0
Research Papers

Evaluation of Design Alternatives’ Environmental Impact by Integrating Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Evidential Reasoning Approach

[+] Author and Article Information
C. Y. Ng

Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management,
City University of Hong Kong,
Kowloon Tong, Hong Konge-mail: eddieng2@gapps.cityu.edu.hk

K. B. Chuah

Associate Professor Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management,
City University of Hong Kong,
Kowloon Tong, Hong Konge-mail: bing.chuah@cityu.edu.hk

Manuscript received September 5, 2014; final manuscript received December 12, 2014; published online February 27, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Michael Beer.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 1(1), 011008 (Feb 27, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: RISK-14-1051; doi: 10.1115/1.4029404 History: Received September 05, 2014; Accepted December 16, 2014; Online February 27, 2015

Today “ecodesign” is a necessary consideration in the product development process. With increasing general awareness of the need for environmental production and more stringent regulatory requirements, manufacturers have to try to minimize their environmental impact. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is a generally accepted quantitative approach that can be applied to support environmental impact evaluations of a product. However, despite the time-consuming and resource-consuming attributes of the LCA, it has difficulty to deal with uncertain information. Therefore, LCA is yet to be a practical approach for environmental impact evaluation, particularly, during new product development (NPD). This paper proposes an approach to evaluate the environmental performance of design alternatives during NPD. The use of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches with LCA methodology for the evaluation of design alternatives’ environmental performance during NPD processes is first discussed. The proposed approach integrates analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy set theory (FST) with evidential reasoning (ER) in the evaluation of environmental performance to prioritize different design options. A case study is described to illustrate the use of the proposed method.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Topics: Design , Cycles , Probability
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Illustration of integrated rough-cut LCA, FST, AHP, and ER approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Hierarchical structure of the proposed integrated approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Example of converting TFNs to non-normalized five evaluation grades

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Hierarchical structure of the proposed integrated approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Converting TFNttl to non-normalized five evaluation grades

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In