ISSN 2466-4677; e-ISSN 2466-4847
Application of the Depart Method in Ranking Alternatives for Mechanical Machining and Chemical Extraction Processes
Authors:
1Hanoi University of Industry, Hanoi, Vietnam
2Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Management, Bratislava, Slovakia
Received: 24 May 2025
Revised: 22 January 2026
Accepted: 25 February 2026
Published: 29 June 2026
Abstract:
Ranking manufacturing processes has significant technical and economic importance in production operations. However, this task is intricate due to the inherent diversity of technical and economic parameters in different manufacturing processes. This complexity makes the ranking of manufacturing processes a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem. This study evaluated the application of the recently proposed method, named Deviation-Based Pairwise Assessment Ratio Technique (DEPART), to rank production processes across three distinct scenarios, including ranking nine alternatives in metal grinding using slotted grinding wheels, ranking nine metal turning processes, and ranking six extraction processes in the chemical field. In each example, the process ranking results obtained via the DEPART method were compared to those generated by six other MCDM methods, including Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Multiobjective Optimization On the basis of Ratio Analysis (MOORA), COmplex PRroportional Assessment (COPRAS), Root Assessment Method (RAM), and probability method. The findings indicated that the DEPART method is suitable for ranking production alternatives. However, upon reviewing all utilized MCDM techniques, the probability method emerged as the most appropriate method for ranking production alternatives within the analyzed problems.
Keywords:
MCDM, DEPART method, Metal grinding, Metal turning, Extraction processes
References:
[1] V. Villani, A. Scuderi, G.S. Ponticelli, S. Guarino, Enhanced mechanical performance of laser sintered lattice structures: insights from experimental testing and finite element analysis. Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 10, 2025: 8707-8727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-025-01150-0
[2] V. Tagliaferri, F. Trovalusci, S. Guarino, S. Venettacci, Environmental and Economic Analysis of FDM, SLS and MJF Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Materials, 12(24), 2019: 4161.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12244161
[3] C. Divya, L. S. Raju, B. Singaravel, Application of MCDM Methods for Process Parameter Optimization in Turning Process—A Review. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 2021: 199-207.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7557-0_18
[4] T.V. Dua, H.X. Thinh, N.C. Bao, D.V. Duc, T.M. Hoang, Multi-Objective Optimization of the Turning Process using the Probability Method. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 15(1), 2025: 19865-19870. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.9472
[5] H.L.H. Yen, H.Q. Minh, T.T. Nhuan, N.T.H. Quynh, Áp dụng các phương pháp ra quyết định đa tiêu chí để xác định nồng độ ethanol chiết xuất loài xoan leo. Journal of Science and Technology – HaUI, 61(5B), 2025: 438-444. (in Vietnamese) https://doi.org/10.57001/huih5804.2025.202
[6] D. Lukic, M. Milosevic, A. Antic, S. Borojevic, M. Ficko, Multi‐criteria selection of manufacturing processes in the conceptual process planning. Advances in Production Engineering & Management, 12(2), 2017: 151-162. https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2017.2.247
[7] Z. Yang, P. Liu, X. Fang, G. Chen, The Selection of Storage Period for Fresh Rice Noodles, Processing Materials, and the Screening of Key Indicators. Foods, 13(23), 2024: 3965.
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233965
[8] M.M. Farag, Materials and process selection for engineering design. CRC Press, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b16047
[9] M. Urgo, G. Lanza, R. Vrabič, D. Gyulai, Future-Proof Production Scheduling and Control. CIRP Annals, 74(2), 2025: 971-991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2025.04.095
[10] A. Presciuttini, A. Portioli-Staudacher, Applications of IoT and Advanced Analytics for manufacturing operations: a systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 232, 2024: 327-336.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.01.032
[11] R. Aaij, L. Anderlini, S. Benson, M. Cattaneo, P. Charpentier, M. Clemencic, A. Falabella, F. Ferrari, M. Fontana, V. V. Gligorov, D. Hill, T. Humair, C. R. Jones, O. Lupton, S. Malde, C. M. Benito, R. Matev, A. Pearce, A. Poluektov, B. Sciascia, F. Stagni, R. V. Gomez, Y. Zhang, Selection and processing of calibration samples to measure the particle identification performance of the LHCb experiment in Run 2. EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation, 6(1), 2019: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjti/s40485-019-0050-z
[12] N.-T. Nguyen, D.D. Trung, A study on the surface grinding process of the SUJ2 steel using CBN slotted grinding wheel. AIMS Materials Science, 7(6), 2020: 871-886. https://doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2020.6.871
[13] J. Martínez-Gómez, J.F. Nicolalde, Brake Disc Material Selection Based on MCDM and Simulation. Processes, 13(5), 2025: 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051287
[14] A. Ulutaş, F. Balo, L. Sua, E. Demir, A. Topal, V. Jakovljevic, A new integrated grey MCDM model: Case of warehouse location selection. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 2021: 515-535.
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210424060U
[15] D. Arsic, D. Ivkovic, R. Sudžum, D. Marinkovic, N. Komatina, Selection of Base Materials for Repair Welding Using BWM-TOPSIS and BWM-RADAR Approaches. Materials, 18(24), 2025: 5696.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18245696
[16] H. Taherdoost, M. Madanchian, Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 2023: 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006
[17] M.A.R. Ibrahim, N.I. Jaini, K.M.N. Ku Khalif, A Review of Game Theory and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods with Application to the Oil Production and Price. Malaysian Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(1), 2022: 10-26. https://doi.org/10.37231/myjas.2022.7.1.298
[18] F. Aydin, B. Gümüs, Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods for the assessment of optimal SVC location. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences, 70(2), 2022: e140555. https://doi.org/10.24425/bpasts.2022.140555
[19] M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, Simulation-Aided Analysis of a Deviation-Based Pairwise Assessment Ratio Technique (DEPART) for MCDM. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 20(3), 2025: 7038. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2025.3.7038
[20] K.H. Nguyen, D.V. Pham, Q.V. Tran, A multi-criteria decision-making in relieving grinding process of surface of gear milling tooth based on the archimedean spiral using TAGUCHI-AHP-TOPSIS method. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (4), 2023: 87-103. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002795
[21] N.V. Thanh, Sustainable Energy Source Selection for Industrial Complex in Vietnam: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach. IEEE Access, 10, 2022: 50692-50701. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3173609
[22] V. Dohale, M. Akarte, S. Gupta, V. Verma, Additive Manufacturing Process Selection Using MCDM. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 2021: 601-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3639-7_72
[23] M.d. Santos, I.P.d.A. Costa, C.F.S. Gomes, Multicriteria decision-making in the selection of warships: a new approach to the AHP method. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 13(1), 2021: 147-169. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v13i1.833
[24] S.H. Mian, E.A. Nasr, K. Moiduddin, M. Saleh, M.H. Abidi, H. Alkhalefah, Assessment of consolidative multi-criteria decision making (C-MCDM) algorithms for optimal mapping of polymer materials in additive manufacturing: A case study of orthotic application. Heliyon, 10(10), 2024: e30867.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30867
[25] H. Zhang, Y. Peng, G. Tian, D. Wang, P. Xie, Green material selection for sustainability: A hybrid MCDM approach. PLOS One, 12(5), 2017: e0177578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177578
[26] Z. Ilic, G. Marinkovic, V. Bulatovic, A. Matic, V. M. Petrovic, Comprehensive MCDM Approach in the Process of Land Consolidation Project Choice. Land, 14(9), 2025: 1798.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091798
[27] A. Ozcil, E. Aytac Adali, A Novel MCDM Method: The Integrative Reference Point Approach. Informatica, 36(3), 2025: 625-655. https://doi.org/10.15388/25-INFOR594
[28] A. Ulutaş, F. Balo, K. Mirković, Ž. Stević, M.M.H. Mostafa, MCDM model for critical selection of building and insulation materials for optimising energy usage and environmental effect in production focus. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 29(7), 2023: 587-603. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2023.19569
[29] N.-T. Tran, Application of the multi-criteria analysis method MAIRCA, SPOTIS, COMET for the optimization of sustainable electricity technology development. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (1), 2024: 180-188. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003133
[30] S.S. Goswami, D.K. Behera, S. Mitra, C.A. Saleel, B. Saleh, A. Razak, A. Buradi, A. Ketema, Development of entropy embedded COPRAS-ARAS hybrid MCDM model for optimizing EDM parameters while machining high carbon chromium steel plate. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 14(10), 2022: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132221129702
[31] A.M. Ghaleb, H. Kaid, A. Alsamhan, S.H. Mian, L. Hidri, Assessment and Comparison of Various MCDM Approaches in the Selection of Manufacturing Process. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2020(1), 2020: 4039253. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4039253
[32] E. Pourjavad, H. Shirouyehzad, A MCDM Approach for Prioritizing Production Lines: A Case Study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 2011: 221-229.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p221
[33] D.D. Trung, A combination method for multi-criteria decision making problem in turning process. Manufacturing Review, 8, 2021: 26. https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2021024
[34] F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, T. Allahviranloo, W. Pedrycz, M. Shahriari, H. Sharafi, S. Razipour GhalehJough, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method in Fuzzy Environment. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 1121, 2023: 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44742-6_5
[35] I. M. Hezam, A.R. Mishra, P. Rani, A. Saha, F. Smarandach, D. Pamucar, An integrated decision support framework using single-valued neutrosophic-MASWIP-COPRAS for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 211, 2023: 118674.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118674
[36] P. Permata, J. Wang, Setiawansyah, A.F.O. Pasaribu, A.D. Wahyudi, RAM-MEREC (Root Assessment Method – Method based on Removal Effects of Criteria): A Synergistic Approach to Weight Derivation and Alternative Ranking in the Selection of the Best Intern Employees. TIN: Terapan Informatika Nusantara, 5(11), 2025: 657-669.
[37] M. Zheng, J. Yu, Material Selection for Gear Manufacture in Terms of the Probabilistic Multi-objective Optimization. Research on Intelligent Manufacturing and Assembly, 4(1), 2025: 180-184.
https://doi.org/10.25082/RIMA.2025.01.004
[38] H. Taherdoost, Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW) as a MultiAttribute Decision-Making Technique: A Step-by-Step Guide. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 6(1), 2023: 21-24. https://doi.org/10.30564/jmser.v6i1.5400
[39] L. Lamrini, M.C. Abounaima, M. Talibi Alaoui, New distributed-topsis approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems in a big data context. Journal of Big Data, 10, 2023: 97.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-023-00788-3
[40] P.K. Chidambaram, C. Sukumaran, M. Ramachandran, V. Saravanan, K. Ramu, Optimal Supplier Selection Using MOORA MCDM Method. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 1169, 2024: 637-644.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73324-6_61
[41] S.B. Patil, T.A. Patole, R.S. Jadhav, S.S. Suryawanshi, S.J. Raykar, Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) based Multiple-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) paradigm for hard turning process parameters. Materials Today: Proceedings, 59(1), 2022: 835-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.142
[42] F. Ciardiello, A. Genovese, A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Annals of Operations Research, 325, 2023: 967-994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
[43] A. Shekhovtsov, How strongly do rank similarity coefficients differ used in decision making problems?. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 2021: 4570-4577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.235
[44] A. Katrancı, N. Kundakcı, K. Arman, Fuzzy SIWEC and Fuzzy RAWEC Methods for Sustainable Waste Disposal Technology Selection. Spectrum of Operational Research, 3(1), 2026: 87-102.
https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633
[45] P. Aazagreyir, P. Appiahene, O. Appiah, S. Boateng, Comparative analysis of fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods for quality of service-based web service selection. IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 13(2), 2024: 1408-1419. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijai.v13.i2.pp1408-1419
[46] N. Komatina, D. Marinkovic, M. Babič, Fundamental Characteristics and Applicability of the RADAR Method: Proof of Ranking Consistency. Spectrum of Operational Research, 3(1), 2026: 63-80.
https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202635
[47] S. Lakmayer, M. Danielson, Efficient Weight Ranking in Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems. Electronics, 14(7), 2025: 1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14071237
[48] H.K. Alfares, S.O. Duuaa, Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(01), 2016: 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622015500315
[49] A.R. Paramanik, S. Sarkar, B. Sarkar, OSWMI: An objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 169, 2022: 108138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108138
[50] Y.B. Gopisetty, H.R. Sama, Skewness impact through distributional evaluation (SITDE) method: a new method in multi-criteria decision making. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 76(6), 2025: 1204-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2024.2416910
[51] T. Basuri, K.H. Gazi, S.G. Das, S.P. Mondal, Ranking Higher Education Institutions Using Entropy–VIKOR with Generalized Pentagonal Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers. Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, 2(1), 2026: 64-83.
[52] M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, Determination of Objective Weights Using a New Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 2021: 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
[53] M. Riaz, F. Qamar, S. Tariq, K. Alsager, AI-Driven LOPCOWAROMAN Framework and Topological Data Analysis Using Circular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information: Healthcare Supply Chain Innovation. Mathematics, 12(22), 2024: 3593. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12223593
[54] Z. Gligoric, M. Gligoric, I. Miljanovic, S. Lutovac, A. Milutinovic, Assessing Criteria Weights by the Symmetry Point of Criterion (Novel SPC Method) – Application in the Efficiency Evaluation of the Mineral Deposit Multi-Criteria Partitioning Algorithm. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 136(1), 2023: 955-979. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.025021
[55] H.-J. Shyur, H.-S. Shih, Resolving Rank Reversal in TOPSIS: A Comprehensive Analysis of Distance Metrics and Normalization Methods. Informatica, 35(4), 2024: 837-858. https://doi.org/10.15388/24-INFOR576
[56] M. Socorro García-Cascales, M. Teresa Lamata, On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56(5–6), 2012: 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022
© 2026 by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)
How to Cite
D.D. Trung, B.T.T. Trang, B. Dudić, Application of the Depart Method in Ranking Alternatives for Mechanical Machining and Chemical Extraction Processes. Applied Engineering Letters, 11(2), 2026: 55-70.
https://doi.org/10.46793/aeletters.2026.11.2.1
