Authors : Meshal Essa Essa; Hadyan Ali Alajmi

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yf6ahead

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5yayzjfs

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25oct1348

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : In the current days, several immense applications in the agricultural machineries, automobile components, manufacturing process of steel furniture and some other applications can be found by the automated industries like the arc welding. Actually, the selection of the most suitable robot for a certain welding application may be handled as a critical decision making with multi-criteria, where the optimal alternative needs must be chosen based on a certain conflicting evaluation criteria. In this study, an approach “multi-attributive-border-approximation-area-comparison (MABAC)” has been integrated with rough numbers to solve a certain problem, which is arc welding robot selection. Five certain decision makers gave their opinions that have been aggregated to each other by using the rough numbers in order to mitigate the subjectivity and the personality in the process of decision maker. However, MABAC approach is used to rank the proposed alternatives in addition to select the optimal robot for a certain welding application. Moreover, the criteria weights were calculated based on the rough entropy approach that reveals that both of welding payload and welding performance are considered as the most essential robot-selection criteria in the arc welding application, followed by the robot cost. In this paper, the usage of the rough MABAC approach indicated that robot A6 is the most proper choice, while the worst selection is for A2.

Keywords : Welding Application, MABAC, Arc Welding Robot Selection, Welding Payload, Welding Performance.

References :

1. Agrawal, V., Saha, S. & Bhangale, P., 2004. Attribute based specification, comparison and selection of a robot, Mechanism and Machine Theory. 39(12), pp. 1345-1366.
2. Ali, A., Chu, Y.-M. & Rashid, T., 2021. Hybrid BW-EDAS MCDM methodology for optimal industrial robot selection. PLoS ONE, 16(2).
3. Arents, J. & Greitans, M., 2022. Smart industrial robot control trends, challenges and opportunities within manufacturing. Applied Sciences. 12(2), p. 937.
4. Au, W. & Chan, K., 2001. Classification with degree of membership: A fuzzy approach. IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 35-42.
5. Bolmsjö, G. & Olsson, M., 2002. Robotic arc welding – trends and developments for higher autonomy. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 29(2), pp. 98-104.
6. Çalışkan, H., Kurşuncu, B., Kurbanoğlu, C. & Güven, S., 2013. Material selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions using different multi criteria decision making methods. Materials & Design, Volume 45, pp. 473-479.
7. Chach, J., 2018. A weighted least squares fuzzy regression for crisp input-fuzzy output data. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 27(4), pp. 739-748.
8. Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E. & Karande, P., 2016. A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 7(3), pp. 399-422.
9. Datta, S. & Sen, D., 2015. Multi-criteria decision making towards selection of industrial robot: Exploration of PROMETHEE II method, Benchmarking: An International Journal. 22(3), pp. 465-487.
10. Ghorabaee, M., 2016. Developing an MCDM method for robot. Volume 37, pp. 221-232.
11. Guo, C., Shi, H., Quan, M. & Liu, H., 2019. An integrated MCDM method for robot selection under interval‐valued Pythagorean uncertain linguistic environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems,, 34(2), pp. 188-214.
12. Guo, C., Shi, H., Quan, M. & Liu, H., 2019. An integrated MCDM method for robot selection under interval‐valued Pythagorean uncertain linguistic environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 34(2), pp. 188-214.
13. Jia, F., Liu, Y. & Wang, X., 2019. An extended MABAC method for multi-criteria group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy rough numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, pp. 241-255.
14. Kah, P., Shrestha, M., Hiltunen, E. & Martikai, A., 2015. Robotic arc welding sensors and programming in industrial applications. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 10(1).
15. Liu, ,. H., Cui, F., Miao, Z. & Wang, J., 2018. Robot evaluation and selection with entropy-based combination weighting andand selection with entropy-based combination weighting and. 20(5).
16. Liu, H., Zhao, X., You, J. & Xue, Y., 2016. An integrated linguistic MCDM approach for robot evaluation and selection with incomplete weight information. International Journal of Production Research, 54(18), pp. 5452-5467.
17. Mahapatra, S., Datta, S. & Sen, D., 2016. Application of TODIM (Tomada de Decisión Inerativa Multicritero) for industrial robot selection, Benchmarking: An International Journal. 23(7), pp. 1818-1833.
18. Nasrollahi, M., Sadraei, M. & Ramezani, J., 2020. A FBWM PROMETHEE approach for industrial robot selection Heliyon.
19. Pamucar, D., Chatterjee, K. & Zavadskas, E., 2019. Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers. Computers & Industrial Engineering, pp. 383-407.
20. Park, E., Ahn, J. & Yoo, S., 2017. Weighted-entropy-based quantization for deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
21. Racz, S., Racz, O. & Racz, R., 2017. Selecting industrial robots for milling applications using AHP, Procedia Computer Science. pp. 346-353.
22. Rogalewicz, M. & Suszynski, M., 2020. Selection of an industrial robot for assembly jobs using multi-criteria decision making methods. Management and Production Engineering Review, 11(1), pp. 62-72.
23. Sharma, H., Jagannath, R., Kar, S. & Prentkovskis, O., 2018. Multi criteria evaluation framework for prioritizing indian railway stations using modified rough ahp-mabac method. Transport and Telecommunication, 19(2).
24. Siadat, A., Vahdani, B., Mousavi, S. & Gitinavard, H., 2016. A distance-based decision model in interval-valued hesitant fuzzy setting for industrial selection problems. Scientia Iranica, Transaction E, Industrial Engineering, 23(4), pp. 1928-1940.
25. Tan, T., Mills, G., Papadonikolaki, E. & Liu, Z., 2021. Combining multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods with building information modelling (BIM): A review. Automation in Construction.
26. Tiwari, V., Jain, P. & Tandon, P., 2016. Product design concept evaluation using rough sets and VIKOR method. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 30(1), pp. 16-25.
27. Wu, Q. et al., 2022. Consensus reaching for prospect cross-efficiency in data envelopment analysis with minimum adjustments. Computers & Industrial Engineering.
28. Yalçin, N. & Uncu, N., 2019. Applying EDAS as applicable MCDM method for industrial robot selection. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 37(3), pp. 779-796.
29. Yang, L., Li, E. & Long, T., 2017. A welding quality detection method for arc welding robot based on 3D reconstruction with SFS algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technol.
30. Zhai, L., Khoo, L. & Zhong, Z., 2009. A rough set based QFD approach to the management of imprecise design information in product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(2), pp. 222-228.
31. Zhao, Y. et al., 2019. An integrated MCDM method for robot selection under interval‐valued Pythagorean uncertain linguistic environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 34(2), pp. 188-214.