Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Technical Report

Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis

(MOORA) method for materials selection
Prasad Karande a, Shankar Chakraborty b,⇑
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Government Polytechnic, Mumbai 400 051, Maharashtra, India
b
Department of Production Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700 032, West Bengal, India

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

Article history: The role that materials play in the design and proper functioning of the products has already been well
Received 23 November 2011 acknowledged. An incorrectly selected material for a given product may cause premature failure of the
Accepted 6 January 2012 final product. The right choice of the available material is critical to the success and competitiveness
Available online 15 January 2012
of the manufacturing organization. The earlier researchers have attempted to solve the material selection
problems employing various mathematical tools and techniques. But it is interesting to note that almost
all those techniques are affected by the weights assigned to the considered selection criteria and also by
the normalization procedure adopted to make the elements of the decision matrix comparable. Hence,
there is an ardent need for a material selection method that would remain unaffected by the criteria
weights and normalization procedure. In this paper, multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio
analysis (MOORA) method is applied to solve some of the common material selection problems. The per-
formance of the reference point approach and full multiplicative MOORA method are also tested for the
considered problems. It is observed that all these three methods are very simple to understand, easy to
implement and provide almost exact rankings to the material alternatives.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
While selecting the most suitable material from an ever increas-
ing array of feasible alternatives, with each having its own charac-
teristics, applications, advantages and limitations, the designers
should have a clear understanding of the functional requirements
for each individual component and a detailed knowledge of the
considered criteria for a specific engineering design. Improper
selection of material may often lead to huge cost involvement
and ultimately drive towards premature component/product fail-
ure. Selection of proper materials for different components is one
of the most challenging tasks in the design and development of
products for diverse engineering applications. So the designers
need to identify and select proper materials with specific function-
alities in order to obtain the desired output with minimum cost
involvement and specific applicability. Selecting the most appro-
priate material in the presence of multiple, generally conflicting
criteria is a typical multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) prob-
lem. Thus, a systematic and efficient approach to material selection
is necessary in order to select the best alternative for a given appli-
cation [1,2].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +91 033 2414 6153.
E-mail addresses: s_chakraborty00@yahoo.co.in, schakraborty@production.jd
vu.ac.in (S. Chakraborty).
Dweiri and Al-Oqla [3] applied analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
to select a material for a simple product (a key). In AHP method, in
order to determine the relative importance of the considered crite-
ria and priority weights for the candidate alternatives with respect
to different criteria, several pair-wise comparison matrices need to
be developed based on the opinions of the decision makers which
occasionally may involve inconsistent judgments. Sometimes,
Expert Choice™ software is to be applied to ease out the lengthy
computations of AHP method. Rao [4] presented a graph theory
and matrix approach (GTMA) for material selection for a given
engineering component. A ‘material suitability index’, based on a
material selection factors function, which was obtained from the
material selection factors graph, was proposed to evaluate and
rank the alternative materials. The major problem with GTMA
method is that if the given material selection problem contains
more than five or six criteria, it becomes quite difficult to compute
the value of the permanent function from the developed digraph.
This method is also quite difficult to comprehend and needs exten-
sive knowledge in mathematics which hinders its application. Jee
and Kang [5], Shanian and Savadogo [6,7], Rao and Davim [8],
Thakker et al. [9] and Gupta [10] applied technique for order
preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method for
solving material selection problems. The TOPSIS method is based
on the concept that the best decision should be the closest to the
ideal solution and farthest from the non-ideal solution. So, for
application of TOPSIS method, identification of the ideal and

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.013
318 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324
non-ideal solutions is mandatory. Again, the solution accuracy of
TOPSIS method is dependant on the relative importance of the con-
sidered criteria and the normalization procedure adopted to have
the dimensionless and comparable decision matrix. On the other
hand, Shanian and Savadogo [7], Rao [11], Chatterjee et al. [12],
Jahan et al. [13] and Bahraminasab and Jahan [14] used VIKOR
(Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje) method
to choose the most suitable materials for various engineering prod-
ucts. The VIKOR method is easy to understand and computationally
simple to implement. But its solution accuracy is affected by the
normalization procedure and also by the weight of the strategy
of ‘the majority of attributes’ (v) value. The value of v lies in the
range of 0–1 and normally, is taken as 0.5. Although, it is observed
that the rankings of the best and the worst alternatives are not af-
fected by the value of v, but the intermediate rankings of the alter-
natives change with varying v values [12]. Chatterjee et al. [12],
Shanian and Savadogo [15,16] and Milani and Shanian [17] solved
various material selection problems employing different versions
of ELECTRE (Elimination and Et Choice Translating Reality) method.
This method needs determination of the concordance and discor-
dance indices which involves lengthy computations. For develop-
ing the corresponding outranking graph depicting the preference
of the best alternative over the others, the decision maker has to
select suitable threshold values for the concordance and discor-
dance indices which are again subjected to human intervention
and judgment. Manshadi et al. [18] applied a modified digital logic
method to deal with the material selection problems. Weighted
properties method was adopted to assign relative importance to
each material property and a non-linear normalization approach
was employed to scale the criteria values. The solution accuracy
of this method is also affected by the criteria weights and normal-
ization procedure. Chan and Tong [19] proposed an integrated ap-
proach of performing an order pair of materials and end-of-life
product strategy for material selection, and used grey relational
analysis method for ranking the materials with respect to several
criteria. This method is influenced by the normalization procedure
and also by the value of the distinguishing coefficient (f). Maniya
and Bhatt [20] applied the preference selection index (PSI) method
for solving three material selection problems. Although the PSI
method is able to choose the best material alternative without
determining the relative importance of the considered criteria, it
is greatly dependant on the normalization procedure adopted.
Rao and Patel [21] proposed a novel mathematical approach which
had considered objective weights of importance of the criteria as
well as subjective preferences of the decision maker to decide
the integrated weights of importance of the criteria. Furthermore,
the method had used fuzzy logic to convert the qualitative infor-
mation into quantitative values. Chatterjee et al. [22] employed
complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) and evaluation of
mixed data (EVAMIX) methods to solve two material selection
problems. These two methods also have the disadvantages of being
too complex, and affected by the criteria weights and normaliza-
tion procedure. For material selection and ranking of the alterna-
tives, Athawale et al. [23] applied utility additive (UTA) method
which requires rigorous knowledge of mathematics from the point
of the decision maker before its actual implementation. Complex
linear programming problems need to be formulated and solved
using suitable software, like LINDO. Mayyas et al. [24] integrated
quality function deployment and AHP method for selecting mate-
rials for automotive body-in-white panels. The house of quality
was constructed based on the customer needs and engineering
requirements for the given product. Weights for the customer
needs and customer needs against engineering metric relationship
scores were assigned based on the judgments of the decision ma-
ker which may be subjected to biasness. Ashby [25] explored the
application of multi-objective optimization methods for material
selection where the trade-off surfaces would help to visualize the
alternative materials and the value functions (utility) would iden-
tify the part of the surface on which the optimal solutions would
lie. But this method is also quite complex to understand, involving
complex mathematics.
Although the earlier researchers have applied various MCDM
methods to solve several material selection problems, it is ob-
served that in all these methods, the rankings of the alternative
materials are affected by the criteria weights and normalization
procedure adopted to make the elements of the decision matrix
dimensionless and comparable. It is also found that separate nor-
malization equations are occasionally required to treat the benefi-
cial and non-beneficial criteria of the decision matrices. Again,
some of these methods are quite difficult to comprehend and com-
plex to implement requiring extensive mathematical knowledge.
Thus, the decision maker feels the need for a simple, logical and
systematic approach to solve the material selection problems. In
this paper, the applications of three such simple methods, i.e. (a)
multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis
(MOORA), (b) reference point approach, and (c) full multiplicative
MOORA are illustrated which can rank the material alternatives
more precisely, without being influenced by the criteria weights
and normalization procedure.
2. Methods for solving material selection problem
In order to solve the material selection problems and rank the
alternative materials, the following three simple methods are
applied.
2.1. Multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis method
Multi-objective optimization is the process of simultaneously
optimizing two or more conflicting criteria (objectives) subject to
certain constraints. Maximizing profit and minimizing the cost of
a product; maximizing performance and minimizing fuel con-
sumption of a vehicle; and minimizing weight while maximizing
the strength of a particular engineering component are the typical
examples of multi-objective optimization problems [26].
In a real time manufacturing environment, different decision
makers with varying interests and values, make a decision-making
process much more difficult. In a decision-making problem, the
objectives (criteria) must be measureable and their outcomes
can be measured for every candidate alternative. Among the con-
flicting criteria (objectives), some are beneficial (where maximum
values are desired) and some are non-beneficial (where minimum
criteria values are always preferred). The multi-objective optimi-
zation on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method [27,28] con-
siders both beneficial and non-beneficial objectives (criteria) for
ranking or selecting one or more alternatives from a set of avail-
able options.
This method starts with a decision matrix exhibiting the perfor-
mance of different alternatives with respect to various criteria.
2 3
x11 x12 ... ... x1n
6 x21 x22 x2n 7
6 7
6
... ...
7
X¼6
6 ... ... ... ... ... 7 7 ð1Þ
6 7
4 ... ... ... ... ... 5
xm1 xm2 . . . . . . xmn
where xij is the performance measure of ith alternative on jth crite-
rion, m is the number of alternatives and n is the number of criteria.
Then the decision matrix is normalized so that it becomes
dimensionless and all its elements are comparable. This normaliza-
tion procedure is a ratio system in which the performance of an
 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324 319

alternative on a criterion is compared to a denominator which is a 2.3. Full Multiplicative MOORA method
representative for all the alternatives concerning that criterion.
Here, the following simple normalization procedure is adopted. Brauers and Zavadskas [30,31] developed the following equa-
xij tion for the full multiplicative form of MOORA (MULTIMOORA)
xij ¼ m ð2Þ method to distinguish it from the mixed forms.
xij
P
i¼1 Ai
Ui ¼ ð6Þ
Bi
where xij is a dimensionless number in the [0, 1] interval represent-
Qg Qn
ing the normalized performance of ith alternative on jth criterion. It where Ai ¼ j¼1 xij ; Bi ¼ j¼gþ1 xij and Ui is the degree of utility for ith
is worthwhile to mention here that the elements of the decision alternative. In Eq. (6), the criteria to be maximized (beneficial attri-
matrix are normalized without considering the type of the criteria butes) are taken as the numerator and the criteria to be minimized
(beneficial or non-beneficial). Although Brauers et al. [27] proposed (non-beneficial attributes) are taken as denominator [32]. Brauers
the following normalization procedure, it is occasionally observed and Zavadskas [30,31] suggested that if any of the xij value is 0,
that when a decision matrix has a very large value for a particular which signifies the absence of a particular criterion in the decision
criterion, the normalized value for that criterion exceeds one. matrix, a foregoing filtering stage or withdrawal of that criterion
," #1=2 from the decision matrix can be considered.
Xm
xij ¼ xij x2ij ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ ð3Þ
i¼1
3. Illustrative examples
Hence, it is recommended to apply Eq. (2) so that the maximum
criterion value would become less than one. For MOORA method, To demonstrate the applicability, simplicity and accuracy of the
these normalized performances are added for beneficial criteria three above-described methods, the following four real time mate-
and subtracted for non-beneficial criteria, as given in the following rial selection problems are cited here. All these four problems have
expression: already been solved by the past researchers and different rankings
g n
of the material alternatives have been obtained.
X X
yi ¼ xij ÿ xij ð4Þ
j¼1 j¼gþ1 3.1. Example 1: material selection for flywheel

where g is the number of criteria to be maximized, (n ÿ g) is the Jee and Kang [5] applied TOPSIS method to select the most suit-
number of criteria to be minimized and yi is the assessment value able material for design of a flywheel which is a device to store
of ith alternative with respect to all the criteria. When sorted in kinetic energy as used in automobiles, urban subway trains, mass
descending order, the best alternative is that which has the highest transit buses, wind-power generators etc. The main requirements
assessment value. It is recommended to have an ordinal ranking of in a flywheel design are to store the maximum amount of kinetic
yi values to derive the final preference of the candidate alternatives energy per unit mass and ensure against premature failure due
[29]. Brauers and Zavadskas [29] proved that this method is quite to fatigue or brittle fracture. If the failure is due to fatigue, the per-
robust with respect to stakeholders (decision makers), objectives, formance index would be rlimit/q (where rlimit is the fatigue limit
and interrelations between objectives and alternatives. As this of the material and q is the material density). This signifies that
method is non-subjective, based on cardinal and most recent data, the higher the value of rlimit/q, the lower the weight of the material
it is more robust than the existing MCDM methods. for a given fatigue strength and consequently, the kinetic energy
per unit mass of the flywheel would be higher. For failure due to
2.2. Reference point approach brittle fracture, fracture toughness (KIC) of the material would be
the performance measure. If the flywheel breaks into small pieces
In the reference point approach, a maximal objective reference at final failure, the hazard would be much reduced. Thus, from the
point is considered [29]. The maximal objective reference point ap- safety point of view, fragmentability of the flywheel material is an
proach is more realistic and non-subjective as the coordinates (ri), important property. Jee and Kang [5] considered four criteria, i.e.
which are selected for the reference point, are realized in one of the fatigue limit (rlimit/q), fracture toughness (KIC/q), price per unit
candidate alternatives.
Given the normalized values of the decision matrix, the devia-
tion of a criterion value from the set reference point (ri) can be
Table 1
obtained as ðr i ÿ xij Þ. An alternative would be the best one when Data for flywheel material selection problem [5].
all of its beneficial criteria would attain the maximum values and
non-beneficial criteria would possess the minimum values. But it Sl. Material rlimit/q KIC/q Price/ Fragmentability
No. mass
is quite impossible to obtain a specific alternative having all of
its beneficial criteria with maximum values and non-beneficial cri- 1 300 M 100 8.6125 4200 Poor (3)
2 2024-T3 49.6454 13.4752 2100 Poor (3)
teria with minimum values. Thus there would be deviations for the 3 7050-T73651 78.0142 12.5532 2100 Poor (3)
beneficial criteria for not attaining the maximum values and for 4 Ti–6Al–4V 108.8795 26.0042 10,500 Poor (3)
the non-beneficial criteria for not having the minimum values. In 5 E glass–epoxy 70 10 2735 Excellent (9)
this approach, the performance index (Pi) measures this total devi- FRP
6 S glass–epoxy 165 25 4095 Excellent (9)
ation for all the considered beneficial and non-beneficial criteria
FRP
for ith alternative, which can be expressed as: 7 Carbon–epoxy 440.2516 22.0126 35,470 Fairly good (7)
FRP
Pi ¼ MinðMax jri xij jÞ ð5Þ
ðiÞ ðjÞ 8 Kevlar 29– 242.8571 28.5714 11,000 Fairly good (7)
epoxy FRP
The best alternative would be that which has the minimum 9 Kevlar 49– 616.4384 34.2466 25,000 Fairly good (7)
total deviation when all the beneficial and non-beneficial criteria epoxy FRP
10 Boron–epoxy 500 23 315,000 Good (5)
are considered. It means that the best alternative would have the
FRP
minimum Pi value.
320 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324

mass and fragmentability, among which fatigue limit, fracture 11

MOORA method
toughness and fragmentability are beneficial criteria, and price/ 10 MULTIMOORA method
mass is a non-beneficial criterion. Ten materials consisting of four 9 Reference point approach
metals and six unidirectional fiber-reinforced-epoxy composites 8
were considered as the alternatives [5]. The decision matrix for 7
the flywheel material selection problem is shown in Table 1.

Rank
6
Applying Eq. (2), the normalized decision matrix is obtained, as
5
shown in Table 2. Table 2 also shows the assessment values of
4
the considered alternatives with respect to the selection criteria,
3
as computed using Eq. (4). This MOORA method-based analysis
2
gives a comparative ranking of the alternative materials as 9-6-8-
7-5-4-3-2-1-10 when arranged according to the descending order 1
of their assessment values. Kevlar 49-epoxy FRP and S glass–epoxy 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FRP obtain the first and second ranks respectively. Boron-epoxy
FRP is the worst choice. Using MULTIMOORA method and based Alternative material
on Eq. (6), the utility values of all the candidate alternatives are Fig. 1. Rankings of the alternatives for example 1.
determined, as given in Table 2, which give a comparative ranking
of the alternatives as 6-9-8-5-7-3-2-4-1-10. Jee and Kang [5] 3.2. Example 2: material selection for a cryogenic storage tank
solved this problem using TOPSIS method and obtained the ranking
for the alternatives as 9-8-6-7-1-4-3-5-2-10. This problem deals with the selection of the most appropriate
For this material selection problem, the best alternative would material for a cryogenic tank to store liquid nitrogen. In addition
have a combination of criteria values as (0.2600, 0.1683, 0.0066, to having good weldability and processability, lower density and
0.1607). No alternative attains this unique favorable combination specific heat, smaller thermal expansion coefficient and thermal
and hence, there are deviations in the alternatives’ criteria values conductivity, and adequate toughness at the operating tempera-
from the best one. Now, using Eq. (5), the performance indices of ture, the material for cryogenic storage tank should be sufficiently
all the alternatives are calculated, as given in Table 3. When ar- strong and stiff. Table 5 presents the properties of the candidate
ranged according to ascending order, a ranking of the alternatives materials for this material selection problem, which has seven cri-
is obtained as 9-7-8-6-4-1-3-4-2-10. Fig. 1 compares the rankings teria and seven alternatives [18]. Among these criteria, toughness
as derived using the considered three methods. It is observed that index (TI), yield strength (YS) and Young’s modulus (YM) are the
very good rank correlations exist between the three methods beneficial attributes, and density (D), thermal expansion coeffi-
(0.9394 for MOORA vs. MULTIMOORA, 0.8303 for MOORA vs. refer- cient (TE), thermal conductivity (TC) and specific heat (SH) are
ence point approach and 0.6485 MULTIMOORA vs. reference point the non-beneficial attributes.
approach). Table 4 shows the Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi- Using Eq. (2), the quantitative data for the cryogenic storage
cients between these rank orderings as derived using these three tank material selection problem are first normalized, as given in
methods and those obtained by the earlier researchers while using Table 6. This table also shows the assessment values for the consid-
different MCDM methods for the same problem. ered material alternatives. As this material selection problem con-
tains four non-beneficial criteria against three beneficial criteria,
some of the assessment values are obtained to be negative. A rank-
ing of 3-4-5-6-7-1-2 is derived when these assessment values are
Table 2
Normalized decision matrix. sorted in descending order. Using MULTIMOORA method, a ranking
of the materials is obtained as 3-5-4-6-7-1-2, as shown in Table 6.
Sl. rlimit/q KIC/q Price/mass Fragmentability yi Ui
While applying a modified digital logic technique, Manshadi et al.
No.
[18] derived a ranking of the considered alternatives as 3-5-6-4-1-
1 0.0422 0.0423 0.0102 0.0536 0.1279 0.0094
7-2. In all the three cases, the first and the last ranked material
2 0.0209 0.0662 0.0051 0.0536 0.1356 0.0146
3 0.0329 0.0617 0.0051 0.0536 0.1431 0.0213 alternatives exactly match.
4 0.0459 0.1278 0.0255 0.0536 0.2018 0.0123
5 0.0295 0.0491 0.0066 0.1607 0.2327 0.0351 Table 4
6 0.0696 0.1229 0.0099 0.1607 0.3432 0.1383 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for example 1.
7 0.1857 0.1082 0.0861 0.1250 0.3328 0.0292
8 0.1024 0.1404 0.0267 0.1250 0.3412 0.0674 Method TOPSIS ELECTRE VIKOR Linear assignment
9 0.2600 0.1683 0.0607 0.1250 0.4926 0.0902 [5] [12] [12] [33]
10 0.2109 0.1130 0.7642 0.0893 ÿ0.3510 0.0028 MOORA 0.8303 0.7697 0.5636 0.3939
MULTIMOORA 0.7091 0.6242 0.3818 0.2000
Reference point 0.9515 0.7212 0.6121 0.5636
approach
Table 3
Ranking of the alternatives using reference point approach.

Sl. No. rlimit/q KIC/q Price/mass Fragmentability Pi Rank Table 5

1 0.2178 0.1260 0.0051 0.1071 0.2178 6 Quantitative data for example 2 [18].
2 0.2390 0.1021 0 0.1071 0.2390 9
Sl. No. Material TI YS YM D TE TC SH
3 0.2271 0.1066 0 0.1071 0.2271 7
4 0.2141 0.0405 0.0204 0.1071 0.2141 5 1 Al 2024-26 75.5 420 74.2 2.8 21.4 0.37 0.16
5 0.2304 0.1192 0.0015 0 0.2304 8 2 Al5052-0 95 91 70 2.68 22.1 0.33 0.16
6 0.1904 0.0454 0.0048 0 0.1904 4 3 SS 301-FH 770 1365 189 7.9 16.9 0.04 0.08
7 0.0743 0.0601 0.0809 0.0357 0.0809 2 4 SS 310-3AH 187 1120 210 7.9 14.4 0.03 0.08
8 0.1575 0.0279 0.0216 0.0357 0.1575 3 5 Ti–6Al–4V 179 875 112 4.43 9.4 0.016 0.09
9 0 0 0.0555 0.0357 0.0555 1 6 Inconel 718 239 1190 217 8.51 11.5 0.31 0.07
10 0.0491 0.0553 0.7591 0.0714 0.7591 10 7 70Cu–30Zn 273 200 112 8.53 19.9 0.29 0.06
 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324 321

Table 6
Normalized decision matrix for example 2.

Sl. No. TI YS YM D TE TC SH yi Ui
1 0.0415 0.0798 0.0754 0.0655 0.1851 0.2670 0.2286 ÿ0.5494 0.3377
2 0.0522 0.0173 0.0711 0.0627 0.1912 0.2381 0.2286 ÿ0.5799 0.0985
3 0.4234 0.2595 0.1920 0.1848 0.1462 0.0289 0.1143 0.4008 236.7618
4 0.1028 0.2129 0.2134 0.1848 0.1246 0.0216 0.1143 0.0838 82.0292
5 0.0984 0.1663 0.1138 0.1036 0.0813 0.0115 0.1286 0.0535 148.9620
6 0.1314 0.2262 0.2205 0.1991 0.0995 0.2237 0.1000 ÿ0.0441 14.7981
7 0.1501 0.0380 0.1138 0.1995 0.1721 0.2092 0.0857 ÿ0.3647 1.0543

Table 7
Ranking of the alternatives using reference point approach.

Sl. No. TI YS YM D TE TC SH Pi Rank

1 0.3819 0.1796 0.1451 0.0028 0.1038 0.2554 0.1286 0.3819 7
2 0.3712 0.2421 0.1493 0 0.1099 0.2265 0.1286 0.3712 6
3 0 0 0.0284 0.1221 0.0649 0.0173 0.0143 0.1221 1
4 0.3206 0.0466 0.0071 0.1221 0.0432 0.0101 0.0143 0.3206 4
5 0.3250 0.0931 0.1067 0.0409 0 0 0.0286 0.3250 5
6 0.2920 0.0333 0 0.1364 0.0182 0.2121 0 0.2920 3
7 0.2733 0.2214 0.1067 0.1368 0.0908 0.1977 0.0143 0.2733 2

8 Table 9
MOORA method Quantitative data for example 3 [4].
7 MULTIMOORA method
Material Hardness Machinability rating Cost Corrosion resistance
6 Reference point approach
1 420 25 5 0.8650
5
2 350 40 3 0.6650
Rank

4 3 390 30 3 0.7450
4 250 35 1.3 0.6650
3
5 600 30 2.2 0.6650
2 6 230 55 4 0.5000

1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table 10
Alternative material Normalized decision matrix for example 3.

Fig. 2. Rankings of the alternatives for example 2. Material HB MR C CR yi Ui

1 0.1875 0.1163 0.2703 0.2107 0.2442 0.0170
2 0.1562 0.1860 0.1622 0.1620 0.3421 0.0290
Table 8 3 0.1741 0.1395 0.1622 0.1815 0.3330 0.0272
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for example 2. 4 0.1116 0.1628 0.0703 0.1620 0.3661 0.0419
5 0.2678 0.1395 0.1189 0.1620 0.4505 0.0509
Method Modified WPM GTMA Combined Fuzzy Z-transformation 6 0.1027 0.2558 0.2162 0.1218 0.2641 0.0148
digital method [4] method logic method [35]
logic [18] [8] [34]
method
[18]
Table 11
MOORA 0.8571 0.7857 0.9643 0.7857 0.8928 0.8928 Ranking of the materials using reference point approach.
MULTIMOORA 0.9286 0.8571 1.0000 0.8571 0.9643 0.9643
Reference 0.4643 0.3214 0.6071 0.3214 0.6428 0.6428 Material HB MR C CR Pi Rank
point 1 0.0803 0.1395 0.2000 0 0.2000 6
approach 2 0.1116 0.0698 0.0919 0.0487 0.1116 1
3 0.0937 0.1163 0.0919 0.0292 0.1163 3
4 0.1562 0.0930 0 0.0487 0.1562 4
5 0 0.1163 0.0486 0.0487 0.1163 2
6 0.1652 0 0.1459 0.0889 0.1652 5
While solving this cryogenic storage tank material selection
problem using the reference point approach, it is found that the
most favorable set of criteria values is (0.4234, 0.2595, 0.2205,
0.0627, 0.0813, 0.0115, 0.0857) which is not attained by any of gives the performance of the three methods when the rankings
the alternatives. In Table 7, the performance index values of the of the material alternatives as obtained using these methods are
candidate alternatives with respect to the considered criteria are compared with those derived by the earlier researchers.
shown. From this table, the ranking of the alternatives is derived
as 3-7-6-4-5-2-1. A comparison of the rankings obtained using 3.3. Example 3: selection of material operating in high temperature
the three methods is shown in Fig. 2. There are good rank correla- oxygen-rich environment
tions between the considered three methods (0.9643 for MOORA
vs. MULTIMOORA, 0.6428 for MOORA vs. reference point approach This example is related with the selection of a suitable work
and 0.6071 MULTIMOORA vs. reference point approach). Table 8 material for a product which needs to be designed for operating
322 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324

Table 12 Table 14
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for example 3. Normalized decision matrix for sailing boat mast material selection problem.

Method GTMA PSI COPRAS EVAMIX Sl. no. SS SM CR C yi Ui

[4] [20] [22] [22]
1 0.0123 0.0608 0.0208 0.1042 ÿ0.0103 0.00015
MOORA 0.9428 0.9428 0.9428 0.8857 2 0.0176 0.0608 0.0208 0.1042 ÿ0.0050 0.00021
MULTIMOORA 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9428 3 0.0145 0.0614 0.0208 0.1042 ÿ0.0074 0.00018
Reference point 0.6571 0.6571 0.6571 0.8286 4 0.0668 0.0614 0.0833 0.0625 0.1491 0.00547
approach 5 0.0088 0.0567 0.0833 0.0625 0.0863 0.00066
6 0.0196 0.0635 0.0833 0.0625 0.1039 0.00165
7 0.0245 0.0635 0.0833 0.0625 0.1088 0.00207
8 0.0349 0.0583 0.0625 0.0833 0.0724 0.00153
7 9 0.0486 0.0590 0.0625 0.0833 0.0867 0.00215
MOORA method 10 0.0508 0.0583 0.0625 0.0833 0.0882 0.00222
6 11 0.0618 0.0585 0.0625 0.0833 0.0995 0.00271
MULTIMOORA method 12 0.0715 0.0623 0.1042 0.0208 0.2172 0.02229
13 0.2072 0.0632 0.0833 0.0417 0.3122 0.02621
5 Reference point approach
14 0.1426 0.1502 0.0833 0.0208 0.3553 0.08569
15 0.2185 0.0621 0.0833 0.0208 0.3431 0.05429
4
Rank

2
Table 15
1 Ranking of the materials using reference point approach.

Sl. no. SS SM CR C Pi Rank

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 0.2062 0.0894 0.0833 0 0.2062 14
Alternative material 2 0.2009 0.0894 0.0833 0 0.2009 12
3 0.2040 0.0888 0.0833 0 0.2040 13
Fig. 3. Rankings of the alternatives for example 3. 4 0.1517 0.0888 0.0208 0.0417 0.1517 5
5 0.2097 0.0935 0.0208 0.0417 0.2097 15
6 0.1989 0.0867 0.0208 0.0417 0.1989 11
7 0.1940 0.0867 0.0208 0.0417 0.1940 10
Table 13 8 0.1836 0.0919 0.0417 0.0208 0.1836 9
Data for sailing boat mast material selection problem [34]. 9 0.1699 0.0912 0.0417 0.0208 0.1699 8
10 0.1677 0.0919 0.0417 0.0208 0.1677 7
Sl. No. Material Specific Specific Corrosion Cost
11 0.1567 0.0917 0.0417 0.0208 0.1567 6
strength modulus resistance category
12 0.0715 0.0879 0 0.0833 0.0879 3
(Mpa) (Gpa)
13 0.0113 0.0870 0.0208 0.0625 0.0870 2
1. AISI 1020 35.9 26.9 1 (Poor) 5 (Very low) 14 0.0759 0 0.0208 0.0833 0.0833 1
2 AISI 1040 51.3 26.9 1 (Poor) 5 (Very low) 15 0 0.0881 0.0208 0.0833 0.0881 4
3 ASTM A242 42.3 27.2 1 (Poor) 5 (Very low)
type 1
4 AISI 4130 194.9 27.2 4 (V. good) 3 (Moderate)
5 AISI 316 25.6 25.1 4 (V. good) 3 (Moderate)
6 AISI 416 57.1 28.1 4 (V. good) 3 (Moderate)
16
heat treated MOORA method
7 AISI 431 71.4 28.1 4 (V. good) 3 (Moderate) 14 MULTIMOORA method
Reference point approach
heat treated
12
8 AA 6061 T6 101.9 25.8 3 (Good) 4 (Low)
9 AA 2024 T6 141.9 26.1 3 (Good) 4 (Low) 10
Rank

10 AA 2014 T6 148.2 25.8 3 (Good) 4 (Low)

8
11 AA 7075 T6 180.4 25.9 3 (Good) 4 (Low)
12 Ti–6Al–4V 208.7 27.6 5 (Excellent) 1 (Very high) 6
13 Epoxy–70% 604.8 28 4 (V. good) 2 (High)
4
glass fabric
14 Epoxy–63% 416.2 66.5 4 (V. good) 1 (Very high) 2
carbon fabric
0
15 Epoxy–62% 637.7 27.5 4 (V. good) 1 (Very high) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
aramid fabric
Alternative material

in a high temperature oxygen-rich environment. This material Fig. 4. Rankings of the alternatives for example 4.

selection problem consists of six alternative materials and four cri-

teria, as shown in Table 9 [4]. Among these four criteria, hardness
(HB), machinability rating (MR) and corrosion resistance (CR) are
beneficial attributes, whereas, cost (C) is the only non-beneficial
attribute. The corresponding normalized decision matrix is given
in Table 10.
Using MOORA and MULTIMOORA methods, the rankings of the
alternative materials are respectively obtained as 5-4-2-3-6-1 and
5-4-2-3-1-6, as shown in Table 10. While employing GTMA meth-
od, Rao [4] derived the rank ordering of the alternative materials as
5-4-2-3-1-6.
For this problem, the best material alternative would try to at-
tain the most favorable set of the criteria values as (0.2678, 0.2558,
0.0703, 0.2107). Based on the reference point approach, the perfor-
mance scores of the alternative materials are calculated, as given in
Table 11. The derived ranking of the alternatives is 2-5-3-4-6-1.
Table 12 compares the ranking performance of these three meth-
ods with respect to other MCDM methods. It is observed that the
performance of these three methods is quite satisfactory. There
also exists excellent rank correlations between the considered
methods (0.9428 for MOORA vs. MULTIMOORA, 0.7143 for MOORA
vs. reference point approach and 0.6571 MULTIMOORA vs. refer-
ence point approach). Fig. 3 depicts a comparative study of the
rankings obtained by these three methods.
 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324
Table 16
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for example 4.
Method WPM method Modified digital logic method
[13] [13]
MOORA 0.6125 0.7821
MULTIMOORA 0.7739 0.9036
Reference point 0.7518 0.9250
approach
3.4. Example 4: material selection for sailing boat mast
Khabbaz et al. [34] introduced a simplified fuzzy logic technique
to choose the best material for a sailing boat mast in the form of a
hollow cylinder. For this component, in addition to high yield
strength and high elastic modulus, a material with low specific
density due to weight limitations should be considered. Moreover,
as the component is subjected to mechanical impacts and spray of
water, high fracture toughness as well as good corrosion resistance
for the material are also required. Four criteria, i.e. specific strength
(SS), specific modulus (SM), corrosion resistance (CR) and cost cat-
egory (C), and 15 alternative materials were taken into account
[34]. Table 13 exhibits the list of the alternative materials along
with their corresponding criteria values. In this table, specific
strength, specific modulus and corrosion resistance are beneficial
criteria, whereas, cost is a non-beneficial criterion. Using Eq. (2),
the quantitative data of Table 13 are normalized, as given in Table
14. This table also shows the assessment values and utility degrees
of the candidate alternatives for this problem.
When the assessment values are arranged in descending order,
the ranking of the alternative sailing boat mast materials is ob-
tained as 14-15-13-12-4-7-6-11-10-9-5-8-2-3-1. While applying
a fuzzy logic approach, Khabbaz et al. [34] derived a ranking of
the alternative materials as 14-13-15-4-11-9-10-8-12-7-6-5-3-2-
1. For MULTIMOORA method, the observed ranking for the alterna-
tive materials is 14-15-13-12-4-11-10-9-7-6-8-5-2-3-1. For both
the MOORA and MULTIMOORA methods, Epoxy-63% carbon fabric,
Epoxy-62% aramid fabric and Epoxy-70% glass fabric obtain the top
three ranks.
In this example, the best material alternative would possess the
combination of criteria values as (0.2185, 0.1502, 0.1042, 0.0208).
Based on the reference point approach, the performance scores for
all the alternatives with respect to the considered beneficial and
non-beneficial criteria are computed, as given in Table 15. The
derived ranking is 14-13-12-15-4-11-10-9-8-7-6-2-3-1-5. Here,
Epoxy-63% carbon fabric is the best choice. The rankings of the
considered alternatives as derived employing these three methods
are exhibited in Fig. 4. It is observed that there exist excellent rank
correlations between these methods (0.9428 for MOORA vs. MUL-
TIMOORA, 0.8607 for MOORA vs. reference point approach and
0.9571 MULTIMOORA vs. reference point approach).
Table 16 shows the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients
between the rank orderings obtained using these three methods
with respect to the other MCDM methods as applied by the past
researchers for the same problem. Excellent Spearman’s rank cor-
relation coefficient values prove the suitability and adaptability
of these three methods for solving this sailing boat mast material
selection problem.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, three mathematical approaches are applied to
solve some of the common material selection problems. These
three methods are quite simple to comprehend and easy to apply
while giving a total ranking of the considered alternatives. It is
observed that the obtained rankings of the alternative materials
323
Fuzzy logic ELECTRE VIKOR Linear assignment Comprehensive VIKOR
[34] [12] [12] [33] [13]
0.8071 0.9678 0.9964 0.8607 0.6428
0.9178 0.8857 0.9393 0.9571 0.7536
0.8964 0.7750 0.8571 0.9750 0.8036
are almost accurate when compared to those as derived by the ear-
lier researchers. The main advantage of these three methods is that
they are not dependant on the adopted normalization procedure
and also on the criteria weights. A simple ratio system is adopted
to make the decision matrices dimensionless and comparable,
and it does not depend on the type of the criterion. The perfor-
mance of these methods is also comparable with other popular
and widely used MCDM methods. Thus, these methods can also
be applied to the other decision-making scenario with any number
of alternatives and criteria.
References
[1] Edwards KL. Materials influence on design: a decade of development. Mater
Des 2011;32:1073–80.
[2] Edwards KL. Selecting materials for optimum use in engineering components.
Mater Des 2005;26:469–74.
[3] Dweiri F, Al-Oqla FM. Material selection using analytical hierarchy process. Int
J Comput Appl Technol 2006;26:182–9.
[4] Rao RV. A material selection model using graph theory and matrix approach.
Mater Sci Eng A 2006;431:248–55.
[5] Jee D-H, Kang K-J. A method for optimal material selection aided with decision
making theory. Mater Des 2000;21:199–206.
[6] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for
material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J
Power Sources 2006;159:1095–104.
[7] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A methodological concept for material selection of
highly sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Exp
Syst Appl 2009;36:1362–70.
[8] Rao RV, Davim JP. A decision-making framework model for material selection
using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2008;35:751–60.
[9] Thakker A, Jarvis J, Buggy M, Sahed A. A novel approach to materials selection
strategy case study: Wave energy extraction impulse turbine blade. Mater Des
2008;29:1973–80.
[10] Gupta N. Material selection for thin-film solar cells using multiple attribute
decision making approach. Mater Des 2011;32:1667–71.
[11] Rao RV. A decision making methodology for material selection using an
improved compromise ranking method. Mater Des 2008;29:1949–54.
[12] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Selection of materials using
compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des 2009;30:4043–53.
[13] Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Bahraminasab M. A
comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des
2011;32:1215–21.
[14] Bahraminasab M, Jahan A. Material selection for femoral component of total
knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Mater Des 2011;32:4471–7.
[15] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A material selection model based on the concept of
multiple attribute decision making. Mater Des 2006;27:329–37.
[16] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A non-compensatory compromised solution for
material selection of bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel
cell (PEMFC) using ELECTRE IV. Electrochima Acta 2006;51:5307–15.
[17] Milani AS, Shanian A. Gear material selection with uncertain and incomplete
data. Material performance indices and decision aid model. Int J Mech Mater
Des 2006;3:209–22.
[18] Manshadi BD, Mahmudi H, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A novel method for
materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear
normalization and a modified digital logic method. Mater Des 2007;28:8–15.
[19] Chan JWK, Tong TKL. Multi-criteria material selections and end-of-life product
strategy: grey relational analysis approach. Mater Des 2007;28:1539–46.
[20] Maniya K, Bhatt MG. A selection of material using a novel type decision-
making method: Preference selection index method. Mater Des
2010;31:1785–9.
[21] Rao RV, Patel BK. A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute
decision making method for material selection. Mater Des 2010;31:4738–47.
[22] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Materials selection using complex
proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Mater Des
2011;32:851–60.
[23] Athawale VM, Kumar R, Chakraborty S. Decision making for material selection
using the UTA method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2011;57:11–22.
324 P. Karande, S. Chakraborty / Materials and Design 37 (2012) 317–324
[24] Mayyas A, Shen Q, Mayyas A, Abdelhamid M, Shan D, Qattawi A, et al. Using
quality function deployment and analytical hierarchy process for material
selection of body-in-white. Mater Des 2011;32:2771–82.
[25] Ashby MF. Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection. Acta
Mater 2000;48:359–69.
[26] Brauers WKM. Optimization methods for a stakeholder society. A revolution in
economic thinking by multiobjective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2004.
[27] Brauers WKM, Ginevičius R, Podvezko V. Regional development in Lithuania
considering multiple objectives by the MOORA method. Technol Econ Dev
Econ 2010;16:613–40.
[28] Chakraborty S. Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in
manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2011;54:1155–66.
[29] Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK. Robustness of the multi-objective MOORA
method with a test for the facilities sector. Technol Econ Dev Econ
2009;15:352–75.
[30] Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK. MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a
bank loan to buy property. Technol Econ Dev Econ 2011;17:174–88.
[31] Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK. Project management by MULTIMOORA as an
instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Econ 2010;16:5–24.
[32] Baležentis A, Baležentis T, Valkauskas R. Evaluating situation of Lithuania in
the European union: structural indicators and MULTIMOORA method. Technol
Econ Dev Econ 2010;16:578–602.
[33] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Mustapha F, Sapuan SM. Material selection based on
ordinal data. Mater Des 2010;31:3180–7.
[34] Khabbaz RS, Manshadi BD, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A simplified fuzzy logic
approach for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des
2009;30:687–97.
[35] Fayazbakhsh K, Abedian A, Manshadi BD, Khabbaz RS. Introducing a novel method
for materials selection in mechanical design using Z-transformation in statistics
for normalization of material properties. Mater Des 2009;30:4396–404.