山楂去核機(jī)設(shè)計【說明書+CAD+UG】,說明書+CAD+UG,山楂去核機(jī)設(shè)計【說明書+CAD+UG】,山楂,山查,去核機(jī),設(shè)計,說明書,仿單,cad,ug systems. assessing the example of three tractors of the same category, which are exploited in climatic and soil conditions 1. Introduction for agricultural agricultural recognized careful technical, predicting ofcropproduction.Nowadays,theexistingmathematicaloptimiza- tion methods, supported by the high-performance computers, can efficiently resolve the optimization problems (Dette Duffy et al., 1994; Mileusnic, 2007; etc.). The formation of an optimal technical system in order to produce cheaper food, highly impacted reliability of tractors, its maintainability, and the functionality of the system. rounding conditions. Although in the same spirit, some authors have defined effectiveness somewhat differently. In (Ebramhimipour maintainabilityascapacityofthe systemforpreventionandfindingfailuresanddamages,forrenewing operating ability and functionality through technical attending and repairs; and functionality as the degree of fulfilling the functional requirements, namely the adjustment to environment, or more pre- cisely to the conditions in which the system operates. In the case of monitoring reliability and maintainability it is common to monitor the time picture of state (Fig. 1) according to their working conditions is obtained. The model can be used as cri- teria for decision making related to any procedure in purchasing, operation or maintenance of the system, for prediction of repair and maintenance costs. Quality and functionality of the proposed model is shown in effectiveness determination of agricultural machinery, precisely tractors. R. Miodragovic et al./Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 89408946 8941 which the functions of reliability and maintainability can be deter- mined, as well as the mean time in operation and the mean time in failure. The main problem that occurs in forming the time picture of state is data monitoring and recording. In real conditions the ma- chines should be connected to information system which would precisely record each failure, duration and procedure of repair. This is usually expensive and improvised monitoring of the machine performance, namely of its shut downs, is imprecise. Moreover, statistical data processing provided by the time picture of the state requires that all machines work under equal conditions, which is difficult to achieve. As for the functionality of the technical system, there is no common way for its measuring and quantification. This is the reason why in this paper, in order to assess the effectiveness, expertise judgments of the employed in the working process of the analyzed machines will be used. Application of expertise judgments has been largely used in literature, primarily for data processing and the assessment of the technical systems in terms of: risk (Li Wang, Yang, Tanasijevic, Ivezic, Ignjatovic, Zadeh, 1996). Application of fuzzy sets today represents one of the most frequently used tools for solving the problems in various areas of optimization (Huang, Gu, Liebowitz, 1988) in general is also used for solving the optimizations problems from area of agro machinery. In article (Rohani, Abbaspour-Fard, and fuzzy composition of men- tioned indicators into one synthesized. Fuzzy proposition is pro- cedure for representing the statement that includes linguistic variables based on available information about considered techni- cal system. In that sense it is necessary to define the names of lin- guistic variables that represent different grades of effectiveness of considered technical system and define the fuzzy sets that describe the mentioned variables. Composition is a model that provides structure of indicators influences to the effectiveness performance. 2.1. Fuzzy model of problem solving The first step in the creation of fuzzy model for effectiveness (E) assessment is defining linguistic variables related to itself and to reliability (R), maintainability (M) and functionality (F). Regarding number of linguistic variables, it can be found that seven is the maximal number of rationally recognizable expressions that hu- man can simultaneously identify (Wang et al., 1995). However, for identification of considered characteristics even the smaller number of variables can be useful because flexibility of fuzzy sets to include transition phenomena as experts judgments commonly is (Ivezic et al., 2008). According to the above, five linguistic vari- ables for representing effectiveness performances are included: poor, adequate, average, good and excellent. Form of these linguis- tic variables is given as appropriate triangular fuzzy sets (Klir .;l 5 R ; l M l 1 M ; .;l 5 M ; l F l 1 F ; .;l 5 F 1 In the next step, maxmin composition is performed on them. Max min composition, also called pessimistic, is often used in fuzzy alge- bra as a synthesis model (Ivezic et al., 2008; Tanasijevic et al., 2011; Wang et al., 1995; Wang 2000). The idea is to make overall assess- ment (E) equal to the partial virtual representative assessment. This assessment is identified as the best possible one between the worst partial grades expected (R, M or F). It can be concluded that all elements of (R, M and F) that make the E have equal influence on E, so that maxmin composition will be used, which in parallel way treats the partial ones onto the h time of planned shut down due to preventive maintenance. 1995) and OR R M F If we tions that is (according to Fig. 2): with 39 (2012) 89408946 Further, for each outcome its values are calculated (X c ). The outcome which would suit the combination c, it would be calcu- lated following the equations: X c P R;M;E j hi c 3 3 Finally, all of these outcomes are treated with maxmin composi- tion, as follows: (i) For each outcome search for the MINimum value of l R,M,F in vector E c (2). The minimum which would suit the combina- tion o, it would be calculated following the equations: MIN 0 minfl j1;.;5 R ;l j1;.;5 M .;l j1;.;5 F g;for all o 1toO 4 (ii) Outcomes are grouped according to their values X c (3), namely the size of j. (iii) Find the MAXimum between previously identified mini- mums (i) for each group (ii) of outcomes. The maximum which would suit value of j, would be calculated following the equations: MAX j maxfMIN o g; for every j 5 E assessment of technical system is obtained in the form: l E This expression (Fig. 2 tion of to fuzzy cedure (d) between the E which d i E j ;H take into account only values if l j1;.;5 R;M;F 0, we get combina- are named outcomes (o =1toO, where O # C). in the process of synthesis, are also used. Precisely, if we look at three partial indicators, namely their membership function (1), it is possible to make C = j 3 =5 3 combina- tions of their membership functions. Each of these combinations represents one possible synthesis effectiveness assessment (E). E l j1;.;5 ;l j1;.;5 ; .;l j1;2;.5 hi ; for all c 1toC 2 maxmin compositions which by using operators AND provide an advantage to certain elements over the others synthetic indicator. In literature (Ivezic et al., 2008; Wang et al., Fig. 2. Effectiveness fuzzy sets. 8942 R. Miodragovic et al./Expert Systems MAX j1 ; .;MAX j5 l 1 E ; .;l 5 E 6 (6) is necessary to map back to the E fuzzy sets ). Best-fit (Wang et al., 1995), method is used for transforma- E description (6) to form that defines grade of membership sets: poor, adequate, average, good and excellent. This pro- is recognized as identification. Best-fit method uses distance E obtained by maxmin composition (6) and each of expressions (according to Fig. 2), to represent the degree to E is confirmed to each of fuzzy sets of effectiveness (Fig. 2). i X 5 j1 l j E C0l j H j 2 v u u t ; j 1; .;5;H i fexcellent;goodaverage;adequate;poorg7 E i fb i1 ;poor;b i2 ;adequate;b i3 ;good; b i4 ;average;b i5 ;excellentg 10 3. An illustrative example As an illustrative example of evaluation of agriculture machin- ery effectiveness, the comparative analysis of three tractors A 1 B 2 , and C 2 is given in this article. In tractor A a 7.146 l engine LO4V TCD 2013 is installed. Thanks to the reserves of torque from 35%, the tractor is able to meet all the requirements expected in the worst performing farming oper- ations in agriculture. Total tractor mass is 16,000 kg. According to OECD (CODE II) report maximum power measured at the PTO shaft is 243 kW at 2200 rpm with specific fuel consumption of 198 g/kW h (ECE-R24). Maximum engine torque is 1482 Nm at en- gine regime of 1450 rpm. Transmission gear is vario continious transmision. Linkage mechanism is a Category II/III with lifting force of 11,800 daN. In tractors B 2 and C 2 8.134 l engine 6081HRW37 JD is installed, with reserve torque of 40%, and this tractor was able to meet all the requirements expected in the worst performance of the farming operations in agriculture. Total tractor weight is 14,000 kg. Accord- ing to OECD (CODE II) report maximum power measured at the PTO shaft is 217 kW at 2002 rpm with specific fuel consumption of 193 g/kW h (ECE-R24). Maximum torque is 1320 Nm at engine revs of 1400 rpm. Transmission is AutoPower. Linkage mechanism is a Category II/III with lifting force of 10,790 daN. Both models have electronically controlled tractor engine and fuel supply system that meets the regulations on emissions. From the submitted technical characteristics of the tractor A, B and C it is seen that all three tractors are fully functional for l exc. = (0,0,0,0.25,1); l good = (0,0,0.25,1,0.25); l aver. = (0,0.25,1,0.25,0); l adeq. = (0.25,1,0.25,0,0); l poor = (1,0.25,0,0,0). The closer l E (6) is to the ith linguistic variable, the smaller d i is. Distance d i is equal to zero, if l E (6) is just the same as the ith expression in terms of the membership functions. In such a case, E should not be evaluated to other expressions at all, due to the exclusiveness of these expressions. Suppose d imin (i =1,.,5) is the smallest among the obtained distances for E j and leta 1 ,.,a 5 represent the reciprocals of the rel- ative distances (which is calculated as the ratio between corres- ponding distance d i (7) and the mentioned values d imin ). Then, a i can be defined as follows: a i 1 d i =d imin ; i 1; .;5 8 If d i = 0 it follows that a i = 1 and the others are equal to zero. Then, a i can be normalized by: b i a j P 5 m1 a im ; i 1; .;5 X 5 i1 b i 1 9 Each b i represents the extent to which E belongs to the ith defined E expressions. It can be noted that if E i completely belongs to the ith expression then b i is equal to 1 and the others are equal to 0. Thus b j could be viewed as a degree of confidence that E i belongs to the ith E expressions. Final expression for E performance at the level of tech- nical system, have been obtained in the form (10) where Applications 1 Tractor Fendt Vario 936. 2 Tractor John Deere 8520. performing difficult operations for different technologies of agri- cultural production. Tractors B and C have the same technical char- acteristics, and practice is the same type and model, except that the tractor B entered into operation in May 2007, a tractor C in June 2007. A tractor on the experimental farm, which is the technical documentation for the base model, comes into operation in July 2009. The main task of maintaining agricultural techniques is to provide functionality and reliability of machines. Maintenance of all three tractors is done by machine shop owned by the user up- grade option. Ten engineers (analysts) working on maintenance and opera- tion of tractors were interviewed. Their evaluation of R, D and F are given in Table 1. First, the effectiveness of tractor A is calculated. It can be seen that the reliability was assessed as excellent by six out of ten ana- lysts (6/10 = 0.6), as average by three (0.3) and as good by one (0.1). In this way the assessment R is obtained in the form (11): R 0:6=exc; 0:3=good; 0:1=aver; 0=adeq; 0=poor11 In the same way the assessments for M and F are obtained: M 0:4=exc; 0:4=good; 0:2=aver; 0=adeq; 0=poor F 0:5=exc; 0:5=good; 0=aver; 0=adeq; 0=poor In the next step, these assessments are mapped on fuzzy sets (Fig. 1) in order to obtain assessment in the form (1). For example, Reliabil- ity in this example is determined as (11), where it is to linguistic variable excellent joined weight 0.6. Thereby, fuzzy set excellent is defined as: R exc = (1/0, 2/0, 3/0, 4/0.25, 5/1.0) (according to Fig. 1). In this way the specific values of fuzzy set excellent R exc0.6 = (1/(0 C2 0.6), 2/(0 C2 0.6), 3/(0 C2 0.6), 4/(0.25 C2 0.6), 5/(1.0 C2 0.6) are obtained. The remaining four linguistic variables are treated in the same way. In the end for each j =1,.,5 specific membership functions (last row, Table 2) are added into the final fuzzy form (1) of tractor A reliability: l RA 0;0:025;0:175;0:475;0:675 In the same way, based on the questionnaire (Table 1) values for maintainability and functionality are obtained: l MA 0;0:05;0:3;0:55;0:5; l FA 0;0;0:125;0:625;0:62512 These fuzzificated assessments (11) and (12) are necessary to syn- thesize into assessment of effectiveness, using maxmin logics. In this case it is possible to make C =5 3 = 125 combinations, out of which the 48 outcomes. First outcome would be for combination 2-2-3: E 2-2-3 = 0.025,0.05,0.125, where is X 2-2-3 = (2 + 2 + 3)/3 = 2 (rounded as integer). Smallest value among the membership func- tions of this outcome is 0.025. Other outcomes and corresponding values of X c are shown in Table 3. All these outcomes can be grouped around sizes X = 2, 3, 4 and 5. For example, for outcome X = 5 it can be written: E 4C05C05 0:475;0:5;0:625C138;E 5C04C05 0:675;0:55;0:625C138;E 5C05C04 0:675;0:5;0:625C138;E 5C05C05 0:675;0:5;0:625C138 Further, for each of them, minimum between membership function is sought: Table 1 Results of questionnaire. Average x x xx x xx x R. Miodragovic et al./Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 89408946 8943 Analyst Linguistic variables Tractor A Tractor B Excellent Good Average Adequate Poor Excellent Good 1R x x Mx x Fxxx 2R x Mx x Fx 3R x x Mx Fx 4R x x Mx Fx x 5R x x Mx Fxxx 6R x x Mx Fx x 7R x Mx Fx 8R x x Mx x Fx x 9R x x Mx x Fx x 10 R x x Mx x Fx x Tractor C Adequate Poor Excellent Good Average Adequate Poor x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x with Table 2 Calculation of specific values of fuzzy sets. 12345 0.6/exc. 0 C2 0.6 0 C2 0.6 0 C2 0.6 0.25 C2 0.6 1.0 C2 0.6 0.3/good 0 C2 0.3 0 C2 0.3 0.25 C2 0.3 1.0 C2 0.3 0.25 C2 0.3 8944 R. Miodragovic et al./Expert Systems MINE 4C05C05 minf0:475;0:5;0:625g0:475;MINE 5C04C05 0:55;MINE 5C05C04 0:5;MINE 5C05C05 0:5 Between these minimums, in the end it seeks maximum: MAXX d5 maxf0:475;0:55;0:5;0:5g0:55 Also for other values: X: MAX X =2 = 0.025; MAX X =3 = 0.175; MAX X =4 = 0.55 (Table 1.) 0.1/aver. 0 C2 0.1 0.25 C2 0.1 1.0 C2 0.1 0.25 C2 0.1 0 C2 0.1 0/adeq. 0.25 C2 0 1.0 C2 0 0.25 C2 00C2 00C2 0 0/poor 1.0 C2 0 0.25 C2 00C2 C2 C2 0 P R 0 0.025 0.175 0.475 0.675 Table 3 Structure of MAXMIN composition. Comb. X l MIN 2345 2-2-3 2 0.025,0.05,0.125 0.025 2-2-4 3 0.025,0.05,0.625 0.025 2-2-5 3 0.025,0.05,0.625 0.025 2-3-3 3 0.025,0.3,0.125 0.025 2-3-4 3 0.025,0.3,0.625 0.025 2-3-5 3 0.025,0.3,0.625 0.025 2-4-3 3 0.025,0.55,0.125 0.025 2-4-4 3 0.025,0.55,0.625 0.025 2-4-5 4 0.025,0.55,0.625 0.025 2-5-3 3 0.025,0.5,0.125 0.025 2-5-4 4 0.025,0.5,0.625 0.025 2-5-5 4 0.025,0.5,0.625 0.025 3-2-3 3 0.175,0.05,0.125 0.05 3-2-4 3 0.175,0.05,0.625 0.05 3-2-5 3 0.175,0.05,0.625 0.05 3-3-3 3 0.175,0.3,0.125 0.125 3-3-4 3 0.175,0.3,0.625 0.175 3-3-5 4 0.175,0.3,0.625 0 0.175 3-4-3 3 0.175,0.55,0.125 0.125 3-4-4 4 0.175,0.55,0.625 0.175 3-4-5 4 0.175,0.55,0.625 0.175 3-5-3 4 0.175,0.5,0.125 0.125 3-5-4 4 0.175,0.5,0.625 0.175 3-5-5 4 0.175,0.5,0.625 0.175 4-2-3 3 0.475,0.05,0.125 0.05 4-2-4 3 0.475,0.05,0.625 0.05 4-2-5 4 0.475,0.05,0.625 0.05 4-3-3 3 0.475,0.3,0.125 0.125 4-3-4 4 0.475,0.3,0.625 0.3 4-3-5 4 0.475,0.3,0.625 0.3 4-4-3 4 0.475,0.55,0.125 0.125 4-4-4 4 0.475,0.55,0.625 0.475 4-4-5 4 0.475,0.55,0.625 0.475 4-5-3 4 0.475,0.5,0.125 0.125 4-5-4 4 0.475,0.5,0.625 0.475 4-5-5 5 0.475,0.5,0.625 0.475 5-2-3 3 0.675,0.05,0.125 0.05 5-2-4 4 0.675,0.05,0.625 0.05 5-2-5 4 0.675,0.05,0.625 0.05 5-3-3 4 0.675,0.3,0.125 0.125 5-3-4 4 0.675,0.3,0.625 0.3 5-3-5 4 0.675,0.3,0.625 0.3 5-4-3 4 0.675,0.55,0.125 0.125 5-4-4 4 0.675,0.55,0.625 0.55 5-4-5 5 0.675,0.55,0.625 0.55 5-5-3 4 0.675,0.5,0.125 0.125 5-5-4 5 0.675,0.5,0.625 0.5 5-5-5 5 0.675,0.5,0.625 0.5 MAX 0.025 0.175 0.55 0.55 Finally, we get expression for membership function of effective- ness of tractor A: l EA 0;0:025;0:175;0:55;0:55 Best-fit method (79) and proposed E fuzzy set (Fig. 1) give the final effectiveness assessment for the tractor A: d 1 E;exc X 5 j1 l j E C0l j exc 2 v u u t 0C00 2 0:025C00 2 0:175C00 2 0:55C00:25 2 0:55C01 2 q 0:56899 where is : l E 0;0:025;0:175;0:55;0:55 l exc 0;0;0;0:25;1 For other fuzzy sets: d 2 (E, good) = 0.54658, d 3 (E, aver) = 1.06007, d 4 (E, adeq) = 1.27426, d 5 (E, poor) = 1.29856. for d min d 2 : a 1 1 d 1 =d 2 1 0:56899=0:54658 0:96061; a 2 1:00000;a 3 0:51561;a 4 0:42894;a 5 0:42091: b 1 a 1 P 5 i1 a i 0:96901 0:96901 1 0:51561 0:42894 0:42091 0:28881; b 2 0:30065;b 3 0:15502;b 4 0:12896;b 5 0:12655: Finally, we get the assessment of effectiveness of tractor A, in form (10): E A =(b 1 , excellent), (b 2 , good), (b 3 , average), (b 4 , ade- quate), (b 5 , poor) = (0.28881, excellent), (0.30065, good), (0.15502, average), (0.12896, adequate), (0.12655, poor) In the same way, we get the assessments for other two tractors B and C: E B = (0.23793, excellent), (0.27538, good), (0.20635, aver- age), (0.14693, adequate), (0.13342, poor) E C = (0.17507, excellent), (0.25092, good), (0.25468, aver- age), (0.17633, adequate), (0.14300, poor). Tractor A is in great extent of 0.30065 (in relation to 30 %) as- sessed as good, tractor B in great extent of 0.27538 (27.5%) as- Applications 39 (2012) 89408946 sessed as good, while tractor C is in great extent of 0.25468 (25.5%) assessed as average. It can be concluded that C is the worst, while tractor A is only somewhat better than B, especially if we see with that A is assessed as excellent in the extent of 28.8% while B in the extent of 23.8%. Effectiveness of analyzed tractors can be presented as in Fig. 3., where it can be more clearly seen that tractor A has the biggest effectiveness. If this assessment (E A , E B , E C ) is defuzzificated by center of mass point calculation Z (Bowles if calculated on 10,000 moto-hours, Fig. 3. Relationship of effectiveness of observed tractors. R. Miodragovic et al./Expert Systems it would spend in work 9244 moto-hours. As of the tractor B, out of 10,004 available moto-hours, it spent 9069 moto-hours in work, and tractor C out of 9981 available moto-hours spent 9045 in work. The experiment showed that the more reliable and efficient tractors are the less frequent are delays. In part, this initial advan- tage wiped out worse logistics of delivery of spare parts when it comes to tractor A. in 1100 moto-hours work of the tractor, due to poor logistics in maintaining hoped to eight working days, and it greatly influenced the decline in benefits of maintainability of a given tractor and thus the decline in total exploitation of the same efficiency (Internal technical documentation PKB). 4. Conclusion This paper presents a model for effectiveness assessment of technical systems, precisely agricultural machinery, based on fuzzy sets theory. Effectiveness performance has been adopted as overall indicator of systems quality of service, i.e. as entire measure of technical system availability. Reliability, maintainability and func- tionality performances have been recognized as effectiveness parameters or indicators. Linguistic form can be appointed as the References Bowles, J. B., & Pelaez, C. E. (1995). Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 50(2), 203213. Cai, K. Y. (1996).