OBRABOTKAMETALLOV MATERIAL SCIENCE Том 23 № 3 2021 EQUIPMEN . INSTRUM TS Vol. 5 No. 1 2023 Ta b l e 2 Production criteria calculation results Parameters Parameter value Construction code О1 О2 О3 О4 О5 О6 Blade life T, min 61.26 39.29 22.65 76 71.67 34.05 Production efficiency P, 10–5 m3/min 16.15 10.36 5.97 20.04 18.9 8.89 Reduced costs, PZ, 10–3 rub/mm3 6.26 9.76 16.93 5.098 5.41 12.74 Surface finish, Rz µm 23 The following values will be obtained: 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 61.26 16.15 10 0.043 0.16 39.29 10.36 10 0.043 0.10 ( ) . 22.65 5.97 10 0.043 0.06 76 20.04 10 0.043 0.20 71.67 18.9 10 0.043 0.18 34.05 8.98 10 0.043 0.08 z ij T P R PZ Q Q M a Q Q Q Q − − − − − − ⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Considering the fact that the roughness value is the same for every facility, its value can be ignored. To calculate the weighting criteria coefficient qi for every i th facility of comparison individually, let’s calculate the selected criterion under the formula (2). q1 = 61.26 + 16.15·10 –5 + 0.16 = 77.57·10–5 q2 = 39.29 + 10.36·10 –5 + 0.10 = 49.75·10–5 q3 = 22.65 + 5.97·10 –5 + 0.06 = 28.68·10–5 q4 = 76 + 20.04·10 –5 + 0.20 = 96.22·10–5 q5 = 71.67 + 18.9·10 –5 + 0.18 = 90.75·10–5 q6 = 34.05 + 8.98·10 –5 + 0.08 = 43.1·10–5 The resulting values of the weighting criteria coefficient are formed into the resulting vector for the analyzed design of the cutting tool: 5 5 5 5 5 5 77.57 10 49.75 10 28.68 10 . 96.22 10 90.75 10 43.10 10 q − − − − − − ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Thus, resulting from the comparative multi-criteria analysis a conclusion can be made on the priority in the considered system with the specified parameters of technology implementation of the construction О4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk0ODM1