Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material

selection of an automotive component
R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh ⇑
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620 015, Tamil Nadu, India

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

Article history: Material selection is a complex process, since the process includes many criteria, determination of criteria
Received 24 November 2011 weight and the most important factor is that the selection of appropriate criterion. The last factor indi-
Accepted 14 January 2012 cates that the criterion must be selected in a manner, such that the selection based upon the known
Available online 28 January 2012
material parameters and the requirements of the application. Therefore the material selection can be
done using MCDM (Multi Criterion Decision Making) methods. Since the inputs provided by the decision
Keywords: maker in linguistic manner, there is a possible chance of getting incomplete problems. So in order to over-
A. Thermoplastics
come the problem, the inputs could be provided as fuzzy numbers. Since fuzzy set represents the uncer-
E. Environmental impact
H. Material selection
tainty in human perceptions. In this paper, VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno
Resenje in Serbian, means Multicriteria Optimisation and Compromise Solution) has been used a MCDM
tool for the selection of alternate material for instrument panel used in electric car and in order to eval-
uate this selection process in fuzzy environment, fuzzy based VIKOR is used. In addition to the fuzzy
VIKOR method, the environmental impacts are also considered and compared for the four materials.
The results achieved in both the assessment, showed that Polypropylene could be an alternate material
for the instrument panel. The objective of this study is to develop a rational method to select the best
material for an application based upon known material parameters and the requirements of the
application.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the environmental factors [3] and the potential involvement of

The advancement in automobile technology has been incorpo-
rated by improving its safety and sustainability attributes. These
changes suggest an essential role to think of vehicle design, mate-
rials requirements and manufacturing process. The first step is to
select a best material for the component. Material selection is a
part of sustainable development, refers to the establishment of
materials which save resources, pursue cleaner production envi-
ronment and it should be cost efficient [1]. The trial and error
method involves the selection of alternate material and employing
involves huge cost [2], therefore the appropriate tool for selection
of material is an important factor. The material selection problems
with non-commensurable and conflicting criteria can be resolved
by MCDM methods, since they are used for solving conflicting
ideas with multiple criteria. Material selection for an automotive
component involves many criteria and the article starts with an
exploration of the main criteria by considering its application.
Many methods are available for the selection of materials based
on mechanical design and cost factors, but in recent years there
has been advancement in the selection of material by considering
environmental assessment to sustainable development was recog-
nised and discussed [4]. Therefore in order to emphasis over the
environmental aspects while selecting a material, the present
study combined fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis
for the material selection of an automotive component. VIKOR
has been chosen as the best method for the selection of material
for an automotive component, since the selection procedure con-
forms to the characteristics established [5]. Some of the character-
istics of the procedure are; conflicting and non-commensurable
criteria (different units), alternatives should be evaluated accord-
ing to all established criteria (performance matrix), the decision
makers’ preference must be expressed by weights, given or simu-
lated. The study deals with the selection of materials for instru-
ment panel from a set of materials and the current material
which is used by the organisation is Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene (ABS) plastic. The case study involves the selection of
material from ABS, Polypropylene, Styrene Maleic Anhydride
(SMA) and Polycarbonate.
2. Literature review

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 0431 2503520, mobile: +91 9952709119. The literature review has been reviewed from the perspectives
E-mail address: vinodh@nitt.edu (S. Vinodh). of material selection methodologies, MCDM applications in

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.022
 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486
material selection and applications of VIKOR. The research gap has
been identified after performing the literature review.
2.1. Literature review on material selection methodologies
An overview of main material selection methodologies is
explained briefly in this section in order to select new materials
instead of traditional materials. The material selection methodolo-
gies presented here involves the selection of criteria based on the
application. Cicek et al. [6] proposed an integrated decision aid
(IDEA) method to match the appropriate technique with the differ-
ent case studies. It integrates structuring phase and evaluation
phase, to confirm to material selection methodology with the case
problems based on six dimensions. Milani et al. [7] compared
vector normalisation method with four linear normalisation meth-
ods in material selection. Zarandi et al. [8] used life cycle engineer-
ing (LCE) to select the shorter list of materials. Since LCE is an
expensive tool to choose the material, the authors used this tool
for the preliminary filtering of alternatives in the selection of mate-
rials. Holloway [3] calculated the air and water pollution indices
using Ashby’s approach in material selection context and the
author explained the limitations of the charts used in calculating
the indices. Bovea and Gallardo [9] used five Life Cycle Impact
Assessment methods such as Environmental Design of Industrial
Products (EDIPs) method, Eco-Indicator’95 (EI’95) method,
Eco-Indicator’99 (EI’99), Environmental Priority System (EPS)
method and Centre of Environmental Science (CML) 2000 for find-
ing out the best polymer for packaging purpose. Sapuan [10] devel-
oped a knowledge-based system for the selection of materials in
the context of concurrent engineering and this system acts as a
database for the selection of materials and the author compared
the constraint-based language and knowledge-based language.
2.2. Literature review on MCDM in material selection
Shanian and Savadogo [11] used ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix
Traduisant la REalite) for the material selection process but the
procedure will be lengthy and if the number of alternative
increases, the computational procedure will become elaborate.
Shanian and Savadogo [12] used TOPSIS (Technique of ranking
Preferences by Similarity) method for the material selection but
the method does not take into account the qualitative criteria
associated with the selection. Rathod and Kanzaria [13] used two
methods namely TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS for the phase change
material selection. The authors explained that TOPSIS is suitable
technique when the performance ratings are precise and
highlighted that the fuzzy TOPSIS is a suitable technique when
the performance ratings are imprecise and unclear. Shanian and
Savadogo [14] studied the performance of different MCDM
methods, when cost of the material is considered to be a critical
factor in the material selection. The authors studied the perfor-
mance by considering the material selection of mass produced
non-heat-treatable cylindrical cover material. Maniya and Bhatt
[15] used preference selection method for the selection of material
and this method does not include the relative importance between
attributes. The authors have validated the results by comparing
published results of graph theory and matrix approach (GTMA)
and TOPSIS. Rao and Patel [16] proposed a novel MADM method
for the material selection process that includes both qualitative
and quantitative criteria. The authors used fuzzy logic to convert
the qualitative attributes into the quantitative attributes and
explained the purpose of the subjective, objective and integrated
weights used for the attributes. Jahan et al. [17] used an aggrega-
tion technique to rank the materials, in this method ranking orders
obtained by various MCDM methods are used as the input.
Chatterjee et al. [18] used two new MCDM methods such as
479
complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) and evaluation of
mixed data (EVAMIX) methods for material selection. Rao [19]
used VIKOR, compromise ranking method for the material
selection problem. The author explained the procedure using two
material selection examples and used AHP (Analytic Hierarchy
Process) for assigning weights to the criteria. Bahraminasab and
Jahan [2] used comprehensive method for femoral component of
total knee replacement and obtained the ranking of the materials.
In addition to VIKOR, the authors have used sensitivity analysis to
get reliable result.
2.3. Literature review on applications of VIKOR
Shemshadi et al. [20] used fuzzy VIKOR for the supplier selec-
tion process and they obtained the decision makers’ opinions in
the form of linguistic terms and then the linguistic terms are con-
verted into trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and the entropy concept is
used for assigning the weights of the criteria. Opricovic and Tzeng
[21] compared VIKOR and TOPSIS by differentiating the normalisa-
tion methods, aggregating function and solution. Opricovic and
Tzeng [22] compared VIKOR with three MCDM methods such as
PROMETHEE, ELECTRE II and TOPSIS and stated the conditions
under which the results of VIKOR are similar to PROMETHEE and
ELECTRE. Opricovic [23] used fuzzy VIKOR for water resource
planning for the development of a reservoir system of the Mlava
River and to validate the fuzzy VIKOR procedure with the real
world application. Devi [24] used fuzzy based VIKOR method for
the selection of robot for material handling task and the author
examined and demonstrated the results. Kaya and Kahraman
[25] used an integrated VIKOR and AHP method to select the alter-
native forestation areas and determined the weights of the criteria
using a fuzzy AHP approach in order to allow both pair wise com-
parisons and the utilisation of linguistic variables. Chatterjee et al.
[26] explained VIKOR procedure for flywheel and sailing boat mast
design material selection. The authors have obtained full ranking of
materials by considering many criteria related to the application of
the respective products. Finally the author demonstrated and val-
idated the effectiveness and flexibility of VIKOR. Kuo and Liang
[27] evaluated the service quality using fuzzy VIKOR, since it
involves multiple requirements and fuzzy conditions and the
authors proposed a new MCDM technique by combining fuzzy
VIKOR and GRA.
2.4. Research gap
From the literature review, it has been observed that the mate-
rial selection is a MCDM method and the best material for many
applications have been selected using many MCDM methods such
as TOPSIS [15], COPRAS and EVAMIX [18] ELECTRE and VIKOR
[26]. Mainly VIKOR is used an effective MCDM tool for material
selection in many applications, since there is a considerable reduc-
tion of mathematics and an effective correlation of results with the
past researches. It can handle situations, where both qualitative and
quantitative criteria are involved. In view of the fact that the
number of criteria and decision makers is quite large, so in order
to reduce the complexity in selecting the best material, the compu-
tations should be easy. Therefore easy computation method VIKOR
has been chosen for the material selection. In addition to this, the
material selection of instrument panel involves both the qualitative
and quantitative criteria, so VIKOR can handle this condition. The
decision makers of the case organisation also felt that VIKOR could
be the suitable method for the problem under study. The informa-
tion about the materials for instrument panel identified by the deci-
sion makers is vague in nature, which necessitates them to select
the material in a fuzzy environment. Therefore they preferred the
usage of the most suitable material selection MCDM methodology,
480 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486
VIKOR in a fuzzy environment. Also, the environmental impact
analysis has been coupled with fuzzy VIKOR for material selection.
3. Case study
The case study has been conducted in automotive parts manu-
facturing organisation located in Bangalore, India and the study has
been conducted for an automotive component, instrument panel.
The organisation is in the process of implementing sustainability
concepts, as a part of it; the organisation needs to select an appro-
priate material for the components produced. Initially it concen-
trates on instrument panel, subsequently for the other
components. The inputs regarding the weights of the criteria and
material have been collected from the decision makers in the form
of fuzzy sets, since to resolve the ambiguity and indecisiveness of
human judgment, fuzzy sets theory [28] was introduced to express
the linguistic terms in decision making (DM) process. Since the
problem involves multiple criteria, MCDM method can be applied
to provide solution. fuzzy VIKOR has been selected as the efficient
MCDM method for the material selection by the decision makers,
who are responsible for the implementation of sustainable prac-
tices in the case organisation.
4. Pre selection of materials
The selection process starts with the preliminary screening of
materials that can be used for instrument panel by considering
the properties, which are innate to the application. During screen-
ing, the material types which are possible for application are iden-
tified. It is important to find out the material types that are
possible to be used for the instrumental panel at an early stage
of material selection. On analysing the properties and purpose of
the instrumental panel, four materials are screened namely ABS,
Polypropylene, Polycarbonate, SMA. Kurcz and Benichou [29] men-
tioned technical and commercial benefits of ABS such as high
dimensional stability, very low warpage, high creep resistance,
low density, high economic value and good chemical resistance.
Polypropylene provides a high quality surface finish, low coeffi-
cient of linear expansion, and extreme temperature stiffness and
impact resistance [30]. Japanese and European auto makers have
demonstrated a stronger commitment to broad use of Polypropyl-
ene than US OEMs, applying specialised grades for bumpers,
instrument panels, interior trim, and other parts are rather than
relying on ABS, nylon, and other resins [30]. Polycarbonate is one
of the materials that can be used for instrumental panel [31] and
it has high impact strength and stiffness and has high creep resis-
tance even at high temperature [32]. SMA grades are highly appli-
cable for making instrument panel [29]. The materials are
designated as M1 (SMA), M2 (Polycarbonate), M3 (Polypropylene),
M4 (ABS) in the following sections.
5. Requirements of instrument panel
As the passengers are spending most of the time inside the car,
the designers are giving more attention to the design of instrumen-
tal panel [33]. The materials are chosen by considering major three
sustainable pillars, such that the material should be economic,
environment friendly and it should be beneficial to society. The
major factors involved in the selection of material for instrumental
panel are as follows:
5.1. Maximum temperature limit
Most of the parts of the instrumental panel are exposed to high
temperature and the temperature plays a role in the squeak and
rattles behaviour of the product [32], therefore the material should
have appropriate temperature properties in order to avoid the
vibrations.
5.2. Recyclability
Without wasting the resource, it is necessary for the industry to
recover the material. The company will get benefit, if the material
is recycled back into a high purity product exhibiting the same
quality characteristics as primary metal [34]. While considering
from the economic perspective, it is better to have the recyclable
material for the instrument panel.
5.3. Elongation
In order to reduce the vibration and the relative motion, the pa-
nel should be properly attached to the car body; therefore the elon-
gation of the material should be minimum. The material with low
stiffness will easily vibrate and cause relative motion between the
mated parts [32].
5.4. Weight
Weight reduction of car leads to the less consumption of fuel,
thus it improves the fuel economy of automobiles. The weight
can be reduced by choosing the light weight materials. Usually
the car body and inner components weight accounts for 40% of
the total weight [35], therefore the inner component of automobile
should be less in weight. This implies that in the case of instrument
panel, weight plays a major role in material selection process.
5.5. Thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity should be low for the material. If the
material conducts heat, there will be an increase in temperature
of the panel and it causes the material to expand and the clearance
between parts may decrease and this result in stick slip [32]. So in
this material selection process, it is considered to be one of the
most important factors.
5.6. Tensile strength
The main structure should be of great strength and should have
high mechanical strength under high temperature. The material
should have the capability to withstand heavy force and high
impacts.
5.7. Cost
The panel material should be selected in a manner such that it
should be sustainable; therefore it implies that, material should be
economical also. The total cost involves, cost acquired from the
extraction, cost incurred in the manufacturing process and the cost
of recycling process. The overall cost should be less for the
material.
5.8. Toxicity level
The toxicity accounts the harmful discharges acquired from the
first stage to the recycling stage. It starts from the extraction of the
material, manufacturing process involved in the production of the
panel and the causes incurred by using the panel throughout its life
end and it considers the effects when it gets recycled also. The
most important factor involved in this context is Co2 emission.
Weight of the automobile indirectly involved in the emission of
Co2 [35]. Mainly, extraction and processing of the material leads
 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486 481

to the harmful discharges, therefore the material has to be selected

by considering the discharges starting from the extraction stage.

6. Application steps of fuzzy VIKOR

The methodology of applying VIKOR for material selection is

presented in the following subsections.

6.1. Input data collection

Opricovic and Tzeng [21] developed VIKOR method; it deter-

mines the compromise solution from a set of alternatives. Compro-
mise solution is a feasible solution which is closest to the ideal Fig. 1. Trapezoidal fuzzy number.
solution [22]. The inputs from the decision makers such as linguis-
tic terms and corresponding fuzzy number for each criterion and Table 3
material are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Linguistic variables were Importance weight of criteria assessed by decision makers (linguistic variable).
used to calculate the importance of the criteria and the ratings of
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
alternatives with respect to various criteria. A trapezoidal fuzzy
number can be defined as {(n1, n2, n3, n4) | n1, n2, n3, n4 2 R; C1 (Max temp limit) G G VG G MG
C2 (Recyclability) G G MG VG G
n1 6 n2 6 n3 6 n4} which respectively, denotes the smallest possi- C3 (Elongation) G G MG MG G
ble, most promising, and largest possible values [20] and the mem- C4 (Weight) G MG VG G G
bership function is defined using Eq. (1) and it is shown in Fig. 1. C5 (Thermal conductivity) G VG G VG G
Trapezoidal fuzzy numbers form the most common division of fuz- C6 (Tensile strength) G MG G MG MG
C7 (Cost) G G G VG G
zy numbers and the commonly used triangular fuzzy number is a
C8 (Toxicity level) MG G MG MG G
special case of trapezoidal fuzzy number. Trapezoidal fuzzy num-
ber can encompass more uncertainty than the triangular fuzzy
number [20]. It is used in modelling linear uncertainty in scientific
Table 4
and applied engineering problems.
Importance weight of criteria assessed by decision makers (fuzzy set).
8 xn
>
>
1
n2 n1
; x 2 ½n1 ; n2 
>
> D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
< 1; x 2 ½n2 ; n3  C1 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
lA~ ðxÞ ¼ n4 x ð1Þ
>
> ; x 2 ½n3 ; n4  C2 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
>
> n4 n3
: C3 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
0 Otherwise C4 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
C5 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
The linguistic variables and corresponding fuzzy set values for C6 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
each criterion is shown in Tables 3 and 4 and the respective terms C7 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
for describing the importance of material with respect to criteria C8 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
assessed by decision makers are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Let the
fuzzy rating for the criterion and importance weight of the kth
decision maker be Xijk{Xijk1; Xijk2; Xijk3; Xijk4} and Wjk{Wjk1; Wjk2; 6.2. Aggregation
Wjk3; Wjk4}.
The aggregated fuzzy ratings Xij of alternatives with respect to
each criterion is calculated using Eq. (2) [33]
Table 1
Linguistic terms and corresponding fuzzy X ij ¼ fX ij1 ; X ij2 ; X ij3 ; X ij4 g ð2Þ
numbers for each criterion.
where
Linguistic variable Fuzzy number
Very poor (VP) (0.0, 0.0, 0.1,0.2) X ij1 ¼ minfX ijk1 g
Poor (P) (0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3) 1X
Medium poor (MP) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) X ij2 ¼ X ijk2
Fair (F) (0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6) k
1 X
Medium good (MG) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
X ij3 ¼ X ijk3
Good (G) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9) k
Very good (VG) (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0) X ij4 ¼ minfX ijk4 g
The aggregated fuzzy weight Wj of each criterion is calculated
using Eq. (3)
Table 2
Linguistic terms and corresponding fuzzy W j ¼ fW j1 ; W j2 ; W j3 ; W j4 g ð3Þ
numbers for each material.
where
Linguistic variable Fuzzy number
Very low (VL) (0.0, 0.0, 0.1,0.2) W j1 ¼ minfW jk1 g
Low (L) (0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3) 1X
Fairly low (FL) (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) W j2 ¼ W jk2
k
Medium (M) (0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6)
Fairly high (FH) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
1X
W j3 ¼ W jk3
High (H) (0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9) k
Very high (VH) (0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0) W j4 ¼ minfW jk4 g
482 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486

Table 5
Importance of material with respect to criteria assessed by decision makers (linguistic variable).

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
D1 M1 FH H FH FH H FH FH FH
M2 M FH H H H FH H FH
M3 VH H VH H H VH H VH
M4 H VH H H VH H VH H
D2 M1 FH H FH FH FH H FH FH
M2 FH M FH M FH M M M
M3 H VH H VH H VH H H
M4 H H VH H VH H VH VH
D3 M1 FH H FH H FH FH H FH
M2 FH FH H H H H FH H
M3 VH VH H H VH VH H H
M4 H VH H H H VH H H
D4 M1 H FH H FH FH H FH H
M2 FH FH M FH M FH M FH
M3 H VH H VH H H VH H
M4 H H VH H H H VH VH
D5 M1 FH H FH H FH H FH FH
M2 H FH H FH H FH M M
M3 VH H VH H VH H VH H
M4 H VH H H H VH H M

Table 6
Importance of material with respect to criteria assessed by decision makers (fuzzy set).

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
D1 M1 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
M2 (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
M3 (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1)
M4 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
D2 M1 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
M2 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.4,.5,.5,.6)
M3 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
M4 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.8,.9,1,1)
D3 M1 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
M2 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
M3 (.8,.9,1,1) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
M4 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
D4 M1 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
M2 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
M3 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
M4 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.8,.9,1,1)
D5 M1 (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.5,.6,.7,.8)
M2 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.5,.6,.7,.8) (.4,.5,.5,.6) (.4,.5,.5,.6)
M3 (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9)
M4 (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.8,.9,1,1) (.7,.8,.8,.9) (.4,.5,.5,.6)

The aggregated matrix for criterion weights and material rat- [36]. The properties whose higher values are desirable, called posi-
ings are calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) [20] and it is shown in Ta- tive criteria or beneficial attributes and those properties whose
ble 7. Thus it leads to the formation of decision matrix of criterion. smaller values are favourable, named negative criteria or cost
criteria [23]. In this normalisation method, the cost criterion (C)
6.3. Normalisation is divided by minimum value and the benefit criterion (B) is
divided by the maximum value of the decision matrix using Eqs.
To have a common scale of values, the non-commensurable cri- (4)–(7) [20] and the normalised values are shown in Table 8.
teria should be converted into the dimensionless criteria. To re-
!
xij1 xij2 xij3 xij4
move the dimensions of all criteria, normalisation can be used. uij ¼ ; ; ; ; Cj 2 B ð4Þ
xþij4 xþij4 xþij4 xþij4
Usually linear normalisation is employed within VIKOR method

Table 7
Aggregated fuzzy values of material ratings and criterion weights.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
W (0.5,0.78,0.82,1) (0.5,0.78,0.82,1) (0.5,0.72,0.76,0.9) (0.5,0.78,0.82,1) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.5,0.68,0.74,0.9) (0.7,0.82,0.84,1) (0.5,0.68,0.74,0.9)
M1 (0.5,0.64,0.72,0.9) (0.5,0.76,0.78,0.9) (0.5,0.64,0.72,0.9) (0.5,0.68,0.74,0.9) (0.5,0.64,0.72,0.9) (0.5,0.72,0.76,0.9) (0.5,0.64,0.72,0.9) (0.5,0.64,0.72,0.9)
M2 (0.4,0.62,0.68,0.9) (0.4,0.58,0.66,0.8) (0.4,0.7,0.72,0.9) (0.4,0.66,0.7,0.9) (0.4,0.7,0.72,0.9) (0.4,0.62,0.68,0.9) (0.4,0.58,0.6,0.9) (0.4,0.6,0.64,0.9)
M3 (0.7,0.86,0.92,1) (0.7,0.86,0.92,10 (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.86,0.92,1) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.82,0.84,1)
M4 (0.7,0.8,0.8,0.9) (0.7,0.86,0.92,1) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.8,0.8,0.9) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (0.7,0.86,0.92,1) (0.4,0.78,0.82,1)
 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486 483

Table 8
Normalised matrix.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
W (0.5,0.78,0.82,1) (0.5,0.78,0.82,1) (1.25,1.80,1.90,2.25) (0.5,0.78,0.82,1) (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (1.25,1.70,1.85,2.25) (1.75,2.05,2.10,2.50) (1.25,1.70,1.85,2.25)
M1 (0.5,0.64,0.72,0.9) (0.5,0.76,0.78,0.9) (1.25,1.60,1.80,2.25) (0.5,0.68,0.74,0.9) (1.25,1.60,1.80,2.25) (1.25,1.80,1.90,2.25) (1.25,1.60,1.80,2.25) (1.25,1.60,1.80,2.25)
M2 (0.4,0.62,0.68,0.9) (0.4,0.58,0.66,0.8) (1.00,1.75,1.80,2.25) (0.4,0.66,0.7,0.9) (1.00,1.75,1.80,2.25) (1.00,1.55,1.70,2.25) (1.00,1.45,1.50,2.25) (1.00,1.50,1.60,2.25)
M3 (0.7,0.86,0.92,1) (0.7,0.86,0.92,10 (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (0.7,0.84,0.88,1) (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (1.75,2.15,2.30,2.50) (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (1.75,2.05,2.10,2.50)
M4 (0.7,0.8,0.8,0.9) (0.7,0.86,0.92,1) (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (0.7,0.8,0.8,0.9) (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (1.75,2.10,2.20,2.50) (1.75,2.15,2.30,2.50) (1.00,1.95,2.05,2.50)

!
xij1 xij2 xij3 xij4 Xn
wj ðfi  fij Þ
uij ¼ ; ; ; ; Cj 2 C ð5Þ Si ¼ ð9Þ
xij1 xij1 xij1 xij1 j¼1
ðfi  fij Þ
!
where Cj denotes the jth criterion wj ðfi  fij Þ
Ri ¼ maxi ð10Þ
ðfi  fij Þ
xþij4 ¼ maxi fdecision matrixg; C j 2 B ð6Þ
v ðSi  S Þ ð1  v ÞðRi  R Þ
Qi ¼   þ ð11Þ
xij1 ¼ mini fdecision matrixg; C j 2 C ð7Þ S S R  R
where, Qi, represents the ith alternative VIKOR value, i = 1, 2, ...., m; v
is introduced as a weight for the strategy of ‘‘the majority of crite-
6.4. Defuzzification
ria’’ (or ‘‘the maximum group utility’’), whereas 1  v is the weight
of the individual regret. The alternative having smallest VIKOR va-
The criterion fuzzy weights and importance of the criterion
lue is determined to be the best solution. Arranging Si, Ri, Qi in
with material ratings are defuzzied using Eq. (8) [20] to get crisp
increasing order to determine the rank and it is shown in Table 12.
values. The attained crisp values are shown in Table 9.
It is evident that (M3) material has the least Qi value and in order to
R
lðxÞ  xdx find the compromise solution, the rankings has to be further
DefuzzðX ij Þ ¼ R refined.
lðxÞdx
R  xij2

xxij1 Rx R x  x x 
 xdx þ xij2ij3 xdx þ xij3ij4 x ij4x  xdx
xij1 xij2 xij1 ij4 ij3 6.6. Proposing compromise solution
¼ R xij2  xxij1  R xij3 R xij4  xxij1 
xij1 x x
dx þ xij2
dx þ xij3 x x
dx
ij2 ij1 ij2 ij1
This step deals with improving the alternatives for a compro-
2
xij1 xij2 þ xij3 xij4 þ 1
 xij3 Þ 
3
ðxij4 1
3
ðxij2xij1 Þ2 mise solution. The alternative (Að1Þ ) i.e., the alternative with high-
¼ ð8Þ
xij1  xij2 þ xij3 þ xij4 est rank by arranging Si, Ri, Qi in increasing order is considered to
be the compromise solution if and only satisfy two conditions C1
The best value (fi) and worst value (fi) of crisp material values and C2 are satisfied.
are identified and it is shown in Table 10.
C1. Acceptable advantage: Q ðAð2Þ Þ  Q ðAð1Þ Þ P 1=ðm  1Þ, where
6.5. Measurement of utility, regret and VIKOR indices A(2) is the second position in the alternatives ranked by Q.
C2. Acceptable stability in decision making: Alternative A(1) must
The utility (Si), regret (Ri) and VIKOR index (Qi) is calculated also be the best ranked by S or/and R. When one of the condi-
using Eqs. (9)–(11) and the values are shown in Table 11. tions is not satisfied, a set of compromise solutions is selected.

Table 9 The set of compromise solutions are composed of:

Crisp values for weight and material ratings.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 (1) Alternatives A(1) and A(2) if only condition C2 is not satisfied

W 0.77 0.77 1.79 0.77 2.13 1.76 2.11 1.76 (or)
M1 0.69 0.72 1.73 0.70 1.73 1.79 1.73 1.73 (2) Alternatives A(1), A(2), . . ..., A(m) if condition C1 is not satisfied.
M2 0.65 0.61 1.68 0.66 1.68 1.63 1.57 1.60 AðMÞ is calculated using the relation
M3 0.87 0.87 2.13 0.85 2.13 2.16 2.13 2.11 Q ðAðMÞ Þ  Q ðAð1Þ Þ < 1=ðm  1Þ for maximum M.
M4 0.80 0.87 2.13 0.80 2.13 2.13 2.16 1.84

In this context, both the conditions are satisfied, therefore the

Table 10 material with least VIKOR index can be selected as the best
Calculated best and worst values. material.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

fi 0.866 0.866 0.854 0.854 0.854 0.866 0.866 0.843 7. Comparison of ecological impacts of the material
fi 0.650 0.608 0.671 0.661 0.671 0.650 0.629 0.639
Further the materials are analysed and compared in ecological
context using the Sustainability Xpress module in SolidWorks
Table 11
Calculation of utility, regret measure and VIKOR index.
Table 12
M1 M2 M3 M4 Ranking of material.
S 9.176 11.851 0.105 1.473
1 2 3 4
R 1.884 2.134 0.105 0.929
Q(v = 0.2) 0.856 1.000 0.000 0.348 S M3 M4 M1 M2
Q(v = 0.5) 0.817 1.000 0.000 0.270 R M3 M4 M1 M2
Q(v = 0.8) 0.782 1.000 0.000 0.188 Q(v = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8) M3 M4 M1 M2
484 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486

Fig. 2. Case component used in SolidWorks.

and the environmental impact factors like carbon footprint, water

eutrophication, air acidification and total energy consumed [37]
and their corresponding result values are computed. Since the cur-
rent material used for instrument panel is ABS, the comparison is
made by considering ABS as the base material and remaining three
materials are compared. A view of the instrument panel is shown
in Fig. 2.
Figs. 3–5 respectively compares the ecological impact of PP with
ABS and SMA with ABS and PC with ABS.

8. Results

The compromise solution, closest to the ideal is achieved as M3

(Polypropylene) material has been selected as the best material by
satisfying both the conditions (C1) and (C2) with least VIKOR index
value v = 0.2. The results are also validated using the least VIKOR Fig. 4. Comparison of SMA with ABS.
index values 0.5 and 0.8 and it shows the same set of rankings
are obtained for the three different VIKOR index values and are

Fig. 3. Comparison of Polypropylene with ABS. Fig. 5. Comparison of Polycarbonate with ABS.
 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486 485

Therefore by analysing the literature, VIKOR is found to be the

best material selection methodology, since it will result in a com-
promise set of solutions. Bahraminasab and Jahan [2] used sensi-
tivity analysis along with VIKOR to get an accurate result.
Likewise, in this case study to get an accurate result and to con-
sider the environmental impact factors, an environmental impact
analysis is coupled with VIKOR. From the literature, it has been in-
ferred that the VIKOR index is mostly taken as 0.5, whereas in this
case study to ensure the effectiveness of the result, VIKOR index
values are taken as 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8.

9. Conclusion
Fig. 6. Comparison of materials.

Material selection for an automotive component involves multi-

shown in Tables 11 and 12. The result achieved by ecological im- ple criteria, therefore in this article VIKOR method has been uti-
pact assessment indicates that the Polypropylene could be the suit- lised to solve material selection problem. In general plastics in
able material for instrument panel implying that, it has lesser automotive, contribute to lower vehicle weight [38] while permit-
environmental impact. By analysing the important characteristics ting the additional weight of new safety equipment, and they are
relevant to the application of instrument panel, the criteria are corrosion resistant, so they can provide a prolonged life of the vehi-
fixed and manipulated using fuzzy VIKOR. The environmental im- cle, and they are considered to be an important element in the
pacts are assessed by modelling the instrument panel in Solid- paints used to protect other materials. Since environmentally con-
Works package and the appropriate manufacturing process is scious products are emerging, it is important to give more consid-
also indicated to compare the materials. Comparisons of four mate- eration to the environmental impacts formed by the product [39].
rials are made by normalising the four major environmental factors Therefore an effective measurement of environmental impacts can
and it is shown in Fig. 6. The comparison clearly indicates that the be assessed using SolidWorks Sustainability Xpress by providing
normalised values are low for Polypropylene, thus it indicates it is the material, design of the product and the respective manufactur-
the best material. The use of both approaches assisted decision ing process. By taking into account the assessment methods, it is
makers to identify the sustainable material by considering the finally concluded that Polypropylene can be used as a suitable
relevant data. alternative for ABS for the instrument panel. The work can be ex-
tended by selecting the best way of manufacturing the product
and the design alternatives. Since material, design and manufac-
8.1. Comparison of results with the existing methods turing process of a product plays an important role in deciding
the sustainability level of the product. Further the same combina-
From the literature review, it has been inferred that the selec- tion of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact can be done for
tion of material is done by many mathematical techniques such selecting the appropriate manufacturing process.
as IDEA [6], vector normalisation method [7] and knowledge based
system [10]. In order to consider many criteria while selecting the
Acknowledgements
material, it is necessary to select the material with an MCDM tool.
A list of material selection methodologies including the mathemat-
The authors express their special thanks to Department of Sci-
ical methodologies and MCDM methods with their application are
ence and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India for the financial sup-
shown in Table 13.
port extended towards the implementation of project titled
‘‘Development of a model for ensuring sustainable product design
Table 13
Comparison of material selection methodologies.
in automotive organizations’’ (Ref No.SR/S3/MERC-0102/2009).
This research study forms a part of this principal research project.
Authors Applications Achieved result
Holloway [3] Ashby approach in material Poly vinyl chloride and References
selection for drinks Polypropylene are not
container suitable for this application
[1] Changxu S. Materials and sustainable development. J Shanghai Univ 1998;2:2.
and concluded that wood is [2] Bahraminasab M, Jahan A. Material selection for femoral component of total
the proper material knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Mater Des 2011;32:4471–7.
Zarandi et al. Material selection for a tyre This methodology plays as a [3] Holloway L. Materials selection for optimal environmental impact in
[8] using if then based LCE filtering methodology in mechanical design. Mater Des 1998;19:133–43.
approach material selection of tyre [4] Jacobs P, Sadler B. Sustainable development and environmental assessment:
Shanian and Comparison of material Compared MCDM methods perspectives on planning for a common future. Quebec: Canadian
Savadogo selection methodology such as ELECTRE IS (One Environmental Assessment Research Council; 1989.
[11] Esse), TOPSIS and VIKOR and [5] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with
presented the areas, where outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 2006.
they will be appropriate [6] Cicek K, Celik M, Topcu YI. An integrated decision aid extension to material
Rathod and Material selection for Both the methods indicated selection problem. Mater Des 2010;31:4398–402.
[7] Milani AS, Shanian A, Madoliat R, Nemes JA. The effect of normalization norms
Kanzaria phase change material that calcium chloride
in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material
[13] using TOPSIS and Fuzzy hexahydrate as the best
selection. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2005;29:312–8.
TOPSIS material [8] Zarandi MHF, Mansour S, Hosseinijou SA, Avazbeigi M. A material selection
Bahraminasab Fuzzy VIKOR for the Proposed porous nickel methodology and expert system for sustainable product design. Int J Adv
and Jahan material selection of titanium as the best material Manuf Technol 2011;57:9–12.
[2] femoral knee component and explained the [9] Bovea MD, Gallardo A. The influence of impact assessment methods on
methodology of fuzzy VIKOR materials selection for eco-design. Mater Des 2006;27:209–15.
and mentioned that it will [10] Sapuan SM. A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical
result in a set of compromise engineering design. Mater Des 2001;22:687–95.
solution [11] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A material selection model based on the concept of
multiple attribute decision making. Mater Des 2006;27:329–37.
486 R. Jeya Girubha, S. Vinodh / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 478–486
[12] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for
material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J
Power Sources 2006;159:1095–104.
[13] Rathod MK, Kanzaria HV. A methodological concept for phase change material
selection based on multiple criteria decision analysis with and without fuzzy
environment. Mater Des 2011;32:3578–85.
[14] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A methodological concept for material selection of
highly sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis.
Expert Syst Appl 2009;36:1362–70.
[15] Maniya K, Bhatt MG. A selection of material using a novel type decision-
making method: preference selection index method. Mater Des
2010;31:1785–9.
[16] Rao RV, Patel BK. A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute
decision making method for material selection. Mater Des 2010;31:4738–47.
[17] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Shuib S, Norfazidah D, Edwards KL. An aggregation
technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection. J Mater Des
2011;32:4918–24.
[18] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Materials selection using complex
proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Mater Des
2011;32:851–60.
[19] Rao RV. Decision making methodology for material selection using an
improved compromise ranking method. Mater Des 2008;29:1949–54.
[20] Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M, Tarokh MJ. A fuzzy VIKOR method for
supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert
Syst Appl 2011;38:12160–7.
[21] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a
comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 2004;156:445–55.
[22] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with
outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 2007;178:514–29.
[23] Opricovic S. Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning.
Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:12983–90.
[24] Devi K. Extension of VIKOR method in intuitionistic fuzzy environment for
robot selection. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:14163–8.
[25] Kaya T, Kahraman C. Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on
an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:7326–33.
[26] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Selection of materials using
compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des 2009;30:4043–53.
[27] Kuo MS, Liang GS. Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service
quality of airports under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl
2011;38:1304–12.
[28] Zadeh LA. Is there a need for fuzzy logic? Inf Sci 2008;178:2751–79.
[29] Kurcz M, Benichou HP. Material screening and choosing methods – a review.
In: Proceedings of Eurotectm, Barcelona Spain, 14–15 November 2011.
[30] Andrea DJ, Brown WR. Material selection processes in the automotive
industry. Transport Res Inst, UMTRI 93-40-5.
[31] Plastics reference handbook. Copyright 1999–2000. Regal Plastic Supply
Company, a division of Regal Supply Company; 2000.
[32] Fohlen V, Johansson A. Development of squeak and rattle design guidelines for
the instrument panel area. Department of technology, Mathematics and
Computer Science, 2004:M019.
[33] Jung G, Kim SM, Kim SY, Jung ES, Park S. Effects of design factors of the
instrument cluster panel on consumers’ affection. In: Proceedings of the
international ulticonference of engineers and computer scientists 2010, vol III,
March 17–19, Hong Kong; 2010.
[34] Nowosielski R, Babilas R, Pilarczyk W. Sustainable technology as a basis of
cleaner production. J Achieve Mater Manuf Eng 2007;20:527–30.
[35] Cui X, Wang S, Hu J. A method for optimal design of automotive body assembly
using multi-material construction. Mater Des 2008;29:381–7.
[36] Opricovic S. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering
systems. Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering; 1998.
[37] Vinodh S, Jayakrishna K. Environmental impact minimisation in an automotive
component using alternative materials and manufacturing processes. Mater
Des 2011;32:5082–90.
[38] Fisher M, Kolb J, Cole S. Enhancing future automotive safety with plastics. A
workshop for subject matter express, August 2004.
[39] Ermolaeva NS, Castro MBG, Kandachar PV. Materials selection for an
automotive structure by integrating structural optimization with
environmental impact assessment. Mater Des 2004;25:689–98.