Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1017–1021

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

A fuzzy COPRAS approach for analysing the factors affecting

sustainability in ship ports
S. Bathrinath ⇑, P. Saravana kumar, S. Venkadesh, S.S. Suprriyan, K. Koppiahraj, R.K.A. Bhalaji
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankovil-626126, India

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

Article history: Moving towards sustainability has become mandatory for every industrial sector and the shipping indus-
Received 7 May 2021 try is not an exception. Like other industrial sectors, the shipping industry also exponentially pollutes the
Received in revised form 1 July 2021 environment. Considering this, this paper aims to find the factors disturbing the sustainable performance
Accepted 15 July 2021
of a shipping port. Further, in this paper, an attempt has been made to suggest an effective strategy that
Available online 27 July 2021
could help overcome the identified factors. For this, the fuzzy COPRAS (Complex Proportional
Assessment) technique has been used. The factors affecting the sustainability of the shipping port were
Keywords:
identified using a literature survey and expert opinion. Then, based on expert opinion, the factors are
Sustainability
Fuzzy COPRAS
evaluated using the fuzzy COPRAS technique. Findings reveal loading and unloading of petroleum prod-
Shipping port ucts, unexpected accidents, high energy consumption, structural failure and dust generation as the crit-
8D ical factors affecting sustainability. The study suggests 8D (8 Dimension problem solving) as the optimum
strategy for overcoming the discussed factors. In future, the sustainability of the port could be assessed
from technological perspective. Also, usage of an integrated hybrid approach will enhance the findings of
the study.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Functional Material, Manufacturing and Performances.

1. Introduction aims to analyze the various themes in recent sustainability studies,

The definition of sustainability is focused on forestry and fish-
eries, and it has been described as ‘‘ability to maintain productivity
despite impediments” in the fields of renewable resources such as
agriculture, ecology, and fisheries [1]. The definition of sustainabil-
ity has been established in various fields such as management and
social science, environmental science, and technical science. How-
ever, the most accepted definition of sustainability was given by
the Brundtland Report for the World Commission on Environment
and Development in 1987. The Brundtland Report defines sustain-
ability as the method of meeting the needs of the current without
degrading the ability of future generations to meet their demands
[2]. In terms of sustainability issues, the maritime transport indus-
try which includes shipping, ports, and maritime organizations, has
received lesser attention than the aviation and fright industries.
For this, trading has accrued an important body of academic
research outcomes over the last two decades. This individual issue
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bathri@gmail.com (S. Bathrinath).
especially those relevant to shipping, port and maritime organisa-
tions, and identify and discuss the main issues emerging in sus-
tainability [3]. It will enable industry contributors to gain a
better understanding of the current state of sustainability, assist
them in developing appropriate management insights, and assist
them in developing relevant sustainability policies for the industry.
Sustainability has three dimensions: environmental, economic,
and social. These three dimensions are often known as the triple
bottom line of sustainability concept. These three dimensions are
used to monitor the sustainability performance of the ports.
Because of their nature, different utilities, and a wide range of envi-
ronmental concerns such as water releases, toxic emissions, waste
and noise production, and pollution, ports are complex [4]. Ports
handle different companies with different activities and provide
a varied choice of services. Ship ports are criticized for severely
polluting the industry, despite the fact that they have several
opportunities to reduce emissions and pollution. Sustainability in
the shipping port industry is a developing source of alarm for port
authorities, policymakers, port users and local groups [5]. As a
result, sustainability is one of the core aspects for the port industry,
and it was believed that a more in-depth approach at it would be

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.07.350
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Functional Material, Manufacturing and Performances.
S. Bathrinath, P. Saravana kumar, S. Venkadesh et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1017–1021

beneficial. Accordingly, the study aims to determine the challenges imperfect. Consequently, COPRASF is proposed where criteria
in the port industry and the minimization techniques by analyzing weights and alternative ratings are given by linguistic terms that
factors affecting the sustainability studies published in various are addressed using fuzzy numbers.
databases [6]. To address this, the remainder of this paper is struc- Steps in COPRAS-F are as follows:
tured as follows. They are identifying the difficulties in port sus- 1. Select the linguistic scores for factors and strategies related to
tainability. Subsequently, collecting the data, the methods and factors. The value of assessment factor weights and strategy scores
calculation used to analyze studies and the results are expressed. are presumed as linguistic terms in this process to measure prob-
Finally, the results are discussed with the industry experts to rec- lems in a fuzzy context. Linguistic values for the importance
ognize the methodology to cut down the issues in the port weight of each factor are shown in Table 1 and linguistic values
industry. for preference rating of each strategy are presented in Table 2.
This study offers some significance contribution to the litera- 2. Establish fuzzy decision matrix.
ture on sustainability. Unlike many earlier studies, which mainly In assuming that the number of factors is n and the count of
assess the sustainability in the industrial environment, this study strategies is m, fuzzy decision matrix will be obtained with m rows
examined the sustainability performance in a shipping port. Also, and n columns as the following matrix:
this study evaluates the critical factors that need to be considered 2


3
in sustainable performance of the shipping port using multi- x11 x12  x1n
6


7
6  x2n 7
criteria decision making (MCDM) technique. The outcome of the

6 x21 x22 7
study will provide better insight to the port management and D¼6 . .. .. .. 7 ð2Þ
6 . 7
policy-makers. 4 . . . . 5




xm1 xm2 xmn
2. Methodology and factors are constructed as follows:





2.1. Fuzzy theory W ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; :::; wn Þ ð3Þ
Defuzzify the fuzzy decision matrix and each criterion’s fuzzy
Sufficient knowledge and an inclusive database on several var-
weight into crisp values. To defuzzify each criterion’s fuzzy deci-
ious problems are needed to analyze important infrastructures.
sion matrix and fuzzy weight into crisp values, the authors used
There is a close interrelation between complexity and reliability;
the centre of area (COA) method. There is no need to bring any
therefore, accumulating the difficulty may reduce reliability. Zadeh
evaluators’ preferences in this method because it is a simple and
(1965) [7] introduced fuzzy logic that can consider unreliability
practical one. The BNP value for the fuzzy number
and fix the problems where there are no exact boundaries and




accurate values. Fuzzy logic gives a procedure for calculating Ri ¼ ðARi ; BRi ; CRi Þ can be calculated using the following equation:
straightly with words [8].





A fuzzy set is a high-level mathematical method for managing BNP i ¼ ½ðCRi  ARi Þ þ ðBRi  ARi Þ=3 þ ARi ð4Þ
decision-making uncertainty. Commonly, a fuzzy set is called a 3. Normalization of the defuzzy decision-making matrix.
crisp set. A fuzzy number agrees to the closed interval 0 and 1,  
 xij
where 1expresses full membership and 0 addresses non- xij ¼ Pn ; i ¼ 1; n andj ¼ 1; m ð5Þ
membership. Since crisp sets only allow 0 or 1, different types of j¼1 xij

fuzzy numbers can be used depending on the situation. It is much After this step, normalize the decision-making matrix:
easy to work with fuzzy triangular numbers (TFNs) because they 2  
3
are calculated simply and are good at developing representation x11 x12    x1m
6   7
and data processing in a fuzzy environment [9].  6 x12 x22    x2m 7
6 7
Consider à be a fuzzy number on R and a triangular fuzzy num- X¼6 . .. .. 7 ð6Þ
6 . 7
ber (TFN) if its membership functions 4 . . ... . 5
  
mÃ(x) : R ? [0,1] be defined as follows: xn1 xn2    xnm
8
> 0; x6l 4. Calculate weighted normalized decision matrix.
>
>
< ðx  lÞ=ðm  lÞ; l6x6m  
lA
ðxÞ ¼ ð1Þ
_ 
x ¼ xij :qj ; i ¼ 1; n andj ¼ 1; m: ð7Þ
>
> ðu  xÞ=ðu  mÞ; m 6 x 6 u
>
:
ij

0; otherwise In Eq. (7) qij is weight of the j  th attribute.

2 3
^x11 ^x12    ^x1m
2.2. Fuzzy COPRAS approach 6 ^x
6 21 ^x22    ^x2m 7
7
^¼6
X 6 .. .. .. 7
7 ð8Þ
COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment) method was intro- 4 . . ... . 5
duced by Zavadskas and Kaklauskas [10] in 1996. The COPRAS ^xn1 ^xn2    ^xnm
method gives an appropriate solution with the proportion to the
best solution. This method deduces the shortest and relative
dependency of the importance and efficacy value of examined ver-
sions on a system of criteria suitably expressing the alternatives Table 1
and on the criteria’s values and weights. In 2007 Zavadskas and Linguistic terms for factors.

Antucheviciene [11] introduced the COPRAS-F. Linguistic term Fuzzy number

In normal COPRAS, the criteria weights and the alternative Very Low importance (VL) (0.0,0.0,0.25)
rankings are considered crisp numerical data. Although, under Low importance (LI) (0.0,0.25,0.5)
many constraints, crisp data are not enough to manage real- Importance (I) (0.25,0.5,0.75)
world decision problems and subsequently, correct knowledge is High importance (H) (0.5,0.75,0.1)
Very High importance (VH) (0.75,1.0,1.0)
not possible to gain easily. These make decisions indefinite and
1018
S. Bathrinath, P. Saravana kumar, S. Venkadesh et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1017–1021

Table 2 3.2. Selection of strategy

Linguistic rating for strategies.

Linguistic term Fuzzy number Choosing strategy is the first step for resolving factors in ship
Very Low (VL) (0.0,0.0,2.5) port. Selection strategies are used to determine the best solution
Low (L) (0.0,2.5,5.0) for the shipping industry’s issue; among the several strategies, this
Fair(F) (2.5,5.0,7.5) study analyzed and selected the five strategies that are most appli-
High (H) (5.0,7.5,10.0) cable for solving the challenges relevant to the ship port. For
Very high (VH) (7.5,10.0,10.0)
selecting the strategies, initially extent literature on port sustain-
ability were analyzed. From literature analysis, five strategies were
selected. These selected challenges from the literatures were dis-
5. Sums Pj of strategies cussed with the managers of different shipping ports to confirm
X
k strategies for evaluation. When challenges are listed and a selec-
Pi ¼ ^xij ð9Þ tion strategy is applied, the best solution for the challenges is
j¼1 selected.

K is a number of strategies that must be maximized

6. Sums Ri of strategies 3.3. Estimating the strategy using the COPRAS-F

X
m
_ In this phase, evaluate the strategy by the challenges listed and
Ri ¼ x ð10Þ acquire the suitable methodology to minimize the problems. It can
ij
j¼kþ1
be ascertained using the COPRAS-F technique. Linguistic terms are
In formula (13) (m  k) is a number of strategies that must be used to access the ratings and importance weights of factors and
minimized. strategies. The linguistic terms and fuzzy triangular numbers are
7. Determine the minimum value of Ri: presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Rmin ¼ min Ri ; i ¼ 1; n: ð11Þ 4. Case analysis
i

8. Calculate the relative weight of each strategyQ i :

The proposed model is used to prioritize the strategies that
P become the problem solver for the shipping industry’s challenges.
Rmin n Ri
Q i ¼ P i þ Pn i¼1 ð12Þ An example, sustainability issues in koper port embraced from
Ri i¼1 Rmin
Ri improvement of sustainability of ports logistics [12]. In that exam-
Eq. (12) can to be written as follows: ple, port of koper has improving its logistics and is becoming even
more capable by emerging pioneering green infrastructure solu-
Pn
Ri tions to present new technologies [13]. These technologies help
Q i ¼ Pi þ Pi¼1 ð13Þ
Ri ni¼1 R1 prevent pollution and reduce the noise and emissions in the port
i
and the surrounding areas.
9. Determine the optimality factor K:
 4.1. Factors identification
K ¼ max Q i ; i ¼ 1; n: ð14Þ
i
In this case, 15 problems were identified as the major chal-
10. Determination of the priority of strategies. The greater
lenges: the barrier for sustainability in ports. The challenges are
weight of strategies Qi, the higher the project’s priority. In the case
as follows:
of Qmax, the satisfaction degree is the highest.
1. Problem of optimizing loading and unloading containers to &
11. Calculation of the utility degree of each strategy:
fro a ship at container terminals.
Qi 2. High energy consumption and unacceptably high level of
Ni ¼ 100% ð15Þ noise.
Q max
3. Structural failure of container shells.
where Qi and Qmax are the weight of projects obtained from Eq. (13). 4. Any failure of any part of the crane will lead to delays in the
cargo operation.
5. Failure of twist-lock pin supporting containers.
3. The suggested framework 6. Dust during handling.
7. Lacks of reception facilitations for dirty ballast water, waste
The suggested framework for ranking challenges in accordance oil and garbage.
to shipping port has the following three phases: 8. Improper maintenance of container handling machinery may
1. Identify the factors. lead to an accident.
2. Select the evaluation strategies. 9. Challenges faced by the employees while handling chemical
3. Evaluate the strategies using the COPRAS-F procedure. products containing containers.
10. Employees don’t have enough time for maintenance work at
3.1. Factors identification the port.
11. Oil and another spillage from the container dissolve the
In this phase, the factors that could disrupt the cargo handling surface.
and maintenance, affecting the shipping industry’s surroundings 12. Noise from ship engines and machinery used for loading and
and making hazards to mankind, should be recognized. One of unloading.
the best ways to recognise and analyse ship port problems is to 13. Loading and unloading of petroleum products.
question which variables are more important, which are more 14. Preferred storage methods for minimizing pollution from
open to the environment, and get the right responses. stored materials.
1019
S. Bathrinath, P. Saravana kumar, S. Venkadesh et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1017–1021

15. Disposals of wastewater in the sea.
4.2. Selection of strategies
As discussed earlier, evaluation criteria are required to resolve
this problem efficiently. The problem-solving tools used are: PDCA
(T1), 5S (T2), 8D (T3), Six sigma (T4) and Just-in-Time (JIT) (T5).
4.3. Estimating the strategies using fuzzy COPRAS
The identified risks were evaluated, based on the opinion of 8
decision-makers with minimum 5 years’ experience, to evaluate
the weights of factors and strategies considering each factor by
using linguistic variables given in Table 1 and Table 2. Two ques-
tionnaires are designed; one is to get the weights of factors and
the other is to acquire the importance of strategies for factors. To
determine each factors fuzzy weight, linguistic variables are trans-
formed into triangular fuzzy numbers as shown in the third col-
umn of Table 3. The crisp weights are calculated by Eq. (4) and
are given in the last column of Table 3.
Then, fuzzy evaluation matrix is constructed by comparing fif-
teen factors with five strategies separately. The fuzzy decision
matrix is presented in Table 4. Fuzzy decision matrix is converted
into crisp values using Eq.(4). Decision matrix formed in Table 4 is
normalized. The weighted decision matrix for the existing strate-
gies is then calculated by multiplying the weights of factors with
the normalized decision matrix as shown in Table 5.
Then, the relative weight of each strategy is calculated. Finally,
the utility degree of each strategy is calculated as given in Table 6.
According to Table 6, the problem-solving method is ranked,
which flows in the ascending order as follows 8D, PDCA, 5S, just
in time and six sigma. Therefore, the best method of solving tool
is 8D.
5. Results and discussion
With the help of the literature and suggestions given by the
shipping port industry experts, the port industry’s major chal-
lenges are identified. The problems have undergone in the mar-
itime industry, such as the damage of twist lock pin in the
container, makes the containers in the ship arrangement falls.
When loading and unloading cargoes with petroleum products, it
will produce volatile organic compounds; while handling the fluid
substances, the oil and another spillage from the container dis-
solves the surrounding surface regions [14,15]. For loading and
unloading the container from ship to shore, the workers used the
quarry crane to handle the container as an impact high power
source safely is required due to heavy energy consumption in the
crane and the crane’s noise makes disrupt the workers and the sur-
rounding areas. During the containers’ movement under several
operations, the containers went through structural failure. The
outer region known as the container’s shells is exposed to wear
and tear as a reason for the rough handling of the containers
[16]. The former is the maximum difficulties confront in the port
sector. This study referred to some sources for solving such prob-
lems and took five problem-solving tools: Six sigma, PDCA, Just
in time, 8D, 5S. By considering the experts’ suggestions, the study
finds out the impact of the alternatives on the challenges. Using the
COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment) method, the study
finds the best problem-solving tool for all the challenges. After
the calculation, the result 8D (8-Disciplines problem-solving pro-
cess) is the highest possible tool to resolve the port industry’s
problems [17]. 8D is the methodology intended to find out the root
cause of the problem and gives a solution for clearing it. The
method contains Problem-solving effort may be implemented into
the processes and methods, improved skills for executing correc-
tive action, an development in management’s accepting of prob-
lems and problem resolution. For these reasons, by using this 8D
methodology, this study can solve the port industry’s problems
[18]. This method is appropriate to solve the problems more than
the other methodology.
Regarding the challenges, the challenge F5 is the most critical
challenge in port management. This finding seems to be obvious,
that the twist-lock damage is very frequent in the port. Since the
goods handled in the port are very heavy, damage of the twist-
lock is very fatal [19]. Similarly, challenge F13 is also very critical
in addressing the sustainability issues in the port. Most of the pet-
roleum products are transported through sea routes. The reason for
choosing sea routes is because low cost. Though sea routes are
highly preferred for transporting oil products, a large number of
accidents have occurred during transportation. As a result, the
water bodies are polluted and the ports are also facing many diffi-
culties in handling the oil products [5]. In handling the oil prod-
ucts, the port management is using hooks for lifting the oil
barrel. In such situation, hole is created in the barrel and this leads
to oil spill and leakage. Such leakage leads to the occurrence of
some drastic accidents. Accidents like slippery and water pollution
are the result of mishandling of oil products [20]. In managing all
these challenges, an appropriate strategy has to be used by the port
management. In this study, the strategy 8D has been identified as
the ideal strategy for handling the above discussed challenges. 8D
is a problem solving methodology designed to find the root cause
of a problem, devise a short-term fix and implement a long-term
solution to prevent recurring problems.

6. Conclusion
Table 3
Fuzzy weights of factors.
For the constant utilization of the ship port for more than years,
Factors Linguistic term Fuzzy weight Crisp weight the port’s sustainability is mandatory. In this paper, the factors that
F1 I (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5 are the major challenges (or) the problems arising in the port
F2 H (0.5,0.75,1.0) 0.75 industry to maintain sustainability are analysed. From the litera-
F3 H (0.5,0.75,1.0) 0.75 ture and the well-experienced employees in the port, the problems
F4 I (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5
that they are facing in the industry are identified. And from that
F5 VH (0.75,1.0,1.0) 0.916
F6 H (0.5,0.75,1.0) 0.75 information, the study come out with the problems confront in
F7 I (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5 ship port. In the way of prioritization, the study get the utmost
F8 LI (0.0,0.25,0.5) 0.25 problems like containers rollover in the ship, emission of fossil fuel
F9 I (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5 from the container, maintenance of the quarry crane, consumption
F10 LI (0.0,0.25,0.5) 0.25
F11 H (0.5,0.75,1.0) 0.75
of high power, etc. To minimize these issues, problem-solving tools
F12 I (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5 are utilized. By the Fuzzy COPRAS approach, the study concluded
F13 VH (0.75,1.0,1.0) 0.916 that the 8D methodology would be the best method to minimize
F14 I (0.25,0.5,0.75) 0.5 the port sector’s problems and difficulties. In this study, the port’s
F15 LI (0.0,0.25,0.5) 0.25
issues and specified the solution to decrease the problems are
1020
S. Bathrinath, P. Saravana kumar, S. Venkadesh et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1017–1021

Table 4
Fuzzy decision matrix.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15

T1 0.75 0.5 0.916 0.75 0.916 0.916 0.916 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.916 0.75 0.916 0.5
T2 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.916 0.75 0.916 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.916 0.75 0.916
T3 0.75 0.916 0.75 0.75 0.916 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.916 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5
T4 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.916 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.916 0.08 0.75
T5 0.916 0.5 0.08 0.25 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.25 0.916 0.08 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25

Table 5
Weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15

T1 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.14 0.27 0.21 0.14 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.04
T2 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.22 0.21 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.17 0.08 0.21 0.12 0.07
T3 0.12 0.24 0.19 0.14 0.27 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.21 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.04
T4 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.01 0.06
T5 0.14 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.02

Table 6 industry, Sadhana - Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci. 44 (3) (2019) 55, https://doi.org/
Fuzzy COPRAS output. 10.1007/s12046-018-1050-4.
[5] S. Bathrinath, N. Abuthakir, K. Koppiahraj, S. Saravanasankar, T. Rajpradeesh, R.
S K Rank Manikandan, An initiative towards sustainability in the petroleum industry: a
review, Mater. Today Proc. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
T1 1.86 98.00 2
j.matpr.2021.02.330.
T2 1.78 93.54 3 [6] S. Bathrinath, R.A. Koshy, R.K.A. Bhalaji, K. Koppiahraj, Identification of the
T3 1.90 100.00 1 critical activity in heat treatment process using TISM, Mater. Today Proc. 39
T4 1.44 75.70 5 (2021) 60–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.157.
T5 1.60 84.32 4 [7] L.A. Zadeh, Information and control, Fuzzy Sets. 8 (1965) 338–353.
[8] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy logic = computing with words, in (1999) 3–23, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1873-4_1.
[9] G. Torlak, M. Sevkli, M. Sanal, S. Zaim, Analyzing business competition by using
identified. In the way of using this 8D methodology, the issues can fuzzy TOPSIS method: an example of Turkish domestic airline industry, Expert
be cut down. This will assist in maintaining sustainability in the Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 3396–3406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.125.
[10] A. Zavadskas, E.K. Kaklauskas, Determination of an efficient contractor by
port industry. As a future scope of the study, an integrated MCDM using the new method of multicriteria assessment, Int. Symp. ‘‘The Organ.
method could be used in analysing the sustainability challenges in Manag. Constr. Shap. Theory Pract. 2 (1996) 94–104.
the ports. Further, a cross-study must be carried by considering the [11] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, Multiple criteria evaluation of rural
building’s regeneration alternatives, Build. Environ. 42 (1) (2007) 436–451,
ports located in different countries.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.001.
[12] E. Twrdy, I. Trupac, J. Kolenc, Container boom in the port of Koper, PROMET -
Traffic&Transportation. 24 (1970) 169–175, https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.
CRediT authorship contribution statement v24i2.289.
[13] R. Kumar, S. Singh, P.S. Bilga, Jatin, J. Singh, S. Singh, M.-L. Scutaru, C.I. Pruncu,
S. Bathrinath: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - original Revealing the benefits of entropy weights method for multi-objective
optimization in machining operations: a critical review, J. Mater. Res.
draft. P. Saravana kumar: Writing - original draft. S. Venkadesh: Technol. 10 (2021) 1471–1492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.114.
Writing - original draft. S.S. Suprriyan: Writing - original draft. [14] S.S. Qarnain, S. Muthuvel, S. Bathrinath, S. Saravanasankar, Analyzing factors in
K. Koppiahraj: Methodology. R.K.A. Bhalaji: Validation. emerging computer technologies favoring energy conservation of building
sector, Mater. Today Proc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2020.05.121.
Declaration of Competing Interest [15] K. Karuppiah, B. Sankaranarayanan, S. Subramaniam, Evaluation of the barriers
in the adoption of automated technology by the manufacturing sector, A Case
from India, in (2021:) 421–429, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0673-
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- 1_35.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared [16] L. Sislian, A. Jaegler, P. Cariou, A literature review on port sustainability and
ocean’s carrier network problem, Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 19 (2016) 19–26,
to influence the work reported in this paper.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.03.005.
[17] R. Simmons, Book review: introduction to 8D problem solving: including
References practical applications and examples, Qual. Manag. J., 25, 2018, 201–201,
10.1080/10686967.2018.1515526.
[18] R. Kumar, R. Dubey, S. Singh, S. Singh, C. Prakash, Y. Nirsanametla, G. Królczyk,
[1] V. Koilo, Sustainability issues in maritime transport and main challenges of the R. Chudy, Multiple-criteria decision-making and sensitivity analysis for
shipping industry, Environ. Econ., 10, 2019, 48–65, 10.21511/ee.10(1).2019.04. selection of materials for knee implant femoral component, Materials
[2] K. Koppiahraj, S. Bathrinath, V.G. Venkatesh, V. Mani, Y. Shi, Optimal (Basel). 14 (2021) 2084, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14082084.
sustainability assessment method selection: a practitioner perspective, Ann. [19] G. Singh, S. Singh, C. Prakash, R. Kumar, R. Kumar, S. Ramakrishna,
Oper. Res. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-03946-z. Characterization of three-dimensional printed thermal-stimulus polylactic
[3] K. Narula, Emerging trends in the shipping industry –transitioning towards acid-hydroxyapatite-based shape memory scaffolds, Polym. Compos. 41 (9)
sustainability, Marit. Aff. J. Natl. Marit. Found. India. 10 (1) (2014) 113–138, (2020) 3871–3891, https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.v41.910.1002/pc.25683.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2014.928473. [20] V. Chodha, R. Dubey, R. Kumar, S. Singh, S. Kaur, Selection of industrial arc
[4] R.K.A. Bhalaji, S. Bathrinath, S.G. Ponnambalam, S. Saravanasankar, A fuzzy welding robot with TOPSIS and entropy MCDM techniques, Mater. Today Proc.
decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyse risk (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.487.
factors related to environmental health and safety aspects in the healthcare

1021