A Rough Decision-Making Model for Biomaterial Selection

  • Dragan Pamucar
  • Prasenjit ChatterjeeEmail author
  • Morteza Yazdani
  • Shankar Chakraborty
Part of the Materials Horizons: From Nature to Nanomaterials book series (MHFNN)


Biomaterials are artificial or natural materials that substitute the impaired organic parts to fulfill the global medical requirements for improving resilience and quality of human life. Thus, it has become indispensable to select the most appropriate materials for various biomedical applications. In this chapter, a decision-making model integrating analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as well as combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) techniques based on rough numbers has been developed for determining the performance scores of different biomaterials for a hip joint prosthesis application. Sensitivity analyses and comparative result analysis show an excellent performance of the integrated model against with respect to some well-established decision-making methods in terms of derived ranking patterns.


Decision making Rough numbers AHP CODAS Biomaterial selection 


  1. 1.
    Mehrali M, Thakur A, Pennisi CP, Talebian S, Arpanaei A, Nikkhah M, Dolatshahi-Pirouz A (2017) Nanoreinforced hydrogels for tissue engineering: biomaterials that are compatible with load-bearing and electroactive tissues. Adv Mater 29(8):1–26Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huebsch N, Mooney DJ (2009) Inspiration and application in the evolution of biomaterials. Nature 462:426–432Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jahan A (2012) Material selection in biomedical applications: comparing the comprehensive VIKOR and goal programming models. Int J Mater Struct Integrity 6(2–4):230–240Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker J, Shadanbaz S, Woodfield TB, Staiger MP, Dias GJ (2014) Magnesium biomaterials for orthopedic application: a review from a biological perspective. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 102(6):1316–1331Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sridharan R, Cameron AR, Kelly DJ, Kearney CJ, O’Brien FJ (2015) Biomaterial based modulation of macrophage polarization: a review and suggested design principles. Mater Today 18(6):313–325Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiti MC, Dolmans MM, Donnez J, Amorim CA (2017) Fibrin in reproductive tissue engineering: a review on its application as a biomaterial for fertility preservation. Ann Biomed Eng 45(7):1650–1663Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aherwar A, Singh AK, Patnaik A (2016) Current and future biocompatibility aspects of biomaterials for hip prosthesis. AIMS Bioeng 3(1):23–43Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahraminasab M, Sahari BB (2013) NiTi shape memory alloys, promising materials in orthopedic applications. In: Shape memory alloys-processing, characterization and applications, InTech, USA, pp 261–278Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aherwar A, Singh A, Patnaik A, Unune D (2018). Selection of molybdenum-filled hip implant material using grey relational analysis method. In: Handbook of research on emergent applications of optimization algorithms, IGI Global, USA, pp 675–692Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2017) Interval MULTIMOORA method with target values of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials selection. J Ind Eng Int 13(2):181–198Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farag MM (2013) Materials and process selection for engineering design. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mousavi-Nasab SH, Sotoudeh-Anvari A (2017) A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Mater Des 121:237–253Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Panchal D, Singh AK, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Ghorabaee MK (2019) A new fuzzy methodology-based structured framework for RAM and risk analysis. Appl Soft Comput 74:242–254Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yazdani M, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D (2018) A novel integrated decision-making approach for evaluation and selection of renewable energy technologies. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20(2):403–420Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tavana M, Yazdani M, Di Caprio D (2017) An application of an integrated ANP–QFD framework for sustainable supplier selection. Int J Logistics Res Appl 20(3):254–275Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2017) Development of a meta-model for determination of technological value of cotton fiber using design of experiments and TOPSIS method. J Nat Fibers 15(6)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2017) A developed meta-model for selection of cotton fabrics using design of experiments and TOPSIS method. J Inst Eng (India): Ser E 98(2):79–90Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chakraborty S, Chatterjee P, Prasad K (2018) An integrated DEMATEL-VIKOR method-based approach for cotton fibre selection and evaluation. J Inst Eng (India): Ser E 99(1):63–73Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2016) A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants. Decis Sci Lett 5(4):469–486Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ranjan R, Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2016) Performance evaluation of Indian railway zones using DEMATEL and VIKOR methods. Benchmarking: an Int J 23(1):78–95Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2010) Selection of industrial robots using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 26(5):483–489Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Raslanas S, Ginevicius R, Komka A, Malinauskas P (2006) Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: a Lithuanian case. Energy Build 38(5):454–462Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yazdani M, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Zolfani SH (2017) Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J Clean Prod 142(4):3728–3740Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maity SR, Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2012) Cutting tool material selection using grey complex proportional assessment method. Mater Des 36:372–378Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2012) Materials selection using COPRAS and COPRAS-G methods. Int J Mater Struct Integrity 6(2/3/4):111–133Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2011) Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Mater Des 32(2):851–860Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stanujkić D, Đorđević B, Đorđević M (2013) Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serb J Manage 8(2):213–241Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghorabaee MK, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, Turskis Z (2015) Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 26(3):435–451Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chatterjee P, Banerjee A, Mondal S, Boral S, Chakraborty S (2018) Development of a hybrid meta-model for materials selection using design of experiments and EDAS method. Eng Trans 66(2):187–207Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghorabaee MK, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J (2016) A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 50(3):25–44Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panchal D, Chatterjee P, Shukla RK, Choudhury T, Tamosaitiene J (2017) Integrated fuzzy AHP-CODAS framework for maintenance decision in urea fertilizer industry. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 51(3):179–196Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bahraminasab M, Jahan A (2011) Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Mater Des 32(8):4471–4477Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jahan A, Edwards KL (2013) Weighting of dependent and target-based criteria for optimal decision-making in materials selection process: biomedical applications. Mater Des 49:1000–1008Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bahraminasab M, Sahari BB, Edwards KL, Farahmand F, Hong TS, Arumugam M, Jahan A (2014) Multi-objective design optimization of functionally graded material for the femoral component of a total knee replacement. Mater Des 53:159–173Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petković D, Madić M, Radenković G, Manić M, Trajanović M (2015) Decision support system for selection of the most suitable biomedical material. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on information society and technology, Serbia, pp 27–31Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2015) Comprehensive MULTIMOORA method with target based attributes and integrated significant coefficients for materials selection in biomedical applications. Mater Des 87:949–959Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chowdary Y, Sai Ram V, Nikhil EVS, Vamsi Krishna PNS, Nagaraju D (2016) Evaluation and prioritizing of biomaterials for the application of implantation in human body using fuzzy AHP AND TOPSIS. Int J Control Theory Appl 9(40):527–533Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kabir G, Lizu A (2016) Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement integrating fuzzy AHP with PROMETHEE. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30(6):3481–3493Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Abd K, Hussein A, Ghafil A (2016) An intelligent approach for material selection of sensitive components based on fuzzy TOPSIS and sensitivity analysis. In: Proceedings of academics world 30th international conference, Australia, pp 13–18Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ristić M, Manić M, Mišić D, Kosanović M, Mitković M (2017) Implant material selection using expert system. Facta Univ, Ser: Mech Eng 15(1):133–144Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pamucar D, Lj Gigovic, Bajic Z, Janosevic M (2017) Location selection for wind farms using GIS multi-criteria hybrid model: an approach based on fuzzy and rough numbers. Sustainability 9(8):1–24Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Song W, Ming X, Wu Z, Zhu B (2014) A rough TOPSIS approach for failure mode and effects analysis in uncertain environments. Qual Reliab Eng Int 30(4):473–486Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pamucar D, Mihajlovic M, Obradovic R, Atanaskovic P (2017) Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers: hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model. Expert Syst Appl 88:58–80Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Springer Science and Business Media, pp 175Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Saaty TL, Tran LT (2007) On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic Hierarchy process. Math Comput Model 46(7):962–975Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stevic Z, Pamucar D, Vasiljevic M, Stojic G, Korica S (2017) Novel integrated multi-criteria model for supplier selection: case study construction company. Symmetry 9(11):1–34Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stevic Z, Pamucar D, Zavadskas EK, Cirovic G, Prentkovskis O (2017) The selection of wagons for the internal transport of a logistics company: a novel approach based on rough BWM and rough SAW methods. Symmetry 9(11):1–25Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ghorabaee MK, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Hooshmand R, Antuchevičienė J (2017) Fuzzy extension of the CODAS method for multi-criteria market segment evaluation. J Bus Econ Manage 18(1):1–19Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jahan A, Mustapha F, Md YI, Sapuan SM, Bahraminasab M (2011) A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des 32(3):1215–1221Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pamucar D, Ćirović G (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst Appl 42:3016–3028Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Badi IA, Abdulshahed AM, Shetwan AG (2018) A case study of supplier selection for a steelmaking company in Libya by using the Combinative Distance-based ASsessment (CODAS) model. Decis Mak: Appl Manage Eng 1(1):1–12Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mukhametzyanov I, Pamucar D (2018) A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: a statistical approach. Decis Mak: Appl Manage Eng 1(2):51–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragan Pamucar
    • 1
  • Prasenjit Chatterjee
    • 2
    Email author
  • Morteza Yazdani
    • 3
  • Shankar Chakraborty
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of LogisticsMilitary Academy, University of Defence in BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMCKV Institute of EngineeringHowrahIndia
  3. 3.Department of ManagementUniversidad Loyola AndalucíaAndalucíaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Production EngineeringJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations