Scholarlink

<p>Material selection of engineering components is a tedious task that involves many conflicting criteria making the decision-making process a tough one. The present study considers the material selection of engine mounting brackets through different MCDM methods such as TOPSIS, MOORA, COPRAS, ARAS, EDAS, and CODAS. The commercially available engine mounting bracket of the Piaggio APE vehicle has been taken as an example with nine different materials as alternates such as AA 356, AA 5052, AA 6061–T65H, Magnesium AE42, Titanium alloy Ti 6Al 4&#xa0;V, Mild Steel, Structural Steel, Grey Cast iron, Wrought iron, and Mass, Cost per kg of the bracket material, Von Mises stress, Displacement, and Natural Frequency of the bracket as conflicting criterias for evaluation. The weights for the criteria are obtained through Shanon’s entropy and the CRITIC method. Material cost holds the maximum weightage of 73% in the case of the entropy method, and frequency ranks low with a 5% percentage weightage. In the case of the CRITIC method, all the five criteria are found to attain considerable weightage, ranging from 18 to 24%. The influence of weights on different MCDM methods considered over the ranking of alternatives has been compared. Irrespective of the criteria weight determination method and MCDM technique, Ti 6Al 4&#xa0;V is the worst alternative. MOORA, COPRAS, ARAS, and CODAS rank structural steel as the best alternative, but TOPSIS and EDAS rank grey cast iron as the top-ranked alternative when considering entropy-based weights. CRITIC method weighatges has recommended aluminium alloy 356 as the best material alternative through TOPSIS, MOORA, COPRAS, and EDAS, but both ARAS and CODAS suggest structural steel as the best one. The similarities and differences in the ranking of alternatives have been compared.The Spearman rank correlation coefficient has been applied to understand the correlation existing between the rankings obtained for different MCDM techniques under different cases. ARAS, CODAS, MOORA, and COPRA methods have shown a perfect association of their own rankings with a higher positive correlation value very close to 1 and TOPSIS has shown a very low correlation of 0.18, and EDAS shows a negative correlation of -0.02 to their own rankings obtained through entropy and CRITIC weightage methods. AA 356 and structural steel are the two best material alternatives identified in this study.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Material selection for automotive engine mounting bracket using multiple MCDM techniques and numerical simulation

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月13日

查看全文
  • N. Mohammed Raffic,
  • Rajasekaran Saminathan,
  • K. Ganesh Babu,
  • Allocious Britto Rajkumar,
  • V. Raja Subramaniam,
  • A. C. Ramkumar

摘要

Material selection of engineering components is a tedious task that involves many conflicting criteria making the decision-making process a tough one. The present study considers the material selection of engine mounting brackets through different MCDM methods such as TOPSIS, MOORA, COPRAS, ARAS, EDAS, and CODAS. The commercially available engine mounting bracket of the Piaggio APE vehicle has been taken as an example with nine different materials as alternates such as AA 356, AA 5052, AA 6061–T65H, Magnesium AE42, Titanium alloy Ti 6Al 4 V, Mild Steel, Structural Steel, Grey Cast iron, Wrought iron, and Mass, Cost per kg of the bracket material, Von Mises stress, Displacement, and Natural Frequency of the bracket as conflicting criterias for evaluation. The weights for the criteria are obtained through Shanon’s entropy and the CRITIC method. Material cost holds the maximum weightage of 73% in the case of the entropy method, and frequency ranks low with a 5% percentage weightage. In the case of the CRITIC method, all the five criteria are found to attain considerable weightage, ranging from 18 to 24%. The influence of weights on different MCDM methods considered over the ranking of alternatives has been compared. Irrespective of the criteria weight determination method and MCDM technique, Ti 6Al 4 V is the worst alternative. MOORA, COPRAS, ARAS, and CODAS rank structural steel as the best alternative, but TOPSIS and EDAS rank grey cast iron as the top-ranked alternative when considering entropy-based weights. CRITIC method weighatges has recommended aluminium alloy 356 as the best material alternative through TOPSIS, MOORA, COPRAS, and EDAS, but both ARAS and CODAS suggest structural steel as the best one. The similarities and differences in the ranking of alternatives have been compared.The Spearman rank correlation coefficient has been applied to understand the correlation existing between the rankings obtained for different MCDM techniques under different cases. ARAS, CODAS, MOORA, and COPRA methods have shown a perfect association of their own rankings with a higher positive correlation value very close to 1 and TOPSIS has shown a very low correlation of 0.18, and EDAS shows a negative correlation of -0.02 to their own rankings obtained through entropy and CRITIC weightage methods. AA 356 and structural steel are the two best material alternatives identified in this study.