4.7 Article

Evaluation and Selection of the Quality Methods for Manufacturing Process Reliability Improvement-Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Genetic Algorithm Approach

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 9, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9131531

关键词

selection of quality methods; manufacturing process; intuitionistic fuzzy sets; genetic algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research proposes a hybrid decision-making model for evaluating and selecting quality methods to improve manufacturing reliability. Utilizing FMEA and TIFNs, the model addresses uncertainties in risk factors, values, method applicability, and implementation costs. A genetic algorithm is used to solve the quality method selection problem, showing suitability for SMEs in the process industry.
The aim of this research is to propose a hybrid decision-making model for evaluation and selection of quality methods whose application leads to improved reliability of manufacturing in the process industry. Evaluation of failures and determination of their priorities are based on failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), which is a widely used framework in practice combining with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs). The all-existing uncertainties in the relative importance of the risk factors (RFs), their values, applicability of the quality methods, as well as implementation costs are described by pre-defined linguistic terms which are modeled by the TIFNs. The selection of quality methods is stated as the rubber knapsack problem which is decomposed into subproblems with a certain number of solution elements. The solution of this problem is found by using genetic algorithm (GA). The model is verified through the case study with the real-life data originating from a significant number of organizations from one region. It is shown that the proposed model is highly suitable as a decision-making tool for improving the manufacturing process reliability in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) of process industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据