Nontraditional machining processes (NTMPs) are capable of processing very small parts, producing intricate geometries, operating on very narrow machining areas and machining high strength materials. These capabilities lead to a very diverse and large application area for NTMPs. Such a diverse and large application area along with more than one hundred NTMPs requires development of systematic and comprehensive models to help manufacturing engineers in their NTMP selection decisions. Furthermore, fuzzy models instead of crisp ones are being used in the literature in recent years to represent preferences of decision makers more realistically. This study proposes intuitionistic and triangular fuzzy NTMP ranking models and compares their ranking results with the crisp ranking model. The comparisons show that there are statistically significant differences among all three ranking models’ NTMP ranking results.
Nontraditional machining approaches Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) Intuitionistic fuzzy NTMP ranking model Triangular fuzzy NTMP ranking model
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal participants
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Abu Arqub O (2017) Adaptation of reproducing kernel algorithm for solving fuzzy Fredholm–Volterra integrodifferential equations. Neural Comput Appl 28:1591–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abu Arqub O, Al-Smadi M, Momani S, Hayat T (2016) Numerical solutions of fuzzy differential equations using reproducing kernel Hilbert space method. Soft Comput 20:3283–3302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abu Arqub O, Al-Smadi M, Momani S, Hayat T (2017) Application of reproducing kernel algorithm for solving second-order, two-point fuzzy boundary value problems. Soft Comput 21:7191–7206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogun C (1993) Computer-aided system for selection of nontraditional machining operations. Comput Ind 22:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogun C (1994) Computer aided preliminary selection of non-traditional machining processes. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 34:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das S, Chakraborty S (2011) Selection of non-traditional machining processes using analytic network process. J Manuf Syst 30(1):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duran O, Aguilo J (2008) Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a fuzzy-AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 34:1787–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschini F, Galetto M (2001) A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. Int J Prod Res 39(13):2991–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasser GJ, Winter RF (1961) Critical values of the coefficient of rank correlation for testing the hypothesis of independence. Biometrika 48(3/4):444–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groover MP (2008) Automation production systems and computer–integrated manufacturing, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Ic YT, Yurdakul M, Dengiz B (2013) Development of a decision support system for robot selection. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 29:142–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jafarian M, Vahdat SE (2012) A fuzzy multi-attribute approach to select the welding process at high pressure vessel manufacturing. J Manuf Process 14(3):250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpak B, Zionts S (1987) Multiple criteria decision making and risk analysis using microcomputers. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
Kul Y, Şeker A, Yurdakul M (2014) Usage of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods in selection of nontraditional manufacturing methods. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 29(3):589–603 (In Turkish)Google Scholar
Parkan C, Wu M-L (1999) Decision making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Comput Ind Eng 36:503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad K, Chakraborty S (2018) A decision guidance framework for non-raditional machining processes selection. Ain Shams Eng J 9:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadhu A, Chakraborty S (2007) Non-traditional machining processes selection using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Expert Syst Appl 38:8770–8781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sáenz DC, Castillo NG, Romeva CR, Macià JL (2015) A fuzzy approach for the selection of non-traditional sheet metal cutting processes. Expert Syst Appl 42:6147–6154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, vol 7. McGraw-hill, New York, pp 202–204Google Scholar
Tabucanon MT (1988) Multiple criteria decision making in industry. Elsevier, USAGoogle Scholar
Torfi F, Farahani RZ, Rezapour S (2011) Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation attributes and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Appl Soft Comput 10:520–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurdakul M, Cogun C (2003) Development of a multi-attribute selection procedure for non-traditional machining processes. Proc Inst Mech Eng J Eng Manuf 217:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurdakul M, Ic YT (2005) Development of a performance measurement model for manufacturing companies using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches. Int J Prod Res 43(21):4609–4641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurdakul M, Ic YT (2009) Analysis of the benefit generated by using fuzzy numbers in a TOPSIS model developed for machine tool selection problems. J Mater Process Technol 209(1):310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurdakul M, Ic YT (2019) Comparison of fuzzy and crisp versions of an AHP and TOPSIS model for nontraditional manufacturing process ranking decision. J Adv Manuf Syst 19(2):1–28Google Scholar