Material selection in product design under risk and uncertainty introducing the conditional logit in the madm framework

References

• Albinana JC, Vila C. A framework for concurrent material and process selection during conceptual design stages. Mater Des. 2012;41:433–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahinur S, Sharif Ullah AMM, Noor-E-Alam M, et al. A decision model for making decisions under epistemic uncertainty and its application to select materials. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manufact. 2017;31:298–312.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making. In: Beckmann M, Kunzi HP, editor. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1981. p. 186.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng G-H, Huang -J-J. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Dieter GE. Engineering design: A materials and processing approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman DG. The mechanical design process. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design. London: The Design Council/Springer-Verlag; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Otto K, Wood K. Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. India: Pearson Education; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Zha XF, Sriram RD, Lu WF. Evaluation and selection in product design for mass customization: A knowledge decision support approach. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manufact. 2004;18:87–109.
   Google Scholar
• Mousavi-Nasab SH, Sotoudeh-Anvari A. A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Mater Des. 2017;121:237–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahan A, Bahraminasab M, Edwards KL. A target-based normalization technique for material selection. Mater Des. 2012;35:647–654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan FTS, Kumar N, Tiwari MK, et al. Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int J P Res. 2008;46:3825–3857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatush Z, Skitmore MR. Contractor selection using multicriteria utility theory: an additive model. Build Environ. 1998;33:105–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mujgan S, Ozdemir MS, Gasimov RN. The analytic hierarchy process and multi objective 0–1 faculty course assignment. Eur J Oper Res. 2004;157:398–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu YJ, Wang Y, Wang ZL, et al. Machining scheme selection based on a new discrete particle swarm optimization and analytical hierarchy process. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manufact. 2014;28:71–82.
   Google Scholar
• Girubha RJ, Vinodh S. Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component. Mater Des. 2012;37:478–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opricovic S, Gwo-Hshiung T. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res. 2004;156:445–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lourenzutti R, Krohling RA. The hellinger distance in multicriteria decision making: an illustration to the TOPSIS and TODIM methods. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41:4414–4421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng A, Xiao K. Material selection using PROMETHEE combined with analytic network process under hybrid environment. Mater Des. 2013;30:643–652.
   Google Scholar
• Shanian A, Milani AS, Carson C, et al. A new application of ELECTRE III and revised Simos’ procedure for group material selection under weighting uncertainty. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2008;21:709–720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallenius J, Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, et al. Multiple criteria decision making, multi-attribute utility theory. Manage Sci. 2008;54:1336–1349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazelrigg GA. A framework for decision-based engineering design. J Mech Des. 2003;120:653–658.
   Google Scholar
• von-Neumann J, Morgenstern O. The theory of games and economic behavior. NJ: Princeton University Press; 1947.
   Google Scholar
• Mastron M, Mistree F, “An implementation of expected utility theory in decision based design.” 10th International conference on design theory and methodology, DETC98/DTM-5670; Atlanta, Georgia; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Savage LJ. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley; 1954.
   Google Scholar
• Elisabeth Pate-Cornell M. The engineering risk-analysis method and some applications. In: Edwards W, Miles RF, Winterfeldt DV, editors. Advances in decision analysis, from foundation to applications. NY: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 302–324.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: Wiley; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Das D, Bhattacharya S, Sarkar B. Decision-based design-driven material selection: a normative-prescriptive approach for simultaneous selection of material and geometric variables in gear design. Mater Des. 2016;92:787–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan-pei L, Qing-chun M, Feng L, et al. Aircraft design material-selection method based on MAUT theory. J Aeronaut Mater. 2010;30:88–94.
   Google Scholar
• Wassenaar HJ, Chen W. An approach to decision-based design with discrete choice analysis for demand modeling. J Mech Des. 2003;125:490–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies PS, Greenwood MJ, Li H. A conditional logit approach to U.S. state-to-state migration. J Reg Sci. 2001;41:337–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–142.
   Google Scholar
• Garrow LA. Discrete choice modelling and air travel demand: theory and applications. Berlington: Ashgate; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler A. Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transp ResA Policy Pract. 2012;46:1372–1385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackbarth A, Madlener R. Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: A discrete choice analysis. Transp ResA Policy Pract. 2013;25:5–17.
   Google Scholar
• Fransen M, Bucciarelli LL. On rationality in engineering design. J Mech Des. 2005;126:945–949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suh NP. The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Farag MM. Materials and process selection for engineering design. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn TM. Cryogenic Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Khabbaz RS, Manshadi BD, Abedian A, et al. A simplified fuzzy logic approach for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des. 2009;30:687–697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140: 44–53.in R.S. Woodworth (ed).
   Google Scholar
• Dehghan-Manshadi B, Mahmudi H, Abedian A. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayazbakhsh K, Abedian A, Manshadi BD, et al. Introducing a novel method for materials selection in mechanical design using Z transformation in statistics for normalization of material properties. Mater Des. 2009;30:4396–4404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Dėjus T, et al. Sensitivity analysis of a simple additive weight method. Int J Manage Decis Making. 2007;8:555–574.
   Google Scholar
• Memariani A, Amini A, Alinezhad A. Sensitivity analysis of simple additive weighting method (SAW): the results of change in the weight of one attribute on the final ranking of alternatives. J Optim Ind Eng. 2009;2:13–18.
   Google Scholar