Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

A Fuzzification Measure of Robust Design in Condition of "Desired Target Being Best" in Design

Article Sidebar

Simulated results
Download PDF
Submitted   Jan 2, 2025
Published   Feb 28, 2025
Issue    Vol 4 No 1 (2025)
DOI   10.25082/RIMA.2025.01.001

Views

209

Downloads

26

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Maosheng Zheng corresponding author
School of Chemical Engineering, Northwest University, Xi’an 710069, Shaanxi Province, China
Jie Yu
School of Life Science, Northwest University, Xi’an 710069, Shaanxi Province, China

Abstract

In the present article, a fuzzification measure of robust design in condition of "desired target being best" is regulated, which consists of the "complement" of the membership value of objective response and PMOO. The mean value of "complement" of the membership value of a set of test data of objective response belonging to its desired target value in fuzzification is taken as an indicator to join the assessment of the 1st part of partial preferable probability of the objective; the dispersion of a set of test data in term of membership with regard to the desired target value is taken as the other indicator to participate the assessment of the 2nd part of partial preferable probability of the objective. Moreover, the fuzzification measure of robust design is regulated in term of PMOO. As utilizations, two instances are presented to illuminate the regulation in design.

Keywords
fuzzification, membership value, robust design, target being best

Article Details

How to Cite
Zheng, M., & Yu, J. (2025). A Fuzzification Measure of Robust Design in Condition of "Desired Target Being Best" in Design. Research on Intelligent Manufacturing and Assembly, 4(1), 138-143. https://doi.org/10.25082/RIMA.2025.01.001
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Enea M, Piazza T. Project Selection by Constrained Fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making. 2004, 3(1): 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:fodm.0000013071.63614.3d
  2. Önüt S, Soner Kara S, Efendigil T. A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2008, 19(4): 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0095-3
  3. Liao TW. A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making method for material selection. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 1996, 15(1): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6125(96)84211-7
  4. Vasant P, Barsoum NN. Fuzzy optimization of units products in mix-product selection problem using fuzzy linear programming approach. Soft Computing. 2005, 10(2): 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-004-0437-9
  5. Babanli M, Gojayev T. Application of Fuzzy AHP Method to Material Selection Problem. 11th World Conference “Intelligent System for Industrial Automation” (WCIS-2020). Published online 2021: 254-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68004-6_33
  6. Zheng M, Yu J. A Probability-based Fuzzy Multi-objective Optimization for Material Selection. Tehnički glasnik. 2024, 18(2): 178-182. https://doi.org/10.31803/tg-20230515054622
  7. Zheng M, Yu J, Teng H, et al. Probability-Based Multi-Objective Optimization for Material Selection. Springer Nature Singapore, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3939-8
  8. Zheng M, Yu J. Robust Design and Assessment of Product and Production by Means of Probabilistic Multi-Objective Optimization. Springer Nature Singapore, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2661-5
  9. Lin DKJ, Tu W. Dual Response Surface Optimization. Journal of Quality Technology. 1995, 27(1): 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1995.11979556
  10. Montgomery, D. C. (2017) Design and Analysis of Experiments, 9th Ed. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  11. Pignatiello JJ, Ramberg JS. Discussion. Journal of Quality Technology. 1985, 17(4): 198-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1985.11978969
  12. Wu L, Xu Y, Zhao Y, et al. Taguchi robust design for the stroking of a clamping mechanism. Machine Tool & Hydraulics, 2014, 42(5): 85-89.