A study on multi-criteria decision-making in powder mixed electric discharge machining cylindrical shaped parts

Keywords: PMEDM, multi-criteria decision making, MAIRCA, MARCOS, TOPSIS, EARM


In life as well as in engineering, many times, it is necessary to choose the best option among many different options. That will be more difficult when the criteria given for the selection contradict each other. For example, when external cylindrical grinding, the minimum surface roughness requirement necessitates a small depth of cut and feed rate. The material removal rate will be reduced in this case, and this requirement will conflict with the maximum material removal rate requirement. To solve the above problem, a very useful tool is multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). In this paper, for the first time, MCDM results for powder mixed discharge machining (PMEDM) cylindrical parts of SKD11 tool steel with copper electrodes have been presented. In this work, eighteen experiments with the L18 (16×53) design using the Taguchi method were conducted. Six main input process parameters include the powder concentration, the pulse current, the servo voltage, the pulse on time, and the pulse off time. To select an alternative that simultaneously ensures two criteria including minimum surface roughness (RS) and maximum material removal speed (MRS), four different MCDM methods including MAIRCA (Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis), MARCOS (Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution), TOPSIS (Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution), and EAMR (Area-based Method of Ranking) and two methods of criteria weight calculation including MEREC (Method based on the Removal Effects of Criteria) and Entropy methods were selected. The results of MCDM when PMEDM SKD11 tool steel cylindrical parts with two methods for weight determination and four methods for solving MCDM problem were evaluated. In addition, the best alternative to ensure simultaneous minimum RS and maximum MRS was proposed.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Tran Huu Danh, Vinh Long University of Technology Education

Department of Mechnical Engineering

Trieu Quy Huy, University of Economics - Technology for Industries

Department of Mechnical Engineering

Pham Duc Lam, Nguyen Tat Thanh University

Department of Mechnical, Electrical, Electronic and Automotive Engineering

Nguyen Manh Cuong, Thai Nguyen University of Technology

Department of Mechnical Engineering

Hoang Xuan Tu, Thai Nguyen University of Technology

Department of Mechnical Engineering

Vu Ngoc Pi, Thai Nguyen University of Technology

Department of Mechnical Engineering


Zolpakar, N. A., Yasak, M. F., Pathak, S. (2021). A review: use of evolutionary algorithm for optimisation of machining parameters. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 115 (1), 31–47. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-07155-7

Nobre, F. F., Trotta, L. T. F., Gomes, L. F. A. M. (1999). Multi‐criteria decision making–an approach to setting priorities in health care. Statistics in medicine, 18 (23), 3345–3354. doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991215)18:23<3345::aid-sim321>3.0.co;2-7

Kou, G., Wu, W. (2014). Multi-criteria decision analysis for emergency medical service assessment. Annals of Operations Research, 223 (1), 239–254. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1630-6

Alkharabsheh, A., Moslem, S., Oubahman, L., Duleba, S. (2021). An integrated approach of multi-criteria decision-making and grey theory for evaluating urban public transportation systems. Sustainability, 13 (5), 2740. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/su13052740

Aydın, S., Kahraman, C. (2014). Vehicle selection for public transportation using an integrated multi criteria decision making approach: A case of Ankara. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 26 (5), 2467–2481. doi: http://doi.org/10.3233/ifs-130917

Wibowo, A. S., Permanasari, A. E., Fauziati, S. (2016). Combat aircraft effectiveness assessment using hybrid multi-criteria decision making methodology. 2016 2nd International Conference on Science and Technology-Computer (ICST). doi: http://doi.org/10.1109/icstc.2016.7877358

Petrović, I., Kankaraš, M. (2018). DEMATEL-AHP multi-criteria decision making model for the selection and evaluation of criteria for selecting an aircraft for the protection of air traffic. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1 (2), 93–110. doi: http://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802091p

Temiz, I., Calis, G. (2017). Selection of construction equipment by using multi-criteria decision making methods. Procedia Engineering, 196, 286–293. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.201

Antoniou, F., Aretoulis, G. N. (2018). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods in choosing contract type for highway construction in Greece. International journal of management and decision making, 17 (1), 1–28. doi: http://doi.org/10.1504/ijmdm.2018.10008499

Trung, D. D. (2021). Application of TOPSIS and PIV methods for multi-criteria decision making in hard turning process. Journal of Machine Engineering, 21, (4), 57–71. doi: http://doi.org/10.36897/jme/142599

Trung, D., Thinh, H. (2021). A multi-criteria decision-making in turning process using the MAIRCA, EAMR, MARCOS and TOPSIS methods: A comparative study. Advances in Production Engineering & Management, 16 (4), 443–456. doi: http://doi.org/10.14743/apem2021.4.412

Do Trung, D. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making under the MARCOS method and the weighting methods: applied to milling, grinding and turning processes. Manufacturing Review, 9 (3). doi: http://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2022003

Tran, Q.-P., Nguyen V.-N., Huang, S.-C. (2020). Drilling process on CFRP: multi-criteria decision-making with entropy weight using grey-TOPSIS method. Applied Sciences, 10 (20), 7207. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/app10207207

Varatharajulu, M., Duraiselvam, M., Kumar, M. B., Jayaprakash, G., Baskar, N. (2021). Multi criteria decision making through TOPSIS and COPRAS on drilling parameters of magnesium AZ91. Journal of Magnesium and Alloys. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2021.05.006

Phan, N. H., Muthuramalingam, T., Minh, N. D., Van Duc, N. (2022). Enhancing surface morphology of machined SKD61 die steel in EDM process using DEAR approach based multi criteria decision making. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 16 (3), 1155–1161. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-00859-4

Ray, A. (2015). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for green electrical discharge machining. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer, 33–43. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2217-0_4

Huu Phan, N., Muthuramalingam, T. (2020). Multi Criteria Decision Making of Vibration Assisted EDM Process Parameters on Machining Silicon Steel Using Taguchi-DEAR Methodology. Silicon, 13 (6), 1879–1885. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-020-00573-4

Huu-Phan, N., Tien-Long, B., Quang-Dung, L., Duc-Toan, N., Muthuramalingam, T. (2019). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using Preferential Selection Index in Titanium based Die-Sinking PMEDM. Journal of the Korean Society for Precision Engineering, 36 (9), 793–802. doi: http://doi.org/10.7736/kspe.2019.36.9.793

Jayaraj, J., Sundaresan, R., Chinnamuthu, S. (2019). Multi-criteria decision of W-powder mixed electro discharge drilling parameters using TOPSIS approach. Mechanics, 25 (1), 52–56. doi: http://doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.25.1.22883

Naik, D. K., Khan, A., Majumder, H., Garg, R. K. (2018). Experimental Investigation of the PMEDM of Nickel Free Austenitic Stainless Steel: A Promising Coronary Stent Material. Silicon, 11 (2), 899–907. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-018-9877-1

Dewan, P., Pradhan, B. (2014). Parametric Optimization of Powder EDM Process using Grey Relational Analysis and TOPSIS. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research and Development, 4, 1–10.

Tran, T.-H., Nguyen, M.-C., Luu, A.-T., Do, T.-V., Le, T.-Q., Vu, T.-T. et. al. (2020). Electrical Discharge Machining with SiC Powder-Mixed Dielectric: An Effective Application in the Machining Process of Hardened 90CrSi Steel. Machines, 8 (3), 36. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/machines8030036

Pamučar, D. V., L., Lukovac, V. (2014). Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MARICА model. Proceedings of the XVI International Scientific-expert Conference on Railways, Railcon. Niš, Serbia, 89–92.

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Hwang, C.-L., Lai, Y.-J., Liu, T.-Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 20 (8), 889–899. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-v

Amiri, M., Antucheviciene, J. (2016). Evaluation by an area-based method of ranking interval type-2 fuzzy sets (EAMRIT-2F) for multi-criteria group decision-making. Transformations in Business and Economics, 15 (3 (39)), 76–95.

Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. (2021). Assessment of distribution center locations using a multi-expert subjective-objective decision-making approach. Scientific Reports, 11 (1). doi: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98698-y

Hieu, T. T., Thao, N. X., Thuy, L. (2019). Application of MOORA and COPRAS Models to Select Materials for Mushroom Cultivation. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 17 (4), 32–2331.

Comparison graph of four multi-criteria decision making methods:

👁 138
⬇ 106
How to Cite
Danh, T. H., Huy, T. Q., Lam, P. D., Cuong, N. M., Tu, H. X., & Pi, V. N. (2022). A study on multi-criteria decision-making in powder mixed electric discharge machining cylindrical shaped parts. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (5), 123-129. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2022.002367

Most read articles by the same author(s)