, Evaluation of
Women in Science and Technology, in: 2nd
using the Taguchi design method, Journal of Materials
International Conference on Education and
Processing Technology, 184 (2007) 233-239.
Management Technology, Singapore, 2011, pp. 139-
[6] H. Öktem, T. Erzurumlu, H. Kurtaran, Application
143.
of response surface methodology in the optimization of
cutting conditions for surface roughness, Journal of [15] P.K. Sharma, A. Aggarwal, R. Gupta,
Suryanarayan, A expert system for aid in material
Materials Processing Technology, 170 (2005) 11-16.
selection process, in: Engineering Management
[7] D.I. Lalwani, N.K. Mehta, P.K. Jain, Experimental
Conference, 1993. 'Managing Projects in a Borderless
investigations of cutting parameters influence on cutting
World'. Pre Conference Proceedings., 1993 IEEE
forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of
International, 1993, pp. 27-31.
MDN250 steel, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 206 (2008) 167-179. [16] G.-H. Tzeng, C.-W. Lin, S. Opricovic, Multi-
[8] A. Shanian, O. Savadogo, TOPSIS multiple-criteria criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public
transportation, Energy Policy, 33 (2005) 1373–1383.
decision support analysis for material selection of
[17] K.S. Raju, D.N. Kumar, Multicriterion decision
metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell,
making in irrigation planning, Agricultural Systems, 62
Journal of Power Sources, 159 (2006) 1095-1104.
(1999) 117-129.
[9] S. Rahman, H. Odeyinka, S. Perera, Y. Bi, Product-
cost modelling approach for the development of a
decision support system for optimal roofing material

View publication stats