Advertisement

Environmentally conscious design by using fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making

  • Tsai-Chi Kuo
  • Sheng-Hung Chang
  • Samuel H. Huang
Original Article

Abstract

Products affect the environment at many points in their life cycles. Once a product moves from the drawing board into the production line, its environmental attributes are largely fixed. Many researchers have focused on developing intelligent systems to provide a variety of design and manufacturing information to help designers make environmentally conscious decisions. However, in the early design stage, not all the information available is precise. A large amount of information, especially those that are based on designer experience, is fuzzy in nature. This paper presents an innovative method, namely green fuzzy design analysis (GFDA), which involves simple and efficient procedures to evaluate product design alternatives based on environmental consideration using fuzzy logic. The hierarchical structure of environmentally conscious design indices was constructed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which include five aspects: (1) energy, (2) recycling, (3) toxicity, (4) cost, and (5) material. After weighting factors for the environmental attributes are determined, the most desirable design alternative can be selected based on the fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making (FMADM) technique. The benefit of using such a technique is to effectively solve the design problem by capturing human expertise.

Keywords

Analytical hierarchy process  Environmental conscious design  Fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making  

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang HC, Kuo TC, Lu H, Huang SH (1997) Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey. J Manuf Syst 16(4):352–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta MC (1995) Environmental management and its impact on the operations function. Int J Oper Prod Manage 15(8):34–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ribeiro RA (1996) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:155–181MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiksel J (1996) Design for environment: creating eco-efficient product and processes. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chikte SD, Deshmukh SD (1991) Preventive maintenance and replacement under additive damage. Naval Res Logist Q 28:33–46MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuo TC (2000) Disassembly sequence and cost analysis for electromechanical products. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 16:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    SETAC (1991) A technical framework for life-cycle assessments. Society for environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watkins RD, Kleban SD, Luger GF (1995) Expert system support for environmentally conscious manufacturing. Int J Env Conscious Des Manuf 4(2):53–66Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen RW, Navinchandra D, Nair I, Prinz F, Wadehra IL (1995) Selection - an approach for material selection that integrates mechanical design and life cycle environmental burdens. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Presley A, Sarkis J (1994) An activity based strategic justification methodology for ECM technology. Int J Env Conscious Des Manuf 3(1):5–17Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graedel TE, Stolte BK, Munie GC, Wightman GC (1996) Applying the DFE Toolkit to an electronic switch. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and Environment, pp 148–153Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costic M, Sullivan J, Bryant B, Shangguan D (1996) LCI for automotive electronic systems: substitution assessment of Ag-Sn for Pb-Sn solder at Ford Motor Company. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp 58–63Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donaldson J, Francis D, Snowdon KG, Spiller DO (1996) The life cycle assessments of a telecommunications semiconductor laser. Eng Sci Educ J 5(4):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terho M (1996) LCA for telecommunication cables. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Piscataway, NJ, , pp 109–111Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Mier G, Sterke C, Steve A (1996) Life cycle costs calculations and green design options using computer monitors as example. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Piscataway, NJ, , pp 191–196Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarkis J (1998) Theory and methodology – evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. Eu J Oper Res 107:159–174MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Munoz AA, Sheng P (1995) An analytical approach for determining the environmental impact of machining processes. J Mater Process Technol 53(3–4):736–758Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Satty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. RWS Publications, New York; McGraw-Hill International Book Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tsai-Chi Kuo
    • 1
  • Sheng-Hung Chang
    • 1
  • Samuel H. Huang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementMing Hsin University of Science and TechnologyHsinchuTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear EngineeringUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations