4.7 Article

Risk-based material selection process supported on information theory: A case study on industrial gas turbine

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 1116-1129

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.09.018

关键词

Risk-based fuzzy axiomatic design approach; Multiple attribute decision making; Shannon entropy; Material selection; Gas turbine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

turbine blades are produced using high-temperature high-strength materials because they are oftenexposed to severe environments. Material selection for such cases should be performed with sensitivity and using a systematic method. Moreover, various risks may exist about the values of materials properties. For example, the difference between the designed and unexpected conditions may pose some risksto materials properties. Although considering risks for gas turbine blade material selection problem or similar high-tech practical cases is important, a research gap exists in such fields. This paper presents ariskbased material selection algorithm using the principles of Suh and Shannon entropies supported on information theory. In this regard, we develop the risk-based fuzzy axiomatic design approach with theintegrated Shannon significance coefficients of attributes. A real- world example about material selection of industrial gas turbine blade is examined using four techniques including the fuzzy axiomatic design,weighted fuzzy axiomatic design, risk-based fuzzy axiomatic design, and weighted risk-basedfuzzy axiomatic design approaches. In the example, risk factors are determined to consider the effect oftemperature variation on materials properties. Finally, the resultant rankings are compared by calculatingSpearman rank correlation coefficients. The comparisons show that considering risk factors in the problem affects the resultant ranking. We validate the results of the proposed methods by the unweighted and weighted fuzzy MULTIMOORA approaches. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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