Issue 
Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim.
Volume 11, 2020



Article Number  21  
Number of page(s)  9  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/smdo/2020015  
Published online  25 September 2020 
Research Article
Multiattribute decision making parametric optimization in twostage hot cascade vortex tube through grey relational analysis
^{1}
Research Scholar, ANU, School of Mechanical Engineering, R.G.M. College of Engineering & Technology, Nandyal, India
^{2}
Department of Mechanical Engineering, RVR & JC College of Engineering, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
^{3}
Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Andhra, Tadepalligudem, Andhra Pradesh, India
^{*} emal: madhukumar325@gmail.com
Received:
15
July
2019
Accepted:
26
August
2020
By setting two vortex tubes in hot cascade type Vortex tube manner, can achieve two cooling points for spot cooling applications with the single input. These cooling points play a vital role to cool tools in machining operations. The present work aims to optimize the output parameters such as outlet temperature, Coefficient of Performance (COP). Based on the literature, the performance of this vortex tube mainly depends on its input parameters such as air inlet pressure, length to diameter ratio, and the number of nozzles. In the present work, the above input parameters have been experimented on this vortex tube, based on the Taguchi L18 array. The optimal condition for both temperatures, COP at hot and cold outlets was calculated using grey relational analysis (GRA). The obtained experimental results were analyzed using the ANOVA approach. Also for multi responses, 1st and 2nd order predicted mathematical models developed by using Minitab 18 software and its accuracy checked. The achieved results are at first spot cooling point temperature 294.9 K, COP_{c1} as 0.0203, second spot cooling point temperature 284.2 K, and COP_{c2} as 0.1628. This work proved that for solving multiattribute decisionmaking problems, grey relational analysis methodology was efficient.
Key words: Coefficient of Performance / experiment / grey relational analysis / Taguchi / temperature difference / vortex tube
© R. Madhu Kumar et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2020
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
The pressurized gas/air as an input for the vortex tube and this was split into two streams; one is towards the cold outlet and another one as a hot outlet. In this work, the two vortex tubes are arranged as a hot cascade type vortex tube as shown in Figure 1. The design parameters are playing a vital role in the proper understanding of the heat transfer phenomena of the vortex tube. Wua et al. [1] taken a new intake flow passage and nozzle design then vortex tube performance improved. By using artificial neural networks, Dincer et al. [2] investigated the performance of the vortex tube by varying the L/D ratio and nozzle number. In this investigation, MATLAB 6.5 NN toolbox software was used and compared by making use of independent statistical ttest in SPSS.
Pinar et al. [3], succeeded to improve the temperature difference between hot, cold ends of the Vortex Tubes and statistically proved that the air pressure at the inlet, L/D ratio, and nozzles are significant factors in this study. Aydınet al. [4] was introduced a new geometry as a ‘Helical swirl flow generator’ at the cold end side. In this investigation, they found the performance of the vortex tube by varying the helical length of the swirl flow generator. Dincer [5] found the performance of a threefold and sixcascade type vortex tube. In this experiment, ΔT maximum value is 67.6 °C at six vortex tubes third situation. By using Response Surface Methodology (RSM), Prabakaran et al. [6] have proved that the diameter of the nozzle, inlet air pressure are the most influencing factors for the cold end side temperature difference and performance of the vortex tube. Berber et al. [7] used a RuleBased MamdaniType Fuzzy modeling technique for modeled and investigated experimentally heating and cooling performance of the vortex tube. With different geometric constructions of vortex tube, analyzed heating and cooling performances based on actual values. By using response surface methodology (RSM), Bovand et al. [8] optimized the standard RanqueHilsch vortex tube for maximum cold air temperature difference. In this study, they found that the optimum value of cold orifice diameter (d_{c}) to the tube diameter (D) is 0.5. Jayaraman et al. [9] have evidenced that the grey relational analysis was an efficient method for the application of multiattribute decision making parametric optimization. Venkata Sivareddy et al. [10] were studied the effect of cutting and vibrating parameters in a VAT on cutting force, cutting temperature, equivalent stress, and compressive maximum circumferential residual stress (MCRS). In this investigation, Taguchi based analysis of variance (ANOVA) and grey relational analysis (GRA) methods were used to optimize VAT of Ti6Al4V alloy parameters. Nguyen et al. [11] were studied to optimize the conducted parameter sets for 3D fused deposition modeling (FDM) products. The parameter sets were layer height, infill percentage, printing temperature, printing speed with different levels were experimented and analyzed to build mathematic models.
Hawary et al. [12] were investigated, by using a multiobjective genetic algorithm (MOGA) to optimize the power split between an internal combustion engine and a hydraulic motor to improve fuel economy. The conclusion of this investigation was improvement achieved by the HHV in terms of fuel economy is recorded as much as 5.55% for highway and 6.5% for city drive cycles. So many scientists conducted experiments, analyzed, and theoretically studied on this device. Some of the scientists are K.G. Hellyar [13], N. Logothetis et al. [14], J.L. Deng [15], G. Taguchi [16], G.S. Peace [17], P.J. Ross [18], K. Dincer [19], A.M. Pinar [20], S. Eiamsaard [21], M. Bovand [22,23], V. Kirmaci [24]. In this experimental investigation the input parameters were taken as inlet pressure of air, length (L)/diameter (D) ratio, nozzles number to optimize the temperature and coefficient of performance (COP) at hot outlets and cold outlets through grey relational analysis. Also for multi responses, 1st and 2nd order predicted mathematical models developed by using Minitab 18 software and its accuracy checked.
Fig. 1
Schematic diagram of the hot cascade type twostage vortex tube. 
2 Experimental details
The schematic representation and photo snap of the vortex tube experimental setup as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The specifications and geometric dimensions are as follows. 6.75, 9, and 13.5 mm are the inner diameters (D) of the vortex tube, 10, 15, and 20 are L/D ratio 4, 5, and 6 are the number of nozzles (N). In this test, the pressurized air is given as input, conical tip plug used as an obstruction of the vortex tube at the hot end which an angle of 45°. Inlet air pressure was taken as 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 bar. With FeK thermocouples, the temperatures of air at different locations measured. By using Taguchi L18 array experiments were planned as per taking three factors (input parameters) such as pressure (P) at six levels, L/D ratio, and nozzles (N) at three levels. The level of pressure varies from the 7–12 bar as levels of 1–6, respectively. The level of L/D ratio varies from 10 as level 1, 15 as level 2, and 20 as level 3, respectively. The level of the number of nozzles varies from 4 as level 1, 5 as level 2, and 6 as level 3 respectively. Taguchi L18 array design constitutes a total of 18 experimental runs. The experimental results of both temperatures and COP's are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 2
Photo snap of the hot cascade type twostage vortex tube. 
Experimental results at hot and cold outlets as per Taguchi L18 array.
3 Grey relational analysis optimization methodology
The problem in which multiresponses as output parameters. By using grey relational analyses to optimize these output parameters. With the help of grey relational grade in grey relational analyses optimize multi responses. In the optimization problem, multi responses are converted into a single relational grade.
Step 1
First, normalize the given experimental data because parameters have different units.(1)where x = 1,…, p; i = 1, …, q; the number of experimental data is p, and the number of responses is q. The original sequence as A_{x}(i), data preprocessing after sequencing as A*_{x}(i), the maximum value of A_{x}(i) as max A_{x}(i), the minimum value of Ax(i) as min Ax(i), and A is the desired value.
Step 2
Grey relational coefficient g_{x} (i) calculated by using below formula from normalized data(2)where the comparability sequence and a reference sequence is the deviation sequence Δ_{0i} andwhere A_{0}(i), A_{x}(i) are the reference, comparability sequences. The minimum, maximum values of the absolute differences (Δ_{0x}) are Δ_{min}, Δ_{max}. The identification coefficient (ξ) range between 0 to 1 and take value in this work was 0.5.
Step3
Below formula used to calculate Grey relational grade (GRG)(3)where ith experiment GRG as γ_{i} for every response. Using grey relational analysis, multi responses are converted into a single response optimization problem. The highest average grade value is chosen in the mean response table, and this is an optimal parametric combination for multiresponses.
4 Implementation of grey relational analysis optimization methodology
Step 1
First, normalize the experimental data like temperatures and COP's using equation (1) and values are tabulated shown in Table 2.
Step 2
From Table 2, g_{x}(i) was calculated using equation (2) and ξ is taken as 0.5. The calculated values are tabulated shown in Table 3.
Step 3
By using equation (3), grey relational grade (GRG) was calculated using grey relational coefficients. The calculated GRG values are tabulated in Table 3. Here multi responses converted into a single response.
Generation values of grey relational analysis.
Grey relational coefficient and grey relational grade value.
5 Results and discussion
Each input parameter effects at different levels are plotted (Fig. 3) based on GRG values. The highest average grade value is chosen in mean Table 4, and this is an optimal parametric combination for multiresponses. Thus, the optimal settings for multiresponses become P4L/D2N2, i.e., the pressure of 10 bar, L/D ratio of 15, and Nozzles of 5. The mean grey relational grade (Fig. 3) higher values represent the maximum value of temperature at hot outlets, COP at hot and cold outlets, and minimum value of temperature at cold outlets. Based in Table 4, the air inlet pressure has the utmost inducing effect than the L/D ratio and the number of nozzles. The sequence of the importance of input parameters on multiresponses is pressure > L/D ratio > number of nozzles.
Based on grey relational grade value analysis of variance (ANOVA) table is formulated as shown in Table 5. In this ANOVA method, which parameter Pvalue is less than 0.05 that parameter is a significant parameter. In this ANOVA table, pressure and L/D ratio parameters, Pvalues are 0.003 and 0.034, respectively. These values are less than 0.05 at 95% confidence level. So, pressure and L/D ratio are the significant and number of nozzles insignificant input parameters.
The multiple regression model developed by using Minitab 18 software for all responses such as the temperature at hot outlet 1 (T_{h}_{1}), temperature at cold outlet 1 (T_{c1}), the temperature at hot outlet 2 (T_{h2}), the temperature at cold outlet 2 (T_{c2}), COP of hot outlet 1 (COP_{h1}), COP of cold outlet 1 (COP_{c1}), COP of hot outlet 2 (COP_{h2}), and COP of cold outlet 2 (COP_{c2}) at 95% confidence level considering pressure (P), Length (L) /Diameter (D) ratio and the number of nozzles (N) as input parameters. Based on obtained results, 1st and 2nd order mathematical models for the temperature at hot outlet 1 (T_{h}_{1}), Temperature at cold outlet 1 (T_{c1}), Temperature at hot outlet 2 (T_{h2}), Temperature at cold outlet 2 (T_{c2}), COP of hot outlet 1 (COP_{h1}), COP of cold outlet 1 (COP_{c1}), COP of hot outlet 2 (COP_{h2}), and COP of cold outlet 2 (COP_{c2}) are presented in equations (4)–(19) along with their R ^{2} value respectively.
The determination coefficient values of 1st order regression model show very less compare to the 2nd order regression model particularly for the temperature at cold outlet 2, which is 63.1%, and 2nd order model R ^{2} value is close to 1. The high R ^{2} value model represents the best fit of the model, i.e., the 2nd order model is the best fit of the model. The 2nd order model predicted values and experimental values comparison shown in Figures 4–11. The correlations for predicted and experimental results were best in the 2nd order model. In this experiment, the 2nd order model gives sufficient predicts the expected results compared 1st order model.
Fig. 3
Main effect plot of grey relational grade. 
Effects on mean grey relational grade.
ANOVA results on grey relational grade.
5.1 Firstorder model
(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
5.2 Second order model
(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)
In the above Figure 4, the maximum T_{h}_{1} value has obtained as 310.5 K (37.5 °C) at experimental run 11. At this run the set of input variables are pressure (P) = 10 bar, number of nozzles (N) = 5 and length (L)/diameter (D) = 10.
The lowest value of T_{c1} has obtained in Figure 5 as 294.9 K (21.9 °C) at experimental test run 11, the set of input variables are P = 10 bar, N = 5 and L/D ratio = 10.
Figure 6 trend observation has revealed that the maximum T_{h2} value 327.1 K (54.1 °C) has obtained at experimental run 18. At this run the set of input variables are P = 12 bar, N = 5 and L/D ratio = 20. The increase in T_{h2} value at stage 2 in the Vortex tube is due to the variation in pressure and L/D ratio.
The lowest Tc_{2} value 284.2 K (11.2 °C) in the above Figure 7 has observed at experimental run 11 is because of controlling the highest cold air mass fraction 90% towards cold stream channel.
Based on the observations from Figure 8, the highest COP_{h1} value 0.0188 has observed at Experimental run 11. This because of the maximum mass flow rate and the temperature difference between hot outlet 1 and inlet air.
The maximum COP_{c1} value 0.0203 has observed in Figure 9 at experimental run 11. The chosen 50% cold mass fraction in the first Vortex tube towards cold outlet 1 helped to decrease temperature. This caused to increase in the temperature difference in stage one Vortex tube and to increase in COP_{c1}.
Based on the trends observed in Figure 10, the maximum COP_{h2} value 0.0179 has found at experimental run 4. At this run the set of input variables are P = 8 bar, N = 4 and L/D ratio = 10. The COP_{h2} value was more than COP_{h1} because of more temperature difference at stage 2 than stage 1.
The maximum COP_{c2} value 0.1628 has observed at experimental run 11 in Figure 11. The COP_{c2} value was more compared to COP values at hot outlet 1, cold outlet 1, and hot outlet 2. In this case, the chosen 90% cold mass fraction towards cold outlet 2 helped to increase COP.
Fig. 4
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at hot outlet 1 (T_{h}_{1}). 
Fig. 5
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at cold outlet 1 (T_{c1}). 
Fig. 6
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at hot outlet 2 (T_{h2}). 
Fig. 7
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at cold outlet 2 (T_{c2}). 
Fig. 8
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at hot outlet 1 (COP_{h1}). 
Fig. 9
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at cold outlet 1 (COP_{c1}). 
Fig. 10
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at hot outlet 2 (COP_{h2}). 
Fig. 11
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at cold outlet 2 (COP_{c2}). 
6 Conclusions
In the present work, using the Taguchi approach with grey relational analysis found the decision making multiresponses optimization of input parameters in a twostage hot cascade type vortex tube. By using Minitab 18 software, 1st and 2nd order mathematical models were developed for selected input parameters and their multiresponses using experimental data. Based on the analysis, the following statements are concluded.

In the present optimization, the experimental run 11 has observed an optimal one. At this run, the set of input variables are pressure 10 bar, L/D ratio 15, and the number of nozzles 5. The optimal T_{c}_{1} and T_{c}_{2} values have found by arranging vortex tubes in a cascade manner for spot cooling applications.

From the ANOVA table, pressure and L/D ratio Pvalues are less than 0.05. So these two parameters are the most significant input parameters influencing multiresponses in twostage hot cascade type vortex tube operation. Another parameter, such as the number of nozzles, does not show any signs of responses.

The R ^{2} value of the 2nd order model is higher compared to the 1st order model. The higher R ^{2} value model represents the best fit of the model. So, the 2nd order model is best for predicted and experimental results correlation.

As future work, the first vortex tube cold outlet can also connect as an input of the second vortex tube to get two hot points for spot hot applications.

In a similar way vortex tubes can also connect multistage hot and cold cascade vortex tube manner as future work.
Nomenclature
COP: Coefficient of Performance
COPc_{1}: Coefficient of Performance of Cold Outlet 1
COPh_{1}: Coefficient of Performance of Hot Outlet 1
COPc_{2}: Coefficient of Performance of Cold Outlet 2
COPh_{2}: Coefficient of Performance of Hot Outlet 2
D : Hot tube internal diameter
T_{h}_{1}: Hot Outlet 1 air temperature (K)
T_{c}_{1}: Cold Outlet 1 air temperature (K)
T_{h}_{2}: Hot Outlet 2 air temperature (K)
T_{c}_{2}: Cold Outlet 2 air temperature (K)
P : Air pressure at the inlet (bar)
References
 Y.T. Wua, Y. Dinga, Y.B. Jia, C.F. Maa, M.C. Ge, Modification and experimental research on vortex tube, Int. J. Refrigerat. 30 , 1042–1049 (2007) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Dincer, S. Baskaya, B.Z. Uysal, Experimental Investigation of the effects of length to diameter ratio and nozzle number on the performance of counter flow RanqueHilsch vortex tubes, Heat Mass Transfer 44 , 367–373 (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Pinar, M.O. Uluer, V. Kirmaci, Optimization of counter flow RanqueHilsch vortex tube performance using Taguchi method, Int. J. Refrigerat. 32 , 1487–1494 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 O. Aydın, B. Markal, M. Avcı, A new vortex generator geometry for a counterflow RanqueHilsch vortex tube, Appl. Thermal Eng. 30 , 2505–2511 (2010) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Dincer, Experimental investigation of the effects of threefold type RanqueHilsch vortex tube and six cascade type RanqueHilsch vortex tube on the performance of counter flow RanqueHilsch vortex tubes, Int. J. Refriger. 34 , 1366–1371 (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Prabakaran, S. Vaidyanathan, D. Kanagarajan, Establishing empirical relation to predict temperature difference of vortex tube using response surface methodology, J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 7 , 722–731 (2012) [Google Scholar]
 A. Berber, K. Dincer, Y. Yılmaz, D.N. Ozen, Rulebased Mamdanitype fuzzy modeling of heating and cooling performances of counterflow RanqueHilsch vortex tubes with different geometric construction for steel, Energy J. 51 , 297–304 (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Bovand, M.S. Valipour, K. Dincer, S. Eiamsaard, Application of response surface methodology to optimization of a standard RanqueHilsch vortex tube refrigerator, Appl. Thermal Eng. 67 , 545–553 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P. Jayaraman, L. Mahesh Kumar, Multiresponse optimization of machining parameters of turning AA6063 T6 aluminum alloy using grey relational analysis in Taguchi method, Sci. Direct Proc. Eng. 97 , 197–204 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Venkata Sivareddy, P. Vamsi Krishna, A. Venu Gopal, C.L. Prithvi Raz, Parameter optimization in vibration assisted turning of Ti6Al4V alloy using ANOVA and grey relational analysis, Int. J. Autom. Mech. Eng. 15 , 5400–5420 (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 V.H. Nguyen, T.N. Huynh, T.P. Nguyen, T.T. Tran, Single and multiobjective optimization of processing parameters for fused deposition modelling in 3D printing technology, Int. J. Autom. Mech. Eng. 17 , 7542–7551 (2020) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.F. Hawary, M.I. Ramdan, Hybrid hydraulic vehicle parameter optimization using multiobjective genetic algorithm, Int. J. Autom. Mech. Eng. 16 , 7007–7018 (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K.G. Hellyar, Gas Liquefaction using a Ranque–Hilsch Vortex Tube: Design Criteria and Bibliography. Report for the Degree of Chemical Engineer (Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1979) [Google Scholar]
 N. Logothetis, A. Haigh, Characterizing and optimizing multiresponse by Taguchi method, Qual. Reliability 4 , 159–169 (1988) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J.L. Deng, Introduction to Grey system, J. Grey Syst. 1 , 1–24 (1989) [Google Scholar]
 G. Taguchi, Introduction to Quality Engineering (Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, 1990) [Google Scholar]
 G.S. Peace, Taguchi Method (AddisonWesley, 1993) [Google Scholar]
 P.J. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering, 2nd edn. (McGrawHill, New York, 1996) [Google Scholar]
 K. Dincer, S. Tasdemir, S. Baskaya, B.Z. Uysal, Modeling of the effects of length to diameter ratio and nozzle number on the performance of counter flow RanqueHilsch vortex tubes using artificial neural networks, Appl. Thermal Eng. 28 , 2380–2390 (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.M. Pinar, O. Uluer, V. Kirmaci, Optimization of counterflow RanqueHilsch Vortex Tube performance using Taguchi method, Int. J. Refrigerat. 32 , 1487–1494 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Eiamsaard, K. Wongcharee, P. Promvonge, Experimental investigation on energy separation in a counterflow RanqueHilsch vortex tube: effect of cooling a hot tube, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 37 , 156–162 (2010) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Bovand, M.S. Valipour, K. Dincer, A. Tamayol, Numerical analysis of the curvature effects on RanqueHilsch vortex tube refrigerators, Appl. Thermal Eng. 65 , 176–183 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Bovand, M.S. Valipour, S. Eiamsaard, A. Tamayol, Numerical analysis for curved vortex tube optimization, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 50 , 98–107 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 V. Kirmaci, Experimental investigation of cooling − heating performance of counter flow RanqueHilsch vortex tubes having different length diameter ratio, Cumhuriyet Sci. J. 38 , 813–821 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Racharla Madhu Kumar, NVVS Sudheer, Katam Ganesh Babu, Multiattribute decision making parametric optimization in twostage hot cascade vortex tube through grey relational analysis, Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 11, 21 (2020)
All Tables
All Figures
Fig. 1
Schematic diagram of the hot cascade type twostage vortex tube. 

In the text 
Fig. 2
Photo snap of the hot cascade type twostage vortex tube. 

In the text 
Fig. 3
Main effect plot of grey relational grade. 

In the text 
Fig. 4
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at hot outlet 1 (T_{h}_{1}). 

In the text 
Fig. 5
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at cold outlet 1 (T_{c1}). 

In the text 
Fig. 6
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at hot outlet 2 (T_{h2}). 

In the text 
Fig. 7
Experimental vs. predicted values of temperature at cold outlet 2 (T_{c2}). 

In the text 
Fig. 8
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at hot outlet 1 (COP_{h1}). 

In the text 
Fig. 9
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at cold outlet 1 (COP_{c1}). 

In the text 
Fig. 10
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at hot outlet 2 (COP_{h2}). 

In the text 
Fig. 11
Experimental vs. predicted values of coefficient of performance at cold outlet 2 (COP_{c2}). 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.