Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Material selection using PROMETHEE combined with analytic network process

under hybrid environment
An-Hua Peng a,b, Xing-Ming Xiao a,⇑
a
School of Mechatronic Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xunzhou City, Jiangsu Province 221116, PR China
b
Engineering Training Center, Huaihai Institute of Technology, Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province 222005, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Material selection involves a great number of attributes, including quantitative and qualitative ones,
Received 29 September 2012 among which there exist dependences of various degrees, and so belongs to multi-attribute decision
Accepted 24 December 2012 making problem (MADM) under hybrid environment in the presence of interdependences. The method
Available online 29 December 2012
of preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE) combined with
analytic network process (ANP) is presented to select the best material for a given application, where
Keywords: ANP is used to identify weights, and PROMETHEE to rank alternatives. Taking the material selection
Material selection
for a journal bearing as example, the decision-making procedure is enunciated, first determining the
Hybrid environment
Analytic network process
attributes according to the failure analysis and the requirements of customers, then screening out the
Preference ranking organization method for feasible solutions, and last fixing the optimal solution, Aluminum bronze, which is in conformity with
enrichment evaluations practice test. Finally, the method of expediting the calculation process is presented developing graphical
Journal bearings user interface-based (GUI-based) related software.
 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [5] proposed an integration of artificial neural networks (ANN)

with genetic algorithms (GA) to optimize the multi-objectives of
In a world where new materials are constantly substituting for material selection. Khabbaz et al. [6] proposed a fuzzy inference
the traditional ones to meet the demands of lower cost, perfor- method. Lina et al. [7] later also proposed the fuzzy inference
mance enhancement, and weight reduction, so materials selection method for material substitution selection in electric industry,
plays a more and more important role. And it is an important step while combined with fuzzy weight average to extend fuzzy infer-
in engineering designs, since an inappropriate choice of material(s) ence to uncertain environment. Sharif Ullah and Harib [8] pre-
can adversely affect the productivity, profitability, and reputation sented an intelligent method to deal with the materials selection
of a manufacturing organization as well [1]. When selecting mate- problems where the design configurations, working conditions,
rials for engineering designs, a clear understanding of the func- as well as the design-relevant information are not precisely known.
tional requirements for each individual component is required Jahan et al. [9] proposed linear assignment method for material
and various important criteria or attributes need to be simulta- selection. Ashby [10] suggested material selection charts for a wide
neously considered. Material selection attribute is defined as a fac- range of materials. Chart method is easy when the design of the
tor that influences the selection of materials for a given component specifies a simple objective, such as minimizing
application. These attributes include not only the traditional ones weight, and a single constraint, for instance a specified stiffness,
such as usability, machinability, and cost, but also material impact strength, or thermal conductance. Perhaps the most serious limita-
on environment, recycling, and even cultural aspects [2]. They con- tion of this method is that the chart limits the decisions on mate-
tradict and even conflict each other [3]. Deng and Edwards [4] rial selection to only solving two or three criteria.
emphasized that the process of materials selection should be com- Jahan et al. [11], after analyzing and comparing the existing
bined with structural optimization. And therefore the ability to se- decision making methods, pointed out the MADM approach has
lect the most appropriate material for a given application is the the potentiality to greatly improve the material selection meth-
fundamental challenges faced by a design engineer. odology. As argued by Chauhan and Vaish [12], compared with
There has been much literature dealing with the material selec- Ashby approach, MADM techniques enjoy the following advanta-
tion, and so great progress has been made in this field. Zhou et al. ges: (a) no requirement of prior knowledge of physical relations
of materials properties for their specific applications; (b) it can
be used to evaluate the ranks of alternatives regardless of the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 13952299638. number of attributes associated with it; (c) less computational
E-mail address: [email protected] (X.-M. Xiao). time required; and (d) non-numeric attributes and weights can

0261-3069/$ - see front matter  2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.058
644 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652

also be considered using fuzzy techniques. When it comes to ratings can be exactly determined, so they can be expressed in
MADM, normalization to attribute ratings, determination of attri- exact numbers, like tensile strength of materials, and the like;
butes’ weights, and ranking method, these are the most three other attribute ratings cannot be exactly determined, but can be
important aspects. The purpose of normalization is to obtain roughly determined, so they can be expressed in interval
dimensionless values of the different criteria so that all of them numbers, such as hardness and still other attribute ratings cannot
can be compared with each other. There have been a lot of be determined in any numbers, so they can only be expressed in
normalization methods, such as target-based normalization fuzzy linguistic terms according to decision maker’s experiences,
technique [13], Z-transformation in statistics [14], non-linear for example recyclability, and so on. And with attributes to be
normalization method [15], and grey relation analysis (GRA) considered increasing, especially for such ones as environmental
[16,17]. As the selected evaluation criteria are not equally impor- coordination, processibility, etc., it is more general to express
tant to each other and highly dependent on the product to be attribute ratings employing fuzzy linguistic terms.
designed, it is necessary to introduce some form of weighting (3) Last but not least, all literature regards attribute’s relation-
as part of the evaluation process. Identifying weight method in- ships as independent. To all intents and purposes, the relation-
cludes subjectively identifying weights, objectively identifying ships among many attributes exist interdependences with
weights and identifying weights combined objective data with various degrees, such as the relationship between hardness and
subjective judgments. Specifically, the methods mainly include elastic modulus, increased hardness usually leading to decreased
calculating preference various values [18], calculating standard elastic modulus, and that between strength and elongation at
deviation [13], Shannon’s entropy method [19], revised Simo’s break, increased strength usually leading to decreased elongation
procedure [20], modified digital logic method [15], and so on. at break.
Many ranking methods have been developed to aggregate each This paper, on the basis of the relationships among the six
attribute’s rating for all alternatives, such as TOPSIS (technique attribute types, employing the distance method, they can be nor-
for order performance by similarity to idea solution) [21], com- malized using one formula, clearer and more concise than any
plex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data previous normalization way. Using 2-tuple linguistic representa-
methods [22], multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio tion model expresses fuzzy linguistic terms, and using interval
analysis (MOORA) with reference point [23], weighted property numbers expresses uncertain numerical values. The ways to ad-
index method (WPIM) [1], VIKOR (the Sebian name is ‘Vlse dress MADM in the presence of interdependences largely include
Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje’ which means fuzzy integral and analytic network process (ANP) [31]. The
multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution) and applications of fuzzy integral suffer from the problem of being
ELECTRE (Elimination and Et Choice Translating REality) [24– difficult to identify the fuzzy measure. Although using k fuzzy
26], fuzzy axiomatic design (FAD) [27], etc. With regard to find- measure can reduce the difficulty in identifying fuzzy measure,
ing the most suitable ranking method, only Clicek et al. [28] and it can only express one kind interaction, either all positive inter-
Celik et al. [29] proposed an initial decision aid in material selec- actions or all negative interactions, abating the power of interac-
tion problems. However, the results of the selection method tion expressions. This paper therefore adopts ANP to eliminate
using their approaches may not be unique, and can only provide interdependences among attributes, and further to determine
reference to selecting a ranking method. As such, Jahan et al. attribute weights. ANP, developed by Satty in 1996 [32], is a rel-
[30] proposed a consensus ranking approach to materials selec- atively new MADM method based on AHP, considers interactions
tion where, having ranked materials by different MADM, the among attributes, and so captures the complexity of objective
different ranking orders are aggregated into one consensus rank- facts more vividly than AHP. The MADM method includes value
ing by calculating a linear programming problem. measurement models, such as weighted arithmetic averaging
Although great efforts have been made and great achievements (WAA), TOPSIS, and outranking models, such as ELECTRE and
obtained in material selection, there is still much room to be PROMETHEE. This paper uses PROMETHEE method to rank alter-
improved and perfected as follows. natives, since the value measurement models are characterized
(1) Normalizations to ratings. Most literature classifies attribute by ‘compensation effects’, which means higher ratings of an
type only into cost type and beneficial type, while only Ref. [13] attribute can compensate for the lower ratings of other attri-
classifies attribute type into cost type, beneficial type, and fixation butes under an alternative. For example, considering the two
type, which is still not complete. As a matter of fact, attribute type alternatives with three equally important attributes, all belong-
involves not only cost type, beneficial type, and fixation type, but ing to the beneficial type, and supposing the normalized ratings
also deviation type, interval type, and deviated interval type. of alternative 1 is U1 = (0.56, 0.25, 0.16), and that of alternative 2
(2) Expressions to ratings. Most Ref. [1,5,10,12–14,17,18,20,21, is U2 = (0.42, 0.30, 0.20), then the weighted arithmetic averaging
23,24] only use exact numbers to express attribute ratings, while, of the alternative 1 is 0.97, while that of alternative 2 is 0.92.
if not directly be expressed in an exact number, they can only be Therefore, the alternative 1 is superior to 2 in accordance with
expressed in linguistic information. But most literature captures WAA, the result of which is false in a sense. In fact, alternative
linguistic information only with limited discrete numbers, for 2 should be better than 1, since, in all three attributes, the rat-
instance, with 1 expressing ‘poor’, 2 ‘average’, and 3 ‘good’, obvi- ings of two attributes of alternative 2 are greater than that of 1.
ously contrary to the original intentions of fuzzy theory. On the The method of PROMETHEE and ELECTRE can effectively elimi-
other hand, there are a few Ref. [6–8] only use fuzzy linguistic nate ‘compensation effects’. The ranking method of PROMETHEE
terms to express attribute values, while, if existing numeric rep- is less computationally expensive than ELECTRE, and offers more
resentations, a membership function to the fuzzy linguistic term preference function to select, and so is used in this paper.
should first be defined, and then the numeric representation is The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 intro-
transformed into a membership grade to which it belongs to duces attribute rating expressions and normalizations. In Section 3,
the fuzzy linguistic term. Since the definition of membership we present the ranking method of PROMETHEE. Section 4 intro-
function demands strong experiences, and has very subjectivity, duces the identification of weights in the presence of interdepen-
and, for two different exact numbers, maybe they possess the dence based on ANP. Specific procedure in decision making is to
same membership grade to a membership function, it is inevita- be demonstrated in Section 5 taking the material selection for a
ble to cause information loss and distortion. But in the real issues, journal bearing for example. Finally, the conclusions of the paper
attribute ratings may belong to various kinds: some attribute are interpreted in Section 6.
 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652 645

Fig. 1. Relationships among attribute types.

2. Expressions and normalizations to ratings of attributes 2.2. Normalizations to ratings

2.1. Expressions 2.2.1. Quantitative attributes

As for quantitative attributes, attribute types can be subdivided
According to attribute nature, the ratings of attributes can lar- into beneficial type (I1), cost type (I2), fixation type (I3), deviation
gely be classified into two types: qualitative and quantitative type (I4), interval type (I5), and deviated interval type (I6) [35]. Ben-
one, with quantitative one being further subdivided into exact eficial type indicates that the greater the ratings, the better the
and interval values. attributes; cost type indicates that the less the ratings, the better
the attributes; fixation type indicates that the closer the ratings
(1) Distance between two interval values to a fixed number gj, the optimum value, the better the attributes;
deviation type indicates that the greater the distance between the
Definition 1 [33]. Assuming there are two interval numbers ratings and a fixed number pj, the worst value, the better the attri-
~; a
a ~ ¼ ½a; a
 and b;~ b
~ ¼ ½b; b,
 and x, y 2 [0, 1], and letting butes; interval type indicates that the closer the ratings to a fixed
; bx ¼ ð1  yÞb þ yb respectively be their real val-
ax ¼ ð1  xÞa þ xa interval number g ~j ¼ ½g j1 ; g j2 , the excellent range, the better the
ues, take into consideration the difference between each point in attributes; and deviated interval type indicates that the greater
the two interval numbers, and define the distance between them the distance between the ratings and a fixed interval number
as: ~j ¼ ½pj1 ; pj2 , the inferior range, the better the attributes. As shown
p
in Fig. 1, if satisfying g j1 ¼ g j2 ¼ g j to the interval type then it re-
Z 1=2 Z1=2   duces to fixation type, which, if satisfying gj = 0, in turn reduces
2 ~ ¼ aþa 
~; bÞ
d ða   aÞ
þ xða to cost type, so the interval and fixation types can be called the ex-
2
1=2 1=2
tended ones of the cost type; if satisfying pj1 ¼ pj2 ¼ pj to the devi-
" ! #)2
bþb  ated interval type then it reduces to the deviation type, which, if
   bÞ
þ yðb dxdy satisfying pj = 0, in turn reduces to beneficial type, so the deviated
2
interval and the deviation types can be called the extended ones of
"  !# 2 ! 3 ~ij be the rating of alternative i with re-
aþa bþb  2 1 a a 2
 b 2
b
the beneficial type. Letting b
¼  4 þ 5 spect to attribute jði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ whatever type
2 2 3 2 2 attribute j is, using Eq. (2) b ~ij can be converted into b , belonging
ij
to beneficial type, and within the interval [0, 1].
ð1Þ
jdðb ~ ; ~cj Þ  T j j
 ij
(2) Qualitative expressions bij ¼ 1  ð2Þ
~ ; ~cj Þ; T j   min½dðb
max½dðb ~ ; ~cj Þ; T j 
Triangle fuzzy numbers, trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, and 2-tuple ij ij
8i 8i
fuzzy linguistic models are the most popular expressions for
qualitative attribute ratings. Two-tuple fuzzy linguistic models In Eq. (2) Tj is the target value to attribute j, which, as for beneficial
are employed to express qualitative attribute ratings, due to its type and its extended ones, can be set as T j ¼ maxðdðb ~ij ; ~cj ÞÞ in
8i
simplicity, utility, and accurateness. Herrera and Martinea [34] j
which ~c ¼ p j
~ ; and which, as for cost type and its extended ones,
first developed the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model can be set as T j ¼ minðdðb ~ij ; ~cj ÞÞ in which ~cj ¼ g~j . To match granular-
8i
based on the concept of symbolic translation. It is used for repre-  ~
ity of linguistic terms with bij ; b ij should be further converted into rij
senting the linguistic assessment information by means of a using the following equation
2-tuple (si, ai), where si is a linguistic label from predefined linguis- 
tic term set S, and ai, ai 2 [0.5, 0.5), the value of symbolic transla- rij ¼ T  exp½ðbij  1Þ=k ð3Þ
tion, particularly ai ¼ 0 in predefined linguistic term set. For
example, a linguistic term set with cardinality of 7 can be defined where T is the granularity of the normalized linguistic term set and
as S7 ¼ fs0 ; s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 ; s5 ; s6 g ¼ fvery poor; poor; medium
ð7Þ ð7Þ ð7Þ ð7Þ ð7Þ ð7Þ ð7Þ
set as 7, and k adjustment coefficient to avoid zeros in normalized
poor; fair; medium good; good; very goodg. S should satisfy the ratings and set as 1 in this work. Obviously, the normalized ratings
following characteristics: (a) its cardinality value is an odd one; belong to the interval T  ½e1=k ; 1.
(b) the set is ordered: if i P j, then si P sj , with mark ‘‘P’’ denoting
superiority or equality; and (c) there is a negation operator: 2.2.2. Linguistic terms
Neg(si) = sh1i, with h denoting the cardinality value of S [34].
Since linguistic terms in 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic model can be re-
garded as continuous variables within defined domain, and there- Definition 2 [36]. Let b, b 2 [0, T]be the result of an aggregation of
fore accurately express any aggregation information, it avoids the indices of a set of labels assessed in a linguistic term set S, i.e.,
information distortion and losing which occur formerly in the the result of a symbolic aggregation operation, with T + 1 as the
other linguistic information processing, ensuring the decision- cardinality of set S. Then b can be represented as 2-tuple using the
making results more reasonable and trustworthy. function D
646 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652


sk k ¼ roundðbÞ Assume that alternatives xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) is a discrete set of m
D : ½0; T ! S  ½0:5; 0:5Þ DðbÞ ¼
ak ¼ b  k ak 2 ½0:5; 0:5Þ alternatives, attributes aj(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) is a discrete set of n attri-
ð4Þ butes respectively with attribute importance, i.e., weights xj(-
j = 1, 2, . . . , n), and bij = fj(xi) is the ratings of alternative i with
where round (b) is the usual round operation, sk has the closest in- respect to attribute j.
dex label to b, and ak is the value of the symbolic translation. The basic steps of the PROMETHEE II algorithm can be outlined
as follows:
Definition 3 [36]. Let (sk, ak) be a 2-tuple linguistic term, then
ðsk ; ak Þ can be represented as equivalent numerical value, b 2 [0, T], Step 1 Calculate any two alternative (e.g. alternative i and k)
using the inverse function D1 ratings’ difference on each attribute (e.g. attribute j), denoted
as dj(xi, xk), i.e., dj(xi, xk) = fj(xi)  fj(xk).
D1 : S  ½0:5; 0:5Þ ! ½0; T D1 ðsk ; ak Þ ¼ k þ ak ¼ b ð5Þ Step 2 Specify a preference function yj(dj(xi, xk)) for each crite-
rion, which translates the difference between the ratings
obtained by two alternatives (xi and xk) in terms of a particular
Definition 4. Let ST½0;...;T1 and SH ½0;...;H1 be two linguistic term sets criterion into a preference degree ranging from 0 to 1, denoting
respectively with cardinality of T and H, and then source linguistic the preference of alternative xi with regard to alternative xk.
H
term ðsHk ; ak Þ of set S½0;...;G1 can be equivalently transformed into Step 3 Define for all the alternatives the outranking relation p
target linguistic term ðsTk0 ; ak0 Þ of set ST½0;...;T1 , using the following 8
function: > x  xk ! ½0; 1
< i
! p : pðx ; x Þ ¼ Xn
xj yj ðdj ðxi ; xk ÞÞ ð8Þ
D1 ðsHk ; ak ÞðT  1Þ >
: i k
ðsTk0 ; ak0 Þ ¼ Dðb0 Þ ¼ D ð6Þ j¼1
H1
Step 4 As a measure for the strength of alternative xi, the leav-
It can be seen from transformation function (6) that any linguistic ing flow is calculated, denoting the dominance of the alterna-
term in source set can be found one, and only one, in target set, tive xi over other alternatives, i.e., a measure of outranking
and vice versa, illustrating the transformation function enjoys character
one-to-one characteristic with nothing losing in information repre- Xm
sentation. In particular, if k = 0, ak = 0, then ðsTk0 ; ak0 Þ ¼ ðsT0 ; 0Þ; if /þ ðxi Þ ¼ pðxi ; xk Þ ð9Þ
k ¼ H1
2
; ak ¼ 0, then ðsTk0 ; ak0 Þ ¼ ðsTðT1Þ ; 0Þ; and if k ¼ H  1; ak ¼ 0, k¼1
k–i
2
then ðsTk0 ; ak0 Þ ¼ ðsTT1 ; 0Þ, illustrating from above descriptions that
the minimum linguistic term in the source set can be transformed Step 5 As a measure for the weakness of the alternative xi, the
into the minimum one in the target set; the medium linguistic term entering flow is calculated, measuring the ‘‘outranked charac-
into the medium one; and the maximum linguistic term into the ter’’ of the alternative xi
maximum one. X
m
/ ðxi Þ ¼ pðxk ; xi Þ ð10Þ
k¼1
Definition 5. Let S = ((s1, a1), (s2, a2),  (si, ai),  , (sn, an)) be a set of k–i

2-tuple. The extended 2-tuple combined ordered weighted geo-

Step 6 Calculate the net outranking flow
metric averaging (ET-COWGA) operator of dimension n is a
mapping: Rn ? R that has associated linguistic weight vector /ðxi Þ ¼ /þ ðxi Þ  / ðxi Þ ð11Þ
(namely, position weight) v = ((v1, g1), (v2, g2),   , (vj, gj),   (vn, gn)),
where /ðxi Þ denotes the net ranking flow for alternative xi. Alterna-
g1), (v2, g2),   , (vj, gj),   (vn, gn)), defined as:
tives with higher net outranking flow /(xi) are ranked higher.
!
Y
n
ðsk ; ak Þ ¼ COWGAððs1 ; a1 Þ; ðs2 ; a2 Þ;    ; ðsn ; an ÞÞ ¼ D ðhpðjÞ Þv j ð7Þ 4. Analytic network process
j¼1

where pðjÞðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ is a permutation of hj (1, 2, . . . , n), such The ANP generalizes a widely used multi-criteria decision mak-
that for "j(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) hp(j1) P hp(j) holds. hj ¼ ðD1 ðsj ; aj ÞÞnxj , ing tool, AHP, by replacing the hierarchies with networks. AHP
where n is balance coefficient, and x ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . xj ; . . . ; xn Þ decomposes a decision problem into its constituent parts and
P builds hierarchies of criteria (shown in Fig. 2a), where the overall
ðxj 2 ½0; 1; nj¼1 xj ¼ 1Þ which signifies the importance of an argu-
ment itself and does not associate with the ET-COWGA operator. goal affects the criteria level, which in turn affects the sub-criteria
This paper employs fuzzy linguistic quantifier [37] to identify the level, without feedback between levels nor dependences within
position vector v. the same level. If there exist dependences or affecting relationships
within criteria or sub-criteria level, the structure model of which
can be represented as shown in Fig. 2b, then the method of ANP
3. PROMETHEE
will be employed to identify weights. Super-matrix, whose ele-
ments are matrixes or vectors instead of single values as in general
The methods of PROMETHEE have been successfully applied in
matrixes, is a widely used concept in ANP [39]. Using super-matrix
many fields and a number of researchers have used them in deci-
WI expresses the AHP structure as Fig. 2a, while using super-ma-
sion-making problems [38]. The PROMETHEE methods have some
trix WD expresses the ANP structure as Fig. 2b.
requisites of an appropriate multi-criteria method and their suc-
cess is basically due to their mathematical properties and to their x021 and x21 are column vectors that respectively represent the im-
particular friendliness of use. pact of the goal on the criteria with or without dependences, with

G C S G C S
Goal (G) ⎡ 0 0 0⎤ Goal (G) ⎡ 0 0 0 ⎤
WI = Criteria (C) ⎢⎢ω 21 I 0⎥⎥ WD = Criteria (C) ⎢ω′ ω′22 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ 21
Subcriteria (S) ⎣⎢ 0 ω 32 I ⎦⎥ Subcriteria (S) ⎣⎢ 0 ω′32 ω′33 ⎦⎥
 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652 647

‘impact’ denoting the potential of the criteria to satisfy the goal, x022
is a matrix that represents the inner dependence within the criteria,
x032 and x32 are matrixes that respectively represent the impact of
the criteria on the sub-criteria with or without dependence, x033 is a
matrix that represents inner dependence within the sub-criteria,
and I is the identity matrix. In the super-matrix WD, to eliminate
the inner dependences within criteria, x21 can be calculated by
multiplying x022 by x021 , i.e., x21 ¼ x022 x021 . Similarly, to eliminate
the inner dependences within sub-criteria, x32 can be calculated
by multiplying x033 by x032 , i.e., x32 ¼ x033 x032 .
In ANP, the relative importance values are determined similar
to AHP using pair-wise comparisons with a scale of 1–9, where a
scale of 1 indicates equal importance between the two elements
and 9 represents the extreme importance of one element com- Fig. 2. AHP and ANP structures.
pared to the other one. Supposing comparison matrix A = [aij]nn,
the way to derive corresponding weight vector x = (x1, x2, -
. . . , xj, . . ., xn) mainly includes the sum method, the least loga-
rithm square method (LLSM), and the eigen-value, etc. In fact,
the above methods all approximately identify weights. Only when
a comparison matrix meets the requirement of consistence, is the
calculation error smaller, but when it does not, the calculation er-
ror is greater than accepted, especially when the matrix order is
larger.
Inspired by Macharis et al. [40], this paper directly constructs a
consistence comparison matrix by interactive method. For a con-
sistence matrix, the relation between any element aij and the cor-
responding weight must satisfy the formula aij = xi/xj.
Accordingly, as long as a decision maker determines the first row
of a comparison matrix, the complete comparison matrix can be
generated. In the following, Fig. 3, taking a 6-order comparison ma-
trix for example, demonstrates the detailed procedure to identify
weights.

Step 1 Determine the first row of the comparison matrix.

" #
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A¼
C 1 a11 ¼x 1 x1
x1 ¼ 1 a12 ¼ x2 a13 ¼ x
x3
1
a14 ¼ x
x4
1
a15 ¼ x
x5
1
a16 ¼ x
x6
1

Step 2 Generate the remaining rows according to the first row.

As a matter of fact, when in identifying the importance of the
criterion C1 with respect to the other criteria, the relative Fig. 3. Procedure to determine weights.
importance of another compared with the others is implicated.
Generating the remaining rows according to the first row actu-
the first row is adjusted as follows. Note that, assuming an ele-
ally explicates the relative importance of any others.
ment aij needs to be changed, only the kth column in the first
2 3
row is to be changed, k = max (i, j), while another column not.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
6C a11 ¼ x a12 ¼ x a13 ¼ x a14 ¼ x a15 ¼ x a16 ¼ x 7 " #
x1 ¼ 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 7
6 7 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
6 C2 a21 ¼ x2
¼ 1
a ¼ x2
¼ 1 a ¼ x2
¼ a13
a ¼ x2
¼ a14
a ¼ x2
¼ a15
a ¼ x2
¼ a16 7
Að1Þ ¼
6 x1 a12 22 x2 23 x3 a12 24 x4 a12 25 x5 a12 26 x6 a12 7 x x x ð1Þ x ð1Þ x ð1Þ x ð1Þ ð1Þ
6 7 C 1 a11 ¼ x11 ¼ 1 a12 ¼ x12 a13 ¼ x13 a14 ¼ x14 ¼ a13  a34 a15 ¼ x15 a16 ¼ x16 ¼ a46  a14
6 a31 ¼ x 1 x3 a12 x3 x3 a14 x3 a15 x3 a16 7
A ¼ 6 C3 ¼ a ¼ ¼ a ¼ ¼ 1 a ¼ ¼ a ¼ ¼ a ¼ ¼
3
x1 a13 32 x2 a13 33 x3 34 x4 a13 35 x5 a13 36 x6 a13 7
6 7
6 C4 x4 1 x4 a12 x4 a13 x4 x4 a15 x6
a41 ¼ x1 ¼ a14 a42 ¼ x2 ¼ a14 a43 ¼ x3 ¼ a14 a44 ¼ x4 ¼ 1 a45 ¼ x5 ¼ a14 a46 ¼ x2 ¼ a14 7 a16 7
6
6 7
where a14 ¼ x1 =x4 ¼ x x1 x4 x1
6 C5 a51 ¼ x 1 x5 a12 x5 a13 x5 a14 x5 x5 a16 7 ð1Þ ð1Þ ð1Þ
x4  x3 ¼ a34  a13 ; a16 ¼ x1 =x6 ¼ x6  x4 ¼
4
5
x1 ¼ a15
a 52 ¼ x2 ¼ a15
a53 ¼ x3 ¼ a15
a 54 ¼ x4 ¼ a15
a 55 ¼ x5 ¼ 1 a 56 ¼ x6 ¼ a15 5
3
x6 1 x6 a12 x6 a13 x6 a14 x6 a15 x6 ð1Þ ð1Þ
C6 a61 ¼ x1 ¼ a16 a62 ¼ x2 ¼ a16 a63 ¼ x3 ¼ a16 a64 ¼ x4 ¼ a16 a65 ¼ x5 ¼ a16 a66 ¼ x6 ¼ 1
a46  a14

Step 3 Check the comparison matrix to determine whether or Step 4 Return to step 2, until all elements are reasonable and
not there are unreasonable elements. If, after checking, all ele- can be accepted.
ments in the comparison matrix are reasonable, and decision
makers accept them, then the weights can be derived by nor-
malization to any column in the comparison matrix. If, after 5. Illustrative examples
checking, there are elements that decision makers consider
unreasonable and required to adjust, then adjust the first row The illustrative example deals with the bush materials selection
according to the modifications, and then again generate the for the design of a split journal bearing of a machine tool with
remaining rows. For example, the decision makers consider hydrodynamic lubrication. A load F (F = 100000N), vertically down-
the elements of a34 and a46 unreasonable, and should be chan- ward and steady, is applied to the journal bearing, with journal
ð1Þ ð1Þ
ged into a34 and a46 respectively, with superscript (1) denoting diameter d (d = 200 mm), and rotation speed nr (nr = 500 r/min).
ð1Þ
the first round, implying x3 =x4 ¼ a34 , not a34; and Fig. 4 illustrates the decision making procedure to select the best
ð1Þ
x4 =x6 ¼ a46 , not a46. According to the above modifications, material for the journal bearing.
648 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652

" #
5.1. Identify evaluation indicators and property requirements C1 C2 C3 C4
A1 ¼
C1 a11 ¼ 1 a12 ¼ x x1 x1
x2 ¼ 3 a13 ¼ x3 ¼ 2 a14 ¼ x4 ¼ 2
1

According to failure patterns and customers’ requirements,

evaluation indicators are identified as shown in Fig. 5, and Table 1 (b) Generating from this first row all the remaining rows to
shows the property requirements. obtain the complete matrix
2 3
C1 C2 C3 C4
5.2. Identify the feasible solutions 6 C1 a11 ¼ 1 x1
a12 ¼ x2 ¼ 3 x1
a13 ¼ x3 ¼ 2 a14 ¼ x4 ¼ 2 7
x1
6 7
6 7
6 C 2 a21 ¼ x2 ¼ 1 ¼ 1 a ¼ x2
¼ 1 a ¼ x2 a13 2
¼ ¼ a ¼ x2 a14 2 7
¼ ¼
A1 ¼ 6 x1 a12 3 22 x2 23 x3 a12 3 24 x4 a12 3 7
Metals, porous metals, and non-metals are the typical materials 6 7
6 C3 a31 ¼ x 1
a32 ¼ x a12 3
a33 ¼ x a34 ¼ x a14 7
x1 ¼ 2 x2 ¼ a13 ¼ 2 x3 ¼ 1 x4 ¼ a13 ¼ 1 5
3 3 3 3
4
for journal bearings. Assuming the breadth-diameter ratio is 1,
C 4 a41 ¼ x4
¼ 1
¼ 1
a ¼ x4 a12 3
¼ ¼ a ¼ x4 a13
¼ ¼ 1 a ¼ x4
¼ 1
then the circular speed vc, working pressure p, and pvc can respec- x1 a14 2 42 x2 a14 2 43 x3 a14 44 x4

tively be calculated as vc = pdnr/(60  1000) = 5.23 m/s, p = F/

(c) Decision makers check the matrix A1 to discern whether
dB = 2.5 MPa, and pvc = 13.1 MPa m/s. According to Ref. [41], the
there are unreasonable data? Assume decision makers want to
permissible of pvc (expressed in [pvc]) of porous metal and non- ð1Þ
change the a42 = 3/2 to a42 ¼ 1 with the consideration that envi-
metal materials is all less than 13.1, and therefore only metal
ronmental coordination should not be more important than pro-
materials can be listed as candidate materials. Since the permissi-
cessibility, but roughly as important as it.(d) Changing the
ble of vc (expressed in [vc]) of cast iron is all less than 2, it is ex-
elements in the first row as follows
cluded. Lead-based alloys, greatly toxic and soluble in water, " #
endanger human being’s health by biology chain, and so lead- C1 C2 C3 C4
A1 ¼ C a ¼ 1 a ¼ x1 ¼ 3 a ¼ x1 ¼ 2 að1Þ ¼ x1 ¼ x2  x1 ¼ a12 ¼ 3
based bearing alloys and lead bronze are also excluded. Finally, 1 11 12 x2 13 x3 14 x4 x4 x2 ð1Þ
a42
the feasible solutions can be identified as M, M = [Tin-based bear-
ing alloy (x1), Tin bronze (x2), Aluminum bronze (x3), Aluminum- (e) Generating from this first row all the remaining rows to ob-
based bearing alloy(x4)]. tain the complete matrix
2 3
C1 C2 C3 C4
6C a11 ¼ 1 x1
a12 ¼ x2 ¼ 3 x1
a13 ¼ x3 ¼ 2 a14 ¼ x4 ¼ 3 7
ð1Þ x1
5.3. Determination of weights of sub-criteria with regard to overall 6 1 7
6 7
6 ð1Þ 7
goal 6 C 2 a21 ¼ x2 ¼ 1 ¼ 1
6 a x2
22 ¼ x ¼ 1 a x2 a13 2 ð1Þ x2 a14
23 ¼ x ¼ a ¼ 3 a24 ¼ x ¼ a ¼ 1 7
7
A1 ¼ 6 x1 a 12 3 2 3 12 4 12
7
6 ð1Þ
a14 7
a31 ¼ x a32 ¼ x a33 ¼ x a34 ¼ x
6 C3 1 a12 3 ð1Þ 37
x1 ¼ 2 x2 ¼ a13 ¼ 2 x3 ¼ 1 x4 ¼ a13 ¼ 2 7
3 3 3 3
5.3.1. Determination of weights of criteria with regard to overall goal 6
4 5
C 4 a41 ¼ x x4 x4
a44 ¼ x
ð1Þ 1 1 ð1Þ a12 ð1Þ a13 2
5.3.1.1. Assuming there is no dependence among criteria. (a) To com- x1 ¼ ð1Þ ¼ 3 a42 ¼ x2 ¼ ð1Þ ¼ 1 a43 ¼ x3 ¼ ð1Þ ¼ 3 x4 ¼ 1
4 4
a14 a14 a14
pare the criteria, one responds to this question: what is the relative
importance of the usability with a scale of 1–9 when compared to (f) Decision makers once again check the matrix A1 to discern
the other three criteria with respect to the overall goal? Then we whether there are unreasonable data? If the decision makers iden-
can determine the first row of the pair-wise comparison matrix tify all the elements reasonable, then the weights are obtained by
as follows: normalization to any column.
x021 ¼ ½0:4615; 0:1538; 0:2308; 0:1538T

Fig. 4. Procedure for material selection.

 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652 649

Fig. 5. Evaluation indicators for material selection.

Table 1
Sub-criteria’s type and requirements.

Sub-criteria Types Requirements

sc1: Density Cost The less the ratings, the better the attributes. The ratings of material cost, subject to various facts, are hardly exactly
sc14: Material cost identified, and so expressed as interval numbers, while that of density can be exactly expressed as exact numbers. As for cost
type, the optimum value gj is set as gj = 0
sc2: Permissible slide Beneficial During operation, attrition will be generated, and temperature of the surface where journal connects bush increased.
speed Therefore the more the thermal conductivity, the better the attribute. Lower tensile strength leads easily to fatigue spalling.
sc3: Permissible pressure As for beneficial type, the worst value pj is set as pj = 0
sc5: Tensile strength
sc7: Thermal
conductivity
sc4: Elastic modulus Fixation If elastic modulus is too less, gluing is easily to be produced; while if too greater, high pressure around bearing edge, due to its
sc6: Thermal expansion results of poor compliance, will be produced. According to expert’s experiences, the optimum value of elastic modulus is set as
coefficient gj = 80 GPa. The better the ratings of thermal expansion coefficient, the closer the rating to that of bearing box, according to
that of which the optimum rating of thermal expansion coefficient is set as gj = 20  106/C
sc8: Hardness Interval Too higher hardness leads easily to poor embeddedness, while too lower hardness easily to poor abrasion resistance, resulting
in more scratches in surface. According to expert’s experiences, the excellent range of elastic modulus is set as
g~j ¼ ½200; 230HBS
Others Qualitative The ratings of these can hardly be expressed as numbers, while only expressed as fuzzy linguistics, for instance, 2-tuple fuzzy
linguistic as in this work, according to experts’ experiences

5.3.1.2. Next, considering the inner dependence among the criteria. (a) 5.3.2. Determination of weights of sub-criteria with respect to
Identifying the inner dependence among the criteria as shown in corresponding criteria
Fig. 6. With respect to usability (named as a control criterion), According to the same procedures as above, similarly, xC321
what is the relative importance of the usability with a scale of 1– (weight vector of sub-criteria following criterion C1), xC322 (follow-
9 when compared to the other three criteria which have been af- ing C2), xC323 (following C3), and xC324 (following C4) can be obtained
fected by it, processibility, economics, and environmental coordi- as follows.
nation? Using the same procedures as above, the weight column " #
xCsc11 xCsc12 xCsc13 xCsc14 xCsc15 xCsc16 xCsc17 xCsc18 xCsc19 xCsc110
vector can be deduced as shown in the first column of Table 2. xC321 ¼
0:0467 0:1500 0:1474 0:0857 0:1373 0:0624 0:1008 0:0275 0:1103 0:1319
Respectively with respect to processibility, economics, and envi-
" #T " #T " #T
ronmental coordination, reuse the above procedures, and the cor- xCsc211 xCsc212 xCsc313 xCsc314 xCsc315 xCsc416 xCsc417 xCsc18
4
xCsc419
xC322 ¼ xC323 ¼ xC324 ¼
responding weight column vectors can be deduced as 0:45 0:55 0:21 0:42 0:37 0:32 0:18 0:28 0:22

respectively shown in the second, third, and fourth column of Ta-

ble 2, which, plus the first column, constitute the matrix x022 . Note
that zeros are assigned to the weights of criteria which are not af- 5.3.3. Determination of weights of sub-criteria with regard
fected by the corresponding control criterion. For example, in Ta- to overall goal
ble 2, the element on the column 2 row 3 is zero, which explains Determination of weights of sub-criteria with regard to overall
criterion C3 is not affected by C2. goal as follows:
(b) x21 is calculated as follows:  
xsc1 xsc2 xsc3 xsc4 xsc5 xsc6 xsc7 xsc8 xsc9 xsc10
2 3 2 3 2
0:59 0:26 0:00 0:00 0:4615 xC 1 ¼ 0:31 3 x31 ðC 1 Þ ¼ xC 1  xC321 ¼
0:0145 0:0465 0:0457 0:0266 0:0426 0:0193 0:0312 0:0085 0:0342 0:0409
6 0:20 0:58 0:00 0:00 7 6 0:1538 7 6 xC 2 ¼ 0:18 7
7 6 7 6
0 0 6 7
x21 ¼ x22  x21 ¼ 6 76 7¼6 7 
xsc11 xsc12
 
xsc13 xsc14 xsc15

4 0:12 0:00 1:00 0:00 5 4 0:2308 5 4 xC 3 ¼ 0:29 5 x31 ðC 2 Þ ¼ xC2  xC322 ¼ x31 ðC 3 Þ ¼ xC3  xC3
32 ¼
0:0810 0:0990 0:0609 0:1218 0:1073
0:09 0:16 0:00 1:00 0:1538 xC 4 ¼ 0:22
650 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652

Fig. 6. Inner dependences among criteria level.

Table 2
Inner dependence matrix among the criteria.

x022 Usability (C1) Processibility (C2) Economics (C3) Environmental coordination (C4)

C1 0.59 0.26 0.00 0.00

C2 0.20 0.58 0.00 0.00
C3 0.12 0.00 1.00 0.00
C4 0.09 0.16 0.00 1.00

Table 3
Raw and normalized ratings of quantitative attributes.

Feasible solutions sc1 kg/m3 sc2 m/s sc3 MPa sc4 GPa sc5 MPa sc6 106/C sc7 W/m.K sc8 HB

bi1 r i1 bi2 r i2 bi3 r i3 bi4 r i4 bi5 r i5 bi6 r i6 bi7 r i7 bi8 r i8

x1 7400 3.31 60 6.37 20 3.42 52 4.56 79 2.58 23 4.25 [35, 45] 7.00 [150, 170] 7.00
x2 8800 2.62 6.5 7.00 12 2.58 110 2.58 200 5.74 18 7.00 [50, 90] 2.58 [300, 500] 2.58
x3 8900 2.58 12 2.58 25 5.11 97 4.78 230 7.00 18 7.00 [40, 60] 5.02 [300, 418] 3.58
x4 2900 7.00 14 2.67 31 7.00 71 7.00 150 4.37 24 2.58 [60, 70] 3.12 [300, 500] 2.58

Table 4
Individual raw, normalized, and collective overall ratings of qualitative attributes.

Feasible solutions sc9 sc10

e1 e2 e3 r i9 e1 e2 e3 r i10
1 01 2 02 3 03 1 01 2 02 3 03
bi9 bi9 bi9 bi9 bi9 =bi9 bi10 bi10 bi10 bi10 bi10 =bi10

x1 s1
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s1
ð5Þ
s1
ð7Þ
ðs2 ; 0:5Þ
ð7Þ
s2 1.46 ð5Þ
s4
ð7Þ
s6 s2
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s6
ð7Þ
s5 5.62
x2 s2
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s6
ð5Þ
s3
ð7Þ
ðs5 ; 0:5Þ
ð7Þ
s6 5.60 ð5Þ
s3
ð7Þ
ðs5 ; 0:5Þ s2
ð3Þ
s6
ð7Þ ð7Þ
s4 4.62
x3 s1
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s3
ð5Þ
s3
ð7Þ
s3
ð7Þ
s4 3.32 ð5Þ
s1
ð7Þ
ðs2 ; 0:5Þ s1
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s3 s2
ð7Þ 2.06
x4 s1
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s3
ð5Þ
s2
ð7Þ
ðs2 ; 0:5Þ
ð7Þ
s2 2.14 ð5Þ
s2
ð7Þ
s3 s1
ð3Þ ð7Þ
s3 s3
ð7Þ 3.00

Table 5 Table 6
Normalized ratings of the other 9 sub-criteria. Alternatives’ leaving, entering and net flow.

Feasible sc11 sc12 sc13 sc14 sc15 sc16 sc17 sc18 sc19 pðxi ; xk Þ x1 x2 x3 x4 /þ ðxi Þ /ðxi Þ
solutions
x1 0.0000 0.0828 0.1434 0.1720 0.3982 0.3290
x1 5.45 6.21 3.58 2.56 3.63 4.21 3.21 5.21 2.86 x2 0.1735 0.0000 0.1194 0.1839 0.4768 0.1168
x2 4.85 6.25 4.21 3.58 4.21 5.12 3.52 5.82 3.21 x3 0.2850 0.3525 0.0000 0.1659 0.8034 0.4836
x3 5.20 5.20 5.25 4.89 5.26 6.21 4.58 5.25 5.21 x4 0.2697 0.1573 0.0570 0.0000 0.4840 0.0378
x4 4.25 4.28 4.98 4.35 4.82 5.38 4.25 5.18 4.08 / ðxi Þ 0.7282 0.5926 0.3198 0.5218

 
xsc16 xsc17 xsc18 xsc19
x31 ðC 4 Þ ¼ xC4  xC4
32 ¼
0:0704 0:0396 0:0616 0:0484

5.4. Normalization to ratings

5.4.1. Normalization to sub-criteria following criterion C1

Using bij represents the ratings of the feasible solution
i ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ with respect to attribute j ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n1, n1 + 1, -
1, n1 + 1, n1 + 2, . . ., n1 + n2, n1 + n2 + 1, n1 + n2 + 2, . . ., n1 + n2 + n3),
where m = 4 denotes the number of feasible solutions, n1 = 6 the
Fig. 7. Preference function. number of attributes whose ratings are exact values, n2 = 2 the
 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652 651

Table 7
Comparison of calculating and ranking results.

Materials WAA index WAA ranks TOPSIS index TOPSIS ranks ELECTER index ELECTER ranks PROMETHEE index PROMETHEE ranks
Mat 1 4.2298 4 0.4125 4 0.8178 4 0.3290 4
Mat 2 4.5820 2 0.5167 2 0.1762 3 0.1168 3
Mat 3 4.9460 1 0.6062 1 1.0811 1 0.4836 1
Mat 4 4.4648 3 0.4885 3 1.0019 2 0.0378 2

In the calculation of ELECTER index, for any attribute the preference threshold pj , indifference threshold qj , and veto threshold vj are set respectively as 4.5, 0.2, and 4.5.

number of attributes whose ratings are interval values, and n3 = 2 same attribute importance, we can calculate net flows /(U1),
the number of attributes whose ratings are qualitative. As for /ðU 2 Þ as /(U1) = 0.2666, /ðU 2 Þ ¼ 0:2666 respectively. According
quantitative attributes, the ratings of which can be obtained by to PROMETHEE, U2 is superior to U1, which agrees better with
checking tables on material property, and are shown in Table 3, our cogitation than the result using weighted arithmetic averaging
while for qualitative attributes, three experts (e1, e2, e3) are invited (WAA). It can be concluded that PROMETHEE can effectively elim-
to express them in linguistic terms, as shown in Table 4, where in inate ‘compensation effects’, and improve the decision making’s
e
bijl superscript el denotes expert el. accurateness.(2) It can be seen from Table 7 that, whichever meth-
od is used, the best material is x3 (Aluminum bronze), while the
5.4.1.1. Normalization to quantitative attributes. Using Eq. (1), calcu- worst is x1 (Tin-based bearing alloy), which proves selecting the
late the distance between ratings and the excellent range (for cost x3 as the best material for the journal bearing is trustworthy and
and its extended types) or the inferior range (for beneficial and its reliable. TOPSIS and WAA rank x2 (Tin bronze) superior to x4 (Alu-
extended types) dðb ~ ; ~cj Þ, using Eq. (2), then calculate b , and last minum-based bearing alloy), while ELECTER and PROMETHEE rank
ij ij
using Eq. (3) calculate rij shown in Table 3. x2 inferior to x4. Of the 19 attributes considered in this paper be-
tween x4 and x2, one attribute’ rating is the same and ten attri-
5.4.1.2. Normalization to linguistic terms. In real-life decision mak- bute’s ratings of x4 are superior to that of x2, while only eight
ing situations, since to what extent a decision maker familiarizes attribute’s ratings of x4 are inferior to that of x2, which indicates
with an attribute greatly differs, the 2-tuple linguistic term sets that the result of x4 superior to x2 is more persuasive and reliable.
used to evaluate are characterized by different cardinality value. The ranking results between using ELECTE and PROMETHEE are the
The larger the cardinality value, the more precision the expression same, while with further comparison between the ELECTE index
of 2-tuple linguistic term. Three kind linguistic term sets, S7, and PROMETHEE index, it can be concluded that the resolution of
S5 ¼ fs0 ; s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 g = {very poor, poor, fair, good, very good},
ð5Þ ð5Þ ð5Þ ð5Þ ð5Þ PROMETHEE index is very greater than that of ELECTE index, expli-
3 ð3Þ ð3Þ ð3Þ
and S ¼ fs0 ; s1 ; s2 g = {poor, fair, good} are used. Prior to infor- cating in a sense the method of PROMETHEE is superior to the
mation aggregation, multi-granularity 2-tuple linguistic term sets ELECTE.(3) Taking weight changes in the criteria level before and
should be unified into standard 2-tuple linguistic one with the after considering dependences for example, and postulating that,
same cardinality value. According to definition (4) or formula (6), in Fig. 6, if two attributes are linked by a double-headed arrow
taking linguistic term set S7 as standard one, S3 and S5 are both uni- then the degree of the information redundancy embedded in them
0e
fied into S7 denoted as bij l , shown in Table 4. Linguistic quantifier is defined as 2, if linked by a one-way arrow then defined as 1, and
‘‘most’’ (corresponding to parameters: a ¼ 0:3; b ¼ 0:8) is used in if not linked then defined as 0, accordingly, the degree of the infor-
this paper, and then the position weight vector can be calculated mation redundancy of the usability is 4, that of the processibility 3,
as v = [0.0667, 0.667, 0.2667]. Assuming the expert weight vector that of the economics 1, and that of the environmental coordina-
xe, xe = (0.333, 0.267, 0.400), and using ET-COWGA operator (defi- tion 2. The greater the degree of information redundancy of an
nition 5), the collective overall linguistic terms can be derived, and attribute is, the more reflected by the other attributes the informa-
according to definition 3 are then converted into normalization tion embedded in it has been. And therefore, considering depen-
numerical values rij shown in Table 4. dences, it is reasonable that the weight of the usability decreases
from 0.46 to 0.31, while it is also reasonable that, since weight
sum keeps constant, the weights of the other three attributes dif-
5.4.2. Normalization to the other sub-criteria
ferently increase, but on the whole following the law: the less
The other 9 normalization attribute ratings (sc11, sc12, sc13, sc14, -
the degree of information redundancy, the greater the weights
sc15, sc16, sc17, sc18, sc19) can also be obtained, utilizing the same
increase.
procedures as above, the results of which are shown in Table 5.

5.5. Ranking materials with PROMETHEE 6. Conclusions

Selected for any criterion is linear preference function (as From the performed research work using PROMETHEE com-
shown in Fig. 7) with strict preference value p set as bined with analytic network process under hybrid environment,
maxðrij  rkj Þ, i.e., in the calculation of yj(dj(xi, xk)), value p is taken the main conclusions and directions for future research can be
8j
as the maximum of all normalized rating differences between summarized as follows.(1) Compared with target-based normali-
alternative i and k. Table 6 shows the calculated results, and since zation technique in [13] by Jahan et al., the normalization method
/(x3) > /(x4) > /(x2) > /(x1), material x3 (Aluminum bronze) is the in this paper is characterized by the following unique advantages:
optimal solution. (a) as for attribute types, it can be used not only for beneficial type,
cost type, fixation type but also for deviation type, interval type,
5.6. Discussions and deviated interval type, while the technique in [13] only for
beneficial type, cost type, and fixation type; (b) as for attribute rat-
(1) Again taking the aforementioned two alternatives U1 with ings, it can be used not only for exact values but also for interval
normalized ratings U1 ¼ ð0:56; 0:25; 0:16Þ and U2 with normalized values, while the technique in [13] only for exact values; (c) it
ratings U2 = (0.42, 0.30, 0.20) as example, in the conditions of the can ensure any normalized ratings greater than zero, while, as
652 A.-H. Peng, X.-M. Xiao / Materials and Design 47 (2013) 643–652

for the technique in [13], the normalized rating to the worst one is [13] Jahan Ali, Bahraminasab Marjan, Edwards KL. A target-based normalization
technique for materials selection. Mater Des 2012;35:647–54.
zero, meaning the worst attribute plays not any role in ranking
[14] Fayazbakhsh K, Abedian A, Dehghan Manshadi B, Sarfaraz Khabbaz R.
process, which is unreasonable and cannot be accepted. Due to Introducing a novel method for materials selection in mechanical design
the above mentioned advantages, the normalization method in this using Z-transformation in statistics for normalization of material properties.
paper can be used in a hybrid environment. And in real life, more Mater Des 2009;30:4396–404.
[15] Dehghan Manshadi B, Mshmudi H, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A novel method for
often than not, it is under a hybrid environment that the material materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear
selection is carried out and therefore it goes without saying that normalization and a modified digital logic method. Mater Des 2007;28:8–15.
the normalization method in this paper is more suitable to real [16] Chan Joseph WK, Tong Thomas KL. Multi-criteria material selection and end-
of-life product strategy: grey relational analysis approach. Mater Des
life.(2) Used to express qualitative attributes is 2- tuple linguistic 2007;28:1539–46.
terms, for which we need not to identify membership functions [17] Zhao Rui, Neighbour Gareth, Deutz Pauline, McGuire Michael. Materials
and which is relatively simpler than the other expressions such selection for cleaner production: an environmental evaluation approach.
Mater Des 2012;37:429–34.
as triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Used to identify [18] Maniya Kalpesh, Bhatt MG. A selection of material using a novel type decision
weights is ANP, the result of which is more accurate than using making method: preference selection index method. Mater Des 2010;31:
AHP, due to considering the dependences among attributes which 1785–9.
[19] Chuu Shian-Jong. Group decision-making model using fuzzy multiple
often occur in the real world. Used to rank is PROMETHEE, effec- attributes analysis for the evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology.
tively eliminating ‘‘compensation effects’’ of the attribute ratings, Fuzzy Sets Syst 2009;160:586–602.
and allowing weights to play more important role in alternative [20] Shanian A, Milani AS, Carson C, Abeyaratne RC. A new application of ELECTRE
and revised simos’ procedure for group material selection under weighting
ranking.(3) The result using the proposed method in this paper
uncertainty. Knowl-Based Syst 2008;21:709–20.
matches well with the other methods such as WAA, TOPSIS, [21] Gupta Naveet. Material selection for thin-film solar cells using multiple
ELECTER, further indicating its feasibility and validity.(4) The attribute decision making approach. Mater Des 2011;32:1667–71.
calculating results in this paper are obtained through computer [22] Chatterjee Prasenjit, Athawale Vijay Manikrao, Chakraborty Shankar. Materials
selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed
programming in software MATLAB, effectively addressing the data methods. Mater Des 2011;32:851–60.
problems of complex calculation. Allowing for a few designers [23] Karande Prasad, Chakrabory Shankar. Application of multi-objective
who may not familiarize themselves with computer programming optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for materials
selection. Mater Des 2012;37:317–24.
in software MATLAB, and to further expedite and easy the calcula- [24] Chatterjee Prasenjit, Athawale Vijay Manikrao, Chakraborty Shankar. Selection
tion process, developing graphical user interface-based (GUI-based) of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des
related software to automate all the calculations and suggest the 2009;30:4043–53.
[25] Jeya Girubha R, Vinodh S. Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environment impact
best material is the important researches in the future. GUI is char- analysis for material selection of an automotive component. Mater Des
acterized by friendly interface, easy operation, and powerful func- 2012;37:478–86.
tion, and consists of such objects as window, menu, icon, button, [26] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A non-compensatory compromised solution for
material selection of bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel
etc. Selecting and activating them with a method, e.g. clicking mouse cell (PEMFC) using ELECTRE IV. Electrochim Acta 2006;51:5307–15.
or keyboard, enables a computer according to user demands to com- [27] Clicek Kadir, Celik Metin. Selection of porous materials in marine system
plete scheduled tasks such as calculating or drawing, dispensing design: the case of heat exchanger aboard ships. Mater Des 2009;30:
4260–6.
with the computer programming process.
[28] Cicek Kadir, Celik Metin, llker Topcu Y. An integrated decision aid extension to
material selection problem. Mater Des 2010;31:4398–402.
Acknowledgement [29] Clicek Kadir, Celik Metin. Multiple attribute decision-making solution to
material selection problem based on modified fuzzy axiomatic design-model
selection interface algorithm. Mater Des 2010;35:2129–33.
The authors thank Prof. Zhi-Ming Wang, who read the manu- [30] Jahan Ali, Ismail Md Yusof, Shuib S, Norfazidahb Dayangku, Edwards KL. An
script carefully and gave valuable advice. aggregation technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection.
Mater Des 2011;32:4918–24.
[31] Buyukozkan Gulcin, Berkol Cigdem. Design a sustainable supply chain using an
References integrated analytic network process and goal programming approach in
quality function deployment. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:13731–48.
[1] Findik Fehim, Turan Kemal. Materials selection for lighter wagon design with a [32] Saaty TL. The analytic network process – decision making with dependence
weighted property index method. Mater Des 2012;37:470–7. and feedback. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publication; 1996.
[2] Ljungberg Lennart Y. Materials selection and design for development of [33] Tran Liem, Duckstein Lucien. Comparison of fuzzy numbers using a fuzzy
sustainable products. Mater Des 2007;28:466–79. distance measure. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2002;130:331–41.
[3] Matos MJ, Simplicio MH. Innovation and sustainability in mechanical design [34] Herrrera F, Martinea L. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for
through materials selection. Mater Des 2006;27:74–8. computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2000;8:746–52.
[4] Deng YM, Edwards KL. The role of materials identification and selection in [35] Yu Xiaohan, Xu Zeshui, Chen Qi. A method based on preference degrees for
engineering design. Mater Des 2007;28:131–9. handing hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems. Expert Syst Appl
[5] Zhou Chang-Chun, Yin Guo-Fu, Hu Xiao-Bing. Multi-objective optimization of 2011;38:3147–54.
material selection for sustainable products: artificial neural networks and [36] Wei Gui-Wu. Grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple
genetic algorithm approach. Mater Des 2009;30:1209–15. attribute group decision making with incompltet weight information. Expert
[6] Saraz Khabbaz R, Denhgan Manshadi B, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A simplified Syst Appl 2011;38:4824–8.
fuzzy logic approach for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. [37] Chang Sheng-Lin, Wang Reay-Chen, Wang Shih-Yuan. Applying fuzzy
Mater Des 2009;30:687–97. linguistic quantifier to select supply chain partners at different phases of
[7] Lina Kuo-Ping, Hob Hung-Pin, Hungc Kuo-Chen, Paid Ping-Feng. Combining product life cycle. Int J Prod Econ 2006;100:348–69.
fuzzy weight average with fuzzy inference system for material substitution [38] Behzadian Majid, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M. PROMETHEE: a
selection in electric industry. Comput Ind Eng 2012;62:1034–45. comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J
[8] Sharif Ullah AMM, Harib Khalifa H. An intelligent method for selecting optimal Oper Res 2010;200:198–215.
materials and its application. Adv Eng Inform 2008;22:473–83. [39] Ertugrul Karsak E, Sozer Sevin, Emre Alptekin S. Product planning in quality
[9] Jahan Ali, Ismail Md Yusof, Mustapha Faizal, Sapuana Salit Mohd. Material function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal
selection based on ordinal data. Mater Des 2010;31:3180–7. programming approach. Comput Ind Eng 2002;44:171–90.
[10] Ashby MF. Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection. Acta [40] Macharis Cathy, Springael Johan, De Brucker Klaas, Verbeke Alain.
Mater 2000;48:359–69. PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multi-criteria
[11] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Spuan SM, Mustapha F. Material screening and choosing analysis. Eur J Oper Res 2004;153:307–17.
methods – a review. Mater Des 2010;31:696–705. [41] Liang-Gui Pu, Ji Ming-Gang. Mechanical design. 7th ed. Beijing: Higher
[12] Chauhan Aditya, Vaisha Rahul. A comparative study on material selection for Education Press; 2004.
micro-electromechanical systems. Mater Des 2012;41:177–81.