[1]陈哲,尚凯*,张青,等.基于TOPSIS-PSI方法的办公座椅设计评价[J].林业工程学报,2020,5(06):179-184.[doi:10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.201912003]
 CHEN Zhe,SHANG Kai*,ZHANG Qing,et al.Evaluation of office chair design using TOPSIS-PSI method[J].Journal of Forestry Engineering,2020,5(06):179-184.[doi:10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.201912003]
点击复制

基于TOPSIS-PSI方法的办公座椅设计评价()
分享到:

《林业工程学报》[ISSN:2096-1359/CN:32-1862/S]

卷:
5
期数:
2020年06期
页码:
179-184
栏目:
家具制造工程
出版日期:
2020-11-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Evaluation of office chair design using TOPSIS-PSI method
文章编号:
2096-1359(2020)06-0179-06
作者:
陈哲12尚凯1*张青1常能1
1.山东交通学院,济南250023;2.山东科技大学先进制造技术研究中心,青岛266590
Author(s):
CHEN Zhe12 SHANG Kai1* ZHANG Qing1 CHANG Neng1
1. Shandong Jiaotong University, Jinan 250023, China; 2. Advanced Manufacturing Technology Center, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, Shandong, China
关键词:
办公座椅TOPSIS法PSI法设计评价
Keywords:
office chair TOPSIS method PSI method design evaluation
分类号:
TS665.4
DOI:
10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.201912003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
为办公座椅设计方案选择构建科学全面且易用的评价体系,运用文献法和用户与专家讨论法,确定办公座椅设计评价指标的评价层次及评价范畴,采用专家九级量表打分法对各层次评价指标赋值,最终构建较为科学和全面的办公座椅设计评价指标体系,解决办公座椅设计评价指标存在的主观性和片面性问题;采用TOPSIS法和PSI法相结合的方法,将主观评价和客观评价进行组合赋权的方式,分别基于熵权和偏好选择指数将评价指标进行确权和规范决策矩阵,解决评价人员对评价指标赋值的不确定性和模糊性,并能够缩小主观评价的比重;利用TOPSISPSI方法对3款办公座椅设计方案进行评价,如果CI值越大,表示距正理想解越近,距负理想解最远,即可成为好的选择。对比计算结果显示:座椅1、座椅2和座椅3的CI值分别为0.691,0.418和0.240,说明设计方案座椅1为最优方案,并对评价结果采用VIKOR法和COPRAS法进行验证,结果均一致,验证了所提指标设计理论和评价方法的正确性与有效性。
Abstract:
In many design evaluation methods using mathematical algorithms, the appraisers can only give a value range of the evaluation index or the given value is not accurate enough, which leads to a large error in the evaluation results. Therefore, it is desired to develop an effective and logical evaluation method to select and evaluate the design, so as to solve the uncertainty or inaccuracy of the data assigned by the appraisers and try to reduce the proportion of subjective evaluation. In this study, the TOPSIS method and PSI method are combined, and the entropy weight and preference selection index are used to confirm the evaluation index and standardize the decision matrix, so as to provide a scientific, comprehensive and easytouse evaluation method for the selection of office seat design scheme. By using the method reported in literature and discussion between users and experts, the evaluation levels and categories of the evaluation indexes of office chair design are determined, and the evaluation indexes of each level are assigned with the method of ninegrade scale scoring by experts. Finally, a more scientific and comprehensive evaluation index system for the office chair design is constructed to solve the problems of subjectivity and onesidedness in the evaluation indexes of the office chair design. The combination of the TOPSIS method and PSI method is used to weigh subjective evaluation and objective evaluation. Based on the entropy weight and preference selection index, the evaluation indexes are confirmed, and the decision matrix is standardized. The uncertainty and fuzziness of evaluation indexes are solved, and the proportion of subjective evaluation can be reduced. The TOPSISPSI method is used to evaluate the three office seat design schemes. If the CI value is largest, indicating that the design is closest to the positive ideal solution and the farthest from the negative ideal solution, which can be the best choice. The comparative calculation results show that: the CI value of seat 1 is 0.691, the CI value of seat 2 is 0.418, and the CI value of seat 3 is 0.240. The CI value order is seat 1 > seat 2 > seat 3, which indicates that seat 1 of the design scheme is the best one. The results are consistent with each other, which verifies the correctness and validity of the proposed index design theory and evaluation method.

相似文献/References:

[1]杨元,刘文金*.办公座椅感性意象与造型要素关联性研究[J].林业工程学报,2016,1(03):139.[doi:10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.2016.03.025]
 YANG Yuan,LIU Wenjin*.Investigation of the relationship between office-chair Kansei image and modeling elements[J].Journal of Forestry Engineering,2016,1(06):139.[doi:10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.2016.03.025]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2019-12-03? ? 修回日期:2020-05-21
基金项目:山东省艺术科学重点项目(ZD201906243);山东交通学院博士科研基金(BS201902048);山东交通学院校级科研基金(R201902)。
作者简介:陈哲,男,讲师,研究方向为设计评价和全生命周期设计。通信作者:尚凯,男,讲师。E-mail:210014@sdjtu.edu.cn
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-11-11