Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing DEA and principal component analysis in the multiobjective optimization of P-GMAW process

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The optimization of a multiresponse manufacturing process is not a trivial task. Many authors have tried to overcome the particular difficulties observed in this knowledge area exploring the powerful mechanisms present in a great deal of techniques like design of experiments, response surface methodology (RSM), principal component analysis (PCA) and mathematical programming. In this sense, this paper presents an alternative hybrid approach, combining RSM and data envelopment analysis (DEA), a popular linear programming technique useful to compare efficiency of decision making units. The basic idea is to optimize a set of multiple correlated responses of a well-defined manufacturing process using DEA as an algorithm for generated the singular objective function. This alternative proposal is compared to multivariate response surface methodology, a stochastic approach based on the PCA, a multivariate statistical technique usually employed with Taguchi multiresponse designs. Since a great number of manufacturing processes present sets of multiple correlated responses, a case study based in a five quality characteristics of a pulsed GMAW welding process is here presented to illustrate the comparative performance of two proposals. The results indicate close responses for both methods. In spite of this, DEA was considered better because its results are larger in parameters that we wanted maximize and are smaller in parameters we wanted minimize. All established constraints were not violated in both cases of DEA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gunaraj V, Murugan N (2000) Prediction and optimization of weld bead volume for the submerged arc process—part 2. Weld J 11:331–338

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kim D, Kang M, Rhee S (2005) Determination of optimal welding conditions with a controlled random search procedure. Weld J 8:125–130

    Google Scholar 

  3. Song YA, Park S, Chae SW (2005) 3D welding and milling: part II—optimization of the 3D welding process using experimental design approach. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1063–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liao HC (2005) Multi-response optimization using weighted principal components. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27:720–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Paiva AP, Campos PH, Ferreira JR, Lopes LGD, Paiva EJ, Balestrassi PP (2012) A multivariate robust parameter design approach for optimization of AISI 52100 hardened steel turning with wiper mixed ceramic tool. Int J Refract Metal Hard Mater 30:152–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Paiva AP, Paiva EJ, Ferreira JF, Balestrassi PP, Costa SC (2009) A multivariate mean square error optimization of AISI 52100 hardened steel turning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43:631–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Balestrassi PP (2007) A multivariate hybrid approach applied to AISI 52100 hardened steel turning optimization. J Mater Process Technol 189:26–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Box GEP, Hunter WG, Macgregor JF, Erjavec J (1973) Some problems associated with the analysis of multiresponse data. Technometrics 15:33–51

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Harrington J (1965) The desirability function. Ind Qual Control 21:494–498

    Google Scholar 

  10. Khuri AI, Conlon M (1981) Simultaneous optimization of multiple responses represented by polynomial regression functions. Technometrics 23:363–375

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Liao HC, Chen YK (2002) Optimizing multi-response problem in the Taguchi method by DEA based ranking method. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 19:825–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Paiva AP (2006) Multivariate response surface methodology: a correlated multiresponse optimization proposal for manufacturing process. PhD dissertation, Federal University of Itajuba, Brazil, p 243

  13. Praveen P, Yarlagadda PKDV, Kang MJ (2005) Advancements in pulse gas metal arc welding. J Mater Process Technol 164–165:1113–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kao C, Liu ST (2014) Multi-period efficiency measurement in data envelopment analysis: the case of Taiwanese commercial banks. Omega 47:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liao HC (2005) Using N-D method to solve multi-response problem in Taguchi. J Intell Manuf 16:331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kao L-J, Lu C-J, Chiu C-C (2011) Efficiency measurement using independent component analysis and data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 210:310–317

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Doyle J, Green R (1994) Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J Oper Res Soc 45:567–578

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Liao HC (2004) A data envelopment analysis method for optimizing multi-response problem with censored data in the Taguchi method. Comput Ind Eng 46:817–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (2002) Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Peres-Neto PR, Jackson DA, Somers KM (2005) How many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Comput Stat Data Anal 49:974–997

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Todeschini R (1997) Data correlation, number of significant principal components and shape of molecules: the K correlation index. Anal Chim Acta 348:419–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Box GEP, Hunter JS, Hunter WG (2005) Statistics for experimenters: design, innovation and discovery, 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Bratchell N (1989) Multivariate response surface modeling by principal components analysis. J Chemom 3:579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Köksoy O, Doganaksoy N (2003) Joint optimization of mean and standard deviation using response surface methods. J Qual Technol 35:239–252

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shanmugam R, Johnson C (2007) At a crossroad of data envelopment and principal component analyses. Omega 35:351–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Brazilian Government agencies CNPq, CAPES, FAPEMIG and IFSULDEMINAS for their support of the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Production Engineering and Management, Federal University of Itajubá, Bps Avenue 1303, Itajubá, Minas Gerais, 37500-188, Brazil

    Luiz C. S. Rocha, Anderson P. Paiva, Emerson J. Paiva & Pedro P. Balestrassi

Authors
  1. Luiz C. S. Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anderson P. Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emerson J. Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pedro P. Balestrassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro P. Balestrassi.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Fernando Alves Rochinha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rocha, L.C.S., Paiva, A.P., Paiva, E.J. et al. Comparing DEA and principal component analysis in the multiobjective optimization of P-GMAW process. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 38, 2513–2526 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-015-0355-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-015-0355-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation