Development of a fuzzy-TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making model for material selection with the integration of safety,health and environment risk assessment
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2021
Development of a fuzzy-TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making model for material selection with the integration of safety,health and environment risk assessment
This study presents the development of a fuzzy-TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for material selection with integrated safety, health, and environment risk assessment. As safety, health, and environment is very much linked to sustainable design and manufacturing, it is imperative that safety, health, and environment is taken into consideration in ensuring a comprehensive and holistic material selection process. This paper shows the possibility of fuzzy logic utilization in assessing safety, health, and environment risk and proposed a methodology based on fuzzy-TOPSIS MCDM model for material selection suitable for the manufacturing sector. This method has the capability of producing a ranking result with strong reasonings. The proposed method facilitates the designer to select, evaluate, and rank material alternatives based on given attributes from design requirements and weighting given by the decision-makers. Additionally, the other benefits of the proposed methodology are the elimination of a complex structure and/or a black-box algorithm. The fuzzy-TOPSIS approach capable of considering not only the uncertainty related to qualitative judgments but also the uncertainty that may reside in the measurement of quantitative or qualitative parameters that exist within the safety, health, and environment risks assessment. A numerical example of selecting material for automotive body panels using the proposed method has been discussed.
RahimAAAMusaSNRameshS, et al.
A systematic review on material selection methods. Proc IMechE, Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications2020;
234: 1032–1059.
2.
SinghRKMurtyHRGuptaSK, et al.
An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indicat2012;
15: 281–299.
3.
ZhangHHaapalaKR.Integrating sustainable manufacturing assessment into decision making for a production work cell. J Clean Prod2015;
105: 52–63.
4.
FaragMM.Quantitative methods of materials selection. In: Kutz M (ed) Mechanical engineers’ handbook.
Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1–22.
5.
PrasadRVRajeshR and ThirumalaikumarasamyD.Selection of coating material for magnesium alloy using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS. Sadhana2020;
45: 1–20.
6.
PatnaikPKSwainPTRMishraSK, et al.
Composite material selection for structural applications based on AHP-MOORA approach. Mater Today Proc2020;
33: 5659–5663.
7.
GeroJS.Application of operations research to engineering design. Arch Sci Rev1969;
12: 67–77.
8.
RothRFieldFClarkJ.Materials selection and multi-attribute utility analysis. J Comput Mater Des1994;
1: 325–342.
9.
JahanAIsmailMYShuibS, et al.
An aggregation technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection. Mater Des2011;
32: 4918–4924.
10.
HambaliASapuanSMIsmailN, et al.
Material selection of polymeric composite automotive bumper beam using analytical hierarchy process. J Cent South Univ Technol2010;
17: 244–256.
11.
MahmoudkelayeSTaghizade AzariKPourvaziriM, et al.
Sustainable material selection for building enclosure through ANP method. Case Stud Constr Mater2018;
9: e00200.
12.
MilaniASShanianALynamC, et al.
An application of the analytic network process in multiple criteria material selection. Mater Des2013;
44: 622–632.
13.
ShanianAMilaniASCarsonC, et al.
A new application of ELECTRE III and revised Simos’ procedure for group material selection under weighting uncertainty. Knowledge Based Syst2008;
21: 709–720.
14.
ChamiABenabbouRTalebM, et al.
Electre multi-criteria analysis for choosing material concerned by the corrosion problem in automotive industry. J Appl Sci Environ Stud 2020; 3: 132–146.
15.
ShanianASavadogoO.ELECTRE I decision support model for material selection of bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cells applications. J New Mater Electrochem Syst2006;
9: 191–199.
16.
ShanianASavadogoO.A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making. Mater Des2006;
27: 329–337.
17.
AherwarASinghTSinghA, et al.
Optimum selection of novel developed implant material using hybrid entropy – PROMETHEE approach. Materwiss Werksttech2019;
50: 1232–1241.
18.
GulMCelikEGumusAT, et al.
A fuzzy logic based PROMETHEE method for material selection problems. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci2017;
7: 68–79.
19.
PengAHXiaoXM.Material selection using PROMETHEE combined with analytic network process under hybrid environment. Mater Des2013;
47: 643–652.
20.
ChatterjeePChakrabortyS.Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Mater Des2012;
35: 384–393.
21.
MilaniASShanianAMadoliatR, et al.
The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Struct Multidiscip Optim2005;
29: 312–318.
22.
DevSAherwarAPatnaikA.Material selection for automotive piston component using entropy – VIKOR method. Silicon2020;
12: 155–169.
23.
YazdaniMPayamAF.A comparative study on material selection of microelectromechanical systems electrostatic actuators using Ashby, VIKOR and TOPSIS. Mater Des2015;
65: 328–334.
24.
AthawaleVMChakrabortyS.Material selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods: a comparative study. Proc IMechE, Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications2012;
226: 266–285.
25.
JahanAMustaphaFIsmailMY, et al.
A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des2011;
32: 1215–1221.
26.
ShanianASavadogoO.TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J Power Sources2006;
159: 1095–1104.
27.
ThakkerAJarvisJBuggyM, et al.
A novel approach to materials selection strategy case study: wave energy extraction impulse turbine blade. Mater Des2008;
29: 1973–1980.
28.
RaoRVDavimJP.A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2008;
35: 751–760.
29.
JahanAMustaphaFSapuanSM, et al.
A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2012;
58: 411–420.
30.
ChatterjeePAthawaleVMChakrabortyS.Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des2009;
30: 4043–4053.
31.
LiuZQPengXGLiuJG.Development of an intelligent system for tool materials selection in high speed machining. Adv Mater Manuf Sci Technol2004;
471–472: 82–86.
32.
LiaoTW.Two interval type 2 fuzzy TOPSIS material selection methods. Mater Des2015;
88: 1088–1099.
33.
MayyasAOmarMAHayajnehMT.Eco-material selection using fuzzy TOPSIS method. Int J Sustain Eng2016;
9: 292–304.
34.
MaitySRChakrabortyS.Grinding wheel abrasive material selection using fuzzy TOPSIS method. Mater Manuf Process2013;
28: 408–417.
35.
OkabeMOhtaniH.Risk estimation for industrial safety in raw materials manufacturing. J Loss Prev Process Ind2009;
22: 176–181.
36.
MayyasAQattawiAOmarM, et al.
Design for sustainability in automotive industry: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2012;
16: 1845–1862.
37.
ChenCT.Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst2000;
114: 1–9.
38.
MahdaviIMahdavi-AmiriNHeidarzadeA, et al.
Designing a model of fuzzy TOPSIS in multiple criteria decision making. Appl Math Comput2008;
206: 607–617.
HwangC-LYoonK.Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state-of-the -art survey.
Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer, 1981.
47.
ChenS-JHwangC-L.Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods.
Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer, 1992, pp. 289–486.
48.
HusinSFachrurraziFRizalihadiM, et al.
Implementing fuzzy TOPSIS on project risk variable ranking.Adv Civil Eng2019; 2019: 1--10.
49.
KoulinasGKDemesoukaOEMarhavilasPK, et al.
Risk assessment using fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for sustainable engineering projects. Sustain2019;
11: 615.
50.
EbrahimnejadSMousaviSMMojtahediSMH. A model for risk evaluation in construction projects based on fuzzy MADM. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international conference on management of innovation and technology, ICMIT, Bangkok, Thailand, 21--24 September 2008, pp. 305–310. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
51.
BragliaMFrosoliniMMontanariR.Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int2003;
19: 425–443.
52.
Lima JuniorFROsiroLCarpinettiLCR.A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput J2014;
21: 194–209.
53.
ErturulIKarakaşoluN.Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2008;
39: 783–795.
54.
YangW.Ingenious solution for the rank reversal problem of TOPSIS method. Math Probl Eng2020; 2020: 1--12.
55.
KutluACEkmekçioluM.Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl2012;
39: 61–67.
56.
ChinKSChanAYangJB.Development of a fuzzy FMEA based product design system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2008;
36: 633–649.
57.
TaylanOBafailAOAbdulaalRMS, et al.
Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl Soft Comput J2014;
17: 105–116.
58.
WangYMElhagTMS.Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Syst Appl2006;
31: 309–319.
59.
ReddyASKumarPRRajPA.Entropy-based fuzzy TOPSIS framework for selection of a sustainable building material. Int J Constr Manag2019; 2019: 1--12.
60.
ZhangKZhanJYaoY.TOPSIS method based on a fuzzy covering approximation space: an application to biological nano-materials selection. Inf Sci2019;
502: 297–329.
61.
SalujaRSSinghV.A fuzzy multi-attribute decision making model for selection of welding process for grey cast iron. Mater Today Proc2020;
28: 1194–1199.
62.
ElomdaBMHefnyHAHassanHA.An extension of fuzzy decisi on maps for multi-criteria decision-making. Egypt Inform J2013;
14: 147–155.
63.
AshbyMFBréchetYJMCebonD, et al.
Selection strategies for materials and processes. Mater Des2004;
25: 51–67.
64.
KutzM.Handbook of materials selection.
Hoboken, NJ:
J. Wiley, 2002.
65.
ScallanP.Material evaluation and process selection. Process Plan2003; 109–170.
66.
Farag MM. Materials and process selection for engineering design. CRC Press. Epub ahead of print 19 November 2013. DOI: 10.1201/b16047.
67.
AshbyMF.Materials selection in conceptual design. Mater Sci Technol1989;
5: 517–525.
68.
Asbjorn Sorensen C, Warell A and Jagtap S. Material selection - A qualitative case study of five design consultancies. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on engineering design (ICED17), Vancouver, Canada, 21--25 August 2017, pp.439--448. ICED.
69.
van KesterenIEH.Product designers’ information needs in materials selection. Mater Des2008;
29: 133–145.
70.
KishawyHAHegabHSaadE.Design for sustainable manufacturing: approach, implementation, and assessment. Sustain2018;
10: 3604.
71.
RamalhetePSSenosAMRAguiarC.Digital tools for material selection in product design. Mater Des2010;
31: 2275–2287.
72.
LinJFoxMSBilgicT.A requirement ontology for engineering design. Concurr Eng Res Appl1996;
4: 279–291.
73.
ZhangQVonderembseMALimJS.Manufacturing flexibility: defining and analyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction. J Oper Manag2003;
21: 173–191.
74.
ChavezRYuWJacobsMA, et al.
Data-driven supply chains, manufacturing capability and customer satisfaction. Prod Plan Control2017;
28: 906–918.
75.
DaviesG.Materials for consideration and use in automotive body structures. In: Davies G (eds) Materials for automobile bodies.
Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2012, pp. 93–143.
