Multi-Criteria Analysis of Hammer Mill Design Selection for Coal Fertilizer Production
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v4i09.3103Keywords:
Hammer Mill, Simple Additive Weighting, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Finite Element Analysis, Production CostAbstract
The hammer in a hammer mill is a critical component that determines the efficiency of coal crushing in the coal fertilizer production process. The selection of the appropriate hammer design cannot be based solely on structural strength, but must also consider production cost efficiency simultaneously. This study aims to evaluate and rank three alternative hammer mill designs based on a combination of technical performance from Finite Element Analysis (FEA) results and production costs, using secondary data already available in reference theses without new data collection or experiments. The data used include Safety Factor, impact area, maximum displacement, maximum von Mises stress, and production costs for nine samples (three designs x three materials). Because railway track materials do not have a valid selling value according to applicable regulations, six samples with commercially viable materials (alloy steel and manganese iron) were determined as decision alternatives. The Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method was applied with objective criteria weighting based on the Shannon entropy method to avoid subjectivity in determining the weights. The analysis results show that Design 3 with manganese iron material (Sample 9) obtained the highest SAW score (0.696), followed by Design 3 with alloy steel material (Sample 8, 0.677), while Design 1 with both materials ranked the lowest. Sensitivity analysis through five weighting scenarios and ±20% weight perturbation test showed that Design 3 consistently ranked one of the top two in all scenarios, indicating the robustness of the decision results to changes in decision-maker preferences. This study provides a methodological contribution in the form of an integrated technical-economic decision-making framework that can be replicated for other machine component design selection cases based on existing FEA data and production costs.
References
[1] H. Taherdoost, “Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting method (SAW) as a multi-attribute decision-making technique: A step-by-step guide,” Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21–24, 2023, doi: 10.30564/jmser.v6i1.5400.
[2] G. Y. Gunawan, “Optimalisasi pendekatan desain sistematik palu hammer mill untuk pembuatan pupuk batubara,” M.S. thesis, Universitas Pancasila, 2024. (Sumber data FEA dan biaya produksi primer artikel ini).
[3] J. Antony, U. D. Kumar, and S. Joshi, Introduction to the Taguchi Method: Basics and Beyond. Taylor & Francis, 2021.
[4] G. Moiceanu, G. Paraschiv, E. Maican, M. Dincă, I. Găgeanu, and V. N. Arsenoaia, “Aspects regarding FEM simulation of stress in hammer mill working tool,” E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 112, Art. no. 03018, 2019, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/201911203018.
[5] V. Devin, S. Yermakov, O. Gorbovy, V. Pidlisnyj, and O. Semenov, “Research on working bodies of hammer crushers employing the finite element method,” Environment. Technology. Resources. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Rēzeknes Tehnoloģiju akadēmija, 2023.
[6] S. Kurniawan and A. Kusnayat, “Perancangan hammer pada mesin hammer mill menggunakan metoda discrete element modelling untuk meningkatkan kehalusan penggilingan kulit kopi,” Jurnal Rekayasa Sistem Industri, vol. 3, no. 04, p. 21, 2017.
[7] M. M. Khan et al., “Design and development of a crop residue crushing machine,” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 10, no. 5, 2021.
[8] S. Yerramalla, “Optimization of hammer mill parameters for maize grain production,” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 54–62, 2022.
[9] S. Zakeri, P. Chatterjee, D. Konstantas, and F. Ecer, “A decision analysis model for material selection using simple ranking process,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, Art. no. 8631, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35405-z.
[10] H. X. Thinh and N. T. Mai, “Comparison of two methods in multi-criteria decision-making: Application in transmission rod material selection,” EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, 2023.
[11] D. D. Trung, B. Dudić, D. V. Duc, N. H. Son, and A. Ašonja, “Comparison of MCDM methods effectiveness in the selection of plastic injection molding machines,” Teknomekanik, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2024, doi: 10.24036/teknomekanik.v7i1.29272.
[12] S. Bošković, S. Jovčić, V. Simić, L. Švadlenka, M. Dobrodolac, and N. Bacanin, “A new criteria importance assessment (CIMAS) method in multi-criteria group decision-making: Criteria evaluation for supplier selection,” Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 2023.
[13] T. V. Dua, D. V. Duc, N. C. Bao, and D. T. T. Thuy, “PSI-SAW and PSI-MARCOS hybrid MCDM methods,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 14, no. 4, 2024.
[14] D. D. Trung, D. V. Duc, N. C. Bao, and D. T. T. Thuy, “Using the Root Assessment Method to choose the optimal solution for mushroom cultivation,” Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 2024.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gia Yosep Gunawan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.








