Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial Information Integration

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-industrial-information-integration

Article

Digital twin in smart manufacturing

Lianhui Li a, b, *, Bingbing Lei c, Chunlei Mao d
a
College of artificial intelligence, Wenzhou Polytechnic, Wenzhou 325035, China
b
College of Mechatronics Engineering, North Minzu University, Yinchuan 750021, China
c
School of Computer Science and Engineering, North Minzu University, Yinchuan 750021, China
d
Nanjing Automation Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydrology, Nanjing 210012, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Digital twin creates the virtual model of physical entity in digital way, promotes the interaction and integration
Digital twin of physical world and information world, and builds a reliable bridge for industrial information integration. With
Smart manufacturing the rapid evolution of digital twin, the application of digital twin has found an increasingly wide utilization in
Green performance evaluation
smart manufacturing. In view of the practical problems encountered by the current smart manufacturing en­
Complex networks
PROMETHEE II
terprises, this paper aims to carry out quantitative green performance evaluation of smart manufacturing
Set pair analysis (GPEoSM) driven by digital twin-based industrial information integration system. Based on the mapping between
entity and model of smart manufacturing projects, the integration of digital twin information and the interaction
of GPEoSM approach, a GPEoSM framework is constructed. According to the framework, a green performance
evaluation case for smart manufacturing project of an air conditioning enterprise is carried out. The result shows
that the digital twin driven GPEoSM framework is effective and enhances the green performance evaluation of
smart manufacturing.

1. Introduction
With the maturity and application of the new generation of infor­
mation technology, a new round of industrial revolution is in full swing.
The strategic position of manufacturing industry has been attached great
importance. In recent years, many countries have formulated and
launched their own manufacturing development strategies, such as
Germany’s "Industry 4.0′′ and "National Industrial Strategy 2030′′ , EU’s
"Europe 2020 Strategy", US’s "Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP)"
and China’s "Made in China 2025′′ [1–3]. Among them, smart
manufacturing has become the main direction of the industrial revolu­
tion and industrial development. In addition, sustainable development
has become the consensus of human development. Green development
as the most important subset of the sustainable development concept has
received special attention. Many countries, organizations and in­
stitutions have actively participated in various plans, outlines, agree­
ments or initiatives to protect the ecological environment and promote
green economic growth [1–3]. Manufacturing industry has a significant
contribution to environmental problems, and a new round of industrial
revolution will bring profound and lasting changes to the work and life
of employees and users [4]. As a new manufacturing paradigm, the
environmental and social impact of smart manufacturing is not clear and
needs special attention.
Obviously, for the whole manufacturing industry, the future devel­
opment should be to realize green and even sustainable smart
manufacturing [[[5], [6]]]. As the main body of smart manufacturing
development, manufacturing enterprises need to pay attention to,
quantify and ultimately improve the environmental and social impact of
their smart manufacturing activities, which has become an important
research topic.
Smart manufacturing has been valued by all countries in the world
and become the main direction of a new round of industrial revolution
[7–10]. Green and humanization are generally considered as one of the
core goals and characteristics of smart manufacturing development. At
the national strategic level, sustainable manufacturing is regarded as a
key technology in the U.S. re-industrialization strategy [11]. The "smart
manufacturing system 2020′′ roadmap project led by the EU has brought
sustainable manufacturing and energy efficient manufacturing into five
key areas [12]. One of the five characteristics of German industry 4.0 is
higher economic and ecological efficiency [13]. China has made green
development one of the five major policies of "made in China 2025′′
[14]. In academic research, smart manufacturing theory is considered to

* Corresponding author at: North Minzu University, China.

E-mail address: lilianhui@nmu.edu.cn (L. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100289
Received 4 March 2020; Received in revised form 17 July 2021; Accepted 3 October 2021
Available online 6 January 2022
2452-414X/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
L. Li et al.
be able to save materials and reduce waste in the production process
[[[15], [16]]], to help workers get rid of general and repetitive work, to
focus on creative activities of value increase, and finally to balance work
and life well [17]. In a word, in addition to digitalization, networking
and intellectualization, smart manufacturing is also endowed with the
characteristics of green and humanization in theory.
Although smart manufacturing is widely concerned, its development
is still in its infancy, and it has not yet realized digitization and infor­
matization. According to a survey conducted by the German federation
of machinery and equipment manufacturing industry in 2015, only 5.6%
of German enterprises in the field of machinery and equipment engi­
neering are at the mature level in terms of Industry 4.0 readiness, and
about 80% of them are still at the level of "beginners". Similarly, ac­
cording to the research report of China’s smart manufacturing enter­
prises conducted by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, most of the
interviewed enterprises are still in the stage of computerization,
connection and visualization, and less than 10% of the enterprises have
realized transparent, predictive and adaptive smart manufacturing [18].
On the other hand, the current research on smart manufacturing is
mainly focused on the improvement of production efficiency, while the
research on environmental and social sustainability is less [19]. Smart
manufacturing does not necessarily bring expected environmental and
social benefits. There is uncertainty in the green aspect of smart
manufacturing [20–23].
In theory smart manufacturing is green and sustainable, but it still
needs to meet the challenges of sustainable consumption, production,
transportation, public health and risk management. In the face of more
and more severe environmental constraints and pressures, in order to
avoid the adverse effects of smart manufacturing in the future and
promote its development in the direction of green smart manufacturing,
enterprises must consider its feasibility from the perspective of green,
and the quantitative evaluation of green plays an indispensable role.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 presents a brief review of literature related to smart
manufacturing, green performance evaluation and digital twin. Section
3 sums up and presents different embodiment and function of digital
twin in different stages of smart manufacturing. Section 4 constructs a
framework driven by digital twin for green performance evaluation of
smart manufacturing. Section 5 proposes the green performance evalu­
ation approach of smart manufacturing. Several sub-sections are
included to address some key issues, respectively. A case study is pre­
sented in Section 6, which is followed by concluding remarks in Section
7.
2. Literature review
The fourth industrial revolution commonly referred to as Industry
4.0 with smart manufacturing currently on its forefront has arrived. The
manufacturing industry is evolving and manufacturers of all sizes,
worldwide, need to evolve too. The theoretical concept and industrial
application of smart manufacturing is in the ascendant. Several repre­
sentative studies about the abstraction and practice of smart
manufacturing are as follows. Atashgar et al. [24] proposed an intelli­
gently data processing approach for monitoring multivariate profile data
in plastic parts manufacturing industries, which is capable of facilitating
information technology (IT) activities of the studied manufacturing in­
dustry. Xu et al. [25] put forward a new methodology is proposed to deal
with the complexity of the assemblies of large-scale products through
integrating object-oriented methods with the knowledge template based
modeling. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) integrate modern
smart manufacturing related information and digital Technologies
(SMIDT) such as artificial intelligence with their business operations to
enable smart manufacturing. Ghobakhloo et al. [26] presented a study
concerned with identifying the determinants of SMIDT adoption within
manufacturing SMEs. Unlike those, smart manufacturing and industry
4.0 production environments integrate the physical and
2
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
decision-making aspects of manufacturing processes in order to achieve
their decentralization and autonomy. On these grounds Rossit et al. [27]
proposed a data-driven architecture for scheduling, which is based on
the architecture of cyber-physical systems, with a data-driven engine
that uses, in particular, Big Data techniques to extract vital information
for industry 4.0 systems. To automate assembly planning for complex
products such as aircraft components, Xu et al. [28] presented an as­
sembly planning and simulation system and the assembly of a worm gear
reducer is used as an example to illustrate the application of the system.
Yu et al. [29] used a new relational matrix called extended interference
matrix (EIM) to represent the assembly relations among constitutive
parts, and developed an innovative method to generate the exploded
views based on the assembly sequences and EIMs. After the technologies
of integrated circuits, personal computers and the internet, Internet of
Things (IoT) is the latest IT that is radically changing business para­
digms. Wang et al. [30] discussed the challenges in generating assembly
plans of complex products, and proposed IoT and cloud computing to
help a conventional assembly modeling system evolve into an advanced
system. Xie et al. [31] presented a semantic model for information
resource service modeling that uses semantic links instead of ontologies.
The model takes advantage of semantic links to enable automated
integrating and distributed updating in resource service cloud.
The green nature of smart manufacturing needs attention and
quantification. At present, the research of smart manufacturing envi­
ronment and social impact evaluation is less and less systematic. Lin
et al. [32] proposed a method to quantitatively analyze construction
projects from the perspective of supply chains while considering eco­
nomic performance and environmental performance with the existence
of uncertainty. Chen et al. [33] recommended starting from the insti­
tutional innovation of green insurance investment to strengthen policy
promotion and build an efficient examination and approval registration
and inspection and assessment system.
On this basis, this section first summarizes the currently widely used
environmental and social impact evaluation methods, then analyzes the
characteristics of smart manufacturing, green manufacturing and
traditional manufacturing, and then identifies the similarities and dif­
ferences among the three green evaluation methods, thus leading to the
difficulties and problems to be solved in the green evaluation of smart
manufacturing.
2.1. Basic environmental and social impact evaluation and weighting
methods
Nowadays, there are many evaluation methods for environmental
impact and social impact. This paper focuses on quantitative, widely
used, authoritative and micro characteristic evaluation methods.
Through literature review, we can conclude as follows.
(1) Life cycle assessment (LCA)
LCA is a widely used and quantitative environmental impact evalu­
ation method [34]. First, LCA is a tool to evaluate the potential envi­
ronmental impact of products, processes or services in the whole life
cycle from raw material acquisition to production, manufacturing,
transportation, use and final disposal [35]. The core of LCA is the
quantitative analysis of resources, energy consumption and environ­
mental emissions of the evaluation system, which can not only
comprehensively assess all kinds of environmental problems, but also
avoid the transfer of environmental problems. Secondly, LCA has
become a recommended environmental impact evaluation method in
the world and in China. Many projects require enterprises to provide
environmental reports based on LCA. Thirdly, in industrial practice,
some significant environmental indicators such as unit energy con­
sumption, carbon footprint and water footprint are used to characterize
the environmental impact [36]. LCA method introduces a more
comprehensive environmental impact indicator system, which can
L. Li et al.
achieve the conversion between the two.
LCA usually adopts the mature life cycle impact evaluation (LCIA)
method to transform the input and output materials into the size of
various environmental problems, in which the secondary indicators are
calculated quantitatively, so unlike the general indicator method, there
is no subjectivity of evaluation [37]. Of course, in some scenarios, it is
necessary to calculate the first level index by weighted sum [[[38],
[39]]]. These LCIA methods will provide weighting factors for each
secondary indicator in combination with the current global or partial
regional actual environment.
(1) Social life cycle assessment (SLCA)
SLCA is a widely used method to evaluate the impact of various
stakeholders [40]. With the high attention to social issues, LCA research
has gradually been taken into consideration of social impact [41–44].
Since 2008, SLCA research has witnessed an explosive growth. SLCA is
usually carried out by referring to LCA framework, mainly focusing on
the social impact of evaluation system on various stakeholders. In
accordance with SLCA guidelines jointly published by UNEP and SETAC,
SLCA can be evaluated from employees, users, value chain members,
local communities and the whole society. Different stakeholders will
focus on different social impact indicators, and the list analysis of each
indicator also has corresponding data recommendations. At present,
many researches have adopted SLCA to evaluate the impact of
manufacturing system on people [[[45], [46]]].
In the part of social impact evaluation, due to the lack of scientific
and quantitative evaluation mechanism, most of the studies are based on
the objective or subjective scoring of the interviewers. In order to sum
each index into a single score, the weight of each index is calculated
through their value judgment. The most widely used method is the an­
alytic hierarchy process (AHP) or the analytical network process (ANP)
in which the weight of each index is calculated by building pairwise
judgment matrix [47–49]. This method is especially suitable for the
subjective value judgment of qualitative or quantitative criteria in multi
criteria decision-making, especially reflecting the actual satisfaction of
employees or users to work and life and the importance of different
criteria to them. Therefore, the pairwise comparison method has become
the main weight calculation method in the current social impact
evaluation.
2.2. Analysis of the concepts of smart manufacturing, green
manufacturing and traditional manufacturing
Smart manufacturing, green manufacturing and traditional
manufacturing mainly refer to manufacturing paradigm in broad sense,
not manufacturing technology in narrow sense. This part mainly ana­
lyzes the concept from the dimension of manufacturing paradigm.
(1) The concept of smart manufacturing is essentially different from
that of green manufacturing.
Smart manufacturing is a new manufacturing paradigm that deeply
integrates the new generation of information technology and advanced
manufacturing technology, and realizes the design, production, man­
agement, service and other activities [50]. Meanwhile, green
manufacturing is a manufacturing paradigm that can identify, quantify,
evaluate and manage environmental problems in production and oper­
ation activities. It aims to maximize resource efficiency and minimize
environmental impact. As two hot concepts in the current trans­
formation and upgrading of manufacturing industry, they have their
own emphases: the former emphasizes the technological upgrading of
manufacturing industry to achieve intelligent transformation; the latter
emphasizes the environmental performance of manufacturing industry
to achieve green development [39]. Therefore, when smart
manufacturing is endowed with green and humanized features in
3
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
theory, it can be considered that smart manufacturing is the means to
realize green manufacturing, while green manufacturing is the result or
purpose of smart manufacturing. From the perspective of manufacturing
industry’s long-term development, manufacturing in the future will also
integrate the two and move towards green smart manufacturing, with
intelligent, green and human characteristics.
(1) Smart manufacturing and traditional manufacturing represent
different stages and paradigms of manufacturing development.
Traditional manufacturing refers to the manufacturing paradigm of
mechanization, electrification and automation that did not widely use
the new generation of information technology in the previous industrial
revolution. It is mainly defined artificially to distinguish the new
manufacturing paradigm. Traditional manufacturing can only control
the material flow and energy flow, there are many shortcomings, for
example, poor human-computer interaction, low production efficiency,
serious environmental pollution, difficult to meet the personalized needs
of users [51]. At present, smart manufacturing usually refers to the
manufacturing paradigm of digital network intelligence under the
background of a new round of industrial revolution. Its emergence and
development aims to improve the shortcomings of traditional
manufacturing and create new values.
2.3. An analysis of green evaluation of smart manufacturing, green
manufacturing and traditional manufacturing
As mentioned in the above two parts, the basic LCA and SLCA are the
main methods of green evaluation of manufacturing system at present,
but they are only the general methods of environmental impact and
social impact evaluation. For different evaluation needs, objects and
scenarios, specific research on evaluation methods should be carried out
in combination with the actual situation. Only from the perspective of
performance evaluation, the environmental and social impact evalua­
tion of smart manufacturing, green manufacturing and traditional
manufacturing has certain similarity and intersection, because they are
all quantitative evaluation of related production activities. However,
there are many differences between them. The key differences between
green evaluation of smart manufacturing, green manufacturing and
traditional manufacturing are summarized as follows.
(1) Purpose of evaluation
Green evaluation of smart manufacturing is mainly to explore the
actual situation of its subsidiary features (its main feature is intelli­
gence), which is to promote its transformation to green smart
manufacturing, and green evaluation of green manufacturing is to verify
whether the results of its main features are achieved as scheduled [52].
The difference of evaluation purpose will lead to the difference of actual
evaluation ideas: the purpose of green manufacturing performance
evaluation is relatively clear, which is a kind of evaluation method with
known specific objectives and exploration distance; while the purpose of
smart manufacturing green evaluation is broader, which is an evaluation
method only knowing the target direction and exploring whether it can
be approached.
(1) Object of evaluation
Smart manufacturing is the main direction of the development of the
current manufacturing industry. It is a general term of a systematic
manufacturing system. In essence, the green evaluation of smart
manufacturing is a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental and
social impact of the current manufacturing system [11]. This is also
different from the environmental performance evaluation of green
manufacturing. Green evaluation of smart manufacturing is mainly to
explore whether intelligent transformation (representing the change of
L. Li et al.
Fig. 1. Four development and evolution stages of digital technology.
manufacturing paradigm) will be green and humanized compared with
traditional manufacturing. It is an evaluation to explore the long-term
impact from a certain time range. However, green manufacturing usu­
ally does not represent a manufacturing system (only trying to optimize
a certain stage of the product life cycle from the perspective of envi­
ronmental performance improvement). Its environmental impact eval­
uation is mainly to compare different schemes (for example, materials to
be selected, process to be selected) to obtain the greener one, which is a
one-time, static evaluation.
(1) Dimension of evaluation
Besides the environmental impact, the special impact on people is
considered in the green evaluation of smart manufacturing, which is
embodied in two dimensions of employees and users. First, the intelli­
gent transformation of manufacturing enterprises with the typical
characteristics of "machine replacement" will significantly realize "fewer
people in the factory", and the work content and methods of employees
will also change significantly. For example, the role of employees will
gradually change into production monitors, strategic decision makers
and problem solvers. The working ability of employees will also change
greatly. They need to be more familiar with information technology and
receive continuous training and education [[[53], [54]]]. Therefore, in
addition to employee welfare, rights and other indicators which are
usually concerned by social impact evaluation, the green evaluation of
smart manufacturing on employees needs to pay more attention to those
special aspects. Secondly, smart manufacturing will pay more attention
to the personalized service to users, and the use of intelligent products it
provides will change the production and life style of users, and also bring
special impact to users, not only the satisfaction of product quality and
price that users pay attention to in traditional manufacturing.
After summary, this paper uses GPEoSM (green performance evalu­
ation of smart manufacturing) to represent the evaluation of environ­
mental and social problems, or the environmental and social impacts
produced and undertaken by each evaluation object and each stake­
holder in the smart manufacturing paradigm. In fact, the influencing
factors of GPEoSM have multi-dimensional characteristics and complex
coupling relationship. The determination of smart manufacturing proj­
ect (SMP) needs to go through the stages of design, trial operation and
scheme revision on the time axis. However, the multi-dimensional fac­
tors and their coupling relationship of GPEoSM show dynamic
4
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
characteristics in this process. At present, most of the research is static
evaluation and selection optimization of SMP in the design phase.
Therefore, in the GPEoSM, it is necessary to comprehensively investigate
the multi-dimensional influencing factors and their coupling relation­
ship. For the evolution of SMP on time axis, the real-time, integrity and
logicality of information reflection are urgently required.
Digital twin creates the virtual model of physical entity in a digital
way [55], simulates the behavior of physical entity by means of data,
and has the characteristics of real-time synchronization, faithful map­
ping and high fidelity through the means of virtual real interaction
feedback, data fusion analysis, decision iteration selection optimization,
so as to promote the interaction and integration of physical world and
information world, and increase or expand new capabilities for physical
entity [56]. Therefore, digital twin establishes the mapping and inter­
action between the physical world and the digital world and builds a
reliable bridge for industrial information integration, which can
completely and dynamically present the multi-dimensional influencing
factors, thus providing a perfect technical guarantee for the GPEoSM.
After realizing the complete and dynamic mapping interaction be­
tween physical world and digital world in GPEoSM based on digital
twin, how to comprehensively master the multi-dimensional influencing
factors and their coupling relationship for comparative analysis is the
key problem in GPEoSM. At present, in the solution of GPEoSM, it is a
widely used method to comprehensively consider the multi-dimensional
influencing factors and their coupling relationship that affect SMP
determination by using the experience and wisdom of experts. This
method is mostly realized by multi-attribute decision-making. Gener­
ally, the attribute value is evaluated by a single expert, and the sub­
jective or objective weighting method is used to solve the index weight.
The selection optimization of SMP involves multi-dimensional
influencing factors with complex coupling relationship, and these fac­
tors and their relationship are dynamic evolution. It is difficult for a
single expert to achieve accurate grasp, and the single weighting method
cannot fully reflect the weight information. Therefore, the problem
formulation of this paper is described as: on the basis of existing research
on green performance of smart manufacturing, how to apply the multi-
attribute decision-making method participated by many experts to
realize the GPEoSM driven by digital twin.
L. Li et al.
Fig. 2. The architecture of typical digital twin-based industrial information integration system in smart manufacturing supported by industry IoT.
3. Digital twin and smart manufacturing
3.1. The emergence and evolution of digital twin
With the development and evolution of digital technology, the use of
digital technology to describe the essential factors in product
manufacturing began with the use of simple coding and identification
technology, and has developed to the digital twin technology of virtual
reality interaction [55–57]. This development is divided into four stages
as shown in Fig. 1.
(1) Stage 1: conceptual abstraction
In 1946, the first electronic tube computer was born. The computer
5
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
helped people realize high-speed computing. In order to calculate on the
computer, it is necessary to digitize the calculation object, program the
calculation process and store the digital results. Computer has really
started the digital process of manufacturing. People express different
entities in the computer through the composition of numbers and letters,
and have developed to express entity identity and its characteristic at­
tributes through data structure technology. At this time, because there is
no graphical input and output tool, information is mainly reflected in the
form of data, only abstract digital identity and characteristics represent
the product.
(1) Stage 2: external resemblance
With the emergence of CAD technology in the 1960s, the design
L. Li et al.
drawings of products began to be processed in the form of graphics in the
computer. The geometric design of the product is carried out through the
graphic interactive equipment. Especially with the development of 2D to
3D technology, designers’ ideas can be displayed intuitively through the
modeling of 3D entities. Products not only have digital identity, but also
have static geometric model data similar to their physical entities.
(1) Stage 3: Simulate reality with virtual
The concept of digital mock-up (DMU) is presented by using digital
model to evaluate the related functions and performance of products.
DMU is the digital description of the whole machine or subsystem with
independent function. This description not only reflects the geometric
properties of the product object, but also reflects the function and per­
formance of the product object at least in a certain technical field. The
concept of DMU raises the 3D model from static expression and display
of product geometric information to the dynamic field that can also
reflect the function and performance of the product. It makes the 3D
model not only "shape" like the product, but also similar to the behavior,
thus the rudiment of modern digital twin appears.
(1) Stage 4: interaction between virtual and real
The concept of "twin" was applied in the manufacturing industry as
early as NASA’s Apollo project [55–57]. In this project, two identical
spacecraft were built, one of which remained on earth, called twin, to
reflect or mirror the status of the spacecraft on mission. During the flight
preparation, the twin was used for simulation verification and flight
training. During the mission execution, the twin can reflect and predict
the status of the space vehicle that is performing the mission as accu­
rately as possible, so as to assist the astronauts in space to make correct
operation. This method breaks through the prototype which was only
used in the design and manufacturing stage, and extends the application
of prototype to the actual operation stage of products. At this moment,
the twin is as like as two peas. By setting realistic environment, the twin
can simulate the real running state.
In 2003, Dr. Michael Grives, a professor at the University of Michi­
gan, proposed the concept of "virtual digital representation equivalent to
physical product" in the course document of product lifecycle manage­
ment (PLM). It includes physical product in physical space, virtual
product in digital space and data, information and process interface
between them, which brings virtual product from design stage to whole
life cycle of manufacturing and operation, which is considered as the
rudiment of digital twin concept. However, due to the limitation of
theoretical and technical conditions at that time, digital twin did not get
people’s attention. Dr. Michael Grieves has also made many changes to
this concept until 2011 when he adopted the concept of "digital twin".
Especially in 2011, when the U.S. air force formulated a long-term vision
for the next 30 years, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and NASA
jointly proposed to build a digital twin of future aircraft. The aircraft
digital twin is defined as a highly integrated multi-objective, multi-scale
and multi-probability simulation model for aircraft or aircraft system. It
can describe and reflect the whole life cycle process of the physical
system, and can use virtual model, sensor data and historical data to
reflect the entity function, real-time status and evolution trend corre­
sponding to the model. As a result, the concept of digital twin has been
widely accepted and has been used up to now.
Digital twin extends the concept of twin in Apollo project to virtual
space, and creates a virtual product which is similar to the physical
entity in external appearance and internal nature by digital means. The
relationship between virtual space and physical space is established, so
that data and information can be exchanged between them. The concept
of virtual instead of real, interaction between virtual and real and con­
trolling reality with virtual are visually and intuitively reflected. With
the help of this concept, from a small product to a large workshop, even
to a factory and a complex system can establish a corresponding digital
6
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
twin, thus building a "living" virtual space.
3.2. Application of digital twin in smart manufacturing
In the smart manufacturing system with industrial internet as the
framework and platform, digital twin plays a key role throughout the
whole process [[[56], [57]]]. Fig. 2 shows the architecture of typical
digital twin-based industrial information integration system in smart
manufacturing supported by industry IoT. As shown in Fig. 2, digital
virtual body mainly exists in cloud platform layer, and its
control-oriented dimension model is arranged in edge layer to partici­
pate in real-time control. Industrial internet is composed of field layer,
edge layer, platform layer and application layer. The application of
digital twin is analyzed from these layers and the time dimension of
design, production and operation and maintenance phases.
In the design phase, people complete the product design work and
create the digital twin model of product design through collaborative
design with the support of planning and design platform and the assis­
tance of related knowledge base. At this time, the digital twin is still in
its original state. After a series of simulation and optimization of kine­
matics, dynamics and other physical aspects, or technical services pro­
vided by a third party, the preliminary design and processing scheme are
determined. Then, the virtual factory of manufacturing factory in cloud
platform layer is used for virtual manufacturing. As a result, the man­
ufacturability is simulated and verified by the virtual factory and the
usability is simulated and verified by the virtual environment. After
these simulations, it can enter the production stage. Now the digital twin
contains the physical characteristics of the product entity and all the
information needed for manufacturing. At present, the key technologies
supporting this stage are model based design (MBD), multi-physical-
property and multi-scale simulation, high fidelity modeling and model
lightweight technology
In the production phase, the production tasks are managed by the
production management platform in the cloud platform, and the
scheduling and control tasks with real-time requirements are handed
over to the edge layer for management and control. Product
manufacturing is an integration process of virtual and real. The digital
twin of physical factory runs in the virtual space of cloud platform. The
devices in the physical factory and IoT composed of sensors are located
in the field layer, which exchange data with the edge layer through low
delay networks such as Time sensitive network (TSN), 5 G, etc. These
multi-source data need different processing. On the one hand, some data
directly interact with the model of the control dimension of digital twin,
and get the predicted data. The optimal control of the manufacturing
process is completed in the control cycle to realize the controlling of the
real entity by the virtual model; On the other hand, the edge layer filters
these data, transmits them to the platform layer, drives the virtual fac­
tory in the cloud platform to run synchronously (i.e. the interaction of
virtual and real), and stores it in the big database, which provides data
source for knowledge mining and carries out non real-time prediction
and optimization of the manufacturing process. The key technologies in
this stage are: real-time virtual and real fusion of multi-source sensor
data, model-based control, etc.
In the operation and maintenance phase, the digital twin of the
product is also provided when the product is provided by the manu­
facturer. The user can create and activate the virtual body of the product
according to the digital twin template provided by the manufacturer in
the virtual space of the industry internet. If it is a component, the
simulation and optimization research of assembly process and assembly
process can be started in virtual space; if it is a complete product, the
simulation and optimization of the use environment and working pro­
cess can be carried out, and the interaction of virtual and real can be
achieved in the use process. Suppliers, technical service providers and
users can obtain the status information of products on this cloud plat­
form, so as to provide targeted technical services. In the operation and
maintenance phase of the product, it is necessary to monitor the spatial
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Fig. 3. Digital twin-driven GPEoSM framework.

Fig. 4. The whole technological process of GPEoSM approach.

7
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Table 1 physical world and the digital world are described theoretically. (1) SMP
Green performance index system for smart manufacturing. entity really exists in the physical world. In general, the design phase
Green performance First level index Index connotation will produce multiple SMPs that meet the requirements. Then in the test
dimension running stage, the original SMP will be adjusted and optimized itera­
General Exhaustion of It refers to the consumption of tively. Finally, the optimal SMP is determined and put into formal
environmental resources and energy natural resources and energy running stage. The data in the formal running will also be fed back to
effect (Index 1) caused by production activities. assist in the selection optimization of scheme design. (2) SMP model is a
Destruction of It refers to the harm of production real and complete digital image of SMP. It integrates all factors related to
ecological activities to the ecological
environment (Index 2) environment.
SMP evaluation and the correlation between them. At the same time, it is
Hazards to human It refers to the potential impact of a dynamic model, which can describe the dynamic evolution of the
health (Index 3) production activities on overall design, test running and formal running stages of SMP.
human health. In the approach layer, GPEoSM approach is driven by digital twin
Social effect on Physical health effects It refers to the impact of
information. Through the interaction with physical entity and virtual
employees (Index 4) employees’ participation in work
on their physical health, that is, model, the iterative selection optimization is realized with the aid of
their satisfaction with their own intelligent evaluation of SMP.
physical health. In the information layer, digital twin information is the core driver of
Mental health effects It refers to the mental health GPEoSM framework. It mainly includes the initial design data, the vir­
(Index 5) impact caused by employees’
participation in the work, that is,
tual model structured data, the real-time data of the running environ­
their own mental pleasure level. ment, and also includes the new data generated in the running stage.
Impact on employee It refers to the impact of personal
development (Index 6) development caused by 5. GPEoSM approach
employees’ participation in work,
that is, their satisfaction with the
realization and sustainable The whole technological process of GPEoSM approach driven by
development of their own value. digital twin, which is shown in Fig. 4, includes index system design,
Social effect on Physical health effects It refers to the impact of users’ index value calculation, index weight determination and SMP evalua­
users (Index 7) participation in work on their tion. Next the detailed steps are given as follows.
physical health, that is, their
satisfaction with their own
physical health. 5.1. Green performance index system design
Mental health effects It refers to the mental health
(Index 8) impact caused by users’ This part mainly combines the purpose and dimension of the green
participation in the work, that is,
performance evaluation of smart manufacturing, constructs the first
their own mental pleasure level.
Impact on user It refers to the impact of personal level indexes and proposes a standardized overall green level system.
development (Index 9) development caused by users’ Through the summary of the existing research, the green perfor­
participation in work, that is, their mance of smart manufacturing includes the general environmental ef­
satisfaction with the realization fect and the social effect on employees and users. Different from the
and sustainable development of
their own value.
energy consumption and water consumption, environmental effect can
directly, comprehensively and objectively reflect the actual effect on the
ecological environment and human health. For social effect, SLCA
position, external environment, use status and health status in real time, guidelines recommend the social effect index system corresponding to
and establish a resume information database, which users can access and each stakeholder category, but the guidelines only involve general social
use through the application layer. The health status, function and per­ issues (such as human rights, equity, social welfare, etc.), which cannot
formance of the product are analyzed and predicted by virtual body on be used to reflect some special effects of smart manufacturing on rele­
the cloud platform, the problems are warned in advance, and the vivid vant parties.
visual means are provided to assist the rapid fault location and trou­ In the current critical period of manufacturing transformation and
bleshooting. In addition, in terms of operation training and guidance, upgrading, the analysis of employee effect has more important signifi­
digital twin can also provide more realistic effects with the help of the cance and different focus. In these studies, social effect assessment is
fusion technology of virtual and real. The key technologies in this stage carried out by selecting social effect indexes independently and setting
are: the interaction and fusion of virtual and real, simulation, prediction, scoring standards. Therefore, this paper mainly combines the actual
etc. situation of smart manufacturing and related research to build the social
effect index system of smart manufacturing.
4. GPEoSM framework In order to include typical environmental problems and the special
influence of main interested parties by smart manufacturing, the first
Based on the architecture of typical digital twin-based industrial level indexes of green performance evaluation of smart manufacturing
information integration system in smart manufacturing supported by constructed in this paper are listed as shown in Table 1.
industry IoT shown in Fig. 2, GPEoSM framework driven by digital twin
is proposed in Fig. 3. Through the bidirectional real mapping and real- 5.2. Index value calculation
time data interaction between entity and model, comprehensive data
integration and fusion of SMP entity, SMP model and SMP evaluation The index value calculation of GPEoSM needs to consider multiple
approach are realized. Supported by the digital twin information, SMP qualitative or quantitative factors respectively, and the process of index
selection optimization is carried out, and the iterative interaction of value calculation is rather tedious. The mathematical and statistical
selection optimization approach, entity and model for SMP are realized. characteristics of expert scoring method can make the best use of expert
As shown in Fig. 3, GPEoSM framework driven by digital twin is experience, and the calculation process is very simple. However, ex­
divided into three layers, which are concept layer, information layer and perts’ judgment on the relative merits and demerits of multiple SMPs on
approach layer. The logical relationship between three layers is as an index depends on personal experience and subjective judgment, so it
follows. is unreasonable to express them with accurate values. Compared with it,
In the concept layer, the mapping and interacting between the the fuzzy number can reflect the internal uncertainty of expert’s

8
L. Li et al.
Fig. 5. The process of index value calculation of GPEoSM.
judgment. Trapezoid fuzzy number has more complex membership
function than triangle fuzzy number. Using trapezoid fuzzy number to
express expert score value can better describe this uncertainty than
triangle fuzzy number.
At the same time, when synthesizing multiple experts’ opinions, the
experts have obvious ambiguity when judging the index value of an
SMP. Rough number and rough boundary interval in rough set theory
can describe the fuzziness as set boundary region instead of membership
function form, which can better reflect the true judgment of experts and
take into account the opinions of multiple experts [46]. Therefore, this
paper proposes a fuzzy rough method which combines fuzzy number and
rough set theory to calculate the index value of SMP.
Related definitions are as follows.
Definition 1. Rough approximation set. It is assumed that U is a non-
empty finite set of objects, which is called domain. Y is any object in U.
All objects in U belong to n divisions, i.e. S1 , S2 , ..., Sn . If the n divisions
have an order relation of S1 < S2 < ... < Sn , for any division
Sw (1 ≤ w ≤ n), the upper rough approximation set AS(Sw ) and lower
rough approximation set AS(Sw ) can be defined as:
AS(Sw ) = {Y ∈ K|K⫅U/R(Y) ∧ K ≥ Sw }
(1)
AS(Sw ) = {Y ∈ K|K⫅U/R(Y) ∧ K ≤ Sw }
where U/R(Y) indicates the division of fuzzy relation R on U.
Definition 2. Rough boundary interval. According to Definition 1, any
9
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
ambiguous division Si on the domain can be represented by its rough
boundary interval. The rough boundary interval is composed of the
lower rough limit L(Sw ) and the upper rough limit L(Sw ), which are
expressed in mathematical form as follows:
∑
R(Y)
L(Sw ) = , Y ∈ AS(Sw )
N(Sw )
∑ (2)
R(Y)
L(Sw ) = , Y ∈ AS(Sw )
N(Sw )
where N(Sw ) and N(Sw ) are the number of objects contained in the lower
and upper approximation sets of Sw , respectively. Therefore, the rough
[ ]
boundary interval of Sw is represented asRBI(Sw ) = L(Sw ), L(Sw ) .
The known conditions of index value calculation of SMP are:
(1) There are l alternate SMPs and q experts to assess the green
performance of alternate SMP on each attribute shown in Fig. 2.
(2) The index set is I = {I1 , I2 , ..., IN } (N = 9) where I1 , I2 , ...,
IN represent the indexes shown in Table 1.
The process of index value calculation of GPEoSM is shown in Fig. 3.
As shown in Fig. 5, the detailed steps of index value calculation are as
follows.
Step 1. According to the architecture of typical digital twin-based
industrial information integration system in smart manufacturing
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

(Fig. 2), experts investigate the situation of each SMP alternate. For of node importance in complex networks. Moreover, the relationship
index t (t = 1, 2, ..., N), the fuzzy reciprocal assessment matrix given by between indexes is similar to that between nodes in complex networks.
expert k (k = 1,2,…,q) is as follows: In view of this, the index complex networks of GPEoSM can be built.
[ k,t ] Because the determination of relationship between indexes usually de­
̃ k,t = ̃
E ei,j l×l (3) pends on experts’ subjective and inaccurate judgment, we just consider
the establishment of non-weight complex networks of evaluation in­
k,t
where ̃ei,j is the score of SMP alternate i relative to SMP alternate j given dexes, instead of weighted complex networks. In the non-weight com­
k,t
by expert k on index t. ̃ei,j is a trapezoid fuzzy number and ̃ei,j = (αk,t k,t k,t plex networks of evaluation indexes, the nodes in the network represent
i,j ,βi,j ,
k,t
the indexes, and the connection between the nodes reflects the rela­
γ k,t k,t
i,j , θi,j ). If i = j, ei,j = (1, 1, 1, 1).The next step can only be carried out
̃ tionship between the indexes.
after q assessment matrices are qualified in consistency inspection.
Otherwise, the corresponding expert will adjust the assessment matrix. 5.3.1. Network characteristics of index complex networks
Step 2. The group assessment matrix is constructed as follows. In the complex network theory [58–60], the degree centrality,
[ ] betweenness centrality and closeness centrality of a node describe its
(4)
t
̃ = ̃
E eti,j importance in the network from the local attribute, the propagation
l×l
attribute and the global attribute. Among them, the degree centrality is
t 1,t 2,t q,t
where ̃ei,j = {̃ei,j , ̃ei,j , ..., ̃ei,j }. used to represent the number of connecting sides between a node and its
Step 3. According to Definitions 1 and 2, the rough boundary interval adjacent nodes, which to a certain extent reflects the direct influence of
k,t t 1,t 2,t q,t nodes in the network; the betweenness centrality is used to describe the
of ̃ei,j in ̃ei,j = {̃ei,j , ̃ei,j , ..., ̃ei,j }can be expressed as follows.
importance of nodes’ manipulation of information flow in the network,
( k,t ) [ ( k,t ) ( k,t )] which is closely related to the shortest path through the node; the
RBI ̃ ei,j = L ̃ ei,j , L ̃ ei,j (5)
closeness centrality considers the proximity between a node and other
nodes, which has a great influence on information transmission and
∑ ∑ k,t
acquisition. The shorter the distance from the node to other nodes is, the
k,t
̃ei,j ̃ei,j
k,t
k,t k,t
̃ei,j ≤̃ei,j k,t
k,t k,t
̃e ≥̃e higher the closeness centrality is. Compared with other network attri­
where L(̃ei,j ) = and L(̃ei,j ) = i,j i,jk,t .
N(̃
k,t
ei,j ) N(̃
ei,j ) butes, the above three network attributes can be obtained directly from
t
Therefore, the rough boundary interval of ̃ei,j can be expressed as the network structure, which can reflect the basic characteristics of
nodes in complex networks. Therefore, based on the complex network
follows.
theory, each index is regarded as a node in the network, and the degree
⎡∑ ( )⎤
q ( k,t ) ∑ q
centrality, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality of the nodes
( ) [ ( ) ( )] ⎢ L ̃ ei,j L ̃ek,t
i,j ⎥
are taken as the basis of index weight determining.
eti,j = L ̃eti,j , L ̃eti,j = ⎢
RBI ̃ k=1
, k=1 ⎥ (6)
⎣ q q ⎦ In an undirected network structure, Node = {Node1, Node2,…,
NodeN} represents a set of all nodes in the network. For Nodei (1 ≤ i ≤ N),
its degree centrality, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality are
Step 4. The rough boundary interval assessment matrix is con­
defined as follows.
structed as Θ ̃ t = [RBI(̃et )] . Then, Θ
̃ t is split into two matrices as
i,j l×l
follows. (1) Assuming that the number of nodes directly connected to Nodei is
[ ( )] Numi, and then Numi is the degree centrality of Nodei. Here, Numi
̃ t = L ̃et
ϕ (7)
i,j
l×l ≤ N-1. After normalization, the degree centrality of Nodei is:
[ ( )] D′i = Numi / (N − 1) (12)
ηt = L ̃eti,j
̃ (8)
l×l

t
where ϕ̃ is the rough lower boundary matrix and ̃ ηt is the rough upper
boundary matrix. From the point of view of the local attributes of the network, the
According to the gravity center principle of triangular fuzzy number, larger the degree centrality is, the more nodes are directly connected to
t the node, which indicates that the node is more important. In the
ϕ and ̃
̃ ηt are mapped into the real number form ϕt and ηt . Then the ei­
complex networks of indexes of SMP alternate evaluation, the degree
genvectors of ϕt and ηt corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue are
centrality of node can better reflect the correlation between the index
obtained respectively as follows.
and other indexes. The larger the degree centrality of the node is, the
z(ϕt ) = [z1 (ϕt ), z2 (ϕt ), ..., zl (ϕt )] (9) closer the relationship between the index and other indexes is, and the
more important the index is. It reflects the importance of the index from
z(ηt ) = [z1 (ηt ), z2 (ηt ), ..., zl (ηt )] (10) a local perspective.
Step 5. After averaging the two eigenvectors obtained in Step 5, we
(1) The betweenness centrality of Nodei is defined as:
can get a vector as follows.
[ ] ∑ χ i,k,m
zt = z1,t , z2,t , ..., zl,t (11) Bi = (13)
k∕
=i∕
ϕ
=m k,m
t t
where zi,t = zi (ϕ )+z
2
i (η )
is the index value of alternate SMP i on index t.
The attribute values of l SMP alternates on other attributes can be
obtained by similar way. At last, we get the attribute value matrix as Z = where χ i,k,m represents the number of shortest paths between node Nodek
[zi,t ]l×N . and Nodem passing node Nodei, and ϕk,m represents the number of
shortest paths between node Nodek and Nodem. Here, 1 ≤ k, m ≤ N and
5.3. Index weight determination k∕
=i∕
=m.
After normalization, the degree centrality of Nodei is:
The problem of determining index weight is similar to the evaluation

10
L. Li et al.
Fig. 6. Index weight determination by complex networks and PROMETHEE II.
Bi
B′i = (14)
(N − 1)(N − 2)/2
If a node is the only way for other nodes to communicate with each
other, which is similar to the role of "bridge" in the propagation char­
acteristics of the network, the role of the node in the network will be
very important. Therefore, the betweenness centrality of a node can be
used to measure the influence of the node on information flow in the
network. In the complex networks of indexes of SMP alternate evalua­
tion, the greater the betweenness centrality of an index is, the greater its
influence on other indexes is, and the more important the index is. It
reflects the importance of the index from the perspective of network
communication.
(1) Assuming that the shortest distance from Nodei and Nodek isΘi,k ,
the sum of the shortest distances from Nodei to all other nodes
∑
is Nk=1 Θi,k ≥ N − 1. The closeness centrality of Nodei is the
reciprocal of the sum of the shortest distances from Nodei to all
other nodes in the network. After normalization, the closeness
centrality of Nodei is:
/
∑
N
C′i = (N − 1) Θi,k (15)
k=1
Closeness centrality is used to measure the ability of a node to in­
fluence other nodes through the network. If the closeness centrality of a
node is larger, the closer the node is to the center of the network, and the
more important the node is. In the complex networks of indexes of SMP
alternate evaluation, the position of a node reflects the position of its
corresponding index in all indexes, and reflects the importance of the
11
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
index from a global perspective.
5.3.2. Index weight determination by PROMETHEE II
According to the index system shown in Table 1, index i corresponds
to node Nodei in the undirected network structure. It is assumed that the
network characteristics set isNet = {Net1 , Net2 , Net3 }, where Net1 , Net2 ,
Net3 represent the degree centrality, betweenness centrality and close­
ness centrality in turn. The characteristic value of index i on charac­
teristic is Neth (h = 1, 2, 3) represented byNeth,i , so the characteristic
value matrix Net = [Neth,i ]3×N can be obtained.
In PROMETHEE II [59], Gaussian preference function, which has the
characteristics of nonlinear change compared with other preference
functions, is more suitable for the actual decision scene. It is assumed
that the Gaussian preference function of index i relative to index k on
network characteristic Neth is Ghi,k as follows:
⎧
⎪ 0 , vhi,k ≤ 0
⎪
⎨
( )2
Ghi,k = (16)
⎪
⎪ vh
i,k
⎩
1 − e− 2λ2 , vhi,k > 0
where vhi,k = Neth,i − Neth,k , and the parameter λ generally is 0.2.
When all the characteristics are considered, the degree of index i
superior to index k is expressed by the multiple preference priority
exponent θi,k of the two indexes, that is:
θi,k = G1i,k + G2i,k + G3i,k (17)
The outflow of index i indicates the extent to which i is superior to
other indexes, which is represented by:
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Fig. 7. The process of SMP evaluation based on modified TOPSIS.

∑
N standardize the net flow of all indexes. In addition, the situation that the
δ+
i = θi,k (18) index weight with the minimum net flow is zero will occur in subsequent
weight calculation. In order to avoid these problems, we standardize the
k=1

The inflow of index i indicates the extent to which other indexes is net flow of all indexes by mapping them to the interval [0.1, 0.9]. The
superior to i, which is represented by: standardized net flow of index i is as follows:
⎧
∑
N
⎪ 0.9 δi = δmax
δ−i = θk,i (19) ⎪
⎪
⎨ 0.8(δ − δ )
(21)
i min
k=1
δ′i = + 0.1 , δmin < δi < δmax
⎪
⎪ δ − δmin
So, the net flow of index i can reflect the priority of the indicator as a ⎪ max
⎩
0.1 δi = δmin
whole, which is represented by:

δi = δ+ −
i − δi (20) where δmax = max{δ1 , δ2 , ..., δN },δmin = min{δ1 , δ2 , ..., δN }.
The weight of index i is obtained by processing the standardized net
The higher the value of δi is, the higher the priority of index i is. Here,
flow of each index as follows:
the net flow of some indexes will be negative, so it is necessary to

12
 L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Table 2 Table 5
Comments, values and fuzzed values of nine-level scale assessment. Fuzzy reciprocal assessment given by expert 3.
Comment Value Fuzzed value P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Extremely 9 9/1
̃ ̃ =(8,17/2,9,9)/(1,1,3/2,2)= (4,17/3,9,9) P1 5/
̃ ̃5 6/
̃ 4̃ 6/4
̃ ̃ 7/
̃ ̃3 6/
̃ ̃4
superior
P2 4/
̃ ̃6 5/
̃ 5̃ 6/4
̃ ̃ 6/
̃ ̃4 5/
̃ ̃5
Strongly superior 7 8/2
̃ ̃ =(7,15/2,17/2,9)/(1,3/2,5/2,3)=(7/3,3,17/
3,9) P3 4/
̃ ̃6 4/
̃ 6̃ 5/5
̃ ̃ 6/
̃ ̃4 4/
̃ ̃6
Obviously 5 7/3
̃ ̃ =(6,13/2,15/2,8)/(2,5/2,7/2,4)=(3/2,13/ P4 3/
̃ ̃7 4/
̃ 6̃ 4/6
̃ ̃ 5/
̃ ̃5 4/
̃ ̃6
superior 7,3,4) P5 4/
̃ ̃6 5/
̃ 5̃ 6/4
̃ ̃ 6/
̃ ̃4 5/
̃ ̃5
Slightly superior 3 6/4
̃ ̃ =(5,11/2,13/2,7)/(3,7/2,9/2,5)=(1,11/9,13/
7,7/3)
Equal 1 5/5
̃ ̃ =(1,1,1,1) Table 6
Slightly inferior 1/3 Group assessment matrix.
4/6
̃ ̃ =(3,7/2,9/2,5)/(5,11/2,13/2,7)=(3/7,7/13,9/
11,1) P1 P2 … P5
Obviously inferior 1/5 3/7
̃ ̃ =(2,5/2,7/2,4)/(6,13/2,15/2,8)=(1/4,1/3,7/
P1 {5/,
̃ 5 5, 5
̃ /̃ 5}
̃ /̃ 5 /5,
{̃ ̃ ̃7 /3,
̃ 6̃ /4}
̃ … {6
̃ /4,
̃ 7̃ /3,
̃ 6 4}
̃ /̃
13,2/3)
P2 {5/,
̃ 3 7, 4
̃ /̃ 6}
̃ /̃ 5/, ̃
{̃ 5 /5,
̃ 5̃ /5}
̃ … {6
̃ /4,
̃ 5̃ /5,
̃ 5 5}
̃ /̃
Strongly inferior 1/7 2/8
̃ ̃ =(1,3/2,5/2,3)/(7,15/2,17/2,9)=(1/9,3/17,1/
P3 {4 6, 5
̃ /̃ 5, 4
̃ /̃ 6}
̃ /̃ 4 /6,
{̃ ̃ ̃7 /3,
̃ 4̃ /6}
̃ … {5
̃ /5,
̃ 7̃ /3,
̃ 4 6}
̃ /̃
3,3/7)
Extremely inferior 1/9 P4 {5 5, 4
̃ /̃ 6, 3
̃ /̃ 7}
̃ /̃ 5 /5,
{̃ ̃ ̃6 /4,
̃ 4̃ /6}
̃ … {6
̃ /4,
̃ 6̃ /4,
̃ 4 6}
̃ /̃
1/9
̃ ̃ =(1,1,3/2,2)/(8,17/2,9,9)=(1/9,1/9,3/17,1/4)
P5 {4 6, 3
̃ /̃ 7, 4
̃ /̃ 6}
̃ /̃ 4 /6,
{̃ ̃ ̃5 /5,
̃ 5̃ /5}
̃ … {5/,
̃ 5 ̃ /5,
̃ 5̃ /5}
̃

Table 3
5.4. SMP evaluation
Fuzzy reciprocal assessment given by expert 1.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 According to index value matrixZ = [zi,t ]l×N and index weight vector
P1 5
̃/ 5/5
̃ ̃ 6/
̃ ̃4 5/
̃ ̃5 6/4
̃ ̃ ω = [ω1 , ω2 , ..., ωN ]T , the weighted index value matrix is obtained as Y =
5
̃ [yi,t ]l×N , here yi,t = ωt zi,t .
P2 5
̃/ 5/5
̃ ̃ 6/
̃ ̃4 5/
̃ ̃5 6/4
̃ ̃ Next we propose a modified TOPSIS by replacing Euclidean distance
5
̃ with relational vector distance based on set pair analysis theory. In
P3 4
̃/ 4/6
̃ ̃ 5/
̃ ̃5 4/
̃ ̃6 5/5
̃ ̃ traditional TOPSIS [[[46], [47], [61]]], Euclidean distance from
6
̃ assessment object to ideal solution is adopted for closeness calculation.
P4 5
̃/ 5/5
̃ ̃ 6/
̃ ̃4 5/
̃ ̃5 6/4
̃ ̃ However, the objects on the perpendicular bisector of two ideal solu­
5
̃ tions have the same closeness and cannot be distinguished. The princi­
P5 ples of using proposed modified TOPSIS to realize SMP evaluation are as
4
̃/ 4/6
̃ ̃ 5/
̃ ̃5 4/
̃ ̃6 5/5
̃ ̃
6
̃ follows.

(1) An evaluation object (i.e. an SMP) and two ideal solutions (i.e.
positive and negative ideal solutions) constitute two set pairs,
Table 4 respectively.
Fuzzy reciprocal assessment given by expert 2. (2) The set pair is then decomposed into multiple element pairs.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 (3) For each element pair, the sameness, contrariety and difference
P1 5
̃/ 7/3
̃ ̃ 5/
̃ ̃5 6/
̃ ̃4 7/3
̃ ̃ relationships are analysed to obtain the relationship between
5
̃ assessment object and ideal solution. Then the relational vector
P2 distance from evaluation object to ideal solution is obtained.
3
̃/ 5/5
̃ ̃ 3/
̃ ̃7 4/
̃ ̃6 5/5
̃ ̃
7
̃ (4) According to the arranging rule of TOPSIS, the closeness of
P3
evaluation object is calculated based on its relational vector
5
̃/ 7/3
̃ ̃ 5/
̃ ̃5 6/
̃ ̃4 7/3
̃ ̃
distances. Finally, all evaluation objects are arranged according
5
̃
to their closeness values.
P4 4
̃/ 6/4
̃ ̃ 4/
̃ ̃6 5/
̃ ̃5 6/4
̃ ̃
6
̃
The process of SMP evaluation based on modified TOPSIS is shown
P5 3 5/5 3/ 7 4/ 6 5/5
by Fig. 7.
̃/ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃ ̃
7
̃
As shown in Fig. 7, the detailed steps of SMP evaluation based on
modified TOPSIS is as follows.
Step 1. Set pairs formed by assessment object and two ideal solutions
δ′i
ωi = (22) are constructed.
∑
N
δ′i According to Y = [yi,t ]l×N , the positive ideal solution is obtained as
Y + = [y+ 1 , y2 , ..., yN ] and the negative ideal solution is obtained as Y =
i=1 + + −

Therefore, the weight vector is obtained as follows: [y−1 , y−2 , ..., y−N , ], where y+t = max{y , y
1,t 2,t , ..., y l,t } and y −
t = min{y 1,t 2,t ,.
,y
.., yl,t }. Actually, Yi, = [yi,1 , yi,2 , ..., yi,N ]represents SMP alternate i. Based
ω = [ω1 , ω2 , ..., ωN ]T (23)
on set pair analysis theory [62], Yi, and Y+ form a set pair which is
In conclusion, the flowchart of index weight determining by complex expressed by < Yi , Y + >, and Yi, and Y − form a set pair which is expressed
networks and PROMETHEE II is shown in Fig. 6. by < Yi , Y− >.
Through comparing the values, S+ i, element pairs have tiny difference
(sameness relationship), C+
i, element pairs have huge difference (con­
trariety relationship) and D+
i, element pairs have not very obvious dif

13
­
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Table 7
Rough lower boun
dary matrix.
P1 P2 … P5

P1 (1,1,1,1) (1.0556,1.1570,1.4603,1.7037) … (1.0556,1.2928,1.9841,2.5185)

P2 (0.3829,0.4644,0.6674,0.7963) (1,1,1,1) … (1.0000,1.0247,1.0952,1.1481)
P3 (0.4921,0.5897,0.8384,1.0000) (0.5476,0.6850,1.0606,1.3333) … (0.7063,0.8132,1.1111,1.3333)
P4 (0.3829,0.4644,0.6674,0.7963) (0.6508,0.7426,0.9841,1.1481) … (0.6825,0.8424,1.2799,1.5926)
P5 (0.3294,0.4245,0.6628,0.8148) (0.6825,0.7436,0.8990,1.0000) … (1,1,1,1)

Table 8
Rough upper boundary matrix.
P1 P2 … P5

P1 (1,1,1,1) (1.3056,1.5855,2.4603,3.2037) … (1.2778,1.5750,2.4921,3.2593)

P2 (0.7579,0.7977,0.8982,0.9630) (1,1,1,1) … (1.0000,1.1235,1.4762,1.7407)
P3 (0.7460,0.7949,0.9192,1.0000) (1.0238,1.2711,2.0303,2.6667) … (1.2421,1.4725,2.2020,2.8333)
P4 (0.7579,0.7977,0.8982,0.9630) (0.9365,1.0845,1.5036,1.8148) … (0.9365,1.1462,1.7417,2.1852)
P5 (0.4087,0.5157,0.7871,0.9630) (0.9365,0.9487,0.9798,1.0000) … (1,1,1,1)

Table 9
Index value matrix.
index 1 index 2 index 3 index 4 index 5 index 6 index 7 index 8 index 9

P1 0.5983 0.2270 0.3785 0.3419 0.5575 0.6557 0.7577 0.7060 0.8235

P2 0.4048 0.5469 0.5706 0.1576 0.6324 0.0357 0.7431 0.0318 0.6948
P3 0.4478 0.6572 0.4218 0.0975 0.4649 0.8491 0.3922 0.2769 0.3171
P4 0.3933 0.3157 0.2357 0.7922 0.3595 0.9340 0.6555 0.0462 0.9502
P5 0.3504 0.7134 0.1557 0.4854 0.6003 0.6787 0.1712 0.0971 0.0344

The relational vector of set pair < Yi , Y − > is as follows:

[ ]
μ−i, = s−i, , c−i, , di,− (27)

Step 2. Set pair is divided into several element pairs.

Set pair < Yi , Y + > consists of m element pairs< yi,1 ,y+1 >,< yi,1 ,y2 >
+

,...,< yi,N ,yN >. For element pair < yi,t , yt >, its relational degree can be
+ +

expressed as follows:

(28)
′
ρ+i,t = s+i,t Δ′ + c+i,t Δ′′ + di,t+ Δ′′

where Δ′ , Δ′′, Δ′′ indicate the sameness, contrariety and difference re­
′

lationships respectively, ands+ i,t , ci,t and di,t indicate the sameness, con­
+ +

trariety and difference coefficients of element pair < yi,t , y+ t >

respectively. Ifyi,t = y+
t , then si,t =1,ci,t =0 and di,t =0. Ifyi,t = yt , then
+ + + −

s+i,t =0,ci,t =1 and di,t =0. If yt < yi,t < yt , then si,t =0,ci,t =0 and di,t =
+ + − + + + +

Fig. 8. The 9 × 9 index matrix. ∑N +

y+ s
t − yi,t
− . Therefore, the relational degree of < yi,t ,yt >is ρi, =
t=1 i,t
y+
+ +
N Δ′ +
t − yt
∑N + ∑N +
ference (difference relationship). Here,S+
i, + Ci, + Di, = N. Therefore,
+ + c
t=1 i,t
Δ′′ + t=1
di,t ′′′
Δ .
N N
the relational degree of set pair < Yi , Y+ >, which characterizes the Similarly, for set pair < Yi , Y − > formed by Yi, and Y− , it consists of m
uncertain quantitative relationship between Yi, and Y + , is expressed as element pairs< yi,1 , y−1 >, < yi,1 , y−2 >, ..., < yi,N , y−N >. The relational de­
follows: gree of element pair < yi,t , y−t >is expressed as follows:
(24)
′
ρ+i, = s+i, Δ′ + c+i, Δ′′ + di,+ Δ′′ ′
ρ−i,t = s−i,t Δ′ + c−i,t Δ′′ + di,t− Δ′′ (29)

where Δ′ , Δ′′, Δ indicate the sameness, contrariety and difference re­

′′′
where s−i,t , c−i,t and d−i,t indicate the sameness, contrariety and difference
S+ C+ D+
lationships respectively, and s+
i, = N , ci,
i, +
= N and
i,
d+
i, = N
i,
indicate the coefficients of element pair < yi,t , y−t > respectively. Ifyi,t = y+ t ,
sameness, contrariety and difference coefficients respectively. thens−i,t =0,c−i,t =1 and d−i,t =0. Ifyi,t = y−t , then s−i,t =1,c−i,t =0 and d−i,t =0. If
y − y−
The relational vector of set pair < Yi , Y + > is as follows: y−t < yi,t < y+
t , then si,t =0,ci,t =0 and di,t = y+
+ + − i,t
− . Therefore, the rela­
t
t − yt
[ ] ∑N − ∑N − ∑N −
si,t ′ ci,t di,t ′′′
μ+i, = s+i, , c+i, , di,+ (25) tional degree of < yi,t , y−t >is ρ−i, = t=1
N Δ + t=1 N Δ′′ + t=1
N Δ .
Step 3. Set pair formed by assessment object and itself is constructed.
Similarly, the relational degree of set pair< Yi , Y − > is expressed as Yi, and itself can form a set pair < Yi , Yi, >. Because a set is same as
follows:
itself, the relational degree of set pair < Yi , Yi, > is ρi,i, = 1⋅Δ′ + 0⋅Δ′′ + 0⋅
−
ρ =
i, s−i, ′
Δ + c−i, Δ′′ + di,− Δ ′′′
(26) Δ′′ . Therefore, its relational vector isμi,i, = [1, 0, 0].
′

14
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Fig. 9. The description of the correlation relationship between indexes: (a) The adjacency matrix of indexes; (b) The undirected network of indexes.

Table 10
Network characteristic value.
Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Index 5 Index 6 Index 7 Index 8 Index 9

Net1 0.5000 0.8750 0.8750 0.5000 0.6250 0.6250 0.5000 0.6250 0.6250
Net2 0.0952 0.2738 0.2738 0 0.0714 0.0714 0 0.0714 0.0714
Net3 0.0833 0.1111 0.1111 0.0833 0.0909 0.0909 0.0833 0.0909 0.0909

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Table 11 ( − )2 ( )2 ( )2
τ−i, = si, − 1 + c−i, + d−i, (31)
Network characteristic value.
Outflow Inflow Net flow Standardized net flow Weight Step 5. The closeness of assessment object to positive ideal solution is
Index 1 0.2424 3.0446 − 2.8022 0.1783 0.0538 calculated and adopted as the arranging basis.
Index 2 7.8489 0 7.8489 0.9000 0.2716 By replacing Euclidean distance with relational vector distance,
Index 3 7.8489 0 7.8489 0.9000 0.2716 TOPSIS is modified. The closeness of Yi, to positive ideal solution is
Index 4 0 3.9575 − 3.9575 0.1000 0.0302
calculated as follows.
Index 5 0.6579 1.9031 − 1.2452 0.2838 0.0856
Index 6 0.6579 1.9031 − 1.2452 0.2838 0.0856 τ−i,
Index 7 0 3.9575 − 3.9575 0.1000 0.0302 λi = (32)
τ+i, + τ−i,
Index 8 0.6579 1.9031 − 1.2452 0.2838 0.0856
Index 9 0.6579 1.9031 − 1.2452 0.2838 0.0856
According to the arranging rule of TOPSIS, all evaluation objects are
arranged according to their closeness values. The SMP with the biggest
Step 4. The relational vector distance from assessment object to ideal closeness value is the best one, and the GPEoSM is achieved.
solution is calculated.
Because the relational vector of set pairs < Yi ,Y + >and< Yi ,Yi, >are 6. Case study
i,
μ+ i, , ci, , di, ]andμi,
[s+ = [1, 0, 0] respectively, the relational vector dis­
+ +
i, =
This section will evaluate the green performance of the remote
tance from assessment object Yi, to ideal solution Y + is calculated as
operation and maintenance service project of an air conditioning en­
follows.
terprise in combination with the GPEoSM framework and approach
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( + )2 ( )2 ( + )2 driven by digital twin proposed above. The project is a key component of
τ+i, = si, − 1 + c+ i, + di, (30) the enterprise’s smart manufacturing strategy.
At present, the enterprise provides cloud intelligent remote opera­
Similarly, the relational vector distance from assessment object Yi, to tion and maintenance service project, including real-time remote
ideal solution Y− is calculated as follows. monitoring of unit operation, automatic prompt of unit abnormality,
automatic analysis of big data, construction of the best energy-saving

Table 12
Weighted index value matrix.
Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Index 5 Index 6 Index 7 Index 8 Index 9

P1 0.0322 0.0617 0.1028 0.0103 0.0477 0.0561 0.0229 0.0604 0.0705

P2 0.0218 0.1485 0.1550 0.0048 0.0541 0.0031 0.0224 0.0027 0.0595
P3 0.0241 0.1785 0.1146 0.0029 0.0398 0.0727 0.0118 0.0237 0.0271
P4 0.0212 0.0857 0.0640 0.0239 0.0308 0.0800 0.0198 0.0040 0.0813
P5 0.0189 0.1938 0.0423 0.0147 0.0514 0.0581 0.0052 0.0083 0.0029

15
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

Table 13 fuzzed to get the corresponding trapezoid fuzzy number, as shown in

Relational degrees of < y1,t , y1+ > and < y1,t , y1− >. Table 2.
< y1,t , y+ < y1,t , y−1 > The index value calculation of five SMP alternates is done after the
1 >
Δ′ Δ′′ ′′′ Δ′ Δ′′ ′ experts master the digital twin information comprehensively. The
Δ Δ′′
detailed process is as follow.
t= 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Three experts participate in the SMP alternates index value calcu­
t= 2 0 1 0 1 0 0
lation. For index 1, the fuzzy reciprocal assessment matrices given by
t= 3 0 0 0.5370 0 0 0.4630
t= 4 0 0 0.3518 0 0 0.6482
three experts areE1,1 , E2,1 and E3,1 as shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
t= 5 0 0 0.7255 0 0 0.2745 E1,1 , E2,1 and E3,1 are all qualified by consistency inspection. As
t= 6 0 0 0.6902 0 0 0.3098
shown in Table 6, the group assessment matrix is constructed asE ̃1 =
t= 7 1 0 0 0 1 0
1 1 1,1 2,1 3,1
t= 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 [̃ei,j ]5×5 where ̃ei,j = {̃ei,j , ̃ei,j , ̃ei,j }.
t= 9 0 0 0.8617 0 0 0.1383 1 1,1 2,1 3,1
For instance, ̃e1,2 = {̃e1,2 ,̃e1,2 ,̃e1,2 } = {5
̃ /5,
̃7 ̃ /3,
̃6 ̃ /4}.
̃ According to
1,1 ̃ in ̃e1 is
Definitions 1 and 2, the rough boundary interval of ̃e1,2 = 5 ̃ /5
1,2
operation scheme, etc. This section mainly combines with an actual [ ] ̃̃
1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1
project of the enterprise to carry out its green evaluation. The users used expressed as RBI(̃e1,2 ) = L(̃e1,2 ),L(̃e1,2 ) , here L(̃e1,2 ) = 51/5 = (1, 1, 1, 1)
two 1000 kW water-cooled units for regional heating or cooling before 1,1 ̃5/̃5+̃7/̃3+̃6/̃4
and L(̃e1,2 ) = = (1.1667,1.3598,1.9524,2.4444).
energy-saving transformation of air conditioning system. After that, 3
1,1
users choose to order two sets of maglev central air conditioners to Therefore, RBI(̃e1,2 ) = [(1,1,1,1), (1.1667,1.3598,1.9524,2.4444)].
replace the original scheme. 2,1 3,1 1
Similarly, the rough boundary interval of ̃e1,2 and ̃e1,2 in ̃ei,j can be ob­
Through the remote operation and maintenance services provided by 2,1
tained as RBI(̃e1,2 ) = [(1.1667,1.3598,1.9524,2.4444),(1.5000,1.8571,
the enterprise, the new scheme shows great energy saving. At the same
3,1
time, it also brings work changes to the user’s computer management 3.0000,4.0000)] andRBI(̃e1,2 ) = [(1.0000,1.1111,1.4286,1.6667),
staff. The working environment is more quiet and tidy, and the number (1.2500,1.5397,2.4286,3.1667)].
of employees is reduced. Employees do not need to carry out machine 1
Next, the rough boundary interval of ̃e1,2 can be obtained asRBI(̃e1,2 )
1

room patrol inspection and artificial inspection of unit faults as before, = [(1.0556,1.1570,1.4603,1.7037),(1.3056,1.5855,2.4603,3.2037)].
which greatly reduces the work load, and improves the efficiency and After calculating the rough boundary intervals of other elements in
quality of machine group operation and maintenance. 1 1
E = [̃e ] , the rough boundary interval assessment matrix is con­
̃
In the design phase of the remote operation and maintenance service i,j 5×5

project, several project schemes with different characteristics are pro­ ̃ 1 = [RBI(̃e1 )] . Then, Θ
structed as Θ ̃ t is split into rough lower
i,j 5×5
vided by project design engineers. The enterprise will carry out GPEoSM [
̃ 1 = L(̃e1 )
]
boundary matrix ϕ and rough upper boundary matrix
and find the project scheme with the highest green performance. The i,j
5×5
enterprise has built a digital twin control structure in its business ac­ η1 = [L(̃e1i,j )]5×5 as shown in Tables 7 and 8.
̃
tivities. Therefore, experts can master the digital twin information According to the gravity center principle of triangular fuzzy number,
comprehensively. ̃ 1 and ̃
ϕ η1 are mapped into the real number form ϕ1 and η1 . Then the
There are five alternates of SMP of remote operation and mainte­
nance service, which are P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5. eigenvectors of ϕ1 and η1 corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue are
obtained as z(ϕ1 )=[− 0.6066,− 0.4054,− 0.4335,− 0.3925,− 0.3545] and
z(η1 ) = [− 0.5899,− 0.4043,− 0.4621,− 0.3940,− 0.3462] respectively.
6.1. Index value calculation case After averaging the two eigenvectors, the index value vector of five
SMP alternates on index 1 is obtained as z1 =
According to the index system designed in Section 3.1, index value [0.5983,0.4048,0.4478,0.3933,0.3504]. Finally, we obtain other index
calculation is carried out as follow. values of five SMP alternates. The index value matrix Z = [zi,t ]5×9 is
Based on the membership function of trapezoid fuzzy number [[46], shown in Table 9.
[47]], natural number M can be converted to trapezoid fuzzy number M̃
as follows.
⎧( ) 6.2. Index weight determination case
⎪
⎪ 3
⎪
⎪ 1, 1, , 2 ,M = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
2 The 9 indexes listed in Table 1 are drawn into 9 × 9 matrix as show in
⎪( )
̃ =
⎨ M− 1 M+1 Fig. 8. The matrix is distributed to multiple decision makers. Each de­
M M − 1, , ,M + 1 ,1 < M < 9
⎪
⎪ 2 2 cision maker determines the relationship between any two indexes and
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(
17
) fills in the element values in the matrix. If there is a correlation, the
⎪
⎪
⎩ 8, , 9, 9 ,M = 9 matrix element is filled as ‘1′ . If there is no correlation or the correlation
2
is weak, the matrix element is filled as ‘0′ . In the end, the determination
According to the arithmetic rules of trapezoid fuzzy number, the results of all decision makers are counted.
commonly used nine-level scale assessment comments and values are Only if more than half fill in the element value with ‘1′ , the two

Table 14
Relational vectors, relational vector distances and closeness of all SMP alternates.
Relational vector Relational vector distance Closeness
< Yi, , Y+ > < Yi, , Y− > From Yi, to Y+ From Yi, to Y−

P1 [0.3333,0.1111,0.3518] [0.1111,0.3333,0.2038] 0.7619 0.9710 0.5603

P2 [0.2222,0.2222,0.2955] [0.2222,0.2222,0.2600] 0.8612 0.8497 0.4966
P3 [0,0.1111,0.4733] [0.1111, 0,0.4156] 1.1119 0.9813 0.4688
P4 [0.3333,0.1111,0.1550] [0.1111,0.3333,0.4005] 0.6934 1.0304 0.5977
P5 [0.1111,0.4444,0.2504] [0.4444,0.1111,0.1941] 1.0249 0.5989 0.3688

16
L. Li et al.
indexes are related and an undirected edge between two corresponding
nodes in complex network will be drawn. The undirected network to
describe the correlation relationship between indexes is finally obtained
as shown in Fig. 9.
According to Eqs. (1), (3) and (4), the network characteristic values
of each node in the undirected network formed by SMP alternate eval­
uation indexes are calculated. The network characteristic value matrix
Net = [Neth,i ]3×9 is obtained as shown in Table 10.
Taking index 3 and index 4 for an example, v13,4 = Net3,4 − Net3,4 =
0.3750. Then the Gaussian preference function of index 3 relative to
index 4 on network characteristic Net1 (degree centrality) is G13,4 =
0.8276. Similarly, the Gaussian preference functions of index 3 relative
to index 4 on network characteristic Net2 (betweenness centrality) and
Net3 (closeness centrality) are G23,4 = 0.6082 and G33,4 = 0.0096,
respectively. Considering all characteristics, the degree of index 3 su­
perior to index 4 is expressed by the multiple preference priority expo­
nent θ3,4 = G13,4 + G23,4 + G33,4 = 1.4454. Additionally, the degrees of
index 3 superior to other indexes can also be obtained. Therefore, the
∑9
outflow of index 3 is calculated as δ+
3 = k=1 θ3,k =7.8489 and the inflow
∑
of index 3 is calculated asδ−3 = 9k=1 θk,3 = 0, then the net flow of index 3
is calculated as δ3 = δ+
3 − δ3 =7.8489. The net flows of all indexes are
−
standardized and then the weights of all indexes are obtained. The
outflows, inflows, net flows, standardized net flows and weights of all
indexes are shown in Table 11.
6.3. SMP evaluation case
Based on index value matrix Z = [zi,t ]5×9 shown in Table 9 and index
weight vectorω = [ω1 , ω2 , ..., ω9 ]T shown in Table 11, we can get the
weighted index value matrix Y = [yi,t ]5×9 = [ωt zi,t ]5×9 as shown in
Table 12.
According to Table 12, it can be seen that the positive ideal point is
Y + = [0.0322,0.1938,0.1550,0.0239,0.0541,0.0800,0.0229,0.0604,
0.0813] and the negative ideal point is Y − = [0.0189,0.0617,0.0423,
0.0029,0.0308,0.0031,0.0052,0.0027,0.0029].
Next, P1 (Y 1, =[0.0322,0.0617,0.1028,0.0103,0.0477,
0.0561,0.0229,0.0604,0.0705]) is taken as an example to illustrate the
solving process of SMP evaluation based on modified TOPSIS. Y 1, and
Y + form a set pair which is expressed by < Y1 , Y + >, and Y1, and Y − form
a set pair which is expressed by < Y1 , Y− >.
Set pair < Y1 , Y + > consists of nine element pairs< y1,1 , y+ 1 >, < y1,2 ,
y+
2 >, ..., < y 1,9 , y +
9 >, and set pair < Y 1 , Y −
> consists of nine element
pairs< y1,1 ,y−1 >,< y1,2 ,y−2 >,...,< y1,9 ,y−9 >. For element pairs < y1,1 ,y+
>and < y1,1 , y−1 >, y1,1 =0.0322, y−1 =0.0189 and y+
1 =0.0322. Because
y1,1 = y+ 1 , the relational degree of < y1,1 ,y1 >is obtained as ρ1,1 = 1⋅Δ +
+ +
0⋅Δ′′ + 0⋅Δ′′ , and the relational degree of < y1,1 , y−1 >is obtained as ρ−1,1
′
= 0⋅Δ + 1⋅Δ′′ + 0⋅Δ . The relational degrees of other element pairs in
′ ′′′
< Y1 ,Y+ >and< Y1 , Y − > can be obtained similarly. Then, the relational
degrees of < y1,t , y+
1 > and < y1,t , y1 >are shown in Table 13.
−
Therefore, the relational degree of < Y1 , Y + >is obtained as ρ+ i, =
0.3333⋅Δ′ + 0.1111⋅Δ′′ + 0.3518⋅Δ′′ , and the relational degree of < Y1 ,
′
Y − >is obtained as ρ−i, = 0.1111⋅Δ′ + 0.3333⋅Δ′′ + 0.2038⋅Δ′′ . Further,
′
the relational vector of set pair< Y1 , Y+ > is obtained as μ+ 1, =
[0.3333, 0.1111, 0.3518], and the relational vector of set pair< Y1 , Y − >
is obtained as μ−1, = [0.1111, 0.3333, 0.2038].
The relational vector distance from Y1, to Y + is calculated as τ+1, =
0.7619, and the relational vector distance of from Y1, to Y− isτ−1, =
0.9710. By replacing Euclidean distance with relational vector distance,
TOPSIS is modified. The closeness of Y1, to positive ideal solution is
calculated asλ1 = 0.5603. The relational vectors, relational vector dis­
tances and closeness of all SMP alternates (P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5) are
obtained as shown in Table 14.
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289
Based on the arranging rule of TOPSIS, all SMP alternates are ar­
ranged according to their closeness values shown in Table 14. SMP
alternate P4, with the biggest closeness value, has best green perfor­
mance in the five SMP alternates. Therefore, the air conditioning en­
terprise has achieved GPEoSM.
7. Conclusions
The green performance evaluation method and application research
of smart manufacturing in this paper is based on the practical problems
encountered by the current smart manufacturing enterprises. It aims to
carry out quantitative green evaluation on smart manufacturing, which
is the main direction of the current manufacturing industry. It is a pre­
liminary study combining green development needs and considering the
differences between traditional manufacturing paradigm and traditional
manufacturing paradigm in environmental and social impact.
Green smart manufacturing is the target direction of sustainable
development of manufacturing industry, which focuses on achieving a
reasonable balance of environmental, social and economic performance
of manufacturing system, that is, to achieve sustainable consumption
and production. This requires the support of some technologies and
policies, and this paper focuses on the research of green performance
evaluation methods of smart manufacturing to promote the trans­
formation of manufacturing industry to green smart manufacturing from
the perspective of performance evaluation.
The future research will be carried out from the following two as­
pects. On the one hand, the social impact evaluation in this paper is just
a preliminary study. It is a kind of barrel evaluation and has not studied
its deep mechanism. In the future, the development of smart
manufacturing will focus more on the impact on people, and the final
analysis is to explore whether it can provide a happy work and life for
people. Therefore, it is necessary to study the green evaluation method
of smart manufacturing for people (for example, how to evaluate the
impact of smart manufacturing on people’s chronic and cumulative),
and consider the intelligence and economy of smart manufacturing in
coordination, so as to build a green smart manufacturing maturity model
that can support decision-making. On the other hand, the green per­
formance evaluation framework constructed in this paper is based on
mathematical method model and is suitable for the decision-makers to
carry out the evaluation step by step. Although it is scientific and
convenient, due to the lack of support of smart manufacturing database,
the constructed evaluation framework belongs to post evaluation and
enterprise self-evaluation. It is necessary to improve data collection
methods and evaluation methods with the help of new generation in­
1
formation technology, so as to support green evaluation and scheme
decision-making in advance and in real time.
′
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of
China under grant number 52165061, Ningxia Natural Science Foun­
dation under grant numbers 2020AAC03202 and NZ17111, The Third
Batch of Ningxia Youth Talents Supporting Program under grant number
TGJC2018048 and University-enterprise Joint Project under grant
number 2018HLZ07. The author also thanks assistant editor and the
anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions which improve the
quality of this research.
17
L. Li et al. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022) 100289

References [32] Y. Lin, W. Zhang, An incentive model between a contractor and multiple
subcontractors in a green supply chain based on robust optimization, J. Manag.
Anal. (2020) 1–29.
[1] A. Frank, L. Dalenogare, N. Ayala, Industry 4.0 technologies: implementation
[33] H. Chen, M. Yao, D. Chong, Research on institutional innovation of China’s green
patterns in manufacturing companies, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 210 (2019) 15–26.
insurance investment, J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 4 (1) (2019), 1950003.
[2] Y. Cohen, H. Naseraldin, A. Chaudhuri, Francesco P, Assembly systems in industry
[34] S. Spatari, D. Bagley, H. Maclean, Life cycle evaluation of emerging lignocellulosic
4.0 era: a road map to understand assembly 4.0, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 105
ethanol conversion technologies, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2) (2010) 654–667.
(9) (2019) 4037–4054.
[35] A. Kendall, E. Marvinney, S. Brodt, Life cycle-based assessment of energy use and
[3] Carla Gonçalves Machado, Mats Peter Winroth, Elias Hans Dener Ribeiro da Silva,
greenhouse gas emissions in almond production, part I: analytical framework and
Sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0: an emerging research agenda, Int. J.
baseline results, J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (6) (2015) 1008–1018.
Prod. Res. (2) (2019).
[36] A. Nishimura, Y. Hayashi, K. Tanaka, Life cycle assessment and evaluation of
[4] P. Gazzola, G. Del Campo A, V. Onyango, Going green vs going smart for
energy payback time on high-concentration photovoltaic power generation system,
sustainable development: Quo vadis? J. Clean Prod. 214 (2019) 881–892.
Appl. Energy 87 (9) (2010) 2797–2807.
[5] S. Ren, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, et al., A comprehensive review of big data throughout
[37] M. Bengtsson, B. Steen, Weighting in LCA-approaches and applications, Environ.
product lifecycle to support sustainable smart manufacturing: a challenges and
Prog. 19 (2) (2000) 101–109.
future research directions, J. Clean Prod. 210 (2019) 1343–1365.
[38] W. Schmidt, J. SuIlivan J zx, Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global
[6] Dimitris Mourtzis, Sophia Fotia, Nikoletta Boli, et al., Product-service system (PSS)
context, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7 (1) (2002) 5–10.
complexity metrics within mass customization and industry 4.0 environment, Int.
[39] J. Parent, C. Cucuzzella, J. Reveret, Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2) (2018) 1–13.
methods according to their outcomes, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (2) (2010)
[7] W.F. Gaughran, S. Burke, P. Phelan, Intelligent manufacturing and environmental
164–171.
sustainability, Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 23 (6) (2007) 704–711.
[40] C. Reitinger, M. Dumke, M. Barosevcic, A conceptual framework for impact
[8] A. Giret, D. Trentesaux, M.A. Salido, et al., A holonic multi-agent methodology to
assessment within SLCA, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (4) (2011) 380–388.
design sustainable intelligent manufacturing control systems, J. Clean Prod. 167
[41] N. Sabrina, T. Marzia, R. Scheumann, Impact pathways to address social well-being
(2017) 1370–1386.
and, social justice in SLCA—fair wage and level of education, Sustainability 6 (8)
[9] Ahmed M. Deif, A system model for green manufacturing, J. Clean Prod. 19 (14)
(2014) 4839–4857.
(2011) 1553–1559.
[42] S. Liu, S. Qian, Evaluation of social life-cycle performance of buildings: theoretical
[10] Sung-Hoon Ahn, An evaluation of green manufacturing technologies based on
framework and impact assessment approach, J. Clean Prod. 213 (2019) 792–807.
research databases, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 1 (1) (2014) 5–9.
[43] M. Akhshik, S. Panthapulakkal, J. Tjong, M. Sain, A comparative life cycle
[11] X. Zhang, X. Ming, Z. Liu, et al., General reference model and overall frameworks
assessment based evaluation of greenhouse gas emission and social study: natural
for green manufacturing, J. Clean Prod. (2019) 237.
fibre versus glass fibre reinforced plastic automotive parts, Int. J. Glob. Warm. 15
[12] T. Stock, G. Seliger, Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry
(3) (2018) 350–369.
4.013th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing - Decoupling Growth
[44] R. Wu, D. Yang, J. Chen, Social life cycle assessment revisited, Sustainability 6 (7)
from Resource Use, CIRP (2016) 536–541.
(2014) 4200–4226.
[13] H. Lasi, P. Fettke, H.G. Kemper, et al., Industry 4.0, Bus. Inform. Syst. Eng. 6 (4)
[45] S. Holger, K. Jan, Z. Petra, The social footprint of hydrogen production-a social life
(2014) 239–242.
cycle assessment (S-LCA) of alkaline water electrolysis, in: 8th International
[14] S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran, N. Dhone, Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing
Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE, 2017, pp. 3038–3044.
practices for sustainable organisational performance in Indian manufacturing
[46] L. Li, J. Hang, Y. Gao, C. Mu, Using an integrated group decision method based on
companies, Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5) (2020) 1319–1337.
SVM, TFN-RS-AHP, and TOPSIS-CD for cloud service supplier selection, Math.
[15] D.Johannes Cornelis, S.Jan Ola, An industry 4.0 research agenda for sustainable
Probl. Eng. 2017 (2017) 1–15.
business models, 50th CIRP conference on manufacturing systems, CIRP (2017)
[47] L. Li, J. Hang, H. Sun, L. Wang, A conjunctive multiple-criteria decision-making
721–726.
approach for cloud service supplier selection of manufacturing enterprise, Adv.
[16] M. Waibel, L. Steenkamp, N. Moloko, G. Oosthuizen, Investigating the effects of
Mech. Eng. 9 (3) (2017) 1–15.
smart production systems on sustainability elements, in: 14th Global Conference on
[48] G. Liu, S. Zheng, P. Xu, An ANP-SWOT approach for ESCOs industry strategies in
Sustainable Manufacturing (GCSM, 2017, pp. 731–737.
Chinese building sectors, Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 93 (2018) 90–99.
[17] D. Gorecky, M. Schmitt, M. Loskyll, D. Zuehlke, Human-machine-interaction in the
[49] K. Govindan, A. Diabat, K. Shankar, Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing
industry 4.0 era. 12th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics
with fuzzy approach, J. Clean Prod. 96 (2015) 182–193.
(INDIN), IEEE, 2014, pp. 289–294.
[50] B. Esmaeilian, S. Behdad, B. Wang, The evolution and future of manufacturing: a
[18] S. Luthra, A. Kumar, E. Zavadskas, S. Mangla, J. Garza-Reyes, A industry 4.0 as an
review, J. Manuf. Syst. 39 (2016) 79–100.
enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: an analysis of influential
[51] R. Bradley, I. Jawahir, F. Badurdeen, A total life cycle cost model (TLCCM) for the
strength of drivers in an emerging economy, Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5) (2020)
circular economy and its application to post-recovery resource allocation, Resour.
1505–1521.
Conserv. Recycl. 135 (2018) 141–149.
[19] F. De Felice, A. Petrillo, F. Zomparelli, A bibliometric multicriteria model on smart
[52] A. Mashhadi, S. Behdad, Ubiquitous life cycle assessment (U-LCA): a proposed
manufacturing from 2011 to 2018, in: 16th IFAC Symposium on Information
concept for environmental and social impact assessment of industry 4.0, Manuf.
Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 2018, pp. 1643–1648.
Lett. 15 (2018) 93–96.
[20] E. Williams, Environmental effects of information and communications
[53] M. Peruzzini, F. Gregori, A. Luzi, M. Mengarelli, M. Germani, A social life cycle
technologies, Nature 479 (7373) (2011) 354–358.
assessment methodology for smart manufacturing: the case of study of a kitchen
[21] G. Kou, D. Ergu, C. Lin, Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision
sink, J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 7 (2017) 24–32.
making, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 22 (5) (2016) 738–765.
[54] Q. Liu, H. Zhang, J. Leng, X. Chen, Digital twin-driven rapid individualised
[22] Q. Wang, S. Jiao, Carbon emission analysis and evaluation of engineering
designing of automated flow-shop manufacturing system, Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (12)
refurbished tire based on life cycle, J. Jiangsu Univ. 39 (2) (2018) 144–148,
(2019) 3903–3919.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7775.2018.02.004, https://doi.org/.
[55] K. Zhang, T. Qu, D. Zhou, H. Jiang, Y. Lin, Digital twin-based opti-state control
[23] J. Li, S. Zhang, Y. Nie, A holistic life cycle evaluation of coking production covering
method for a synchronized production operation system, Robot. Comput.-Integr.
coke oven gas purification process based on the subdivision method, J. Clean Prod.
Manuf. 63 (11) (2019) 1–15.
248 (2020) 1–14.
[56] J. Leng, H. Zhang, D. Yan, Q. Liu, X. Chen, D. Zhang, Digital twin-driven
[24] K. Atashgar, O.A. Zargarabadi, Monitoring multivariate profile data in plastic parts
manufacturing cyber-physical system for parallel controlling of smart workshop,
manufacturing industries: an intelligently data processing, J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 8
J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 10 (3) (2019) 1155–1166.
(2017) 38–48.
[57] L. Fan, K. Ding, G. Liu, Digital twin technology within intelligent manufacturing,
[25] L. Xu, C. Wang, Z. Bi, J. Yu, Object-oriented templates for automated assembly
Manuf. Technol. Mach. Tool 7 (2019) 61–66, https://doi.org/10.19287/j.
planning of complex products, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 11 (2) (2014)
cnki.1005-2402.2019.07.010.
492–503.
[58] T. Bian, J. Hu, Y. Deng, Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on
[26] M. Ghobakhloo, N.T. Ching, Adoption of digital technologies of smart
AHP, Physica A 479 (4) (2017) 1777–1787.
manufacturing in SMEs, J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 16 (2019), 100107.
[59] Y. Yang, X. Gang, X. Jun, Mining important nodes in directed weighted complex
[27] D.A. Rossit, F.A. Tohmé, M. Frutos, A data-driven scheduling approach to smart
networks, Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2017 (2017) 1–7.
manufacturing, J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 15 (2019) 69–79.
[60] J. Brankovic, M. Markovic, D. Nikolic, Comparative study of hydraulic structures
[28] L. Xu, C. Wang, Z. Bi, J. Yu, AutoAssem: an automated assembly planning system
alternatives using promethee II complete ranking method, Water Resour. Manag.
for complex products, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 8 (3) (2012) 669–678.
32 (10) (2018) 1–9.
[29] J. Yu, L. Xu, Z. Bi, C. Wang, Extended interference matrices for exploded view of
[61] C. Chen, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
assembly planning, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 11 (1) (2014) 279–286.
environment, Fuzzy Sets Syst 114 (1) (2000) 1–9.
[30] C. Wang, Z. Bi, L. Xu, IoT and cloud computing in automation of assembly
[62] H. Garg, K. Kumar, An advanced study on the similarity measures of intuitionistic
modeling systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 10 (2) (2014) 1426–1434.
fuzzy sets based on the set pair analysis theory and their application in decision
[31] C. Xie, H. Cai, L. Xu, L. Jiang, F. Bu, Linked semantic model for information
making, Soft Comput 22 (15) (2018) 4959–4970.
resource toward cloud manufacturing, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 13 (6) (2017)
3338–3349.

18