A Fuzzy Approach for Material Selection from a Manufacturing and Application Viewpoint

Hesham A. Hegazi+, Tarek M. El-Hossainy* Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The American University in Cairo (AUC), Cairo 11511, EGYPT
+

Email: hhegazi@aucegypt.edu
*Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Design & Production Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, 12316, EGYPT

Email: telhossainy@hotmail.com

Abstract Material selection process constitutes a high level of vagueness and imprecision. Selected material must fulfil the machining requirements as well as application needs. Due to the lack of complete information, uncertainty, and imprecision for material selection in such applications, a technique to perform selection calculations on imprecise representations of parameters is presented. This technique is based on fuzzy logic using fuzzy sets. Different materials alternatives are expressed in terms of fuzzy orders of magnitude. Calculations based on fuzzy weighted average are performed to produce the ratings among selected material alternatives. This technique is applied for the different alternatives based on the manufacturing requirements and the application requirements. At the end, the third fuzzy decision making process that combines the highest attributes important for both manufacturing and application requirements is presented. According to a predefined goal, materials are classified depending on the nearest to this goal.

1. Introduction The product material selection is affected by two basic aspects, machining and its associated parameters and the required product technical specifications needed in the market. Much of the decision-making in the real world takes place in an environment in which the goals, the constraints and the consequences of possible actions are not known precisely. Fuzzy analysis should be introduced to product development so that decision-making in difficult situations is eased and product cost and quality are improved while time-to-market is shortened. The procedure of evaluating of multiple attributes was investigated by many researchers in the last and present decades [1, 2]. Many researchers worked on improving the decision making process, especially in design, material selection and manufacturing. Evaluation of preliminary designs is often necessary when the design alternative is only in the roughest concept stage [3]. The underlying power of fuzzy set theory is that it uses linguistic variables, rather than quantitative variables, to represent imprecise concepts [4]. The imprecision in fuzzy models is therefore generally quite high.

El Baradie [5] described the development stages of a fuzzy logic model for metal cutting. His model is based on the assumption that the relationship between the hardness of a given material and the recommended cutting speed is imprecise, and can be described and evaluated by the theory of fuzzy sets. The model has been applied to data extracted from Machining Data Handbook and a very good correlation was obtained between the handbook data and that predicted using the fuzzy logic model. He concluded that the strategy and action of the skilled machine tool operator when selecting the cutting speed and feed rate for a given material can be described by the theory of fuzzy sets, as his strategy and action are based on intuition and experience. He added that the relationship between a given material hardness and the recommended cutting speed can be described and evaluated by the fuzzy sets. He ended that the fuzzy logic model proposed suggests the possibility of establishing the strategy of machining data selection for a specific machining process. Chen [6] used calculations based on fuzzy weighted average to produce the ratings among design alternatives. He demonstrated his method in the bearing selection case study where imprecise linguistic description of the design problem in a manner similar to human language can be accommodated. The problem was the selection of the best bearings for a specific problem. In his implementation, a qualitative linguistic description of a desired bearing is used as weights in the fuzzy weighted average algorithm. The evaluation of alternatives in fuzzy numbers was ranked according to preferability. Thruston et al. [4] developed a procedure for the evaluation of multiple attributes in the preliminary design stage. They demonstrated and compared two techniques: fuzzy set analysis and multi-attribute utility analysis. The problem of preliminary material selection for an automobile bumper beam was analysed to illustrate the application of both analytical procedures. They recommended the use of fuzzy analysis in the earliest stage of preliminary design evaluations. Utility analysis may be used in later stages of preliminary design, where numerical qualification of attribute levels is possible. Zhao et al. [7] mentioned that with the increasing of global market competition and dynamic change of market environment, consumer needs are more personal and diversified, enterprise production is more flexible. At present, the production cycle period of traditional manufacturing industry is long, delivering goods is not in time, product quality is not good and resource are not used in reason. Because of the phenomena, products are not met the requirements of market and lack of market competition ability. They concluded that using improved fuzzy reform optimization method, enterprise can develop product rapidly to satisfy consumer requirements and have high quality, low cost, reasonable price and good service that is because it can assign right task to right person in right time for shortening development time of product. Wood et al. [8] developed a technique to perform design calculations on imprecise representations of parameters, using fuzzy calculus. The fuzzy weighted average technique is used to perform these calculations. They demonstrated the technique using a simple mechanical design example. The problem was to design a mechanical structure, attached to a wall at one end, while supporting an overhanging vertical point load. Additional useful information that this method can provide, through the use of

the -level measure, was the coupling between imprecise representations of design parameters (inputs) and the performance parameter results. Koning [9] concentrated on two types of material-related reasoning that occur in engineering design: selection and substitution. He represented a material selection substitution system that is used as a part of a larger case-based design environment. The material selection system helps the designer to adapt previous designs by suggesting material substitutions that better suit the target application. The fuzzy sets based representation in his system supported the following types of queries to the material knowledge base: 1) given a material class, what is the range of possible material property, 2) given an order of magnitude of a material property, what are the corresponding material classes. The selected material should meet in globally both the production requirements and the market needs. This could improve the production performance and the product life cycle. The fuzzy analysis should take place to select one or two best materials which could identify as a possible solution for a decision making process and eventually the product development can be significantly improved. The purpose of the paper is the implementation of the fuzzy theory in the selection from material alternatives according to manufacturing and application requirements.

2. Fuzzy Analysis and Computations The nature of uncertainty in a problem is a very important point that engineers should ponder prior to their selection of an appropriate method to express the uncertainty. Fuzzy sets provide a mathematical way to represent vagueness in humanistic systems [5]. 2.1 Fundamentals For a classic set U whose generic elements are denoted u. membership in a classic subset F of U is often viewed as a characteristic function F such that[5, 10, 11]:

F(u) =

1 0

iff iff

u F u F

(1)

(Note that, iff is short for if and only if.) The characteristic function is generalized to a membership function that assigns to every u U a value from the unit interval [0, 1] instead from the two-element set {0, 1}. The membership function F of a fuzzy set F is a function

F : U [0, 1]

(2)

So, every element u from U has a membership degree determined by the set of tuples:

F [0, 1]. F is completely

(3)

F = {(u, F(u)) : u U}

For example, considering the fuzzy set F as number close to 9. If U = {1, 5, 8, 13, 25}, the set F could be defined as a tabulation of its membership function at each u U:

F = {(1, 0.2), (5, 0.5), (8, 0.9), (9, 1.0), (13, 0.5), (25, 0)}
where

(4)

F = F(u1) / u1 + ........+ F(un) / un =

i =1

F (ui ) / ui

(5)

Any countable or discrete universe U allows a notation

F=

u U

F(u) / u

(6)

but when U is uncountable or continuous, we will write

F = F(u) / u
U

(7)

2.2 Fuzzy Analysis The extension principle defines a fuzzy set C and its membership function induced by a real function y = f(x1, ....., xr) and the fuzzy sets Bi , with membership function

i = 1,.....,r

C( y )

( xi ) .

C ( y ) = supx1 ,.......xr {min[ ( x1 ), ( x2 ),.......,( xr )]

(8)

where sup refers to the supremum achieved by choice of x1, ....., xr. Thus the definition of C ( y ) requires the solution of a maximization problem for each value of y defined by f(x1, ....., xr). Membership functions for fuzzy numbers can be approximated using a number of -cuts which are a set of n intervals [ai, bi], i= 1,....n over which (x) i for ai < x < bi, where i = (i - 1)/(n - 1). The fuzzy weighted average (FWA) algorithm developed by Dong, et al. [12] and illustrated its application when the function y = f(x1, ....., xr) is

y=

wi xi
i =1 n

wi
i =1

(9)

In describing a design alternative, one approach is to use a rating which describes the desired levels of the attributes and further to attach weights to the ratings according to the importance of those attributes. Real variables can be used to express the weights and ratings by means of a figure of merit. If the weight for the jth attribute is wi, and the rating for the jth attribute of the ith alternative is rij, it would be natural to compute the weighted averages, ri, by the following equation [4, 6]:

ri = w j rij
j =1

i = 1,2 ,.....I

(10)

for each alternative, and to rank the alternatives accordingly.

3. Selection Method Based on Manufacturing Requirements The selection process considers six attributes: power consumed, tool life, surface roughness, production rate, production cost, and machining accuracy. On the other hand, the designer might easily be able to describe the attributes of an alternative as Very High, High, Low,... in relation to other alternatives. These attributes will be evaluated for six candidates materials, and a fuzzy rating will be calculated from Eq. 10. Table A1 shows the properties of the selected materials. Table A2 in Appendix (A) shows the main characteristics of these materials, while Table A3 summarizes the general applications of these materials. All attributes may assume a fuzzy value as defined in Table 1, which gives the summary of the fuzzy number assignments. Seven levels will be used: very low (VL), low (L), low to middle (ML), middle (M), middle to high (MH), high (H), and very high (VH). Then the universe of discourse U will be expressed as the finite set of fuzzy numbers U = { U1, U2, ....., U7} where ~ ~ ~ U 1 = VL , U 2 = L ,......U 7 = VH . Membership functions characterize the fuzziness in a fuzzy set-whether the elements in the set are discrete or continuous- in a graphical form for eventual use in the mathematical formalism of fuzzy set theory. But the shapes used to describe the fuzziness have few restrictions indeed. It might be claimed that the rules used to describe fuzziness graphically are also fuzzy[5]. It is usual to have functions with straight lines, instead of functions with curves. The membership functions will be defined as a triangular in shape, generally following the approach given by [4, 6] as shown in Figure 1, for a variable (x) ranging from 0 to 1. For k = 1:

 U1 ( x ) =

for k = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

0 1 6x

x 0 or x 1/ 6 0 x1 / 6

Uk ( x ) =
and for k = 7:

0 6x ( k 2 ) k 6x

x (k 2) / 6

or

xk / 6

( k 2 ) / 6 x ( k 1) / 6 ( k 1) / 6 x k / 6
x 1

U7 ( x ) =

x 5 / 6 or 0 6x 5 5 / 6 x 1

(11)

Table 1: Fuzzy description of attributes based on manufacturing requirements.

Criteria Alternatives Power Consumed Tool life Surface Roughness Production Rate Production Cost Machining Accuracy

Carbon Steel H ML H M H H AISI 1050, 0.54% C, Q & T Alloy Steel VH L MH M VH H AISI 4140, 0.4% C, Q & T Gray Cast Iron MH ML VH L MH L ASTM Class 60 Aluminium Bronze L M L VH ML M Heat Treated Tin Bronze VL H VL VH L M Chill Cast Aluminium L M VL VH ML MH 2024 T4 VL: Very Low, L: Low, ML: Low to Middle, M: Middle, MH: Middle to High, H: High, and VH: Very High.

Table 2: Fuzzy descriptions of the goal based on manufacturing requirements.

Criteria Power Consumed Tool life Surface Roughness Production Rate Production Cost Machining Accuracy

Importance Goal

M VL

ML VH

H VL

L VH

H VL

VH VH

When starting a new design, the designer needs to specify the requirements for the power consumed, tool life, surface roughness, production rate, production cost, and machining accuracy. The levels of the attributes of each alternative are described

using the set of fuzzy numbers given above; in addition, the importance of each alternative is weighted using the same universe of discourse as shown in Table 2. The idea of selecting the best alternative is based on finding the alternative which is closed to a fuzzy goal. The description of the fuzzy goal is shown in Table 2. The membership functions of the fuzzy rating ri can now be computed for each alternative material, from the extended fuzzy number multiplication and summation. Since all of the membership functions of the fuzzy numbers are triangular, the exact computation is straight forward, although the algebra can become tedious [4]. The exact value of membership functions are given in equation (B5, B7), and it is only for the first alternative of Carbon Steel AISI 1050 Q & T, the computations for the other alternatives can be done in the same manner as described in Appendix (B). A triangular approximation of the equation (B5), and (B7) would be extremely close and more than adequate for the comparison of alternatives [6]. After evaluation, the membership functions for the alternative ratings are respectively represented by the triplets:
61 102 149 62 103 140 39 73 111 U(ra): , , ; U(rb): , , ; U(rc): , , 36 36 36 16 48 86 U(rd): , , ; U(re): 36 36 36 30 54 82 U(rGoal): , , 36 36 36 36 36 36 14 39 76 , , ; U(rf): 36 36 36 36 36 36 21 49 86 , , ; 36 36 36

(12)

The approximate triangular plot of the membership functions is given in Figure 2. The membership functions for the fuzzy rating readily indicates that the Aluminium 2024 T4 alternative is the closed to the goal, so it is the preferable choice which ranked first by the fuzzy scheme. The Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated ranked second, followed by Tin Bronze Chill Cast, followed by Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60, followed by Carbon Steel AISI 1050 Q & T, then the Alloy Steel AISI 4140 Q & T.

4. Selection Method Based on Application Requirements In case of considering the application requirements, the selection process considers six attributes: material cost, wear resistance, heat resistance, specific gravity, fatigue resistance, and corrosion resistance. On the other hand, the designer might easily be able to describe the attributes of an alternative as Very High, High, Low,... in relation to other alternatives. These attributes will be evaluated for six candidates materials, and a fuzzy rating will be calculated from Eq. 10. All attributes may assume a fuzzy value as defined in Table 3, which gives the summary of the fuzzy number assignments. The levels of the attributes of each alternative are described using the set of fuzzy numbers given above; in addition, the importance of each alternative is weighted

using the same universe of discourse as shown in Table 4. The idea of selecting the best alternative is based on finding the alternative which is closed to a fuzzy goal. The description of the fuzzy goal is shown in Table 4.

Table 3: Fuzzy description of attributes based on application requirements.

Criteria Alternatives Material Cost Wear Resistance Heat Resistance Specific Gravity Fatigue Resistance Corrosion Resistance

Carbon Steel M MH H VH MH AISI 1050, 0.54% C, Q & T Alloy Steel H H VH VH H AISI 4140, 0.4% C, Q & T Gray Cast Iron L H MH H L ASTM Class 60 Aluminium Bronze VH M M VH MH Heat Treated Tin Bronze VH L M VH MH Chill Cast Aluminium H L VL VL L 2024 T4 VL: Very Low, L: Low, ML: Low to Middle, M: Middle, MH: Middle to High, H: High, and VH: Very High.

MH

M VH VH H

Table 4: Fuzzy descriptions of the goal based on application requirements.

Criteria Material Cost Wear Resistance Heat Resistance Specific Gravity Fatigue Resistance Corrosion Resistance

Importance Goal

H VL

VH VH

VH VH

M VL

M VH

ML VH

A triangular approximation of the equation (A5), and (A7) would be extremely close and more than adequate for the comparison of alternatives[6]. After evaluation, the membership functions for the alternative ratings are respectively represented by the triplets:
61 105 146 82 132 171 45 83 122 U(ra): , , ; U(rb): , , ; U(rc): , , 36 36 36 61 108 146 U(rd): , , ; U(re): 36 36 36 65 102 124 U(rGoal): , , 36 36 36 36 36 36 51 96 134 , , ; U(rf): 36 36 36 36 36 36 20 44 84 , , ; 36 36 36

(13)

The approximate triangular plot of the membership functions is given in Figure 3. The membership functions for the fuzzy rating readily indicates that the Carbon Steel AISI 1050 Q & T alternative is the closed to the goal, so it is the preferable choice which ranked first by the fuzzy scheme. Both Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated and Tin Bronze Chill Cast ranked second, followed by Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60, followed by Alloy Steel AISI 4140 Q & T, then Aluminium 2024 T4.

5. Selection Method Based on Manufacturing and Application Requirements In case of considering both manufacturing and application requirements, the selection process considers the highest importance. In case of the manufacturing requirements, surface roughness, and production cost are ranked high, while machining accuracy is raked very high. In case of application requirements, material cost is ranked high, while wear resistance and heat resistance are ranked very high. The new combined decision matrix Table 5 shows the selected six attributes based on the above selection criteria. Table 6 shows the importance of each attribute and a goal considered as a reference for this combined selection.

Table 5: Fuzzy description of attributes based on manufacturing and application requirements.

Criteria Alternatives Surface Roughness Production Cost Machinin g Accuracy Material Cost Wear Resistance Heat Resistance

Carbon Steel AISI 1050, 0.54% C, Q & T Alloy Steel AISI 4140, 0.4% C, Q & T Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60 Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated Tin Bronze Chill Cast Aluminium 2024 T4

MH

MH

VH

VH

VH L VL VL

MH ML L ML

L M M MH

L VH VH H

H M L L

MH M M VL

Table 6: Fuzzy descriptions of the goal based on manufacturing and application requirements.
Criteria
Surface Roughness Production Cost Machinin g Accuracy Material Cost Wear Resistance Heat Resistance

Importance Goal

H VL

MH VL

VH VH

ML VL

H VH

M VH

After evaluation, the membership functions for the alternative ratings are respectively represented by the triplets:
70 116 168 51 91 135 77 127 174 U(ra): , , ; U(rb): , , ; U(rc): , , 36 36 36 30 67 109 U(rd): , , ; U(re): 36 36 36 55 84 110 U(rGoal): , , 36 36 36 36 36 36 19 48 86 , , ; U(rf): 36 36 36 36 36 36 22 47 85 , , ; 36 36 36

(14)

The approximate triangular plot of the membership functions is given in Figure 4. The membership functions for the fuzzy rating readily indicates that the Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60 alternative is the closed to the goal, so it is the preferable choice which ranked first by the fuzzy scheme. The Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated ranked second, followed by Carbon Steel AISI 1050 Q & T, followed by Tin Bronze Chill Cast, followed by Aluminium 2024 T4, then Alloy Steel AISI 4140 Q & T.

7. Conclusion This paper has detailed the implementation of fuzzy rating in the process of material selection when considering manufacturing and application. In the implementation, a qualitative linguistic description of a desired material type is used as weights in the fuzzy weighted average algorithm. It gives a simple and strong way for the selection of an alternative when the attributes are imprecise. The application of the fuzzy theory was practically applied to the selection of the proper material among six attributes depending on manufacturing and application requirements. Based on each requirement and the defined goal, attributes are ranked with respect to the goal. A combined attributes is defined based on the highest and the very highest importance in both manufacturing and application requirements. The output ranked materials in this case study can be the optimum decision of selecting materials for general engineering products such as gears, cams, shafts, pulleys, etc... Similar analysis can be implemented for different applications, manufacturing processes and different alternative materials.

References 1. Osman T. A., Hegazi H. A., A Fuzzy Approach for the Selection of Power Trasmission Systems in the Preliminary Design Stage, Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 679-692, Cairo University, 1999. 2. Kimura, I., Grote, K.-H., Design Decision-Making in the Early Stages of Collaborative Engineering, Proceeding of the Design Automation Conf., Montreal, Canada, Paper No. DETC2002/DAC-34034, 2002. 3. Thurston D. L., Carnahan J. V., Fuzzy Ratings and Utility Analysis in Preliminary design Evaluation of Multiple Attributes. Trans. ASME, J. Mech. Des. 114, pp. 648-658, 1992. 4. Ross T. J., Fuzzy Logic With Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill Inc, 1995. 5. El Baradie M. A., A Fuzzy Logic Model For Machining Data Selection, Int. J. Mech. Tools Manufact. Vol. 37, No. 9, pp. 1353-1372, 1997. 6. Chen Y. H., Fuzzy Ratings in Mechanical Engineering Design--Application to Bearing Selection. Proc. IMechE, Part B, J. of Engineering Manufacture 210, pp. 49-53, 1996. 7. Zhao, Y., Cha, J., Zhang, J., Fuzzy Reform and Optimization of Design Task in Concurrent Engineering. Proceeding of the Design Automation Conf., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., Paper No. DETC2001/DAC-21158, 2001. 8. Wood K. L., Antonsson E. K., Computations With Imprecise Parameters in Engineering Design: Background and Theory. Trans. ASME, J. Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automn in Des. 111, pp. 616-625, 1989. 9. Koning J., A Fuzzy Approach to Material Selection in Mechanical Design. Concurrent Engg, Research and Applications 3(4), pp. 271-279, 1995. 10. Evbuomwan N F O, Sivaloganathan S, Jebb A, A Survey of Design Philosophies, Models, Methods, and Systems. Proc. IMechE, Part B, J. of Engineering Manufacture 210, pp. 301-320, 1996. 11. Driankov D., Hellendoorn H, Reinfrank M, An Introduction to Fuzzy Control. Springer-Verlag, 1996. 12. Dong W. M., Wong F S, Fuzzy Weighted Averages and Implementation of the Extension Principle. Fuzzy Sets and System 21, pp. 183-199, 1987. 13. Mott, R.L., Machine Elements in Mechanical Design. Charles E. Merrill, 2004. 14. Bralla, J.G., Design for Manufacturability Handbook. McGraw-Hill, USA, 1999. 15. Machining Data Handbook. Machinability Data Centre Metcut Research Associates Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972. 16. Show, M.C., Metal Cutting Principles. Oxford University Press, Inc., Oxford, New York, USA, 2005. 17. Meyers, A.R., Slattery, T.J., Basic Machining Reference Handbook. Industrial Press Inc., New York, USA, 1988. 18. Deutschman, A.D., Michels, W.J., Wilson, C.E., Machine Design: Theory and Practice. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, USA, 1975.

Figure 1 Membership function for fuzzy numbers.

Figure 2 Membership function of alternative rating and goal with respect to manufacturing requirements.

Figure 3 Membership function of alternative rating and goal with respect to application requirements.

Figure 4 Membership function of alternative rating and goal with respect to manufacturing and application requirements.

Appendix A: Properties of the selected materials: Table A1 shows the material alternatives properties, while Table A2 and Table A3 present some characteristics and some applications for the material alternatives respectively. Table A1: Material properties [13, 14].
Criteria Alternatives
Carbon Steel AISI 1050, 0.54% C, Q & T Alloy Steel AISI 4140, 0.4% C, Q & T Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60 Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated Tin Bronze Chill Cast Aluminium 2024 T4 Hardness (BHN) 212-248 Tensile strength, (MPa) 655 Yield strength, (MPa) 380 Specific Gravity 7.7 Melting point (C) 1480-1520

223-262 223 121 80 120

725 414 550 310 469

550 --276 165 324

7.7 7.2 7.7 7.9 2.8

1430-1510 1350-1400 855-1060 800-950 485-660

Table A2: Some characteristics for different material alternatives [15 - 18].
Criteria Alternatives Carbon Steel AISI 1050, 0.54% C, Q & T Alloy Steel AISI 4140, 0.4% C, Q & T Characteristics -AISI 1050 Medium carbon steel having 0.54% C -Oil-quenched from 815 C, tempered at 593 C -AISI 1050 posses 50% machinability -AISI 4140 material having 0.4% C, known by Chromium-molybdenum steel: 0.95% Cr, 0.2% Mo -Oil-quenched from 843 C, tempered at 649 C -AISI 4140 posses 60% machinability, high hardness at high temperature (greater hot-hardness) -Chromium increases depth-hardenability, provide abrasion-resistance, and corrosion-resistance -Molybdenum have high-temperature tensile and creep strengths -Gray cast iron have 2.8-3.6% C -Gray cast iron: Cheapness, low melting temperature (1150-1250 C), easily machined, natural lubricant, vibration damping quality, sliding quality, good machinability, wear resistance, soft (BHN=180-240) -Aluminium Bronze have 90-95% bronze-5-10%aluminium -Aluminium: noncorrosive-1/3 weight of steel -Bronze: is basically an alloy of copper and tin. It possesses superior mechanical properties and corrosion resistance -Tin: excellent resistance to corrosion -Bronze: is basically an alloy of copper and tin. It possesses superior mechanical properties and corrosion resistance -Aluminum alloy 2024-T4 very good machinability, excellent surface finish, for light duty applications

Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60

Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated

Tin Bronze Chill Cast Aluminium 2024 T4

Table A3: Some applications for different material alternatives [18].

Criteria Alternatives Carbon Steel AISI 1050, 0.54% C, Q & T Alloy Steel AISI 4140, 0.4% C, Q & T Gray Cast Iron ASTM Class 60 Aluminium Bronze Heat Treated Tin Bronze Chill Cast Aluminium 2024 T4 Applications

Shafts, gears, forging

Gears, shafts, forgings Automobile cylinders and pistons, machine castings, water main pipes, gears Gears, machine parts, bearings, washers, chemical plant equipment, marine propellers, pump casings, chains and hooks Automotive parts, aircraft, shafts, gears, bearings, piston rings, bushings Aircraft structures, wheels, machine parts, screw machine products

Appendix B: Arithmetic calculations on Fuzzy Fuzzy numbers can be represented by using triangular membership functions. It can be represented by a triplet which includes the lower limit of the support, the mode, and the upper limit of the support: (l, m, n). The addition of two triangular fuzzy numbers is done as follows: (l1, m1, n1) (l2, m2, n2) = (l1+l2, m1+m2, n1+ n2) (B1)

The multiplication of two triangular fuzzy numbers will not generally produce a triangular fuzzy number, but rather one which is approximately triangular as follows: (l1, m1, n1) (l2, m2, n2) (l1l2, m1m2, n1 n2) (B2)

Consider a particular level for the desired membership function (for example the Carbon Steel Q & T alternative), Ra(r) = , express each of the membership functions in terms of , and distinguish between the increasing and the decreasing portions of the membership function of the fuzzy numbers.

0 ~ U 1 : x1 ( 1 ) / 6 ( + 2 ) / 6 ~ U 4 : x4 ( 4 ) / 6 ( + 5 ) / 6 ~ U 7 : x7 1

/ 6 ~ U 2 : x2 ( 2 ) / 6 ( + 3 ) / 6 ~ U 5 : x5 ( 5 ) / 6

( + 1 ) / 6 ~ U 3 : x3 ( 3 ) / 6 ( + 4 ) / 6 ~ U 6 : x6 ( 6 ) / 6

(B3)

In case of Carbon Steel Q & T in the manufacturing decision matrix for example, for the increasing portion of the membership function, the weighted average gives: ra = [(+4)(+2) + (+1)(+1) + (+4)(+4) + (+2) + (+4)(+4) + (+4) (+5)] / 36 (B4) and since the non-linear program has a solution when Ra(r) = , Eq. (B4) is solved for , and taking the positive root yields: Ra(r) = -35 / 12 + (864 r /144 - 239/144)1/2 61 / 36 ra 102 / 36 (B5)

For the decreasing portion of the membership function ra = [(6-)(4-) + (3-)(3-) + (6-)(6-) + (4-)(2-) + (6- )(6-) + (6-)6] / 36 (B6) and

Ra(r) = 52 / 10 - (720 r /100 - 276 / 100)1/2

102 / 36 ra 149 / 36

(B7)

Then the exact membership function of Carbon Steel Q & T is shown as: 61 ra 0 36 864r 239 61 102 35 ra 12 + 144 144 36 36 Ra (r ) = 102 149 52 720r 276 ra 10 100 100 36 36 149 0 ra 36 Outside this interval the membership function is zero.

(B8)