Advertisement

A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process

  • Ali Jahan
  • Faizal Mustapha
  • S. M. Sapuan
  • Md Yusof Ismail
  • Marjan Bahraminasab
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Material selection is an onerous process of design activities which needs to be carefully carried out in order to increase the probability of success. A lot of multi-criteria decision-making methods have been proposed in material selection, many of which require quantitative weights for the attributes. Since weights play a very significant role in the ranking results of the materials, this paper presents a framework for determining importance degree of criteria to overcome the shortcomings of this subject in material selection. Furthermore, the suggested framework covers the situation of interdependent relationship between the criteria which has not been surveyed in material selection yet. An example was considered to illustrate how this framework is conducted. On the basis of the numerical results, it can be concluded that the proposed method can soundly deal with the material selection problems.

Keywords

Multiple criteria decision analysis Material selection Weighting and ranking factors Dependency of material properties 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chan JWK, Tong TKL (2007) Multi-criteria material selections and end-of-life product strategy: grey relational analysis approach. Mater Des 28:1539–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P (2008) Material considerations in product design: a survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers. Mater Des 29:1081–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farag MM (2002) Quantitative methods of materials selection. In: Kutz M. (ed) Handbook of materials selection. Wiley, 1–24Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiner M (1988) Planning of expert systems for materials selection. Mater Des 9:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashby MF, Brechet YJM, Cebon D, Salvo L (2004) Selection strategies for materials and processes. Mater Des 25:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jahan A, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Mustapha F (2010) Material screening and choosing methods—a review. Mater Des 31:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farag M (1997) Materials selection for engineering design. Prentice-Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rao RV (2008) A decision making methodology for material selection using an improved compromise ranking method. Mater Des 29:1949–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jee DH, Kang KJ (2000) A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory. Mater Des 21:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shanian A, Savadogo O (2006) A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making. Mater Des 27:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jahan A, Ismail MY, Mustapha F, Sapuan SM (2010) Material selection based on ordinal data. Mater Des 31:3180–3187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou CC, Yin GF, Hu XB (2009) Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products: artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Mater Des 30:1209–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Comput Oper Res 22:763–770CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rongxi Z, Jianrong X, Dayi H (2009) Approach of determining interval entropy weight based on the subjective preference of decision-maker and its application in Control and Decision Conference, GuilinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shanian A, Savadogo O (2006) TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J Power Sourc 159:1095–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP (2001) On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res 129:569–585CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bottomley PA, Doyle JR (2001) A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best. Omega 29:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doyle JR, Green RH, Bottomley PA (1997) Judging relative importance: direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hwang CL, Lin MJ (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7:326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ward E, Hutton BF (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shanian A, Milani AS, Carson C, Abeyaratne RC (2008) A new application of ELECTRE III and revised Simos' procedure for group material selection under weighting uncertainty. Knowl Base Syst 21:709–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139:317–326CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rao RV, Davim JP (2008) A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dehghan-Manshadi B, Mahmudi H, Abedian A, Mahmudi R (2007) A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear normalization and a modified digital logic method. Mater Des 28:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chu ATW, Kalaba RE, Spingarn K (1979) A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. J Optim Theory Appl 27:531–538CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shirland LE, Jesse RR, Thompson RL, Iacovou CL (2003) Determining attribute weights using mathematical programming. Omega 31:423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27:963–973CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pratyyush S, Jian-Bo Y (1998) Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making—methods and applications. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shanian A, Savadogo O (2009) A methodological concept for material selection of highly sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert Syst Appl 36:1362–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zeleny M (1982) Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Asgharpour MJ (1999) Multiple criteria decision making. Tehran University Publications, TehranGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rao RV, Patel BK (2010) A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection. Mater Des 31:4738–4747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maniya K, Bhatt MG (2010) A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: preference selection index method. Mater Des 31:1785–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang YM, Parkan C (2006) A general multiple attribute decision-making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information. Fuzzy Set Syst 157:1333–1345CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ma J, Fan ZP, Huang LH (1999) A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. Eur J Oper Res 112:397–404CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xu X (2004) A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. Eur J Oper Res 156:530–532CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang Y-M, Luo Y (2010) Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Math Comput Model 51:1–12CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chen SJJ, Hwang CL, Beckmann MJ, Krelle W (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ramík J, Perzina R (2010) A method for solving fuzzy multicriteria decision problems with dependent criteria. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 9:123–141CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Angilella S, Greco S, Lamantia F, Matarazzo B (2004) Assessing non-additive utility for multicriteria decision aid. Eur J Oper Res 158:734–744CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Durst O, Ellermeier J, Berger C (2008) Influence of plasma-nitriding and surface roughness on the wear and corrosion resistance of thin films (PVD/PECVD). Surf Coating Tech 203:848–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jiang Y, Li B, Tanabashi Y (2006) Estimating the relation between surface roughness and mechanical properties of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P (2009) Meanings of materials through sensorial properties and manufacturing processes. Mater Des 30:2778–2784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee JW, Kim SH (2000) Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Comput Oper Res 27:367–382CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yurdakul M, Tansel ÇY (2009) Application of correlation test to criteria selection for multi criteria decision making (MCDM) models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Jahan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Faizal Mustapha
    • 3
  • S. M. Sapuan
    • 2
  • Md Yusof Ismail
    • 4
  • Marjan Bahraminasab
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringSemnan Branch, Islamic Azad UniversitySemnanIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Aerospace Engineering, Engineering FacultyUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity Malaysia PahangKuantanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations