Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Technical Report

A methodological concept for phase change material selection based on

multiple criteria decision analysis with and without fuzzy environment
Manish K. Rathod ⇑, Hiren V. Kanzaria
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, 395 007 Gujarat, India

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

Article history: Selection of proper phase change material (PCM) plays an important role towards the development of a
Received 27 July 2010 latent heat thermal energy storage system. Selection of the phase change material is a difficult and
Accepted 15 February 2011 restrained task due to the immense number of different available materials having different characteris-
Available online 18 February 2011
tics. One has to select such PCM which will give the desired thermal performance at minimum cost. This
study deals with two Multiple Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) methods to solve PCM selection prob-
lem. These two methods are technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)
method and fuzzy TOPSIS method that uses linguistic variable presentation and fuzzy operation. Both
the methods use an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method to determine weights of the criteria. TOPSIS
and fuzzy TOPSIS methods are used to obtain final ranking. A problem to evaluate the best choice of PCM
used in solar domestic hot water system is considered here to demonstrate the effectiveness and feasi-
bility of the proposed model. Empirical results showed that the proposed methods are viable approaches
in solving PCM selection problem. TOPSIS is suitable for the use of precise performance ratings while the
fuzzy TOPSIS is a preferred technique when the performance ratings are vague and inaccurate.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction However, in choosing the right material, there is not always a

The storage of thermal energy as a latent heat of phase change
material (PCM) has generated considerable interest among
researchers in recent times. It has a capacity to store large amount
of heat in the form of latent heat of fusion [1]. Latent heat is ab-
sorbed or released when a material melts or solidifies respectively.
This gives material an extra heat storing capacity if their melting
point is located within the working temperature. Every latent heat
thermal energy storage system requires a suitable PCM for use in
particular kind of thermal energy storage application.
Sharma et al. [2], Zalba et al. [3] and Abhat [4] have given over-
views of phase change materials (PCMs) used in low temperature
applications. PCMs can be broadly classified as paraffins, fatty acids
and salt hydrates. Paraffins are readily available, inexpensive and
melt at different temperatures relating to their carbon-chain
length. Fatty acids come from meat byproducts and vegetables.
They are renewable and readily available but 2–3 times costly than
paraffins. The oldest and most studied group of PCMs is salt
hydrates. They have high thermal conductivity and low cost. All
the group of PCM has its own characteristics, applications, advan-
tages, and limitations. For the development of latent heat thermal
energy storage system, the choice of suitable PCM plays an impor-
tant role in addition to heat transfer mechanisms.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 261 2201966; fax: +91 261 2228394.
E-mail address: mkr@med.svnit.ac.in (M.K. Rathod).
single definite criterion of selection. The designers or engineers
have to take into account a large number of material selection cri-
teria depending upon the application. The ideal phase change
material to be used for latent heat storage must have the following
criteria: high sensitive heat capacity and heat of fusion; high den-
sity and heat conductivity; chemically inert; non-toxic, non-flam-
mable and non-hazardous; reasonable and inexpensive. As no
single material can have all the required properties for an ideal
thermal storage media, one has to select such PCM which will give
the desired thermal performance at minimum cost.
The selection of an optimal material for an engineering applica-
tion from among two or more alternative materials on the basis of
two or more attributes or criteria is a Multiple Attribute Decision-
Making (MADM) problem. MADM methods perform an important
role for the decision process for both the small and large problem.
In the past, lots of research had been reported for selection of
material using classical MADM methods. The methods are simple
additive weighted (SAW) method, weighted product method
(WPM), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solu-
tion (TOPSIS), Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno
Resenje (VIKOR) method, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), graph
theory and matrix representation approach (GTMA), etc. [5–7]. Jee
and Kang [8] proposed TOPSIS method to rank the candidate
materials for which several requirements are considered
simultaneously. Shanian and Savadogo [9] applied TOPSIS method
as multiple criteria decision support analysis for material selection

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.02.040
 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585 3579

of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. Chan and Table 1
Tong [10] used gray relation analysis approach (GRA) for multi cri- Relative importance of factors [7].

teria selection method. Rao [11] presented a logical procedure for
material selection for a given engineering application. The proce-
dure was based on an improved compromise ranking method.
Rao and Davim [12] presented a logical procedure based on a com-
bined TOPSIS and AHP method for material selection applicable to
engineering design. Triantaphyllou and Mann [13] examined some
of the practical and computational issues involved when the AHP
method is used in engineering applications. Dagdeviren et al.
[14] develops an evaluation model based on the AHP and TOPSIS
method for the optimal selection of weapon in fuzzy environment.
Chaterjee et al. [15] proposed VIKOR, a compromise ranking meth-
od and ELECTRE, an outranking method to solve material selection
problem. Fayazbakhsh et al. [16] proposed Z-transformation meth-
od for normalization of material properties to overcome the short-
coming of modified digital logic (MDL) method used for material
selection in mehcanical design. Khabbaz et al. [17] proposed a fuz-
zy logic approach for material selection. However, the procedure
needs many fuzzy IF-THEN rules. Jahan et al. [18] reviewed the
variety of quantitative selection procedures developed for screen-
ing and choosing materials. They also proposed a linear assignment
technique which is relatively simpler than other MADM methods
for material selection problem [19]. However, the main weakness
of the suggested method is that it may not be as precise as other
MADM methods when the material selection is based on quantita-
tive material properties. Rao and Patel [20] proposed a novel
MADM method for material selection for a considered design prob-
lem. They used fuzzy logic to convert the qualitative attributes into
quantitative attributes.
The present study is aimed to propose a systematic evaluation
model for the selection of a best suitable phase change material
used in latent heat thermal energy storage unit. The PCM selection
problem is a MADM problem where many criteria should be con-
sidered in decision making among a set of available alternatives.
This problem also contains subjectivity, uncertainty and ambiguity
in assessment process. TOPSIS is more efficient in dealing with the
corporeal attributes and the number of alternatives to be assessed.
It has rational and understandable logic. TOPSIS gives a solution
that is not only closest to the hypothetically best, but which is also
farthest from the hypothetically worst. However, TOPSIS method
requires an efficient tool to evaluate the relative importance of dif-
ferent criteria with respect to the objective and AHP provides such
a tool. AHP is a powerful and flexible decision making process to
get priorities and make the best decision when both tangible and
non tangible aspects of a decision need to be considered [12].
Therefore, the present study employs AHP method to determine
the importance weights of evaluation criteria, and TOPSIS/fuzzy
TOPSIS to obtain the performance ranking of the feasible
alternatives.
Relative importance (aij) Description (i over j)
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Absolute importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
In the first step, a complex decision problem is structured as a
hierarchy with an overall objective at the top level, the multiple
criteria that define the alternatives at the second level and the
decision alternatives at the third level [23]. Once the problem
has been decomposed and the hierarchy is constructed, the second
step starts in order to determine the relative importance of the cri-
teria within each level. To do so, one has to construct a pair-wise
comparison matrix using a scale of relative importance. The index
of importance is defined as shown in Table 1, according to Saaty’s
[21] 1–9 scale. Third step is to ensure that the evaluation of the
pair-wise comparison matrix is reasonable and acceptable per-
forming consistency check.
The complete procedure of AHP method is as follows [22].
(1) Construct a pair-wise comparison matrix using a scale of rel-
ative importance. Let C = {Cj|j = 1, 2, . . . , n} be the set of cri-
teria. The result of the pair-wise comparison on n criteria
can be summarized in an (n  n) evaluation matrix A. The
every element aij (i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n) denotes the comparative
importance of criteria i with respect to criteria j. A criteria
compared with itself is always assigned the value 1 so the
main diagonal entries of the pair-wise comparison matrix
are all 1.
2 3
1 a12 . . . a1n
6a
6 21 1 . . . a2n 7
7
A¼6 7 aji ¼ 1=aij ; aij – 0 ð1Þ
4 ... ... ... ... 5
an1 an2 ... 1
(2) Find the relative normalized weight (Wi) of each criteria by
calculating the geometric mean of ith row and normalizing
the geometric means of rows in the comparison matrix.
GMi ¼ fai1  ai2  ai3  . . .  aij g1=n ð2Þ
GMi
W i ¼ Pj¼n ð3Þ
j¼1 GMi
(3) Obtain matrix X which denote an n-dimensional column
vector describing the sum of the weighted values for the
importance degrees of alternatives, then X = A  W, where

W ¼ ½W 1 ; W 2 ; W 3 ; . . . ; W n T ð4Þ
2. Methodology 2 32 3 2 3
1 a12 . . . a1n W1 c1
6a 1 . . . a2n 76 7 6 7
2.1. Evaluation of weights: AHP method 6 21 76 W 2 7 6 c2 7
X ¼AW ¼6 76 7¼6 7 ð5Þ
4 ... ... ... ... 54 ... 5 4...5
The AHP is developed by Saaty [21] to solve complex problems an1 an2 ... 1 Wn cn
involving multiple criteria. It is useful to determine the relative
importance of a set of criteria in a MADM problem. The AHP meth- (4) Calculate the consistency values (CV) for the cluster of alter-
od requires three steps: (i) developing structure of the model with natives represented by the vector
a goal or objective, (ii) assessing the decision-maker evaluations by
ci
pair-wise comparison, (iii) using the eigenvector method to yield CV i ¼
Wi
weights for criteria. An advantage of the AHP over other MADM
methods is that AHP is designed to incorporate tangible as well
as non tangible factors. These factors are an important part of (5) Find out the maximum eigenvalue kmax that is the average of
the decision process [22]. the consistency values.
3580 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585

Table 2 v ij ¼ W j rij ð8Þ

Random index (RI) values [21].
+
(4) Determine positive ideal (V ) and negative ideal solutions
Criteria RI Criteria RI
(V). The ideal (best) and negative ideal (worst) solutions
3 0.52 7 1.35 can be expressed as:
4 0.89 8 1.4
5 1.11 9 1.45 ( , ! , !, )
6 1.25 10 1.49 X
max X
min
Vþ ¼ v ij j2J ; v ij j 2 J0 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m
i i
 
¼ v þ1 ; v þ2 ; v þ3 ; . . . ; v þn
ð9Þ
(6) Calculate the consistency index (CI) = (kmax  n)/(n  1). It
( , ! , !, )
should be noted that the quality of the output of the AHP X
min X
max
is strictly related to the consistency of the pair-wise compar- V ¼ v ij j2J ; v ij j 2 J0 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m
ison judgments. i i
 
(7) Obtain the random index (RI) for the number of criteria used ¼ v 1 ; v 2 ; v 3 ; . . . ; v n
in decision making from Table 2 [21]. ð10Þ
(8) Calculate the consistency ratio CR = CI/RI. The number 0.1
is the accepted upper limit for CR. If the final consistency
ratio exceeds this value, the evaluation procedure has to where J = (j = 1, 2, . . . , n)/j is set of beneficial criteria (larger-
be repeated to improve consistency. The measurement of the-better type) and J0 = (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) /j is set of non-bene-
consistency can be used to evaluate the consistency of ficial criteria (small-the-better type).
decision makers as well as the consistency of overall hier- (5) Obtain separation measures. The separation (distance)
archy [24]. between alternatives can be measured by the n-dimensional
Euclidean distance. The separation of each alternative from
2.2. Evaluation of alternative the positive-ideal solution is given as

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2.2.1. The TOPSIS method Xn
Sþi ¼ v  v þj 2 i ¼ 1; 2 . . . ; m
J¼1 ij
ð11Þ
The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to
Ideal Solution) was first developed by Hwang and Yoon [25].
Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution is as
According to this technique, the best alternative would be the
follows:
one that is nearest to the positive-ideal (hypothetically best) solu-
tion and farthest from the negative ideal (hypothetically worst) rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn
solution [12,26]. The positive-ideal solution is a solution that max- Si ¼ v  v j 2 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m
J¼1 ij
ð12Þ
imizes the benefit criteria and minimizes the cost criteria. The
same is reverse for negative ideal solution. There have been lots
of studies in the literature using TOPSIS for the solution of MADM (6) Calculate the relative closeness to ideal solution. The relative
problems [14,27–30]. closeness of the alternative Aij can be expressed as:
The formal TOPSIS procedure consists of following steps.
Si
Ri ¼ ð13Þ
(1) Establish a decision matrix for the ranking in which columns Sþi þ Si
indicate criteria or attributes ðC 1 ; C 2 ; C 3 ; . . . C n Þ while rows (7) Choose an alternative with maximum Ri or rank alternatives
list the competing alternatives ðA1 ; A2 ; A3 ; . . . Am Þ. according to Ri in descending order.

2.2.2. The fuzzy TOPSIS method

The TOPSIS is widely used to tackle ranking problems in real
situations. In the case of qualitative criteria, personal judgments
ð6Þ are represented with crisp values. It is often difficult for a deci-
sion maker to assign a precise performance rating to an alterna-
tive which has the qualitative criteria. The merit of using fuzzy
approach is to assign the relative importance of criteria using
fuzzy numbers instead of precise numbers. As a result, fuzzy
TOPSIS and its extensions are developed to solve ranking and
An element xij of the matrix indicates the performance rating
justification problems. Before the development of fuzzy TOPSIS,
of the ith alternative, Ai, with respect to the jth criteria Cj, as
Some basic definitions regarding fuzzy theory are given as
shown in Eq. (6).
follows.
(2) Calculate normalized rating for each element in the decision
matrix. The normalized value rij of xij is calculated as defined ~ in a universe of discourse X is
Definition 1. A fuzzy set a
in Eq. (7).
characterized by a membership function lã which associates with
xij each element x in X, a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The
rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pi¼m 2 ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð7Þ
function value lã(x) is termed the grade of membership of x in ã
i¼1 xij
[31].
(3) Calculate weighted normalized value vij by multiplying the The present study uses triangular fuzzy numbers. A triangular
normalized decision matrix by its associated weights which fuzzy number ã can be defined by a triplet (a1, a2, a3). The member-
is obtained by AHP method. ship function is defined as
 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585 3581

8
>
> 0; x  a1 3. Selection of phase change material for solar water system
>
> xa1
< ; a1 < x  a2
a2 a1
la~ ðxÞ ¼ a3 x
ð14Þ The most important groups of PCM with a solid–liquid phase
>
> ; a2 < x  a3
>
> a3 a2
change are salt hydrates and paraffins. However scientists disagree
:
0; x > a3 on which group is most promising. For instance, Sharma et al. [2]
Definition 2. Let ã = (a1, a2, a3) and b ~ = (b , b , b ) are two
1 2 3
state that salt hydrates are the most important PCM group while
triangular fuzzy numbers, then the vertex method is defined to
Kim and Dzal [33] has shown that paraffins are most promising.
calculate the distance between them, as Eq. (15):
Hence selection of the phase change material (PCM) plays an
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi important role in addition to heat transfer mechanisms. The focus
~ ¼ 1h 2 2 2
i
here is on the selection of PCM used in solar domestic hot water
~; bÞ
dða a1  b1 þ a2  b2 þ a3  b3 ð15Þ
3 system. A suitable PCM is chosen so that large amount of solar en-
The basic operations on fuzzy triangular numbers are as follows: ergy can be stored during daytime and then this energy can be
For multiplication, used for water heating at a later time. In the present case study,
nine PCMs are considered which can be used in solar domestic
a ~ ¼ ða1  b1 ; a2  b2 ; a3  b3 Þ
~b ð16Þ hot water system as latent heat storage materials. Now to demon-
strate the proposed procedure of PCM selection, composed of AHP
For addition,
and TOPSIS/fuzzy TOPSIS, three basic stages are to be followed: (1)
~ ¼ ða1 þ b1 ; a2 þ b2 ; a3 þ b3 Þ
~þb
a ð17Þ identify the criteria to be used in the model, (2) AHP computations,
(3) evaluation of alternatives with TOPSIS/fuzzy TOPSIS and deter-
On the basis of brief fuzzy theory mentioned above, TOPSIS steps
mination of the final rank.
can be followed as [31,32]:

(1) Choose the linguistic values (~ xij , i = 1, 2, . . . , m, j = 1, 2, . . . , n) 3.1. Identification of the criteria for PCM selection
for alternatives with respect to criteria and the appropriate
linguistic variables (w ~ i ) for the weight of the criteria. The The objective is to evaluate the best choice of PCM used in solar
fuzzy linguistic rating (~ xij ) preserves the property that the domestic hot water system to store large amount of heat. The PCMs
ranges of normalized triangular fuzzy numbers belong to which can be used in the above system should have melting point
[0, 1]; thus, there is no need for normalization. 30–60 °C [34]. The performance ratings for the nine alternatives
(2) Calculate the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix. with respect to the six criteria are summarized in Table 3. The
(3) Determine positive ideal (V+) and negative ideal solutions alternatives and the criteria are presented here for demonstration
(V). The fuzzy ideal (best) and fuzzy negative ideal (worst) purpose only. The criteria used here are latent heat (LH), density
solutions can be expressed as: (D), specific heat for solid (Cp(s)), specific heat for liquid (Cp(l)),
( , ! , !, ) thermal conductivity (K) and cost (C) which influences the selec-
X
max X
min
Vþ ¼ v~ ij j2J ; v~ ij j 2 J0 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m tion of PCM for a given application. In the present case, the objec-
i i tive value of cost is qualitative type (i.e., quantitative value is not
¼ fv~ þ1 ; v~ þ2 ; v~ þ3 ; . . . ; v~ þn g available). To convert these into quantitative value, a ranked value
judgment on a fuzzy conversion scale is adopted. An eleven-point
ð18Þ
scale is considered which represents the material selection criteria
( , ! , !, ) on a qualitative scale using fuzzy logic. The same is presented in
X
min X
max
V ¼ v~ ij j2J ; v~ ij j 2 J0 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m Table 4. The latent heat, density, specific heat for solid, specific
i i heat for liquid, and thermal conductivity are beneficial criteria,
¼ fv~ 1 ; v~ 2 ; v~ 3 ; . . . ; v~ n g i.e., higher values are desired. The remaining is non-beneficial cri-
teria, i.e. cost. Table 5 which represents decision matrix shows the
ð19Þ objective data of the criteria with fuzzy score.
(4) Calculate separation measures. The separation (distance) of
each alternative from V+ and V can be currently calculated 3.2. Calculate the weights of criteria
as
X
n
After forming the decision hierarchy for the problem, the
Sþi ¼ d v~ ij ; v~ þi i ¼ 1; 2 . . . ; m ð20Þ
weights of the criteria to be used in evaluation process are calcu-
j¼1
lated by using AHP method. In this stage, an individual pair-wise
Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution is as comparison matrix is developed by using the scale given in Table
follows: 1. Let the decision maker makes the following assignments:
X
n
Si ¼ d v~ ij ; v~ j i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð21Þ
j¼1

(5) Calculate the relative closeness to ideal solution as described

before.
Si
Ri ¼ ð22Þ
Sþi þ Si
(6) Rank preference order. Choose an alternative with maxi-
mum Ri or rank alternatives according to Ri in descending
order. Latent heat (LH) is considered strongly more important than
density (D) in PCM selection. So a relative importance value of 5
Now a case study of PCM selection problem is used for the dem- is assigned to LH over D (i.e., a12 = 5) and a relative importance va-
onstration of the above mentioned method. lue of 1/5 is assigned to D over LH (i.e., a21 = 1/5). Likewise, LH is
3582 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585

Table 3
Summary of performance rating.

Phase change Material selection criteria

material (PCM)
Latent Heat, Density, Specific heat, Specific heat, Thermal conductivity Cost (C)
J/kg (LH) kg/m3 (D) kJ/kg K (Cp(s)) kJ/kg K (Cp(l)) W/m K (K)
1 Calcium chloride hexahydrate 169.98 1560 1.46 2.13 1.09 Very low
2 Stearic acid 186.5 903 2.83 2.38 0.18 Very high
3 p116 190 830 2.1 2.1 0.21 Low
4 RT 60 214.4 850 0.9 0.9 0.2 Very low
5 Paraffin wax RT 30 206 789 1.8 2.4 0.18 Low
6 n-Docosane 194.6 785 1.93 2.38 0.22 Low
7 n-Octadecane 245 773.22 0.3767 2.267 0.14 Low
8 n-Nonadecane 222 775.8 1.7189 1.921 0.142 High
9 n-Eicosane 247 776.33 0.7467 2.377 0.13836 Low

are presented in Table 6. The consistency ratio of the pair-wise

Table 4 comparison matrix is calculated as 0.0725 which is much less than
Conversion of linguistic terms into fuzzy scores allowed CR value of 0.1. Hence the weights are shown to be consis-
(11-point scale) [7]. tent and they are used in the selection process.
Linguistic term Crisp score
Exceptionally low 0.045 3.3. Evaluation of alternatives
Extremely low 0.135
Very low 0.255 At this stage of decision procedure, the decision matrix is to be
Low 0.335 established by comparing alternatives under each of the criteria
Below average 0.410
Average 0.500
separately.
Above average 0.590
High 0.665 3.3.1. The TOPSIS method
Very high 0.745 The decision matrix from Table 5 is used for the TOPSIS analysis.
Extremely high 0.865
Based on the TOPSIS procedure mentioned in Section 2.2.1, each
Exceptionally high 0.955
element is normalized by Eq. (7). The resulting normalized decision
matrix for the TOPSIS analysis is shown as Table 7.
The second step is to form the weighted decision matrix using
Table 5
weights of the criteria calculated by AHP method. To obtain the
Objective data of the criteria with fuzzy score (decision matrix). rank of alternatives the steps 3–5 are followed as explained in Sec-
tion 2.2.1. The results are summarized in Table 8.
LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C
Finally the rank is given to alternatives according to relative
A1 169.98 1560 1.46 2.13 1.09 0.255 closeness to ideal solution (Ri). The alternative materials can be ar-
A2 186.5 903 2.83 2.38 0.18 0.745
ranged in descending order as A1–A9–A7–A8–A4–A5–A6–A2–A3. It is
A3 190 830 2.1 2.1 0.21 0.335
A4 214.4 850 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.255 concluded that the material designated as A1 i.e. Calcium chloride
A5 206 789 1.8 2.4 0.18 0.335 hexahydrate, the first best choice for the given design application
A6 194.6 785 1.93 2.38 0.22 0.335 under the given conditions considering six criteria.
A7 245 773.22 0.3767 2.267 0.14 0.335
A8 222 775.8 1.7189 1.921 0.142 0.665
A9 247 776.33 0.7467 2.377 0.138 0.335
3.3.2. The fuzzy TOPSIS method
The decision matrix from Table 3 is again used for the fuzzy
TOPSIS analysis. In order to transform the performance ratings to
considered as more important than cost (C). So a relative impor-
fuzzy linguistic variables as discussed in the previous section, the
tance value of 9 is assigned to LH over C (i.e., a16 = 5) and a relative
performance ratings in Table 5 are normalized into range of
importance value of 1/9 is assigned to C over LH (i.e., a61 = 1/9).
[0, 1]. The normalized rating for each element in the decision ma-
Similarly, the relative importance among other criteria can be ex-
trix can be calculated as follows.
plained. However, it may be added that, in actual practice, these
values of relative importance can be judiciously decided by the
(i) For the beneficial criteria:
user/experts depending on the requirements. The assigned values
in this paper are for demonstration purpose only. r ij ¼ ½xij  minfxij g=½maxfxij g  minfxij g ð23Þ
The normalized weights of each criterion are calculated follow-
ing the procedure presented in Section 2.1. The results obtained
Table 7
from the computations based on the pair-wise comparison matrix
Normalized decision matrix for TOPSIS analysis.

LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C
Table 6
Weights of the criteria obtained from AHP method. A1 0.2700 0.5621 0.2864 0.3313 0.9070 0.1962
A2 0.2962 0.3254 0.5552 0.3702 0.1498 0.5733
Criteria GM Weights (W) X=AW CV A3 0.3018 0.2991 0.4120 0.3267 0.1747 0.2578
A4 0.3405 0.3063 0.1766 0.1400 0.1664 0.1962
LH 4.718 0.4901 3.3550 6.8456
A5 0.3272 0.2843 0.3531 0.3733 0.1498 0.2578
D 1.611 0.1674 1.0811 6.4587
A6 0.3091 0.2829 0.3787 0.3702 0.1831 0.2578
Cp(s) 0.508 0.0528 0.3295 6.2462
A7 0.3892 0.2786 0.0739 0.3526 0.1165 0.2578
Cp(l) 0.508 0.0528 0.3295 6.2462
A8 0.3526 0.2796 0.3372 0.2988 0.1182 0.5118
K 2.030 0.2109 1.3540 6.4200
A9 0.3923 0.2797 0.1465 0.3698 0.1151 0.2578
C 0.251 0.0261 0.1698 6.5027
kmax ¼ Avg ðCVÞ 6.4532 Weight 0.4901 0.1674 0.0528 0.0528 0.2109 0.0261
 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585 3583

Table 8
TOPSIS analysis results.

LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C Sþ
i
S
i Ri

A1 0.1323 0.0941 0.0151 0.0175 0.1913 0.0051 0.0617 0.1745 0.7390

A2 0.1452 0.0545 0.0293 0.0195 0.0316 0.0150 0.1714 0.0328 0.1605
A3 0.1479 0.0501 0.0218 0.0172 0.0369 0.0067 0.1668 0.0299 0.1522
A4 0.1669 0.0513 0.0093 0.0074 0.0351 0.0051 0.1656 0.0382 0.1875
A5 0.1604 0.0476 0.0186 0.0197 0.0316 0.0067 0.1697 0.0357 0.1740
A6 0.1515 0.0474 0.0200 0.0195 0.0386 0.0067 0.1651 0.0324 0.1639
A7 0.1907 0.0466 0.0039 0.0186 0.0246 0.0067 0.1752 0.0600 0.2552
A8 0.1728 0.0468 0.0178 0.0158 0.0249 0.0134 0.1747 0.0437 0.2000
A9 0.1923 0.0468 0.0077 0.0195 0.0243 0.0067 0.1749 0.0618 0.2612

Vþ
j
0.1923 0.0941 0.0293 0.0197 0.1913 0.0051
V
j 0.1323 0.0466 0.0039 0.0074 0.0243 0.0150

Table 9
Normalized decision matrix for fuzzy TOPSIS analysis. Table 11
Decision matrix with fuzzy linguistic variables.
LH D Cps Cpl K C
A1 0.00 1.00 0.44 0.82 1.00 1.00 LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C
A2 0.21 0.16 1.00 0.99 0.04 0.00 A1 VL VH M H VH VH
A3 0.26 0.07 0.70 0.80 0.08 0.84 A2 VL VL VH VH VL VL
A4 0.58 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.06 1.00 A3 L VL VH H VL H
A5 0.47 0.02 0.58 1.00 0.04 0.84 A4 M VL VL VL VL VH
A6 0.32 0.01 0.63 0.99 0.09 0.84 A5 M VL M VH VL HL
A7 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.84 A6 L VL M VH VL H
A8 0.68 0.00 0.55 0.68 0.00 0.16 A7 VH VL VL VH VL H
A9 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.98 0.00 0.84 A8 H VL M H VL VL
Wj 0.4901 0.1674 0.0528 0.0528 0.2109 0.0261 A9 VH VL VL VH VL H
Wj H M VL VL M VL
(ii) For the non-beneficial criteria:

rij ¼ ½maxfxij g  xij =½maxfxij g  minfxij g
Now, Table 5 can be transformed into Table 9. The next step is
to establish the decision matrix using fuzzy linguistic variables.
The membership functions of these linguistic variables are shown
in Fig. 1.
The triangular numbers related with these variables are shown
in Table 10. Hence Table 9 is converted into Table 11 as explained
by the following example. If the numeric rating is 0.80, then its fuz-
zy linguistic variable is ‘‘H’’. The fuzzy linguistic variable is then
transformed into the triangular fuzzy numbers which are equiva-
lent of linguistic variables as shown in Table 12. The fuzzy criteria
ð24Þ weight is also presented in Table 12. This is the first step of the fuz-
zy TOPSIS analysis.
After the fuzzy evaluation matrix is determined, The second
step is to obtain a fuzzy weighted decision table. Using the criteria
weights calculated by AHP, the weighted evaluation matrix is
established applying fuzzy multiplication Eq. (16). The resulting
fuzzy weighted decision matrix is shown as Table 13.
According to Table 13, it is noted that the elements v ~ ij , are nor-
malized positive triangular fuzzy numbers and their ranges belong
to closed interval [0, 1]. Thus the fuzzy positive-ideal solutions
(FPIS, V+) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS, V) can be de-
fined as v j = (1, 1, 1) and v j = (0, 0, 0) for beneficial criteria and
~þ ~
v~ j = (0, 0, 0) and v~ j = (1, 1, 1) for non-beneficial criteria
þ

respectively.
VL M H For the fourth step, the separation (distance) of each alternative
L VH
1 from V+ and V can be currently calculated using Eqs. (20) and (21).
The next step is to calculate the relative closeness to ideal solution
as described by Eq. (22).
0.5 In order to illustrate steps 5 and 6 calculation, a sample calcu-
lation for first alternative is presented here.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 1
Sþ1 ¼ ½ð1  0Þ2 þ ð1  0:07Þ2 þ ð1  0:21Þ2 
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1
þ ½ð1  0:11Þ2 þ ð1  0:27Þ2 þ ð1  0:45Þ2 
3
Fig. 1. Fuzzy triangular membership functions [31]. rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
þ ½ð1  0Þ2 þ ð1  0:05Þ2 þ ð1  0:16Þ2 
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Table 10 1
Transformation for fuzzy membership functions [31]. þ ½ð1  0Þ2 þ ð1  0:07Þ2 þ ð1  0:21Þ2 
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Linguistic variables Fuzzy numbers 1
þ ½ð1  0:26Þ2 þ ð1  0:45Þ2 þ ð1  0:65Þ2 
Very low (VL) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) 3
Low (L) (0.15, 0.30, 0.45) rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
Medium (M) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) þ ½ð1  0Þ2 þ ð1  0:09Þ2 þ ð1  0:25Þ2 
High (H) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) 3
Very high (VH) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) ¼ 4:1881
3584 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585

Table 12
Fuzzy decision matrix and fuzzy attribute weights.

LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C
A1 (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00)
A2 (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25)
A3 (0.15, 0.30, 0.45) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85)
A4 (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00)
A5 (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85)
A6 (0.15, 0.30, 0.45) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85)
A7 (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85)
A8 (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25)
A9 (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.75, 0.90, 1.00) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.55, 0.70, 0.85)
Wj (0.55, 0.70, 0.85) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25) (0.35, 0.50, 0.65) (0.00, 0.10, 0.25)

Table 13
Fuzzy-weighted decision matrix.

LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C
A1 (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.11, 0.27, 0.45) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.26, 0.45, 0.65) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25)
A2 (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06)
A3 (0.08, 0.21, 0.38) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21)
A4 (0.19, 0.35, 0.55) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25)
A5 (0.19, 0.35, 0.55) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21)
A6 (0.08, 0.21, 0.38) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21)
A7 (0.41, 0.63, 0.85) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21)
A8 (0.30, 0.49, 0.72) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06)
A9 (0.41, 0.63, 0.85) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21)

Table 14
Fuzzy TOPSIS analysis.

LH D Cp(s) Cp(l) K C Sþ
i
S
i Ri

A1 (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.11, 0.27, 0.45) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.26, 0.45, 0.65) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) 4.1881 2.0298 0.3264
A2 (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) 4.5942 1.5697 0.2547
A3 (0.08, 0.21, 0.38) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) 4.5963 1.5823 0.2561
A4 (0.19, 0.35, 0.55) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) 4.6198 1.5171 0.2472
A5 (0.19, 0.35, 0.55) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) 4.4682 1.7121 0.2770
A6 (0.08, 0.21, 0.38) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) 4.6003 1.5755 0.2551
A7 (0.41, 0.63, 0.85) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) 4.2720 1.9115 0.3091
A8 (0.30, 0.49, 0.72) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) 4.2661 1.8928 0.3073
A9 (0.41, 0.63, 0.85) (0.00, 0.03, 0.11) (0.00, 0.01, 0.06) (0.00, 0.09, 0.25) (0.00, 0.05, 0.16) (0.00, 0.07, 0.21) 4.2720 1.9115 0.3091

Vþ
1
(1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (0, 0, 0)
V
1 (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (1, 1, 1)

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 A9–A7–A8–A5–A3–A6–A2–A4. The fuzzy TOPSIS results indicate that
S1 ¼ ½ð0  0Þ2 þ ð0  0:07Þ2 þ ð0  0:21Þ2  A1 is the best alternative with R value of 0.3264.
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
þ ½ð0  0:11Þ2 þ ð0  0:27Þ2 þ ð0  0:45Þ2  4. Conclusions
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
þ ½ð0  0Þ2 þ ð0  0:05Þ2 þ ð0  0:16Þ2  Proper selection of the phase change material leads to efficient
3 utilization of latent heat thermal energy storage system. Most of
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 the researchers use PCM in the particular application depending
þ ½ð0  0Þ2 þ ð0  0:07Þ2 þ ð0  0:21Þ2 
3 on their experience or availability of the material. However, several
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 alternatives must be considered and evaluated in terms of many
þ ½ð0  0:26Þ2 þ ð0  0:45Þ2 þ ð0  0:65Þ2  different conflicting criteria in a PCM selection problem. Therefore,
3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi an effective evaluation approach is essential to improve decision
1
þ ½ð0  0Þ2 þ ð0  0:09Þ2 þ ð0  0:25Þ2  quality.
3 The present study proposes two MADM methods-TOPSIS and
¼ 2:0298 fuzzy TOPSIS, in solving the PCM selection problem. Both the meth-
ods use AHP to assign weights to the criteria which are used in
S1 2:0298 PCM selection. When precise performance ratings are available,
R1 ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:3264 the TOPSIS method is considered to be a viable approach in solving
Sþ1 þ S1 4:1881 þ 2:0298
material selection problem. When performance ratings are vague
The resulting fuzzy TOPSIS analyses are summarized in Table 14. and inaccurate, then the fuzzy TOPSIS is a preferred technique.
Based on Ri values, the alternatives are arranged in descending or- The present study illustrates the feasibility of the fuzzy based TOP-
der. The ranking of the alternatives in descending order are A1– SIS method for the instance of fuzzy inputs.
 M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria / Materials and Design 32 (2011) 3578–3585 3585

TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS methods lead to the choice of A1 i.e. [14] Dagdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kilinc N. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36:8143–51.
calcium chloride hexahydrate as the preferred alternative. The
[15] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Selection of material using
materials A9, A7, and A8 are the second, third and fourth best alter- compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des 2009;30:4043–53.
natives materials used in the solar water heater system. Other than [16] Fayazbakhsh K, Abedian A, Mansadi BD, Khabbaz RS. Introducing a novel
these four alternatives, the preferences vary between the two method for materials selection in mechanical design using Z-transformation in
statistics for normalization of material properties. Mater Des
methods. The systematic evaluation of the MADM problem can re- 2009;30:4396–404.
duce the risk of a poor selection of the material. In short, the pro- [17] Khabbaz RS, Mansadi BD, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A simplified fuzzy logic
posed methodology provides a systematic approach to narrow approach for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des
2009;30:687–97.
down the number of alternatives. [18] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Mustapha F. Material screening and choosing
methods – a review. Mater Des 2010;31:696–705.
[19] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Mustapha F, Sapuan SM. Material selection based on
References ordinal data. Mater Des 2010;31:3180–7.
[20] Rao RV, Patel BK. A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute
decision making method for material selection. Mater Des 2010;31:4738–47.
[1] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermal energy storage: storage and applications, vol. 57–
[21] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
59. John Wiley & Sons; 2002. p. 93–6.
[22] Rao RV. Evaluation of metal stamping layouts using an analytic hierarchy
[2] Sharma A, Tyagi VV, Chen CR, Buddhi D. Review on thermal energy storage
process method. J Mater Process Technol 2004;152:71–6.
with phase change materials and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
[23] Albayrak E, Erensal YC. Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve
2009;13(2):318–45.
human performance: an application of multiple criteria decision making
[3] Zalba B, Marin JM, Cabeza LF, Mehling H. Review on thermal energy storage
problem. J Intell Manuf 2004;15:491–503.
with phase change: materials, heat transfer analysis and applications. Appl
[24] Wang JJ, Yang DL. Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for
Therm Eng 2003;23:251–83.
information systems outsourcing. Comput Oper Res 2007;34:3691–700.
[4] Abhat A. Low temperature latent he at thermal energy storage: He at storage
[25] Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and
materials. Solar Energy 1983;30(4):313–32.
applications. A state of the art survey. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1981.
[5] Chen SJ, Hwang C. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making methods and
[26] Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms
applications. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical
with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl
systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1992.
2007;36(1):702–15.
[6] Hwang CL, Yoon KP. Multiple attribute decision-making: methods and
[27] Chen CT. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
applications. New York: Springer; 1991.
environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2000;114:1–9.
[7] Rao RV. Decision making in the manufacturing environment using graph
[28] Chu TC. Selecting plant location via a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Int J Adv Manuf
theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making
Technol 2002;20:859–64.
methods. London: Springer-Verlag; 2007.
[29] Chu TC, Lin YC. Improved extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision making
[8] Jee DH, J Kang K. A method for optimal material selection aided with decision
under fuzzy environment. J Inform Optimiz Sci 2002;23:273–86.
making theory. Mater Des 2000;21(3):199–206.
[30] Wang J, Liu SY, Zhang J. An extension of TOPSIS for fuzzy MCDM based on
[9] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for
vague set theory. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 2005;14:73–84.
material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J
[31] Yang T, Hung CC. Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout
Power Sources 2006;159(2):1095–104.
design problem. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 2007;23:126–37.
[10] Chan JWK, Tong TKL. Multi-criteria material selections and end-of-life product
[32] Önüt S, Soner S. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
strategy: grey relational analysis approach. Mater Des 2007;28:1539–46.
approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Manag 2008;28(9):1552–9.
[11] Rao RV. A decision-making methodology for material selection using an
[33] Kim S, Dzal LT. High latent heat storage and high thermal conductive phase
improved compromise ranking method. Mater Des 2008;29(10):1949–54.
change materials using exfoliated graphite nanoplatelets. Solar Energy Mater
[12] Rao RV, Davim JP. A decision-making framework model for material selection
Solar Cells 2009;93:136–42.
using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf
[34] Mazman M, Cabeza LF, Mehling H, Nogues M, Evliya H, Paksoy HO. Utilization
Technol 2008;35:751–60.
of phase change materials in solar domestic hot water systems. Renew Energy
[13] Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. A computational evaluation of the original and
2009;34:1639–43.
revised analytic hierarchy process. Comput Ind Eng 1994;26(3):609–18.