Material Selection in Manufacturing Environment Using Compromise Ranking and Regret Theory-based Compromise Ranking Methods: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Since decades, proper material selection plays an important and crucial role in an effective manufacturing system for superior production quality, cost optimization and improved productivity. Systematic selection of materials for a given engineering application begins with the study of different material selection properties and their related costs with specific application capabilities. Wrong selection of materials often leads to huge cost contribution and eventually drives an organization towards early product failure. So, the designers need to identify and select proper materials with specific functionalities in order to get the desired output with minimum cost involvement. But, the selection of proper materials for engineering applications is not an easy task to perform. While choosing the proper material for a specific industrial application, there is not always a single definite selection criterion. Designers need to consider a huge number of material selection-attributes and a large number of alternative materials with complex relationships between various attributes. A systematic, efficient and easy approach for material selection is thus required to help the manufacturing organizations for selecting the best material for a particular application. This paper focuses on the application of a compromise ranking method in the perspective of regret theory as a multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool for solving a material selection problem in a given manufacturing environment. A complete list of all the prospective materials from the best to the worst is obtained, taking into account different material selection attributes. The ranking performance of the proposed method is also compared with that of the original compromise ranking method.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.