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

ISO 14040:2006, 2006, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, and Framework.
Lindahl, M., 2006, “Engineering Designers’ Experience of Design for Environment Methods and Tools: Requirement Definitions from an Interview Study,” J. Cleaner Prod., 14(5), pp. 487–496. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.02.003
Ng, C. Y., and Chuah, K. B., 2011, “Effect of Material Selection on the Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental Impact,” Adv. Mater. Res., 383–390, pp. 3387–3394. [CrossRef]
Björklund, A. E., 2006, Survey of Approaches to Improve Reliability in LCA, The Environmental Strategies Research Group, Stockholm, Sweden.
Millet D., Bistagnino L., Lanzavecchia C., Camous R., and Tiiu Poldma, 2007, “Does the Potential of the Use of LCA Match the Design Team Needs?” J. Cleaner Prod., 15(4), pp. 335–346. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.016
Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kuo, M. S., 2011, “Optimal Location Selection for an International Distribution Center by Using a New Hybrid Method,” Expert Syst. Appl., 38(6), pp. 7208–7221. 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.002
Chin, K. S., Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., and Lam, P. K., 2008, “Group-Based ER-AHP System for Product Project Screening,” Expert Syst. Appl., 35(4), pp. 1909–1929. 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.077
Dağdeviren, M., 2010, “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Personnel Selection In Manufacturing Systems,” J. Intell. Manuf., 21(4), pp. 451–460. 10.1007/s10845-008-0200-7
Chin, K. S., Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., and Lam, P. K., 2008, “Group-Based ER-AHP System for Product Project Screening,” Expert Syst. Appl., 35(4), pp. 1909–1929. 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.077
Yang, J. B., and Singh, M. G., 1994, “An Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Humans, 24(1), pp. 1–18. [CrossRef]
Dempster, A. P., 1967, “Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multi-Valued Mapping,” Ann. Math. Stat., 38(2), pp. 325–339. [CrossRef]
Shafer, G., 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., and Xu, D. L., 2006, “The Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis Using Interval Belief Degrees,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 175(1), pp. 35–66. 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.034
Tacnet, J. M., Dezert, J., and Mireille, B. H., 2011, AHP and Uncertainty Theories for Decision Making using the ER-MCDA Methodology, International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Network Process, Sorrento, Italy.
Wang, Y. M., and Elhag, T. M. S., 2006, “Evidential Reasoning Approach For Bridge Condition Assessment,” Expert Syst. Appl., 34(1), pp. 689–699. [CrossRef]
Jiang, J., Li, X., and Zhou, Z. J., 2011, “Weapon System Capability Assessment Under Uncertainty Based on the Evidential Reasoning Approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., 38(11), pp. 13,773–13,784.
Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., and Xu, D. L., 2006, “Environmental Impact Assessment Using the Evidential Reasoning Approach,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 174(3), pp. 1885–1913. 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.09.059
Zadeh, L. A., 1965, “Fuzzy Sets,” Inf. Control, 8(3), pp. 338–353. 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
ISO 14040:2006, 2006, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, and Framework.
Ertuğrul, İ., and Karakaşoğlu, N., 2008, “Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Facility Location Selection,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 39(7–8), pp. 783–795. [CrossRef]
Klir, G. J., and Yuan, B., 1995, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chan, F. T. S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C. W., and Choy, K. L., 2008, “Global Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy-AHP Approach,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 46(14), 3825–3857. 10.1080/00207540600787200
Gumus, A. T., 2009, “Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Transportation Firms by Using a Two Step Fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS Methodology,” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(2), pp. 4067–4074. 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.013
Wang, Y. M., Greatbanks, R., and Yang, J. B., 2005, “Interval Efficiency Assessment Using Data Envelopment Analysis,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 153(3), pp. 347–370. 10.1016/j.fss.2004.12.011
Yang, J. B., and Singh, M. G., 1994, “An Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Humans, 24(1), pp. 1–18. [CrossRef]
Dempster, A. P., 1967, “Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multi-Valued Mapping,” Ann. Math. Stat., 38(2), pp. 325–339. [CrossRef]
Shafer, G., 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., and Xu, D. L., 2006, “The Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis Using Interval Belief Degrees,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 175(1), pp. 35–66. 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.034
Yang, J. B., and Xu, D. L., 2002, “On the Evidential Reasoning Algorithm for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis Under Uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 32(3), pp. 289–304. 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746
Sadiq, R., Saint-Martin, E., and Kleiner, Y., 2008, “Predicting Risk of Water Quality Failures in Distribution Networks Under Uncertainties Using Fault-Tree Analysis,” Urban Water J., 5(4), pp. 287–304. 10.1080/15730620802213504
Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., Roberts, C., and Wang, J., 2012, “Decision Support Framework for Risk Management on Sea Ports and Terminals Using Fuzzy Set Theory and Evidential Reasoning Approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., 39(5), pp. 5087–5103. 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.030
Goedkoop, M., and Spriensma, R., 1999, “The Eco-Indicator 99. A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Assessment,” Methodology Report, PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

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