Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool

Sustainable practice is needed in every manufacturing industry.There are three indicators and problem arising with the economy indicator is that the variable used is not finalised during substitution value.Decisions made by decision makers are not synchronised and staff from different departments te...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Mohamed Noor, Ahamad Zaki
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English English
Published:	2018
Subjects:	T Technology (General)
Online Access:	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/1/Prioritizing%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%20In%20Design%20For%20Remanufacturing%20Using%20Intelligent%20Tool.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/2/Prioritizing%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%20In%20Design%20For%20Remanufacturing%20Using%20Intelligent%20Tool.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utem-ep.23388
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
collection	UTeM Repository
language	English English
topic	T Technology (General)
spellingShingle	T Technology (General) Mohamed Noor, Ahamad Zaki Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool
description	Sustainable practice is needed in every manufacturing industry.There are three indicators and problem arising with the economy indicator is that the variable used is not finalised during substitution value.Decisions made by decision makers are not synchronised and staff from different departments tend to argue until final decision is made.Different industries prioritize different cost resulting different in final answer.Therefore,this research will make the staff from the industry to substitute value and utilised well the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) equation to identify the suitability of Design for Remanufacturing (DFReM) practice.First objective was to determine parameter’s weightage concerning LCC equation. The data obtained from industries are direct overhead cost,indirect overhead cost,spare parts cost and packaging cost.Survey forms were distributed among 20 decision makers resulting in different perceptive and their answers were recorded.To make best cost prioritization from 20 different companies’ expenses, second objective is to propose three methods that are used in this experiment.The methods proposed are Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP),Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and combination of both techniques.Before the main research was conducted,a preliminary experiment was carried out to identify which FAHP will give answer almost same as AHP.AHP is compared because other FAHP are created based on AHP,therefore AHP will give almost correct but not as accurate as FAHP.The findings of this experiment show that Triangular AHP gives the near sequence and suitable material selection to fabricate a table fan.From this preliminary experiment,Triangular FAHP is implemented for cost selection in DFReM.Next part of experiment is to make decision using ANN. Before this part of experiment is carried out,a small experiment was carried out to determine the number of hidden neuron.The outcome of this experiment for this application,the suitable hidden neuron is 2. The last proposed method for cost prioritizing is combination of both FAHP and ANN. The improvement made is used as output from FAHP and introduced as target file.Input remained the same as previous part of ANN experiment.Final objective is to validate life cycle cost prioritizing through comparison of proposed decision making tool outputs.All proposed method’s output were identified and result shows that combination of FAHP and ANN will make the company save more expenses compared to carrying single technique.FAHP manage the company to save up to RM 91,353.The result from ANN makes the company to save up to RM 95,093. However the combination method saves the company to a total of RM 95,633.To conclude,combination of FAHP and ANN is the best technique used for cost selection before substituting in an economy indicator for DFReM. Contribution made towards body of knowledge is to adapt FAHP answer as target file for neural network simulation. Contribution made to industry is that by introducing AI technique,LCC equation gives out profit and make DFReM practice suitable for any manufacturing industry.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	Doctor of Philosophy (PhD.)
qualification_level	Doctorate
author	Mohamed Noor, Ahamad Zaki
author_facet	Mohamed Noor, Ahamad Zaki
author_sort	Mohamed Noor, Ahamad Zaki
title	Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool
title_short	Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool
title_full	Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool
title_fullStr	Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool
title_full_unstemmed	Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool
title_sort	prioritizing life cycle cost in design for remanufacturing using intelligent tool
granting_institution	UTeM
granting_department	Faculty Of Manufacturing Engineering
publishDate	2018
url	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/1/Prioritizing%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%20In%20Design%20For%20Remanufacturing%20Using%20Intelligent%20Tool.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/2/Prioritizing%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%20In%20Design%20For%20Remanufacturing%20Using%20Intelligent%20Tool.pdf
_version_	1747834046862327808
spelling	my-utem-ep.233882022-03-15T15:27:43Z Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool 2018 Mohamed Noor, Ahamad Zaki T Technology (General) Sustainable practice is needed in every manufacturing industry.There are three indicators and problem arising with the economy indicator is that the variable used is not finalised during substitution value.Decisions made by decision makers are not synchronised and staff from different departments tend to argue until final decision is made.Different industries prioritize different cost resulting different in final answer.Therefore,this research will make the staff from the industry to substitute value and utilised well the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) equation to identify the suitability of Design for Remanufacturing (DFReM) practice.First objective was to determine parameter’s weightage concerning LCC equation. The data obtained from industries are direct overhead cost,indirect overhead cost,spare parts cost and packaging cost.Survey forms were distributed among 20 decision makers resulting in different perceptive and their answers were recorded.To make best cost prioritization from 20 different companies’ expenses, second objective is to propose three methods that are used in this experiment.The methods proposed are Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP),Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and combination of both techniques.Before the main research was conducted,a preliminary experiment was carried out to identify which FAHP will give answer almost same as AHP.AHP is compared because other FAHP are created based on AHP,therefore AHP will give almost correct but not as accurate as FAHP.The findings of this experiment show that Triangular AHP gives the near sequence and suitable material selection to fabricate a table fan.From this preliminary experiment,Triangular FAHP is implemented for cost selection in DFReM.Next part of experiment is to make decision using ANN. Before this part of experiment is carried out,a small experiment was carried out to determine the number of hidden neuron.The outcome of this experiment for this application,the suitable hidden neuron is 2. The last proposed method for cost prioritizing is combination of both FAHP and ANN. The improvement made is used as output from FAHP and introduced as target file.Input remained the same as previous part of ANN experiment.Final objective is to validate life cycle cost prioritizing through comparison of proposed decision making tool outputs.All proposed method’s output were identified and result shows that combination of FAHP and ANN will make the company save more expenses compared to carrying single technique.FAHP manage the company to save up to RM 91,353.The result from ANN makes the company to save up to RM 95,093. However the combination method saves the company to a total of RM 95,633.To conclude,combination of FAHP and ANN is the best technique used for cost selection before substituting in an economy indicator for DFReM. Contribution made towards body of knowledge is to adapt FAHP answer as target file for neural network simulation. Contribution made to industry is that by introducing AI technique,LCC equation gives out profit and make DFReM practice suitable for any manufacturing industry. 2018 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/1/Prioritizing%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%20In%20Design%20For%20Remanufacturing%20Using%20Intelligent%20Tool.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/23388/2/Prioritizing%20Life%20Cycle%20Cost%20In%20Design%20For%20Remanufacturing%20Using%20Intelligent%20Tool.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=112891 phd doctoral UTeM Faculty Of Manufacturing Engineering 1. Abdullah, L. and Najib, L., 2014. A new type-2 fuzzy set of linguistic variables for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(7), pp.3297–3305. 2. Abdullah, L. and Zulkifli, N., 2015. Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9), pp.4397–4409. 3. Akkaya, G., Turanoğlu, B. and Öztaş, S., 2015. An Integrated Fuzzy AHP And Fuzzy MOORA Approach to The Problem of Industrial Engineering Sector Choosing. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, pp.9565–9573. 4. An, D. et al., 2015. A sustainability assessment methodology for prioritizing the technologies of groundwater contamination remediation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(5), pp. 4647 - 4656. 5. Ashtiani, M. and Abdollahi Azgomi, M., 2014. Trust modeling based on a combination of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy VIKOR. Soft Computing, 20(1), pp.399–421. 6. Athawale, V.M. and Chakraborty, S., 2010. Facility Location Selection using PROMETHEE II Method. In: Ahmed, S.,Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Dhaka, Bangladesh 9 - 10 January 2010. Semantic Scholar Publisher 7. Avikal, S., Jain, R. and Mishra, P.K., 2014. A Kano model, AHP and M-TOPSIS method-based technique for disassembly line balancing under fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing, 25(2014), pp.519–529. 8. Avikal, S., Mishra, P.K. and Jain, R., 2014. A Fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method-based heuristic for disassembly line balancing problems. International Journal of Production Research, 52(5), pp.1306–1317. 9. Awasthi, A. and Kannan, G., 2016. Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 91(2), pp.100–108. 10. Aydin, K. and Kisi, O., 2015. Damage diagnosis in beam-like structures by artificial neural networks. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(5), pp.591–604. 11. Beikkhakhian, Y., Javanmardi, M., Karbasian, M. and Khayambashi, B., 2015. The application of ISM model in evaluating agile suppliers selection criteria and ranking suppliers using fuzzy TOPSIS-AHP methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(15–16), pp.6224–6236. 12. Bhattacharyya, C., 2007. Precise decisions in Indian energy sector by imprecise evaluation.International Journal of Energy Sector, 10(1), pp.118 - 142. 13. Bras, B. and Hammond, R., 1996. Towards Design for Remanufacturing – Metrics for Assessing Remanufacturability. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Reuse, pp.5–22. 14. Bulut, E., Duru, O., Keçeci, T. and Yoshida, S., 2012. Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(2), pp.1911–1923. 15. Caballero, R. and Go, T., 2010. Goal Programming : Realistic Targets for the Near Future. Journal of MultiCriteria Decision Analysis, 16(3-4), pp.79–110. 16. Celik, E., Gumus, A.T. and Alegoz, M., 2014. A trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to identify and evaluate critical success factors for humanitarian relief logistics management. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 27(6), pp.2847–2855. 17. Chang, D.-Y., 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(95), pp.649–655. 18. Chen, L. and Pan, W., 2016. BIM-aided variable fuzzy multi-criteria decision making of low-carbon building measures selection. Sustainable Cities and Society.27(November 2016), pp 222-232 19. Chen, N., Xu, Z. and Xia, M., 2015. The ELECTRE I Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(3), pp.621–657. 20. Chen, W. et al., 2015. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology Auxiliary transportation mode in a fully-mechanized face in a nearly horizontal thin coal seam. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 25(6), pp.963–968. 21. Chenayah, S. and Takeda, E., 2008. Exploitation procedure based on eigenvector revisited: The concept of weighted preference flows in multicriteria outranking analysis. Cybernetics and Systems, 39(1), pp.61–78. 22. Chou, Y.C., Sun, C.C. and Yen, H.Y., 2012. Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 12(1), pp.64–71. 23. Das, M.C., Sarkar, B. and Ray, S., 2013. Comparative evaluation of Indian technical institutions using distance based approach method. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(5), pp.568–587. 24. de Aguiar, J. et al., 2016. A design tool to diagnose product recyclability during product design phase. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141,pp.219-229. 25. Debnath, P. and Dey, A.K., 2017. Prediction of Laboratory Peak Shear Stress Along the Cohesive Soil–Geosynthetic Interface Using Artificial Neural Network. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 35(1), pp.445–461. 26. Deng, M. and Hu, C., 2010. An evaluation model for supplier choice of complex products based on ELECTRE method. 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science, MASS 2010, pp.1–4. 27. Deveci, M., John, R., Ozcan, E. and Demirel, N.Ç., 2015. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making for carbon dioxide geological storage in Turkey. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,27(2), pp. 692-705. 28. Devi, K. and Yadav, S.P., 2013. A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for plant location selection with ELECTRE method. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(9–12), pp.1219–1229. 29. Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B. and Sanyal, S., 2012. A MOORA based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for supply chain strategy selection. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 3(4), pp.649–662. 30. Dincer, H. and Hacioglu, U., 2013. Performance evaluation with fuzzy VIKOR and AHP method based on customer satisfaction in Turkish banking sector. Kybernetes, 42(7), pp.1072–1085. 31. Fan, G., Zhong, D., Yan, F. and Yue, P., 2015. A hybrid fuzzy evaluation method for curtain grouting efficiency assessment based on an AHP method extended by D numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 44(February 2016), pp. 289-303. 32. Feizollah, A., Anuar, N.B., Salleh, R. and Amalina, F., 2015. Advanced Computer and Communication Engineering Technology. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 315, pp.1025–1035. 33. Ghazinoory, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M. and Arasti, M.R., 2014. Developing a model for integrating decisions in technology roadmapping by fuzzy PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 26(2), pp.625–645. 34. Gohar, P., 2015. Discovery and Prioritization of Web Services Based on Fuzzy User Preferences for QoS. 2015 International Conference on Computer, Communication and Control, IC4 2015,Indore, India, 10-12 September 2015. 35. Golinska, P., Kosacka, M., Mierzwiak, R. and Werner-Lewandowska, K., 2014. Grey Decision Making as a tool for the classification of the sustainability level of remanufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105(2014), pp.28–40. 36. Haghighi, S., 2012. Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Technique To Evaluate and Selecting Suppliers in an Effective Supply Chain, 1(8), pp.1–14. 37. Haji, A., Asiaei, A. and Zailani, S., 2015. Resources , Conservation and Recycling Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method. “Resources, Conservation & Recycling”, 103, pp.125–138. 38. Hajiagha, S.H.R., Hashemi, S.S., Mohammadi, Y. and Zavadskas, E.K., 2016. Fuzzy belief structure based VIKOR method: an application for ranking delay causes of Tehran metro system by FMEA criteria. Journal Transport, 31(1), pp.108–118. 39. Hamming RW, 1950. Error Detecting and Error Correcting Codes. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 29(2), pp.147–160. 40. Hashemi, S.S., Hajiagha, S.H.R., Zavadskas, E.K. and Mahdiraji, H.A., 2016. Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(2), pp.1554–1564. 41. Hashemian, S.M., Behzadian, M., Samizadeh, R. and Ignatius, J., 2014. A fuzzy hybrid group decision support system approach for the supplier evaluation process. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 73(5–8), pp.1105–1117. 42. Hatami-Marbini, A. and Tavana, M., 2011. An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega, 39(4), pp.373–386. 43. Hosseini Ezzabadi, J., Dehghani Saryazdi, M. and Mostafaeipour, A., 2015. Implementing Fuzzy Logic and AHP into the EFQM model for performance improvement: A case study. Applied Soft Computing, 36, pp.165–176. 44. Hsu, T.H. and Lin, L.Z., 2014. Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(2), pp.299–323. 45. Hu, Y.C. and Chen, H.C., 2011. Integrating multicriteria PROMETHEE II method into a single-layer perceptron for two-class pattern classification. Neural Computing and Applications, 20(8), pp.1263–1271. 46. Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C. a., Hammond, G.P. and Newman, S.T., 2007. Development of robust design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable development. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18–19), pp.4513–4536. 47. Ju, Y., Wang, A. and Liu, X., 2012. Evaluating emergency response capacity by fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), pp.6972–6981. 48. Kafkas, F. et al., 2007. Determination of residual stresses based on heat treatment conditions and densities on a hybrid (FLN2-4405) powder metallurgy steel using artificial neural network. Materials & Design, 28(9), pp.2431–2442. 49. Kahraman, C. et al., 2007. Hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS model for selection among logistics information technologies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(2), pp.143–168. 50. Kalogirou, S.A., 2000. Applications of artificial neural-networks for energy systems. Applied Energy, 67(1–2), pp.17–35. 51. Karande, P. and Chakraborty, S., 2012. A Fuzzy-MOORA approach for ERP system selection. Decision Science Letters, 1(1), pp.11–21. 52. Kashfi, M.A. and Javadi, M., 2015. A model for selecting suitable dispatching rule in FMS based on fuzzy multi attribute group decision making. Production Engineering, 9(2), pp.237–246. 53. Khorasaninejad, E., Fetanat, A. and Hajabdollahi, H., 2016. Prime mover selection in thermal power plant integrated with organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery using a novel multi criteria decision making approach. Applied Thermal Engineering, 102, pp.1262–1279. 54. Lee, S. and Seo, K., 2015. A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for a Cloud Service Selection Problem Using BSC , Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP. Wireless Personal Communications, 86(1), pp. 57-75. 55. Li, G.-D., Yamaguchi, D. and Nagai, M., 2007. A grey-based decision-making approach to the supplier selection problem. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(3–4), pp.573–581. 56. Li, J. and Liang, G.Q., 2011. A Quantitative Approach to Assessing Product Design for Remanufacturing. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 110–116, pp.4893–4898. 57. Liao, H., Xu, Z. and Zeng, X.J., 2015. Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic VIKOR Method and Its Application in Qualitative Multiple Criteria Decision Making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 23(5), pp.1343–1355. 58. Liu, H.-C., You, J.-X., You, X.-Y. and Shan, M.-M., 2015. A novel approach for failure mode and effects analysis using combination weighting and fuzzy VIKOR method. Applied Soft Computing, 28, pp.579–588. 59. Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P. and Barua, M.K., 2015. Prioritizing the responses to manage risks in green supply chain: An Indian plastic manufacturer perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1(January 2015), pp.67–86. 60. Mavrotas, G. and Pechak, O., 2013. Assessment and Simulation Tools for Sustainable Energy Systems. Green Energy and Technology, 129(1), pp.333–356. 61. Moghimi, R. and Anvari, A., 2014. An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach and analysis to evaluate the financial performance of Iranian cement companies. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 71(1–4), pp.685–698. 62. Mohamed Noor, A.Z. et al., 2017. A review of techniques to determine alternative selection in design for remanufacturing. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 257(1), pp.1012-1021. 63. Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R. and Mirfenderesk, H., 2015. Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49(2015), pp.54–65. 64. Mouzakitis, S., Karamolegkos, G., Ntanos, E. and Psarras, J., 2013. A Fuzzy Multi-criteria Outranking Approach in Support of Business Angels’ Decision-Analysis Process for the Assessment of Companies as Investment Opportunities. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 158(1), pp.274–283. 65. Musani, S. and Jemain, A.A., 2015. Ranking Schools’ Academic Performance Using a Fuzzy VIKOR. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 622, p.12036. 66. Patil, S.K. and Kant, R., 2014. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), pp.679–693. 67. Peng, J., Wang, J. and Wu, X., 2016. Novel Multi-criteria Decision-making Approaches Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and Prospect Theory, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making , 15(3), pp.1–23. 68. Peng, Y., Kou, G. and Li, J., 2014. A Fuzzy PROMETHEE Approach for Mining Customer Reviews in Chinese. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 39(6), pp.5245–5252. 69. Prakash, C. and Barua, M.K., 2016. A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 37(2015), pp.66–78. 70. Rani, R.M., Ismail, W.R. and Razali, S.F., 2014. Operator performance evaluation using multi criteria decision making methods. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1602(2014), pp.559–566. 71. Ren, J. and Lützen, M., 2015. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transportation Research Part D, 40(2015), pp.43–60. 72. Rezaei, J., Fahim, P.B.M. and Tavasszy, L., 2014. Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18), pp.8165–8179. 73. Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A. and Sabaghi, M., 2015. Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecological Indicators, 49(2014), pp.188–203. 74. Saaty, T.L. and Tran, L.T., 2007. On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, pp.962–975. 75. Safari, H., Faraji, Z. and Majidian, S., 2016. Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27(2), pp.475–486. 76. Sahu, A.K., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S., 2016. Evaluation and selection of resilient suppliers in fuzzy environment: Exploration of fuzzy-VIKOR. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(3), pp.651–673. 77. Sakthivel, G. and Ilangkumaran, M., 2013. Development of decision support system to select the best fuel blend in IC engines to enhance the energy efficiency,International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 9(3-4), pp.310–343. 78. Samantra, C., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S., 2012. Application of Fuzzy Based VIKOR Approach for Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making (MAGDM): A Case Study in Supplier Selection. Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services, 6(1), pp.25–39. 79. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M., García-Cascales, M.S. and Lamata, M.T., 2015. Evaluation of suitable locations for the installation of solar thermoelectric power plants. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 87, pp.343–355. 80. Sangaiah, A.K., Gopal, J., Basu, A. and Subramaniam, P.R., 2015. An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. Neural Computing and Applications, 28(1), pp. 111-123. 81. Santi, É., Ferreira, L. and Borenstein, D., 2015. Enhancing the Discrimination of Alternatives in Fuzzy-TOPSIS. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 53(4), pp.155–169. 82. Senvar, O., Tuzkaya, G. and Kahraman, C., 2014. Supply Chain Management Under Fuzziness. Supply Chain Management Under Fuzziness Recent Developments and Techniques, 313(2), pp.21–34. 83. Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S.S. and Thakur, L.S., 2012. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), pp.8182–8192. 84. Siddiqui, Z.A. and Tyagi, K., 2016. Application of fuzzy-MOORA method: Ranking of components for reliability estimation of component-based software systems. Decision Science Letters, 5, pp.169–188. 85. Singh, S., Olugu, E.U. and Musa, S.N., 2015. Strategy selection for sustainable manufacturing with integrated AHP-VIKOR method under interval-valued fuzzy environment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 84, pp.547–563. 86. Sofiyabadi, J., Kolahi, B. and Valmohammadi, C., 2015. Key performance indicators measurement in service business : a fuzzy VIKOR approach. Journal Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(9-10), pp. 1028-1042. 87. Somashekhar, K.P., Ramachandran, N. and Mathew, J., 2010. Optimization of Material Removal Rate in Micro-EDM Using Artificial Neural Network and Genetic Algorithms. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 25(6), pp.467–475. 88. Song, Z., Zhu, H., Jia, G. and He, C., 2014. Comprehensive evaluation on self-ignition risks of coal stockpiles using fuzzy AHP approaches. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 32, pp.78–94. 89. Stanujkic, D., 2013. An extension of the MOORA method for solving fuzzy decision making problems. Journal Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(1), pp.S228-S255. 90. Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N., Jovanovic, R. and Stojanovic, S., 2012. An objective multi-criteria approach to optimization using MOORA method and interval grey numbers. Journal Technological & Economic Development of Economy, 18(2), pp.331–363. 91. Taha, Z. and Rostam, S., 2012. A hybrid fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE decision support system for machine tool selection in flexible manufacturing cell. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(6), pp.2137–2149. 92. Taskin, H., Kahraman, U.A. and Kubat, C., 2015. Evaluation of the hospital service in Turkey using fuzzy decision making approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 26(1), pp.1-12. 93. Taylan, O., Bafail, A.O., Abdulaal, R.M.S. and Kabli, M.R., 2014. Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 17, pp.105–116. 94. Taylan, O., Kabli, M.R., Saeedpoor, M. and Vafadarnikjoo, A., 2015. Commentary on “Construction projects selection and risk assessment by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies” [Applied Soft Computing 17 (2014): 105–116]. Applied Soft Computing, 36, pp.419–421. 95. Tian, X., Liu, X. and Wang, L., 2014. An improved PROMETHEE II method based on Axiomatic Fuzzy Sets. Neural Computing and Applications, 25(7–8), pp.1675–1683. 96. Wang, J., Ding, D., Liu, O. and Li, M., 2015. A Synthetic Method for Knowledge Management Performance Evaluation Based on Triangular Fuzzy Number and Group Support Systems. Applied Soft Computing,39(February 2016), pp. 11-20. 97. Wu, .Q., Pu, F., Shao, S.H., Fang, J.N., 2004. Trapezoidal fuzzy AHP for the comprehensive evaluation of highway network programming schemes in yangtze river delta. Fifth World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (IEEE Cat. No.04EX788), 6, pp.5232–5236. 98. Wu, H.Y., Tzeng, G.H. and Chen, Y.H., 2009. A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), pp.10135–10147. 99. Yang, C. et al., 2014. A Testability Allocation Method Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Comprehensive Weighted. 2014 IEEE 9th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA) 2014, Hangzhou, China, 9-11 June 2014. pp.113–116. 100. Yang, S.S., Nasr, N., Ong, S.K. and Nee, A.Y.C., 2015. Designing automotive products for remanufacturing from material selection perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153(June 2017), pp. 570-579. 101. Yao, Y., Lian, Z., Liu, S. and Hou, Z., 2004. Hourly cooling load prediction by a combined forecasting model based on analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 43(11), pp.1107–1118. 102. Yazdani, M., 2015. New intuitionistic fuzzy approach with multi-objective optimisation on the basis of ratio analysis method. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 9(4), p.355 - 374. 103. Yeap, J. a. L., Ignatius, J. and Ramayah, T., 2014. Determining consumers’ most preferred eWOM platform for movie reviews: A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(February 2014), pp.250–258. 104. Yucesu, H.S., Sozen, A., Topgul, T. and Arcaklioglu, E., 2007. Comparative study of mathematical and experimental analysis of spark ignition engine performance used ethanol-gasoline blend fuel. Applied Thermal Engineering, 27(2–3), pp.358–368. 105. Zheng, G. et al., 2012. Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Safety Science, 50(2), pp.228–239.

Prioritizing Life Cycle Cost In Design For Remanufacturing Using Intelligent Tool

Similar Items