Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fuzzy applications of Best–Worst method in manufacturing environment

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High-strength steel alloys, titanium, ceramics, composites are in the group of materials that are hard to machine. Conventional manufacturing techniques are not sufficient to machine these materials. For this reason, these materials are generally machined with non-conventional manufacturing methods. In this study, a fuzzy application of Best–Worst method and a novel hybrid decision-making model (Best–Worst decision-making approach with fuzzy TOPSIS) are proposed to solve different non-traditional machining method selection problems which were taken from the literature. Using these models, the Best–Worst method shortens the steps of solutions in the fuzzy environment compared to the AHP/ANP-based fuzzy solutions in the literature. The proposed models produce successful results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arabzad SM, Ghorbani M, Razmi J, Shirouyehzad H (2015) Employing fuzzy TOPSIS and SWOT for supplier selection and order allocation problem. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76:803–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Avikal S, Jain R, Mishra P (2014) A Kano model. AHP and M-TOPSIS method based technique for disassembly line balancing under fuzzy environment. Appl Soft Comput 25:519–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Azadnia AH, Saman MZM, Wong KY (2014) Sustainable supplier selection and order lot-sizing: An integrated multi-objective decision-making process. Int J Prod Res 53:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagocˇius V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2014) Multi-person selection of the best wind turbine based on the multi-criteria integrated additive-multiplicative utility function. J Civ Eng Manag 20:590–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagočius V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2013) Multi-criteria selection of a deep- water port in Klaipeda. Proc Eng 57:144–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17(4):141–164

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beskese A, Demir H, Ozcan H, Okten HE (2015) Landfill site selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study for Istanbul. Environ Earth Sci 73(3):513–3521

    Google Scholar 

  • Boran FE, Genç S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36:11363–11368

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyurgan N, Saygin C (2008) Application of the analytical hierarchy process for real-time scheduling and part routing in advanced manufacturing systems. J Manuf Syst 27:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Çalişkan H, Kurşuncu B, Kurbanoğlu C, Güven ŞY (2013) Material selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions using different multi criteria decision making methods. Mater Des 45:473–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakladar ND, Chakraborty S (2008) A combined TOPSIS-AHP-method-based approach for non-traditional machining processes selection. Proc Inst Mech Eng-Part B: J Eng Manuf 222:1613–1623

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakladar ND, Das R, Chakrabort S (2009) A digraph-based expert system for non-traditional machining processes selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43(3–4):226–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty S, Dey S (1977) Design of an analytic-hierarchy-process-based expert system for non-traditional machining process selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31(5–6):490–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakroborty S, Dey S (2007) QFD-based expert system for non-traditional machining processes selection. Expert Syst Appl 32(4):1208–1217

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang AY, Hu KJ, Hong Y-L (2013) An ISM-ANP approach to identifying key agile factors in launching a new product into mass production. Int J Prod Res 51:582–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S (2012) Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Mater Des 35:384–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2009) Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Mater Des 30:4043–4053

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2011) Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Mater Des 32:851–860

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dağdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kilinç N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36:8143–8151

    Google Scholar 

  • Das S, Chakraborty S (2011) Selection of nontraditional machining processes using analytic network process. J Manuf Syst 30(1):41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran O, Aguilo J (2007) Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a fuzzy-AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 34(3):1787–1794

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • İç YT, Yurdakul M, Eraslan E (2012) Development of a component-based machining centre selection model using AHP. Int J Prod Res 50:6489–6498

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahan A, Edwards K (2013) VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Mater Des 47:759–765

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail MY, Sapuan S, Bahraminasab M (2011) A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Mater Des 32:1215–1221

    Google Scholar 

  • Jana TK, Bairagi B, Paul S, Sarkar B, Saha J (2013) Dynamic schedule execution in an agent based holonic manufacturing system. J Manuf Syst 32:801–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C (2008) Multi-criteria decision making methods and fuzzy sets, fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making theory and applications with recent developments. Springer, New York, pp 1–20

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy. 35:2517–2527

    Google Scholar 

  • Khorshidi R, Hassani A (2013) Comparative analysis between TOPSIS and PSI methods of materials selection to achieve a desirable combination of strength and workability in Al/SiC composite. Mater Des 52:999–1010

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohling RA, Campanharo VC (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):4190–4197

    Google Scholar 

  • Kul Y, Şeker A, Yurdakul M (2014) Usage of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods in selection of nontraditional manufacturing methods. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 29(3):589–603

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurt Ü (2014) The fuzzy TOPSIS and generalized Choquet fuzzy integral algorithm for nuclear power plant site selection–a case study from Turkey. J Nucl Sci Technol 51:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor K, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja 28(1):516–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajurkar KP, Ross RF (1992) The role of nontraditional manufacturing processes in future manufacturing industries. In: ASME manufacturing international, pp 23–37

  • Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengul U, Eren M, Shiraz SE, Gezder V, Sengul AB (2015) Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renew Energy 75:617–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Krisciukaitienė I, Balezentis A (2012) Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:3302–3311

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng GH, Huang CY (2012) Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing and logistics systems. Ann Oper Res 197:159–190

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yao YL, Cheng JG, Rajurkar KP, Kovacecic R, Feiner S, Zhang W (2005) Combined research and curriculum development of nontraditional manufacturing. Eur J Eng Educ 30(3):363–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurdakul M (2004) AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection. J Mater Process Technol 146:365–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurdakul M, Çoğun C (2003) Development of a multi-attribute selection procedure for non-traditional machining processes. Proc Instit Mech Eng-Part B: J Eng Manuf 217:993–1009

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurdakul M, İç YT (2009) Application of correlation test to criteria selection for multi criteria decision making (MCDM) models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40:403–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HJ, Zysno P (1985) Quantifying vagueness in decision models. Eur J Oper Res 22(2):148–158

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering Department, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Mehmet Alper Sofuoğlu

Authors
  1. Mehmet Alper Sofuoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Alper Sofuoğlu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares there is no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27.

Table 23 Criteria-alternative matrix for case study-1
Full size table
Table 24 Criteria-alternative matrix for case study-2
Full size table
Table 25 Criteria-alternative matrix for case study-3
Full size table
Table 26 Criteria-alternative matrix for case study-1
Full size table
Table 27 Criteria-alternative matrix for case study-2
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sofuoğlu, M.A. Fuzzy applications of Best–Worst method in manufacturing environment. Soft Comput 24, 647–659 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04491-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04491-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation