# Structural Design and Study of an Integrated Cutter System Based on Machine Operation
## 3 Evaluation and Decision Making for the Integrated Cutter System
### Results of the AHP Evaluation System  
In summary, this paper analyzed the six evaluation indexes of the integrated cutter system one by one and obtained the evaluation and analysis table shown in Table 2. In the table, C1 is the disassembly process, C2 is the gripping size, C3 is the three-dimensional size, C4 is the static strength, C5 is the gripping quality and C6 is the preload force. In addition, in order to visualize the gap between the cutter systems, the data in the table should be normalized. The principle of normalized data processing is as follows: take the best value in each column as the base and process the rest of the data. In the end, the best cutter system is the one with the highest overall score.  
In the comparative evaluation of the three cutter systems, the weights occupied by each criterion factor needed to be measured as well. The Dalian University of Technology proposed a discriminant matrix [19], as shown in Equation (1). Through a two-phase comparison of the criterion factors, a matrix that can objectively reflect the importance of the criterion factors is finally derived.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Cutter** & **Disassembly of Parts** & **Disassembly Process** \\ \hline Traditional cutter system & 13 & 10 \\ Eccentric integrated cutter system & 5 & 3 \\ Positive center integrated cutter system & 13 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Disassembly process comparison table.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Type** & **C1** & **C2/mm** & **C3/mm3** & **C4/MPa** & **C5/kg** & **Co/kN** \\ \hline TCS & 10 & 483 & 930 \(\times\) 680 \(\times\) 496 & 88.8 & 196 & 275 \\ CICS & 3 & 744 & 930 \(\times\) 680 \(\times\) 496 & 50.6 & 330 & 275 \\ EICS & 3 & 483 & 930 \(\times\) 680 \(\times\) 496 & 78.9 & 196 & 275 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparative table of evaluation indicators.  
\[T=\begin{bmatrix}1&1/2&3&2&2&3\\ 2&1&5&3&3&5\\ 1/3&1/5&1&1/2&1/2&2\\ 1/2&1/3&2&1&1&2\\ 1/3&1/5&1/2&1/2&1/2&1\end{bmatrix} \tag{1}\]  
The eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue can be obtained by calculating Equation (1), as shown in Equation (2).  
\[w=\left(3.550\quad 6.054\quad 1.269\quad 2.045\quad 2.045\quad 1\right)^{T} \tag{2}\]  
Equation (2) is normalized to obtain Equation (3), which can be used as the weight ratio of each criterion factor in the criterion layer.  
\[\hat{w}=\left(0.2224\quad 0.3793\quad 0.0795\quad 0.1281\quad 0.1281\quad 0.0626 \right)^{T} \tag{3}\]  
This is then weighted by Equation (3), with the results after normalizing each criterion factor in Table 2 shown in Equation (4).  
\[S=\hat{w}_{1}c_{1}+\hat{w}_{2}c_{2}+\hat{w}_{3}c_{3}+\hat{w}_{4}c_{4}+\hat{w}_ {5}c_{5}+\hat{w}_{6}c_{6} \tag{4}\]  
The final composite scores of the three cutter schemes were obtained, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows that the TCS has the lowest score of 0.79. CICS has a score of 0.81, which is slightly better than that of the TCS, but due to the fact that when removing the cutter, it is necessary to take out the cutter together with the locking device, there is a big disadvantage in the quality of the gripping as well as the size of the gripping, and the EICS has the highest overall score of 0.95. Compared with the other two, it is only slightly inferior to the CICS in terms of static strength, but it is still superior to the TCS, so this paper chose the EICS as the best cutter system solution.