Aggregating and Ranking Method for the Evaluation of Product Design Materials

Aggregating and Ranking Method for the Evaluation of Product Design Materials

Daniel Osezua Aikhuele
DOI: 10.4018/IJORIS.2019100103
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

A new MCDM model based on a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy (TIF) aggregating and ranking model is proposed for the evaluation of adhesive materials used in joining fibre-reinforced plastic. The new model which uses the triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFN), TIF aggregating operators and the TIF ranking functions provides a more accurate method for assessing uncertain or imprecise information in the decision-making process. The model addresses the MCDM problem in which the available information cannot be assessed with exact numbers and requires the use of a more holistic approach which is a drawback in the existing MCDM methods used in the evaluation of design materials in literature. The result from the evaluation shows that the alternative T3 (Polyurethane) has the best chances of been used in joining the FRP with respect to the fracture mechanics-based criteria. With the ranking result presented, the study can conclude that the procedure used for the evaluation of the adhesive material has led to the selection of the best adhesive material for joining the FRP elements.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

In the development of new products, from the design concept stage through to the development of the detailed design all involve a progressive assessment and culling of a large number of material choices (Mouritz, 2012). The process of material selection during these stages is not always the same for all products. For product and structures whose performances are not solely based on physical scientific parameters, but on aesthetic, tactile, sensual and cultural factors, such products like clothes, building interiors, pens, mug etc. which are mainly designed by members of the arts community, don’t follow the typical engineering process of material selection (Laughlin & Howes, 2014).

However, the process of selecting materials for the design of mechanical components and systems involves a three main process stage which starts with; material translation which deals with the examination of the functions and objectives of material for the design, material screening, which is about the elimination of materials whose properties do not meet the design constraints and finally material ranking, which involves the actual selection of the materials that surpass the design constraint limits.

Materials selection which pays a significant role in the engineering design process is one of the most critical tasks for product designers. Designers are expected to identify material(s) with specific functionalities and properties for their design concepts (Chatterjee & Chakraborty, 2012). There are several engineering materials with diverse properties available to the designers, to satisfy and meet specific design constraint limits. With a large number of materials available and their diverse properties as well as the interrelationship, interconnectivity, and interaction between the selections criteria, the material selection process can be regarded as a complex, challenging and a time-consuming process. It is referred to as multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem since multiple criteria are considered when trying to deal with or meet with the design constraints. Design constraints which are required conditions in engineering design, need to be dealt with for the design project to be successful, also they help in forcing the designers to evaluate and narrow their material choice to the best material alternative.

Although, there are several articles that have employed MCDM methods for the selection of design material in literature. Some of which includes; Gul et al. (2017), who presents a fuzzy logic based PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation) method for the selection of materials used in the design of automotive instrument panel. Girubha & Vinodh, (2012), employed the VIKOR method as MCDM tool to determine the most appropriate material for the instrument used in the design of electric panels. Chatterjee & Chakraborty, (2012) present a four-preference ranking based MCDM methods for resolving material selection problem. Rahman, et al., (2012) proposed a knowledge-based decision support system for selecting material for the design of a building roof. The decision support system utilized a TOPSIS-based method to facilitate the selection process. Liu, et al., (2013) developed a methodology that employs MCDM method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information which uses subjective and objective weights in solving material selection problem in a two-case study in the automotive industry.

Anajkumar, et al., (2014) uses four (4) different MCDM methods (i.e. the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), FAHP and VIKOR method, FAHP and ELECTRE method and finally, FAHP and PROMTHEE method) for the selection of materials used in pipes design in the sugar industry, by taking into account different alternatives and evaluation criteria. Liu, et al., (2014) integrated decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) based analytic network process (ANP) and VIKOR method for resolving bush material selection problem which consists of many interdependent criteria.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 2 Issues (2022)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing