Int J Adv Manuf Technol
DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-6760-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Tool steel material selection using PROMETHEE II method
Saikat Ranjan Maity & Shankar Chakraborty
Received: 13 March 2012 / Accepted: 26 December 2014
# Springer-Verlag London 2015
Abstract In the recent century, tools for machining, forming,
or other types of metalworking industries have consumed
several tons of steel materials. Although the earliest tool steels
were plain carbon steels, the modern tools contain different
alloying elements, like tungsten, vanadium, molybdenum,
manganese, and chromium, to provide the properties desired
for their wide applications. The presence of a large number of
such tool steel materials is a result of the fact that no single
material combines the maximum wear resistance, toughness,
machinability, safety in hardening, and non-deformability
properties. Each tool steel material has its own mechanical
and physical characteristics that help it to be suited for a
particular application. Also for a specific application, more
than one alternative tool steel material may exist, which makes
it essential to select the most appropriate tool steel material
with the desired properties to meet the manufacturer’s require-
ments. This paper considers a list of ten tool steel materials
whose performances are evaluated based on nine selection
criteria. Preference ranking organization method for enrich-
ment evaluation (PROMETHEE II) is then applied to solve
this tool steel material selection problem to obtain the full
ranking of the considered material alternatives. Molybdenum-
type high-speed steel (AISI M2) and tungsten base high-speed
tool steel (AISI T1) are the two best choices. Alloy steel (AISI
4140) is the worst preferred tool steel material.
Keywords Tool steel material . PROMETHEE . Outranking
flow . Rank
S. R. Maity
Production Engineering Department, Haldia Institute of Technology,
East Midnapur, Haldia 721657, West Bengal, India
S. Chakraborty (*)
Department of Production Engineering, Jadavpur University,
Kolkata 700 032, West Bengal, India
e-mail: s_chakraborty00@yahoo.co.in
1 Introduction
A tool is a device that can be used to produce an item or achieve
a desired task but that is not consumed in the process. Infor-
mally, the word is also used to describe a procedure or process
with a specific purpose. Tools that are used in various domains
of activities may have different types, such as holding tool,
cutting tool, forming tool, and machine tool [1]. Holding tools,
like jig and fixture, help to support and guide the tool to its
correct position in addition to locating and supporting the
workpiece. Cutting tool is used to remove material from the
workpiece by means of shear deformation. Common examples
of forming tools are die and punch which help to create a
predetermined shape on an object. On the other hand, machine
tool is a machine, typically powered other than by human
muscle (e.g., electrically, hydraulically, or via line shaft), used
to manufacture parts (components) in various ways that include
cutting or certain other kinds of deformation.
Tool steels are primarily used for making tools to be
employed for manufacturing and in the trades for working
and forming of metals, wood, plastics, and other industrial
materials [2]. Tool steels can be used for cutting tools, loca-
tors, clamps, and gauges. Within tool steel material, there are
various classifications, such as air-hardening die steel, high-
carbon-chromium die steel, water-hardening tool steel, oil-
hardening tool steel, hot work die steel, and shock resistance
tool steel [3]. These materials must withstand high specific
load, often concentrated at the exposed areas, may have to
operate at elevated or rapidly changing temperatures and in
continual contact with the abrasive types of work materials,
and are often subjected to shock or may have to perform under
varying adverse operating conditions. Nevertheless, when
employed under the circumstances that are regarded as the
normal operating conditions, the tool should not suffer major
damage, untimely wear resulting in dulling of the edges, or be
susceptible to detrimental metallurgical changes.

Tools for less demanding uses, such as ordinary hand tools,
including hammers, chisels, files, and mining bits, are often
made of standard AISI steels that are not considered as be-
longing to any of the tool steel categories. The steel for most
types of tools must be used in a heat-treated state, generally
hardened and tempered, to provide the properties needed for
the particular application. The adaptability to heat treatment
with a minimum of harmful effects, which dependably results
in the intended beneficial changes in material properties, is
still another requirement that tool steels must satisfy. To meet
such varied requirements, steel types of different chemical
compositions, often produced by special metallurgical pro-
cesses, have been developed. Due to the large number of tool
steel types produced by the steel mills, which are generally
made available with proprietary designations, it is rather dif-
ficult for the end user to select the most suitable tool steel
material for a specific machining application.
Thus, to realize the necessities of the metalworking indus-
tries, the researchers have paid incessant attention to develop
appropriate methodologies for selection of the suitable tool
steel material for a specific application. Wang and Chang [4]
proposed a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
approach to help in selecting the best suited tool steel material
for a specific manufacturing application, such as die, jig, and
fixture design. Chen [5] developed a method to solve the tool
steel material selection problem under a fuzzy environment,
where the importance weights of different criteria and ratings
of various alternatives with respect to different criteria were
assessed in linguistic terms using fuzzy numbers. Kumar and
Singh [6] developed an intelligent system (SMPDC) for se-
lection of materials for progressive die components. The
proposed system was comprised of two knowledge base mod-
ules, i.e., DIEMAT and SELHRD. The first module was
designed to select materials for both the active and inactive
components of progressive die. The second module was de-
veloped for determination of hardness range of materials for
the active components of progressive die. The design of die
components and their material selection were identified as the
major activities during progressive die design [7]. Towhidi
et al. [8] applied fuzzy logic for selecting appropriate tool
steels with price analysis. The possibility of reducing tool steel
variety was also provided, leading to a decrease in the total
cost of tool steel for the manufacturer. Çalışkan et al. [9]
proposed a decision model including extended preference
ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation
(PROMETHEE II; EXPROM2), technique for order perfor-
mance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and
VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje
(VIKOR) methods for selection of the best material for tool
holders used in hard milling operations. Proper selection of
materials for die components essentially increases the die life
and, hence, reduces the cost of production of sheet metal parts.
Traditional methods for carrying out this important activity
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
depend on the vast experience and depth of knowledge of the
die design experts. Mostly, material selection for die compo-
nents is carried out manually using die design handbooks,
material handbooks, thumb rules, and heuristics. Existing
computer-aided die design systems have still not fully dealt
with the core die design issue of material selection for die
components. Some existing computer-aided design/computer-
aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems for die design
[10–12] are able to generate bill of materials; however, these
systems do not take in account the availability of other suitable
materials for the choice of user for better performance of die
components with enhanced life. Worldwide researchers
[13–15] have also stressed to apply their efforts for capturing
and documenting the invaluable practical knowledge of expe-
rienced die designers and toolmakers through the application
of artificial intelligence techniques.
It is clearly revealed from the literature survey that
the precedent researchers have mainly concentrated on
the application of complex fuzzy MCDM approaches
and development of knowledge base or intelligent sys-
tems to select tool steel materials for specific applica-
tions. So, there is a huge insufficiency of simple and
sound mathematical models/formulations for solving the
tool steel material selection problem. This paper pro-
poses the application of preference ranking organization
method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE II)
method for tool steel material selection while taking
into consideration different quantitative and qualitative
criteria. The derived results are fairly acceptable, having
potential to be integrated with computer-aided decision
support systems for tool steel material selection.
The remainder of this paper is organized in different sec-
tions. In Sect. 2, the mathematical formulations of
PROMETHEE method are presented. The details of a tool
steel material selection problem and its solution as obtained
using PROMETHEE II method are illustrated in Sect. 3.
Section 4 discusses about the derived results and Sect. 5
concludes the paper.
2 PROMETHEE method
The PROMETHEE I and PROMETHEE II methods were
developed by Brans [16] and presented for the first time in
1982 at a conference in Canada. A few years later, Brans and
Mareschal developed PROMETHEE III (ranking based on
intervals) and PROMETHEE IV (continuous case) methods.
In 1992 and 1994, they further suggested two extensions of
PROMETHEE method, i.e., PROMETHEE V (MCDM in-
cluding segmentation constraints) and PROMETHEE VI (rep-
resentation of the human brain). PROMETHEE I can give a
partial preorder of the candidate alternatives, whereas a com-
plete ranking is obtained using PROMETHEE II method. A
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

considerable number of successful applications have been For non-beneficial criteria, the preference function should
treated by PROMETHEE methods in various fields, such as be reversed as follows:
banking, industrial location, manpower planning, water re-

sources, investments, medicine, chemistry, health care, tour- P j ða; bÞ ¼ F j −d j ða; bÞ ð2Þ
ism, ethics in operations research (OR), and dynamic man-
agement [17–20]. The success of this methodology is basical- A generalized criterion, {gj(.), Pj(a,b)}, is associated to
ly due to its mathematical properties and simplicity. criterion gj(.) and it is to be defined for each criterion. In order
The MCDM methods have been basically developed to facilitate the identification, in the following six types of
to deal with the optimization problems. All these preference functions, P(d) has been proposed [22]:
methods start from the same evaluation table (matrix),
but they vary according to the additional information Type 1: Usual criterion
they require. The PROMETHEE methods require very 
0d ≤ 1
clear additional information that can be easily obtained P ðd Þ ¼ ð3Þ
1d > 1
and understood by both the decision makers and ana-
lysts. The purpose of all the MCDM methods is to Type 2: U-shape criterion
enrich the dominance graph, i.e., to reduce the number 
of incomparabilities (R). When a utility function is built, 0 d ≤q
P ðd Þ ¼ ð4Þ
the multi-criteria problem is reduced to a single criterion 1d>q
problem for which an optimal solution exists. This
seems exaggerated because it relies on quite strong Type 3: V-shape criterion
assumptions and it completely transforms the structure 8
of the decision problem. For this reason, Roy [21] < 0d d ≤0
>
proposed to build outranking relations including only P ðd Þ ¼ 0≤ d ≤ p ð5Þ
>
:p
realistic enrichments of the dominance relation. In that 1 d>p
case, not all the incomparabilities are withdrawn, but
the information is reliable. The PROMETHEE methods Type 4: Level criterion
belong to this class of outranking relations. 8
The PROMETHEE methods do not allocate an intrinsic < 0d ≤q
>
1
absolute utility to each alternative, neither globally nor on P ðd Þ ¼ q < d ≤p ð6Þ
>
:2
each criterion. The preference structure of PROMETHEE 1 d>p
methods is based on pairwise comparisons. In this case, the
deviation between the evaluations of two alternatives on a Type 5: V-shape with indifference criterion
particular criterion is considered. For small deviation, the 8
> 0 d ≤q
decision maker would allocate a small preference to the best < d−q
alternative and even possibly no preference if the decision P ðd Þ ¼ q < d ≤p ð7Þ
>
: p−q
maker considers that this deviation is negligible. The larger
1 d>p
the deviation, the larger the preference. These preferences are
real numbers varying between 0 and 1. This means that for Type 6: Gaussian criterion
each criterion, the decision maker considers the following 
preference function: 0 d ≤0
P ðd Þ ¼ d2 ð8Þ

 1−e− 2s2 d > 0
P j ða; bÞ ¼ F j d j ða; bÞ ∀a; b∈A ð1Þ
where d is the difference in the performance of two alterna-
tives and p, q, and s are the parameters to be fixed by the
where Pj(a,b) is the preference function between two alter- decision maker. Among these, q is a threshold of indifference,
natives “a” and “b,” dj(a,b) is the amplitude of deviation p is a threshold of strict preference, and s has an intermediate
between the evaluation of two alternatives with respect to jth value between q and p. The indifference threshold (q) is the
criterion, A is a finite set of feasible alternatives, dj(a,b)=gj(a) largest deviation which can be considered as negligible by the
−gj(b), and 0≤Pj(a,b)≤1. decision maker, while the preference threshold (p) is the
For beneficial criteria, this function gives the preference of smallest deviation which can be considered as sufficient to
a over b for the observed deviations between their evaluations generate a full preference. The identification of a generalized
on criterion gj(.). The preference equals to 0 when the devia- criterion is only limited to the selection of the appropriate
tions are negative. parameters.
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

As soon as the evaluation matrix gj(.) is developed, and the information of both the outranking flows is consistent and may
relative importance or weight wj for jth criterion and general- therefore be considered as sure. When aIIb, both the positive
ized criteria {gj(.), Pj(a,b)} are defined, PROMETHEE meth- and negative flows are equal. When aRIb, a higher power of
od becomes ready to be implemented. PROMETHEE I meth- one alternative is associated to a lower weakness of the other.
od is based on pairwise comparisons where the aggregated This often happens when a is good on a set of criteria on which
preference indices are defined as follows [23]: b is weak and, reversely, b is good on some other criteria on
8 which a is weak. In such a case, the information provided by
>
> X n
>
>
the both flows is not consistent. It seems to be then reasonable
>
> π ð a; b Þ ¼ P j ða; bÞw j
>
< to be careful to consider both the alternatives as incomparable.
j¼1
ð9Þ The PROMETHEE I ranking is prudent and it will not decide
>
> X n
which action is the best in such cases. The decision maker
>
>
>
> πðb; aÞ ¼ P j ðb; aÞw j
>
: j¼1
would be responsible to choose the best course of action [22].
PROMETHEE II is a well-established MCDM method
[24, 25] which can provide a complete preorder of the alter-
where π(a,b) expresses the degree with which a is preferred to natives by using a net flow, although it loses much information
b over all the criteria and π(b,a) represents how b is preferred of preference relations. In this method, there is a balance
to a. In most of the cases, there are criteria for which a is better between the positive and negative outranking flows. The
than b, and criteria for which b is better than a and, conse- higher the net flow, the better is the alternative, so that
quently, π(a,b) and π(b,a) are usually positive. Now, the  II
following properties hold for all (a, b) ∈ A. aP b i f f φðaÞ > φðaÞ
ð13Þ
8 aI II b if f φðaÞ ¼ φðaÞ
>
> π ða; aÞ ¼ 0
<
0 ≤ πða; bÞ ≤ 1 Brans et al. [22] recommended the use of both
ð10Þ
>
> 0 ≤ πðb; aÞ ≤ 1 PROMETHEE I and PROMETHEE II methods for real-time
:
0 ≤ πða; bÞ þ π ðb; aÞ ≤ 1 applications, but it is usually preferable to employ
PROMETHEE II method to derive the entire ranking of the
It is clear that π(a,b)~0 implies a weak global preference of considered alternatives. As the net flow, φ(.) provides a com-
a over b and π(a,b)~1 implies a strong global preference of a plete ranking, it may be compared with a utility function.
over b. As soon as the values of π(a,b) and π(b,a) are com- Another advantage of φ(.) is that it is built on clear and simple
puted for each pair of alternatives in the decision matrix, a preference information and that it does rely on comparative
complete outranking graph, including two arcs between each statements rather than absolute statements.
pair of nodes, can be obtained. In this method, each alternative The procedural steps of PROMETHEE II method are en-
a faces (m−1) other alternatives in the decision matrix. Now, listed as below [16, 24]:
the following two outranking flows can be defined:
Step 1: Normalize the evaluation (decision) matrix using the
1 X
Positive outranking flow; φþ ðaÞ ¼ πða; xÞ ð11Þ following equation:
m−1 x∈A

 
xi j − min xi j
Ri j ¼
    ði ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; ::; nÞ
max xi j − min xi j
1 X
Negative outranking flow; φ− ðaÞ ¼ π ðx; aÞ ð12Þ ð14Þ
m−1 x∈A
where xij is the performance measure of ith alternative with
where m is the number of alternatives. respect to jth criterion and Rij is the normalized value of xij.
The positive outranking flow expresses how an alternative For non-beneficial criteria, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as
a outranks all the other alternatives. The higher the value of follows:
φ+(a), the better is the alternative. The negative outranking
  
max xi j −xi j
flow expresses how an alternative a is being outranked by all Ri j ¼
    ð15Þ
the others. Lower value of φ−(a) signifies better alternative. max xi j −min xi j
In PROMETHEE I method, the partial ranking (PI, II, RI) is
obtained from the positive and negative outranking flow values where n is the number of evaluation criteria, min(xij) and max(xij)
where PI, II, and RI respectively stand for preference, indiffer- are the minimum and maximum values of xij, respectively.
ence, and incomparability relations. Both the flows do not This normalization procedure is required to make the
usually induce the same rankings. When aPIb, a higher power criteria values dimensionless and comparable. After nor-
of a is associated to a lower weakness of a with regard to b. The malization, all the criteria values should lie between 0
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
and 1. In some cases, partial normalization procedure
may also be adopted [26].
Step 2: Calculate the evaluative differences of ith alternative
with respect to other alternatives. This step involves
the calculation of differences in criteria values be-
tween different alternatives pairwise.
Step 3: Calculate the preference function, Pj(a,b).
Although there are six types of generalized pref-
erence functions [22], they often require the defini-
tion of some preferential parameters, such as indif-
ference and preference thresholds. However, in real-
time applications, it may be difficult for the decision
maker to specify which specific form of preference
function is suitable for each criterion and also to
determine the values of the involved parameters.
To avoid this problem, the following simplified pref-
erence function is adopted here:
P j ða; bÞ ¼ 0 if Ra j ≤ Rb j ð16Þ
 
P j ða; bÞ ¼ Ra j −Rb j if Ra j > Rb j ð17Þ
Step 4: Calculate the aggregated preference function taking
into account the criteria weights.
Aggregated preference function; πða; bÞ
" n # n
X .X
¼ w j P j ða; bÞ wj ð18Þ
j¼1 j¼1
Step 5: Determine the leaving and the entering outranking
flows as follows:
Leaving ðpositiveÞ flow f or ath alternative; φþ ðaÞ
1 X
m values. Hence, in order to apply this method to solve the tool
¼ πða; bÞ ða≠bÞ
m−1 b¼1
ð19Þ
Entering ðnegativeÞ flow f or ath alternative; φ− ðaÞ
1 X
m
¼ πðb; aÞ ða≠bÞ
m−1 b¼1
ð20Þ
Step 6: Calculate the net outranking flow for each alternative.
φðaÞ ¼ φþ ðaÞ−φ− ðaÞ ð21Þ
where φ(a) is the net outranking flow value for alternative a.
Step 7: Determine the ranking of all the considered alterna-
tives depending on the values of φ(a). The higher the
value of φ(a), the better is the alternative. Thus, the
best alternative is the one having the highest φ(a)
value.
The PROMETHEE method is an interactive MCDM ap-
proach designed to handle quantitative as well as qualitative
criteria with discrete alternatives. In this method, pairwise
comparison of the alternatives is performed to compute a
preference function for each criterion. Based on this prefer-
ence function, a preference index for alternative a over b is
determined. This preference index is the measure to support
the hypothesis that alternative a is preferred to b. The
PROMETHEE method can classify the alternatives which
are difficult to be compared because of a trade-off relation of
evaluation standards as non-comparable alternatives. Unlike
analytic hierarchy process (AHP), there is no need to perform
a pairwise comparison again when comparative alternatives
are added or deleted to the evaluation table.
3 Tool steel material selection
It has already been entrenched that durability as well as
performance of a tool immensely depends on its material
properties. Hence, to enhance the durability and performance
of a particular tool, it is essential to choose the most appropri-
ate tool steel material which would give minimum wear and
resist cracking, distortion, and warping during forming, ma-
chining, and holding.
Although various mathematical techniques and knowledge
base systems have already been adopted to solve the tool steel
material selection problem, PROMETHEE II is thought to be
the most simple and effective method as it can deal with a
wide variety of quantitative as well as qualitative criteria and
finally rank the alternatives based on the net outranking flow
steel material selection problem and prove its potentiality and
universal applicability for dealing with this type of problem,
the corresponding decision table of Table 1 is developed. This
decision table comprises of ten tool steel materials and nine
important selection criteria. Most of the criteria values of
Table 1 are accumulated from the manufacturers’ hand-
books/manuals/websites [27–31]. The importance of nine
considered selection criteria is identified based on the valuable
opinions and guidance of the experts engaged in metalwork-
ing industries. The details of these nine selection criteria are
given in Table 2.
Selecting the proper tool steel material for a given applica-
tion is a complex and confusing process. Tool steels are vastly
different from steels as used in manufacturing of consumer
products. They are made on a much smaller scale. Strict
quality procedures assure that a given grade of tool steel
should perform its desired functions. Properly selected tool
steel materials help in meeting the productivity, quality, and
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 1 Data for tool steel material selection problem problems. During heat treatment of tool, there is a chance of
Sl. no. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 shrinkage which causes deformation of the tool elastically as
well as plastically. Non-deforming tool steels show outstand-
A1 65 19 207 34 Good Good Good 60 1.6 ing wear resistance and toughness. Every tool steel material
A2 61 42 210 26 Good Best Best 65 3 must be machinable in order to form it into a useful tool.
A3 63 23 201 27 Best Best Best 40 3.2 Another important criterion which should be taken into con-
A4 58 115 206 29 Fair Poor Poor 70 2.3 sideration during tool steel material selection is price of the
A5 65 22 221 21 Good Fair Good 50 15 raw material. Therefore, the most appropriate tool steel mate-
A6 54 14 208 29 Fair Good Good 70 2.5 rial should be selected keeping in mind the trade-offs between
A7 64 20 207 34 Fair Good Fair 75 4 all the influencing criteria.
A8 60 18 205 48.3 Fair Fair Poor 100 1.5 Hardness measures the resistance of a tool steel material to
A9 65 28 218 20 Good Good Good 35 16 permanent plastic deformation due to the application of con-
A10 60 25 200 37.7 Good Good Fair 55 1.3 stant external compression load from a sharp object. Hardness
of a tool steel material should be as high as possible. Tough-
ness of a tool steel material is its ability to absorb energy and
cost goals of the metalworking industries. Many different plastically deform without any fracture. Tool steel material
qualities of tool steels are required to fulfill the need of the should have high toughness to absorb maximum amount of
machine tool industries. These varieties of tool steels are energy per unit volume before rupture. It is also defined as the
provided by adding a particular alloy along with the appropri- resistance to fracture when stressed. Toughness of a tool steel
ate amount of carbon. The added alloy combines with carbon material requires a balance of strength and ductility. Modulus
to enhance wear, strength, or toughness characteristics. The of elasticity describes the tensile elasticity of a tool steel
combination of alloy and carbon also contributes to the ability material or its tendency to deform along an axis when oppos-
to resist thermal and mechanical stress. Toughness of a tool ing forces are applied along that axis. It is often referred to
steel material is affected by its manufacturing process. The simply as the elastic modulus and its value should be as high
particle metallurgy process can greatly enhance the toughness as possible for the tool material. Thermal conductivity can be
of a given grade of tool steel over its conventional counterpart. defined as a steel material’s capability to transfer heat. Heat
Hardness of a tool steel material also affects its toughness. transfer across the tool steel material of high thermal conduc-
Any given grade of tool steel will have greater toughness at tivity occurs at a faster rate. Consequently, tool steel material
lower hardness. The lower hardness could have a negative of high thermal conductivity is generally preferred. The def-
effect on other characteristics necessary to achieve sufficient inition of wear may include loss of dimension from plastic
tool life. Therefore, it is necessary to consider wear resistance, deformation if it is originated at the interface between two
strength or modulus values, toughness, thermal conductivity, sliding surfaces. Wear resistance property of a tool steel ma-
and hardness for selecting a tool steel material for a particular terial can be defined as the ability of its surface to resist wear
tooling application. Tool steels are exposed to high tempera- due to contact with another surface moving with respect to it,
ture during the hardening process. This heat is required to i.e., its ability to resist gradual wearing away caused by
austenitize the steel. High heat can result in oxidation and abrasion and friction. It is expressed qualitatively for the tool
changes in the level of carburization causing distortion and steel material and its degree of goodness should be as high as
surface damage to the manufactured component. Vacuum possible. Hardening is an important metallurgical process
furnaces offer the greatest amount of protection from these used to increase the hardness of a material. The hardness of
a material is directly proportional to the uniaxial yield stress at
Table 2 Tool steel material selection criteria the location of the imposed strain. A harder tool steel material
should have a higher resistance to plastic deformation. Al-
Properties of the tool steel material Symbol
though different processes are used to increase the hardness of
Hardness (HRC) C1 tool steel materials, the most widely used process is martens-
Toughness (J) C2 itic transformation, more commonly known as quenching and
Modulus of elasticity (Gpa) C3 tempering. During this heat treatment process, certain defects,
Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) C4 like overheating, burning, decarburization, quenching cracks,
Wear resistance C5 deformation, scaling, and soft spot, may occur which adverse-
Safety in hardening C6 ly affect the final mechanical properties of tool steel. So, safety
Non-deforming properties C7 of hardening of a tool steel material is basically the measure of
Machinability (%) C8 its ability to be safely hardened through quenching and tem-
Cost (USD/kg) C9 pering operation without any defect. It is also a qualitative
property and should be as high as possible. Non-deforming
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Table 3 Weights for different
tool steel material selection Criteria C1 C2
criteria
Weight 0.1335 0.0643
properties of tool steel material measure its lack of ductility,
i.e., tool steel material should not be easily deformed elasti-
cally as well as plastically due to external stress. The degree of
goodness of non-deforming properties for the tool steel mate-
rials should be as high as possible. The machinability property
of a tool steel material is the measure of being easily ma-
chined. The goal of machining for a tool steel material is to
produce a tool of proper shape with accurate dimensions. The
tool should also have a smooth surface and a balanced geom-
etry. For a tool, a rough surface finish can often lead to
initiation of a crack. Each grade of tool steel material has a
specific machinability rating. The machinability ratings are
listed as a percentage based on the machinability of AISI
W108 tool steel. AISI W108 tool steel has the lowest alloy
content and, therefore, it can be most easily machined. So,
AISI W108 tool steel is assigned a machinability rating of
100 % and the other grades of tool steels are assigned a rating
lower than that of AISI W108. As the alloy content of tool
steel increases, its machinability rating decreases. The type of
the carbide and distribution of the carbide also affect machin-
ability. Machinability of a tool steel material should be always
as high as possible. Cost of the tool steel material indicates its
present market price, and the tool steel material cost should be
as minimum as possible.
All these above described criteria except tool steel material
cost are beneficial where higher values are always preferred.
The weights (relative importance) for the nine selection
criteria are determined using entropy method [32], as given
in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the list of the ten alternative tool steel
materials. Oil-hardening tool steel (AISI O1) is an oil-hard-
ened, non-shrinking general-purpose tool steel material with
good abrasion resistance, toughness, and machinability
Table 4 Tool steel material alternatives
Tool steel material Symbol
Oil-hardening tool steel (AISI O1) A1
Air-hardening medium alloy tool steel (AISI A2) A2
High-carbon high-chrome air-hardening steel (AISI D2) A3
Shock resistance air-hardening steel (AISI S7) A4
Molybdenum-type high-speed steel (AISI M2) A5
Hot work tool steel (AISI H13) A6
High-strength nickel chrome tool steel (AISI L6) A7
Water-hardening tool steel (AISI W108) A8
Tungsten base high-speed tool steel (AISI T1) A9
Alloy steel (AISI 4140) A10
C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
0.5853 0.0557 0.0064 0.0068 0.0063 0.1361 0.0056
properties. It contains C 0.90 %, Mn 1.25 %, Cr 0.50 %, Si
0.50 %, W 0.50 %, and Fe 96.35 %. It is extremely stable with
minimum deformation after hardening and tempering. Air-
hardening medium alloy tool steel (AISI A2) is an air-
hardened material with a very fine grain structure and contains
C 1.00 %, Mn 0.85 %, Cr 5.25 %, Mo 1.10 %, V 0.25 %, and
Fe 91.55 %. This steel material has excellent abrasion and
wear resistance and is ideal for thin parts that are prone to
cracking during heat treatment. It has wear resistance inter-
mediate between oil-hardening tool steel and high-carbon
high-chromium tool steel. Because it offers a combination of
good toughness along with moderate wear resistance, it has
been widely used in variety of cold work applications. It can
be quite easily machined in the annealed condition and ex-
hibits minimum distortion on hardening, making it an excel-
lent choice for dies of complicated design. High-carbon high-
chrome air-hardening steel (AISI D2) is a heat-treatable tool
steel material intended for applications requiring high wear
resistance and toughness. Its chemical composition is C
1.55 %, Mn 0.35 %, Cr 11.5 %, Mo 0.90 %, V 0.80 %, Si
0.45 %, S 0.03 %, and Fe 84.82 %. A low sulfur content
makes it difficult to machine. Shock resistance air-hardening
steel (AISI S7) is strong and ductile, known for its ability to
resist failure from shock. It combines high impact strength
with average wear and abrasion resistance. It offers toughness
to withstand chipping and breaking, combined with high
attainable hardness. It contains C 0.55 %, Mn 0.70 %, Cr
3.25 %, Mo 1.40 %, V 0.25 %, Si 0.35 %, and Fe 93.50 %.
Molybdenum-type high-speed steel (AISI M2) has well-
balanced toughness, wear resistance, and red hardness prop-
erties. This grade is commonly used in cold work punches,
dies, and cutting applications involving high speed and light
cut. Its chemical composition is C 0.85 %, Mn 0.28 %, Cr
4.15, Mo 5 %, V 1.85 %, W 6.15 %, Si 0.30 %, and Fe
81.42 %. This steel resists softening when heated, maintaining
a sharp cutting edge. It is easy to heat treat and has minimum
loss of carbon (decarburization) after heat treatment. Hot work
tool steel (AISI H13) is the most popular and versatile tool
steel material, providing a good balance of toughness, thermal
fatigue cracking resistance, and high temperature strength, in
addition to moderate wear resistance. It may be used for tool
temperatures of up to about 1000 °F, with brief exposures of
up to 1100 °F. It contains C 0.40 %, Mn 0.35 %, Cr 5.20 %,
Mo 1.30 %, V 0.95 %, Si 1.00 %, and Fe 90.8 %. High-
strength nickel chrome tool steel (AISI L6) is a tough, high-
strength tool steel suitable for general-purpose applications,
like forming rolls, brake dies, machine tool parts, chucks,
pinions, and shear blades. AISI L6 consists of C 0.75 %, Mn
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 5 Decision matrix for tool steel material selection problem good; 5, fair; 3, poor; and 1, worst). Considering both the
Sl. no. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 beneficial and non-beneficial criteria, the decision matrix of
Table 5 is normalized using Eqs. (14) and (15). The normal-
A1 65 19 207 34 7 7 7 60 1.6 ized decision matrix is given in Table 6. Now, based on
A2 61 42 210 26 7 9 9 65 3 Eqs. (16) or (17), the preference functions are computed for
A3 63 23 201 27 9 9 9 40 3.2 all the pairs of tool steel material alternatives. Table 7 shows
A4 58 115 206 29 5 3 3 70 2.3 the aggregated preference function values for all the pairs of
A5 65 22 221 21 7 5 7 50 15 tool steel material alternatives, as calculated using Eq. (18).
A6 54 14 208 29 5 7 7 70 2.5 The leaving (positive) and the entering (negative) flows for the
A7 64 20 207 34 5 7 5 75 4 alternative tool steel materials are now computed using
A8 60 18 205 48.3 5 5 3 100 1.5 Eqs. (19) and (20), respectively, and are given in Table 8.
A9 65 28 218 20 7 7 7 35 16 The net outranking flow values for the considered tool steel
A10 60 25 200 37.7 7 7 5 55 1.3 material alternatives are calculated using Eq. (21), as given in
Table 9. Now, after arranging the alternatives in descending
order according to their net outranking flow values, the rank-
ing of different tool steel materials is obtained, as given in
0.70 %, Cr 0.80 %, Si 0.25 %, Ni 0.15 %, Mo 0.30 %, and Fe Table 9. It is observed that molybdenum-type high-speed steel
97.05 %. Water-hardening tool steel (AISI W108) can provide (AISI M2) is the most appropriate choice as the tool steel
good toughness and maximum wear resistance. High carbon material. Tungsten base high-speed tool steel (AISI T1) and
content and fine grain structure make it ideal for general- air-hardening medium alloy tool steel (AISI A2) may also be
purpose uses, even without heat treatment operation. It con- used as tool steel materials because they have the second and
tains C 0.95 %, Mn 0.3 %, Cr 0.15 %, Si 0.1 %, P 0.025 %, S third ranks, respectively. Alloy steel (AISI 4140) is the worst
0.025 %, Mo 0.1 %, W 0.15 %, and Fe 98.20 %. Tungsten material.
base high-speed tool steel (AISI T1) contains C 1.60 %, Mn Oil-hardening tool steel (AISI O1), air-hardening medium
0.30 %, Cr 4.00 %, Co 5.00 %, V 4.90 %, W 12.00 %, Si alloy tool steel (AISI A2), high-carbon high-chrome air-
0.30 %, S 0.06 %, and Fe 71.30 %. Its high carbon, vanadium, hardening steel (AISI D2), and water-hardening tool steel
and cobalt contents contribute to good wear resistance and hot (AISI W108) materials are used for cold working operations
hardness capabilities. It has a very good response to heat due to their high resistance to wear and cracking.
treatment and grindability. Alloy steel (AISI 4140) is supplied Molybdenum-type high-speed steel (AISI M2) and tungsten
in either annealed or prehardened condition containing C base high-speed tool steel (AISI T1) are the most highly
0.42 %, Si 0.30 %, Mo 0.20 %, Mn 1.00 %, Cr 1.00 %, and alloyed tool steel materials, and they maintain their hardness
Fe 97.08 %. This steel material exhibits good wear resistance, and strength at elevated operating temperatures. AISI M2 tool
toughness, moderate machinability, and high mechanical steel generally has higher abrasion resistance, higher modulus
properties. of elasticity, higher thermal conductivity, and better machin-
For solving this tool steel material selection problem using ability than AISI T1 tool steel. The M series constitutes about
PROMETHEE II method, the three qualitative criteria which 95 % of all the high-speed steels produced in the USA [2].
are expressed in linguistic terms in Table 1 are first converted AISI M2 and AISI T1 tool steels can be coated with titanium
into crisp values using a subjective judgment scale (9, best; 7, nitride and titanium carbide for better wear resistance. Shock

Table 6 Normalized decision

matrix for tool steel material Sl. no. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
selection problem
A1 1.0000 0.0495 0.3333 0.4947 0.5000 0.6667 0.6667 0.3846 0.9796
A2 0.6364 0.2772 0.4762 0.2120 0.5000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4615 0.8844
A3 0.8182 0.0891 0.0476 0.2473 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0769 0.8707
A4 0.3636 1.0000 0.2857 0.3180 0 0 0 0.5385 0.9320
A5 1.0000 0.0792 1.0000 0.0353 0.5000 0.3333 0.6667 0.2308 0.0680
A6 0 0 0.3810 0.3180 0 0.6667 0.6667 0.5385 0.9184
A7 0.9091 0.0594 0.3333 0.4947 0 0.6667 0.3333 0.6154 0.8163
A8 0.5455 0.0396 0.2381 1.0000 0 0.3333 0 1.0000 0.9864
A9 1.0000 0.1386 0.8571 0 0.5000 0.6667 0.6667 0 0
A10 0.5455 0.1089 0 0.6254 0.5000 0.6667 0.3333 0.3077 1.0000
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 7 Aggregated preference functions for tool steel materials

Sl. no. A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

A1 0 0.1131 0.0101 0.0821 0.3921 0.0488 0.032 0.1119 0.3123 0.0112

A2 0.0648 0 0.0295 0.0632 0.3551 0.0166 0.0731 0.1177 0.2715 0.0237
A3 0.2477 0.3154 0 0.2651 0.6026 0.2621 0.2664 0.2797 0.5013 0.0545
A4 0.1348 0.1642 0.0802 0 0.5127 0.0645 0.1276 0.1276 0.4313 0.0516
A5 0.0539 0.0652 0.0268 0.1217 0 0.0646 0.0844 0.1635 0.0061 0.0527
A6 0.1500 0.1661 0.1257 0.1130 0.5041 0 0.1455 0.1765 0.4243 0.1006
A7 0.0183 0.1077 0.0151 0.0612 0.4089 0.0305 0 0.0814 0.3291 0.0147
A8 0.1267 0.1808 0.0568 0.0897 0.5165 0.0901 0.1099 0 0.439 0.0121
A9 0.0854 0.0928 0.0367 0.1516 0.1174 0.0961 0.1158 0.1973 0 0.0823
A10 0.2683 0.3291 0.0739 0.2560 0.6480 0.2565 0.2855 0.2544 0.5663 0

resistance air-hardening steel (AISI S7) material is designed
for higher impact toughness and is used in various applica-
tions, such as worm forging/heading dies, punches, and
chisels. Hot work tool steel (AISI H13) is designed for use
at elevated temperatures. It has high toughness as well as high
resistance to wear and cracking. High-strength nickel chrome
tool steel (AISI L6) is a special-purpose material containing
low alloy and is used for special-purpose applications, like
forming rolls, brake dies, machine tool parts, chucks, pinions,
and shear blades. Very low modulus of elasticity, low hard-
ness, and non-deforming properties make alloy steel (AISI
4140) as the worst choice for tool steel material. AISI 4140 is
available in either annealed or prehardened condition. The
prehardened condition is heat-treated to a medium hardness
of 50–55 HRC and the annealed is supplied in soft condition.
Prehardened AISI 4140 is supplied in many forms, such as hot
rolled or turned, ground, polished rounds, and blocks. Typical
applications of this material include punch holders, clamps,
brake dies, fixtures, jigs, and tool holders.
4 Discussions
moderate; 3, high; 1, very high), for execution time (9, very
less; 7, less; 5, moderate; 3, high; 1, very high), for informa-
tion type (3, quantitative; 6, qualitative; 9, mixed), and for
transparency (9, best; 7, good; 5, reasonable; 3, low; 1, very
low), which help to convert the qualitative performance values
into crisp measures. From Table 10, it is found that keeping in
view all the model requirements, PROMETHEE II is the best
method outperforming the others.
When the same tool steel material selection problem is
solved using COPRAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR, AHP, and ANP
methods, the rankings of the considered alternatives are ob-
tained as 5-3-10-6-1-8-4-9-2-7, 5-3-9-6-1-7-4-8-2-10, 6-3-9-
7-1-4-5-8-2-10, 6-3-9-5-1-8-4-7-2-10, and 7-4-8-3-1-9-6-5-2-
10, respectively. Using PROMETHEE II method, a ranking of
the alternative tool steel materials is derived as 5-3-9-7-1-8-4-
6-2-10. It is observed that very high Spearman’s rank correla-
tion coefficients (rs) exist between the considered MCDM
techniques and PROMETHEE II method (rs between CO-
PRAS and PROMETHEE II=0.867, rs between TOPSIS
and PROMETHEE II = 0.906, r s between VIKOR and
PROMETHEE II = 0.867, rs between AHP and
PROMETHEE II = 0.964, and r s between ANP and

In this paper, a tool steel material selection problem is solved

employing PROMETHEE II method which is observed to be Table 8 Leaving and
entering flows for Sl. no. Leaving flow Entering flow
a simple and easily comprehensible approach in comparison different tool steel
to other popular MCDM techniques, like complex proportion- materials A1 0.1278 0.1238
al assessment (COPRAS), TOPSIS, VIKOR, analytic hierar- A2 0.1705 0.1128
chy process (AHP), and analytic network process (ANP) with A3 0.0505 0.3105
respect to model complexity, model construction time, com- A4 0.1337 0.1883
putational time, transparency, etc., as shown in Table 10. In A5 0.4508 0.0710
order to perform an in-depth analysis of the relative perfor- A6 0.1033 0.2118
mance of the considered MCDM methods with respect to A7 0.1378 0.1186
various model characteristics, different subjective judgment A8 0.1678 0.1802
scales are proposed, such as for model complexity (9, very A9 0.3646 0.1084
simple; 7, simple; 5, moderately complex; 3, complex; 1, very A10 0.0448 0.3265
complex), for model construction time (9, very less; 7, less; 5,
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 9 Net outranking comprehensive, and fast MCDM approach, is applied for
flow values for Sl. no. Net outranking flow Rank
solving the tool steel material selection problem. The outputs
alternative tool steel
materials A1 0.0040 5 for this approach may be the basis for a preferential ranking of
A2 0.0577 3 the candidate tool steel materials which provide a better un-
A3 −0.2600 9 derstanding of differences and similarities among the alterna-
A4 −0.0545 7 tive choices.
A5 0.3798 1 This approach of solving the tool steel material selection
A6 −0.1085 8 problem using PROMETHEE II method may assist and guide
A7 0.0192 4 the tool designers associated with the metalworking industries
A8 −0.0124 6 to select proper materials for design and manufacture of jigs,
A9 0.2562 2 fixtures, dies, and even cutting tools. With properly designed
A10 −0.2816 10 tools, the basic objectives of the metalworking industries, like
increased productivity, longer tool life, better machine perfor-
mance, reduced cost, improved quality, and decreased down-
time, could be fulfilled.
PROMETHEE II = 0.830). For COPRAS, TOPSIS, and
PROMETHEE II methods, the first-ranked tool steel alterna-
tive (molybdenum-type high-speed steel) exactly matches. On
the other hand, for most of the considered MCDM methods, 5 Conclusions
the position of the worst alternative (alloy steel, AISI 4140)
remains unchanged. When the intermediate rankings of the The main challenge of tool steel material selection is to get an
tool steel materials are taken into consideration, AHP and optimal blend of both the primary properties, like hardness,
PROMETHEE II methods behave almost similarly. toughness, modulus of elasticity, thermal conductivity, and
In practice, tool designers usually select a proper tool steel wear resistance, and secondary properties, such as safety in
material from the set of existing alternatives either by exper- hardening, non-deforming properties, machinability, and cost
tise or following a standard material selection procedure. The of materials, to fulfill the requirements of a specific tool. To
material selection procedures that have most widely been used select the right tool steel material for an application, it is
in practice by the past researchers for tool material selection essential to identify the mechanisms which can lead to pre-
are fuzzy logic, intelligent systems and knowledge-base sys- mature tool failures, like wear, abrasion, plastic deformation,
tems. Applications of fuzzy logic in tool steel material selec- chipping, cracking, and galling. The past researchers have
tion may sometimes be useful to deal with the problems already applied different fuzzy MCDM techniques and
having imprecise and unknown data. But, in case of fuzzy knowledge base and intelligence systems to support the tool
logic-based approaches, more than one feasible solution may designers select the best tool steel material. But, there is still a
often exist. On the other hand, both the intelligent and scarcity for a simple mathematical approach in this domain.
knowledge-base systems take the help of computers to arrive To fulfill this demand, PROMETHEE II method is adopted
at the final decisions. They require the help of human experts here to select the best tool steel material. It is revealed that this
to share their knowledge with the developed systems and the method has the potential to deal with complex decision-
time needed for their development is also quite high. To making situations and can incorporate the decision maker’s
overcome the drawbacks of the earlier approaches, in this preferences regarding the relative importance of different tool
paper, PROMETHEE II, a relatively simple, systemic, steel material selection criteria. The measures of quantitative

Table 10 Model characteristics of different MCDM methods

MCDM method Model complexity Model construction time Execution time Information type Transparency

COPRAS Moderately complex (5) Moderate (5) Moderate (5) Quantitative (3) Reasonable (5)
TOPSIS Moderately complex (5) Moderate (5) Moderate (5) Quantitative (3) Good (7)
VIKOR Simple (7) Less (7) Less (7) Quantitative (3) Reasonable (5)
AHP Moderately complex (5) High (3) High (3) Mixed (9) Low (3)
ANP Very complex (1) Very high (1) Very high (1) Mixed (9) Low (3)
PROMETHEE II Very simple (9) Less (7) Less (7) Mixed (9) Good (7)

COPRAS complex proportional assessment, TOPSIS technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution, VIKOR VlseKriterijumska
Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje, AHP analytic hierarchy process, ANP analytic network process, PROMETHEE preference ranking organization
method for enrichment evaluation
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
and qualitative tool steel material selection criteria, and their
relative importance, are used together to rank the tool steel
materials, providing a better evaluation of the considered
alternatives. The observed results are precisely in compliance
with the predictable choices. Actually, this paper provides
some guidance to the tool designers and manufacturers. It is
specially useful while dealing with a large number of alterna-
tives and criteria, and also suitable for integrating with com-
puter database for development of a truly user interactive
decision support system.
References
1. Bryson B (1997) Heat treatment, selection and application of tool
steels. Hanser Gardner, Ohio
2. Kalpakjian S, Schmind RS (2004) Manufacturing engineering and
technology. Pearson Education Inc., Singapore
3. Boyes WE (1989) Handbook of jig and fixture design. SME,
Michigan
4. Wang M-JJ, Chang TC (1995) Tool steel materials selection under
fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 72:263–270
5. Chen SM (1997) A new method for tool steel materials selection
under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 97:265–274
6. Kumar S, Singh R (2007) A short note on an intelligent system for
selection of materials for progressive die components. J Mater
Process Technol 182:456–461
7. Caiyuan L, Jianjun L, Jianyong W, Xiangzhi X (2001) HPRODIE:
using feature modeling and feature mapping to speed up progressive
die design. Int J Prod Res 39:4133–4151
8. Towhidi N, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Vahdat SE (2005) The use of
fuzzy logic theory for selecting appropriate tool steels with price
analysis. Iranian J Sci Technol Trans B Eng 29:559–567
9. Calıskan H, Kursuncu B, Kurbanoğlu C, Güven SH (2013) Material
selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions
using different multi criteria decision making methods. Mater Des 45:
473–479. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.042#doilink
10. Shirai K, Murakami H (1985) Development of a CAD/CAM system
for progressive dies. CIRP Ann 34:187–190
11. Prasad YKDV, Somasundaram S (1992) CADDS: an automated die
design system for sheet metal blanking. Comput Control Eng 3:185–
191
12. Huang K, Ismail HS, Hon KKB (1996) Automated design of pro-
gressive dies. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 210:367–376
13. Ismail HS, Hon KKB, Huang K (1993) CAPTD: a low-cost integrat-
ed computer aided design system for press tool design. Proc Inst
Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 207:117–127
14. Cheok BT, Foong KY, Nee AYC, Teng CH (1994) Some aspects of a
knowledge-based approach for automating progressive metal
stamping die design. Comput Ind 24:81–96
15. Kumar S (2011) An intelligent system for selection of materials for
press tool components. J Eng Res Stud 2:119–130
16. Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004) A multi-criteria classification
approach based on pair-wise comparison. Eur J Oper Res 158:378–
389
17. Silva V, Morais D, Almeida A (2010) A multicriteria group decision
model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resour
Manag 24:1–17
18. Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2010) A multicriteria decision support
system for bank rating. Decis Support Syst 24:4075–4091
19. Luk J, Fernandes H, Kumar A (2010) A conceptual framework for
siting biorefineries in the Canadian Prairies. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref
4:408–422
20. Rao RV, Patel B (2010) Decision making in the manufacturing
environment using an improved PROMETHEE method. Int J Prod
Res 48:4665–4682
21. Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Multi-criteria decision: methods and
cases. Economica, Paris
22. Brans JP, Mareschal B, Vincke P (1984) PROMETHEE: A new
family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. In: Brans JP
(ed) Operational Research IFORS 84, 1st edn. North Holland,
Amsterdam, pp 477–490
23. Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to
rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–
238
24. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organisation method:
the PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag Sci 31:647–656
25. Hajkowicz S, Higgins A (2008) A comparison of multiple criteria
analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur J Oper Res
184:255–265
26. Chen T, Wang YC, Tsai HR (2009) Lot cycle time prediction in a
ramping-up semiconductor manufacturing factory with a SOM-
FBPN-ensemble approach with multiple buckets and partial normal-
ization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 42:1206–1216
27. Davis JR (1996) ASM specialty handbook —carbon and alloy steels.
American Society for Metals, Ohio
28. Boyer HE, Gall TL (1985) Metals handbook. American Society for
Metals, Ohio
29. SAE ferrous materials standards manual (1999). Society of
Automotive Engineers Inc., Pennsylvania
30. The Sousa Corp ‘Technical’ (2012) Tool steel properties. http://www.
sousacorp.com/tool1.htm# HIGH SPEED TOOL STEELS.
Accessed on 30 November, 2012
31. Simply Tool Steel ‘Data Sheets’ (2011) http://www.simplytoolsteel.
com/CPM-3V-tool-steel-data-sheet.html. Accessed on 30 November,
2012
32. Rao RV (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environment
using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making
methods. Springer, London