Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/manpro

Technical Paper

A fuzzy multi-attribute approach to select the welding process at high pressure

vessel manufacturing
Mostafa Jafarian a,∗ , S. Ebrahim Vahdat b
a
Young researchers club, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran
b
Department of Engineering, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Metal welding process selection calls for extensive know-how which deals with a huge amount of knowl-
Received 18 June 2011 edge. Hence, the automation of knowledge through a knowledge-based system will greatly enhance the
Received in revised form 11 October 2011 decision-making process. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP)-TOPSIS investigates the relative weld-
Accepted 12 October 2011
ing process selection factors and it can compare and evaluate different welding processes between 0 and
Available online 27 December 2011
1.
This paper describes a knowledge-base system developed for identifying the most appropriate welding
Keywords:
processes to suit specific circumstances. In the present study, nine important welding processes were
High Pressure Vessel
Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
used in the system. Ten parameters namely alloy class, material thickness, deposition rate, design appli-
TOPSIS cation, joint configuration, operator factor, capital cost, equipment portability, filler metal utilization and
welding position, are used to determine the best selection among competitive welding processes for high
pressure vessel production. Also the sensitivity analysis was carried out for five cases.
© 2011 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction process. Based on guidelines for the selection of a fusion welding

Welding is a materials joining process in which localized coa-
lescence (joining) is produced along with the faying surfaces of the
workplaces. Coalescence is produced either by heating materials
to proper temperatures, with or without the application of pres-
sure, or it is produced only by the application of pressure. In some
welding processes, filler material is added during welding. There
are more than 50 different welding processes, nine of which are
listed in Table 1. The processes can be classified as either fusion
or solid state (non fusion) methods. Fusion welding processes, in
which the workplaces are melted together at their faying surfaces,
are the most commonly used processes, which are also discussed
in this paper. Arc and oxy fuel gas welding are the predominant
fusion processes. Filler metals often used with the arc and oxy fuel
gas welding methods have melting points about the same as or just
below those of the metals being joined [1].
Selection of welding process is an unstructured decision prob-
lem involving multiple factors. To provide decision support for the
welding or design engineer, an all -encompassing analysis of mul-
tiple attributes is necessary [2]. The present paper reports a new
procedure using Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS for the selection of a welding
process presented by Society of Manufacturing Engineering hand-
book [1], pair-wise comparison matrixes are produced to imply this
method (see Table 2). This method is attractive and effective tool
to select the welding process for fabricating high pressure vessel.
This paper is organized as follows. Some basic concepts of fuzzy
set theory are described in Section 2. Section 3 gives some informa-
tion about fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Here, advantages of method also
are presented. In Section 4, methodology of selecting the welding
process is introduced. Section 5 deals with discussion and result.
Finally, the conclusion is presented at Section 6.
2. Fuzzy set theory
In real world situation, the main focus is on inexact, non deter-
ministic or vague information. This vagueness can be identified by
verbal expression such as good, medium and bad. Fuzzy set theory
introduced by Zadeh is one of the powerful tools to return the verbal
expression into numerical information [3]. Now, some basic con-
cepts at fuzzy set theory applied in this paper should be reviewed
[4].

Definition 1. If X is a collection of objects denoted generically by

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9113153970/1113220193; x, then a fuzzy set à in X is a set of ordered pairs:
fax: +98 1112044442.
E-mail addresses: m.jafarian@iauamol.ac.ir (M. Jafarian), e.vahdat@iauamol.ac.ir
(S.E. Vahdat). Ã = {(x, Ã (x))|x ∈ X} (1)

1526-6125/$ – see front matter © 2011 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2011.10.006
 M. Jafarian, S.E. Vahdat / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256 251

Table 1
Nine welding processes used in this research.

SAW Submerged arc welding GMAW Gas metal arc welding OFW Oxy fuel welding
PAW Plasma arc welding FCAW Flux-cored arc welding EBW Electron beam welding
GTAW Gas tungsten arc welding SMAW Shielded metal arc welding LBW Laser beam welding

Table 2
The guideline to select a fusion welding process [1].

ARC welding Other Welding Processes

SMAW FCAW GMAW SAW GTAW PAW OFW EBW LBW

Design application
Primary structural B B B B A A C A A
Secondary structure A A A B B B B B B
Noncritical A A A B C C B B B
Dissimilar metal B B B C A A C A A
Joint configuration
Butt A A A A A A A A A
Tee A A A B B B B B B
Edge B B B C A A B A A
Corner B B B C B B B C C
Lap
Welding positions A A A C A A B C B
Equipment portability 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 1
Capital cost 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 4 4
Operator factor 1 3 3 4 2 2 2 4 4
Deposition rate 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1
Filter metal utilization 1 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 4
Thickness of parts
0.03–0.5 D D D D B B D A A
0.5–1.3 C C B D A A B A A
1.3–2.5 B C B D A A B A A
2.5–6.4 B B A C A A B A A
6.4–12.7 A A A B B B B A B
12.7–25 A A A B C C B A C
25–64 A A A A C C C A C
64–over A A A A C C C A D
Thick to thin B B B C A A B A A
Alloy class
Plain low carbon steel A A A A B B B C B
Low carbon steel B B B B B B C B B
High strength steel B B B B B B D B C
Stainless steel 300 B B B B A A C A A
Aluminum D B B D A A C A C

A: most satisfactory; B: satisfactory, C: restricted usage, D: not recommended; 1-Lowest, 4-Highest.

 p 
where x denotes the element of the set X, Ã (x) is called the mem- Ã1 a1 am ao
= o , 1m , 1p (7)
bership function or the degree of membership of x in à that maps Ã2 a2 a2 a
2
X to the membership space [0, 1].
Definition 2. If supx à (x) = 1, the fuzzy set à is called normal.
Definition 3. The membership function C̃ (x) of the intersection Definition 6. Given two fuzzy numbers Ã1 and Ã2 , the truth value
C̃ = Ã ∩ B̃ is defined by: of the fuzzy number Ã1 is greater than or equal to the fuzzy number
Ã2 expressed as in the following:
C̃ (x) = min{Ã (x), B̃ (x)}, x∈X (2)

Definition 4. Suppose à is a triangular fuzzy number (ap , am , ao )

that is defined as (see Fig. 1): T (Ã1  Ã2 ) = sup[min(Ã (x), Ã (y))] (8)
1 2
⎧ am − x
⎪
⎪ 1− m , ap ≤ x ≤ am
⎨ a − ap
à (x) = x − am (3)
⎪
⎪ 1− o , am ≤ x ≤ ao
⎩ a − am A
0 otherwise
p p
Definition 5. Suppose Ã1 = (a1 , am 1
, ao1 ) and Ã2 = (a2 , am
2
, ao2 ) are 1
triangular fuzzy numbers so the arithmetic operations on them can
be shown as follows:
p p
Ã1 + Ã2 = (a1 + a2 , am m o o
1 + a2 , a1 + a2 ) (4)
p p
Ã1 − Ã2 = (a1 − ao2 , am
1 − am o
2 , a1 − a2 ) (5) x
p p
Ã1 Ã2 = (a1 a2 , am m o o
1 a2 , a1 a1 ) (6) Fig. 1. A triangular fuzzy.
252 M. Jafarian, S.E. Vahdat / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256

An algorithm that is the direct extension of Saaty’s AHP method

1
1 2 for group decision making is proposed by Van Laarhoven and
Pedrycz [13]. Based on logarithmic least-squares method [20],
Kahraman [21] proposed a new method to derive fuzzy weights
and fuzzy performance scores. Hsu et al. [22] demonstrated that
the triangular fuzzy number is better than other types, such as
1 2 trapezoidal, Z shape, S shape and so forth in questionnaire reports.
The most important combination of triangular fuzzy numbers in
fuzzy-AHP has been studied at Chang’s extent analysis [15] which
is frequently applied in the various MADM problems. Based on this
Fig. 2. The intersection between Ã1 and Ã2 . method, each object is taken and extent analysis for each goal is
performed, respectively [21]. Since it can eliminate less important
criteria, it is attractive when the problem is large. Since there are
And can be equivalently expressed as follows:
many criteria and sub criteria, the current study has preferred the
⎧
⎪ 1 if am ≥ am  approach of fuzzy-AHP expressed as follows:
extent analysis
⎪
⎪
1 2 p
⎨ 0 if
p o
a1 ≥ a2
Let A = ãij be a preference matrix that ãij = (aij , am
n×n ij
, aoij ) is
T (Ã1  Ã2 ) = Ĩ (d) = (9) a fuzzy triangular number.
⎪
⎪
p
a2 − ao1
⎪
⎩ otherwise
Step 1: The value of fuzzy synthetic range with respect to the
p ith object is defined as follows:
m o
(a1 − a1 ) − (am
2
− a2 )
⎡ ⎤−1
where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point d between

n
n

n
à (x) and à (y) (see Fig. 2).
1 2 M̃i = ãij ⊗ ⎣ ãij ⎦ (10)
j=1 i=1 j=1
3. Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS
n n n
where ã
j=1 ij
and i=1
ãij are fuzzy triangular numbers
Uncertainty and vagueness are common characteristics in many j=1
n n −1
decision-making problems [5]. Since an expert’ judgment is the obtained by Eq. (4) and also i=1
ã
j=1 ij
is obtained by Eq.
verbal statement, the qualitative preferences are preferred to the (7).
point of estimation. Conventional AHP that requires the selection of Step 2: The truth value of M̃i  M̃j is defined by Eqs. (8) and (9).
arbitrary values in pair-wise comparison may not be sufficient and To compare M̃i and M̃j , both the values of T (M̃i  M̃j ) and T (M̃i  M̃j )
uncertainty should be considered in some or all pair-wise com- are needed.
parison values [5]. Since the fuzzy linguistic approach can take Step 3: The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number M̃j to
the optimism/pessimism rating attitude of decision-makers into be greater than n convex fuzzy numbers M̃i (i = 1, 2, . . ., n; i =/ j) can
account, linguistic values are recommended to assess preference be defined by
ratings instead of conventional numerical equivalence method [6].
As a result, the fuzzy-AHP should be more appropriate and effec- T (M̃i  M̃1 , . . . , M̃i−1 , M̃i+1 , . . . , M̃n ) = T [(M̃i  M̃1 ) ∧ . . . ∧
tive than conventional AHP in real practice where an uncertain (M̃i  M̃i−1 ) ∧ . . . ∧ (M̃i  M̃i+1 ) ∧ . . . ∧ (M̃i  M̃n )], (11)
pair-wise comparison environment exists [7].
TOPSIS is a multiple attribute decision making to investigate assume that
solutions from a finite set of alternatives. The main concentration
on it is that the chosen alternative should have the shortest dis- d (Ai ) = min T (M̃i  M̃j ) (12)
tance from the positive ideal solution, and the farthest distance is for j = 1, 2, . . ., n; j =
/ i, then the weight factor is given by
the negative ideal solution [8,9]. In this case, fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS
W = (d (A1 ), d (A2 ), . . . , d (An )) ,
T
are combined to rank alternatives with qualitative and quantitative (13)
attributes. First, to obtain the weight of criteria and local weight of
where Ai (i = 1, 2, . . ., n) is the nth element.
alternative from each criterion, fuzzy-AHP was used, and later, TOP-
Step 4: the normalized weight vectors via normalization are
SIS is applied to rank the alternatives out of alternative to criterion
given by
table obtained by the fuzzy-AHP.
T
W = (d(A1 ), d(A2 ), . . . , d(An )) , (14)
3.1. Fuzzy AHP
where W is a crisp number.
In tackling MADM problems in real situations, the analyti-
cal hierarchy process (AHP) is a widely used approach [11]. AHP 3.2. TOPSIS
can handle twelve types of problems: deciding priorities, gener-
ating alternatives, choosing best alternatives, deciding demands, One of the attractive tool in multiple attribute decision making is
allocating resources, forecasting results or evaluating risks, mea- TOPSIS, where the main idea is that the best alternative is nearest
suring performance, designing systems, making systems stable, to the positive ideal solution (PIS), maximum amount of benefit
optimizing, planning, and resolving conflicts [11]. Based on expert criteria and minimum amount of the cost criteria, and farthest from
linguistic comparison, this approach lacks the ability to handle the the negative one (NIS), maximum amount of the cost criteria and
inherent uncertainty connected with quantifying decision maker’s minimum amount of the benefit criteria. Four advantages of TOPSIS
perceptions [12]. Therefore, the adoption of fuzzy set theory, Fuzzy are listed in Shih et al. [10] study: a sound logic that represents the
Analytical Hierarchy Process, is applied as a suitable tool to inte- rationale of human choice; a scalar value that accounts for both
grate input data uncertainties. The fuzzy-AHP methods introduced best and worst alternatives simultaneously; a simple computation
by these methods [13–19] seem to be systematic for the alternative process that can be easily programmed into a spreadsheet; and
selection and problem justification by using the fuzzy set theory the performance measures of all alternatives on attributes can be
and hierarchical structure analysis. visualized on a polyhedron, at least for any two dimensions.
 M. Jafarian, S.E. Vahdat / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256 253

Due to differences on selection of distance functions and nor- Table 3

Fuzzy numbers of preferences.
malization of decision making matrix, several types of TOPSIS have
proposed. The normalized process is usually made column-wise Row Preference Fuzzy number
to compare the alternatives on each attribute. But the normal- 1 Equally preferred (1,1,3)
ized value will be a positive value between 0 and 1. Based on 2 Moderately preferred (1,3,5)
Hwang and Yoon [23], Milani et al. [24], and Yoon and Hwang 3 Strongly preferred (3,5,7)
[25], there are three methods, vector, linear, and non-monotonic 4 Very strongly preferred (5,7,9)
5 Extremely preferred (7,9,9)
normalizations, to transfer the decision making matrix into the
fit real-world situation, under different cases. Among them, vec-
tor normalization is more common. Another difference in TOPSIS 4. Methodology
method is selection of the distance function. Originally TOPSIS
utilized Euclidean distances, special type of Minkowski’s Lp met- The best selection welding processes for pressure vessel pro-
rics, to measure the alternatives with their PIS and NIS. However, duction is obtained from among nine welding processes that are
there are other Minkowski’s distance function, i.e. Manhattan (city introduced in Table 1. For this evaluation, ten essential criteria and
block) and Tchebycheff distance. In addition, Steuer [26] introduces their sub-criteria were used such as:
weighted Lp metric where the measures can be considered as the
judgment in making a choice. Please refer to Berberian [27], Jones C1 – Design application: {C11 – Primary structure, C12 – Secondary
and Mardle [28], and Steuer [26] for details. Due to generality, the structure, C13 – Noncritical, C14 – Dissimilar metal}
Euclidean distance has been used in this case. Now, the steps of C2 – Joint configuration: {C21 – Butt, C22 – Tee, C23 – Edge, C24 –
TOPSIS algorithm proposed to rank alternatives are explained [29]: Corner, C25 – Lap}
Step 1: Calculate the normalized decision matrix. The normal- C3 – Welding positions
ized value nij is calculated as follows: C4 – Equipment portability
 C5 – Capital cost
xij i = 1, . . . , m,
nij =  (15) C6 – Operator factor
m j = 1, . . . , n. C7 – Deposition rate
x2
i=1 ij
C8 – Filter metal utilization
where xij is the local weight obtained by the fuzzy-AHP. C9 – Thickness of parts: {C91 – 0.03–0.5, C92 – 0.5–1.3, C93 – 1.3–2.5,
Step 2: Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix. The C94 – 2.5–6.4, C95 – 6.4–12.7, C96 – 12.7–25, C97 – 25–64, C98 –
weighted normalized value vij is calculated as follows: 64–over, C99 – thick to thin}
C10 – Alloy class: {C101 – Plain low carbon steel, C102 – Low carbon

i = 1, . . . , m. steel, C103 – High strength steel, C104 – Stainless steel 300, C105 –
ij = wj nij (16) Aluminum}.
j = 1, . . . , n.

where wj is the weight of the ith attribute or criterion obtained by The power of importance is considered through five levels of
the fuzzy-AHP. preference shown in Table 3 by the expert weld designer. It means
Step 3: Determine the positive ideal and negative ideal solution a questionnaire is designed and three expert weld designers have
replied back. Then, a sensitivity analysis of each criterion is carried
A+ = {1+ , . . . , n+ } = {(maxj ij |i ∈ I), (minj ij |i ∈ J)}, (17) out. Weld quality is considered by the design of application factor
[1]. It means that design of application is the most important factor
A− = {1− , . . . , n− } = {(minj ij |i ∈ I), (maxj ij |i ∈ J)}, (18) in these criteria [30]. After that, the capital cost, deposition rate and
operator factor are the second more important. But the equipment
where I is set of benefit criteria, and J is set of cost criteria.
portability is not that important because the high pressure vessel
Step 4: Calculate the separation measures, using the n-
factory cannot move to another place [29]. External parameters like
dimensional Euclidean distance. The separation of each alternative
capital cost, operator factor and deposition rate are affected by the
from the ideal solution is given as follows:
investors’ and customers’ needs. So, their importance can change in
⎧ ⎫1/2 various situations. Therefore, these selections are done in the five
⎨
n ⎬ cases, shown in Table 4.
2
di+ = (ij − 1+ ) , i = 1, . . . , m, (19) A graph depicts the hierarchy for welding process selection
⎩ ⎭
j=1 factors that is used in pressure vessel shown in Fig. 3. It shows
that the welding process selection factors have the complex rela-
Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution is tionships among each other which are considered in fuzzy AHP.
given as follows: This means that, for choosing a favorite welding process, it is
⎧ ⎫1/2
⎨
n ⎬
2 Table 4
di− = (ij − 1− ) , i = 1, . . . , m, (20)
⎩ ⎭ Description of the five cases.
j=1
Condition Description

Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution. The 1 It is done for the general design. It means there are limitations
relative closeness of the alternative Ai with respect to A+ is defined for capital cost, deposition rate and operator factor.
2 There is no limitation only for capital cost. It means the
as follows:
investor has a lot of money for production.
− 3 There is no limitation only for deposition rate. It means there is
di
Ri = − + , i = 1, . . . , m, (21) no force to produce pressure vessels.
di + di 4 There is no limitation only for operator factor. It means there
are a lot of skills for all of the welding process listed in Table 1.
Since di−
≥ 0 and di−
≥ 0, then, Ri ∈ [0, 1]. 5 There are no limitations for capital cost, deposition rate and
Step 6: Rank the preference order. operator factor.
254 M. Jafarian, S.E. Vahdat / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256

Fig. 3. The hierarchy graph for welding process selection.

appropriate to study their selection factors relatively. Selecting the

best fusion welding methods is the first level of this hierarchy Steps 2 and 3: Calculate T (M̃i  M̃j ) and T (M̃  M̃1 , M̃2 , . . . , M̃n )
graph. At the second level, attributes such as design application,
joint configuration, etc. will contribute to the achievement of the 0.09 − 0.22
above aim. The sub-criteria of some criteria are presented in the T (M̃1  M̃7 ) = = 0.509
(0.12 − 0.22) − (0.23 − 0.09)
third level. In the final level, the nine alternatives such as SMAW,
FCAW, are presented, and these must be evaluated through the
WM = T (M̃1  M̃2 , M̃3 , . . . , M̃9 ) = 0.509
sub-criteria and criteria in a unique manner. 1

In fuzzy-AHP, first the criteria and alternatives’ importance Step 4: Calculate the normalized weightWM̃ =
1
weights must be compared. For this reason, there must be linguis- W
M̃1
tic terms and their equivalent fuzzy numbers denoting comparison W +W +···+W
= 0.1256
M̃1 M̃2 M̃9
measures. To construct the pair-wise comparison of alternative for
After calculating the local weight of alternatives according to
each criterion, we have used experts’ opinions introduced in SME
each criteria and the weight of criteria, TOPSIS method is used
handbook [1]. The guideline to select a fusion welding process is
to rank the alternatives. Table 7 shows distance from the positive
shown in Table 2. There the typical scale for pair-wise compari-
ideal solution (D+) and negative ideal solution (D−) for case 1 and
son was proposed which may be used for preparing the pair-wise
also show the amount of ranking of each alternative. The general
comparison matrix elements for each criterion in Table 5 regarding
welding process selection methodology for high pressure vessel is
this guideline. One of the tables related to the pair-wise compari-
shown in Fig. 4.
son and local weight of alternatives with regard to the criterion of
equipment portability shown in Table 6.
In this case, the stages of fuzzy AHP are presented to obtain the 5. Results and discussion
local weight of alternatives with regard to the criterion of equip-
ment portability in the The ranking of each alternative in different conditions is shown
nfirst case.n n in Table 8. According to Fig. 5 the favorability changed in various
Step 1: Calculate j=1 ãij and i=1 j=1 ãij and M̃i from Eq. (10).
cases. The factor’s weights are calculated through research cases

n
(see Tables 5 and 6), and also shown in Table 9. Joint configuration,
ã1j = (1, 1, 1) + (1, 1, 1) + · · · + (3, 5, 7) = (12.2, 16.33, 21)
welding position, equipment portability and filler metal utilization
j=1
factors are not effective on the welding process selection for high
pressure vessel production because the production will take place

n
in the factory and through weld design as specified before. The
ãij = (12.2, 16.33, 21) + (12.2, 16.33, 21)
result is as follows:
i=1 j=1
+ · · · + (2.97, 3.34, 4.2) = (96.13, 137.13, 183.4)
1. GTAW and PAW are the most appropriate welding processes
for high pressure vessel production in all research cases but the
M̃1 = (12.2, 16.33, 21) × (96.13, 137.13, 183.4)−1 favorability changed (see Fig. 5 or Table 8). Because design appli-
cation, capital cost, operator factor, deposition rate, thickness
= (0.066, 0.119, 0.218) of parts and alloy class are the effective parameters in various
weights for welding process selection, these processes can sat-
Table 5 isfy mentioned parameters (see Table 9 and Table 2).
Conversion of experts comments to preferred value. 2. For GTAW and PAW, the highest value belongs to case 5 because
4 3 2 1 they have the lowest value of deposition rate, capital cost and
A B C D operator factor relatively. So when they are not limited, the value
4 A (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
of welding process will rise rapidly.
3 B (1/5,1/3,1/1) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (3,5,7) 3. OFW and SAW have the lowest value in all research cases because
2 C (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/5,1/3,1/1) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) they do not have sufficient design applications, and also they
1 D (1/9,1/7,1/5) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/5,1/3,1/1) (1,1,1) cannot satisfy the thickness of parts and alloy class.
 M. Jafarian, S.E. Vahdat / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256 255

Table 7

7
7
7
7
7
7
9
1
1
Positive and negative ideal solution distance case 1.

0
(D+) (D−) R Ranking

5
5
5
5
5
5
7
1
1
LBW
SMAW 0.02684 0.16383 0.66067 2
FCAW 0.01983 0.14082 0.60582 4

3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
1
GMAW 0.01983 0.14082 0.60584 3
SAW 0.00816 0.09036 0.31940 8

7
7
7
7
7
7
9
1
1
GTAW 0.03667 0.19149 0.68845 1
PAW 0.03667 0.19149 0.68845 1
OFW 0.01491 0.12210 0.40136 7

0
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
1
1
EBW 0.02623 0.16197 0.51382 5
EBW

LBW 0.02585 0.16077 0.51133 6

3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
1
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Construct the hierarchy process

0.24648
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.1
0.1
1
OFW

Construct the pair-wise

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1
1

comparison matrix from guideline

table in SME handbook
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

0.12559
0.2
0.2

Construct the pair-wise

1
1
1
1
1
1
3

comparison matrix of criteria by

PAW

0.1
0.1

the expert
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

Calculate the local weight of

0.12559
0.2
0.2

alternatives for each criterion by

1
1
1
1
1
1
3
GTAW

Fuzzy AHP
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Calculate the weight of criterion

0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

by Fuzzy AHP
0.12559
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SAW
The pairwise comparison of alternatives with regard to the criterion of equipment portability.

Select the best welding process

0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

by TOPSIS
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

Fig. 4. Welding process selection methodology for high pressure vessel.

0.12559
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3

4. When the external parameters like capital cost, operator factor

GMAW

and deposition rate are not limited as in case 5, the favorability

0.1
0.1

of EBW and LBW increase rapidly and the favorability of OFW

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

and SAW decrease rapidly (see Fig. 5 or Table 8). EBW and LBW
have the best design application level but OFW and SAW have
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

the least design application level (see Table 2). In this case, design
0.12559
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
FCAW

0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5

0.12559
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SMAW

0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Weight
GMAW
SMAW

GTAW
FCAW
Table 6

PAW
OFW
SAW

EBW
LBW
C4

Fig. 5. Graphical ranking of alternative in different cases.

256 M. Jafarian, S.E. Vahdat / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 14 (2012) 250–256

Table 8
Ranking of each alternative in different cases.

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5

SMAW 0.66067 0.61152 0.69589 0.62610 0.57785

FCAW 0.60582 0.54838 0.59037 0.64848 0.57785
GMAW 0.60584 0.54845 0.59047 0.64876 0.57785
SAW 0.31949 0.29519 0.15911 0.35608 0.08851
GTAW 0.68845 0.70114 0.87616 0.65746 1.00000
PAW 0.68845 0.70114 0.87616 0.65746 1.00000
OFW 0.40136 0.27127 0.41937 0.36082 0
EBW 0.51382 0.59746 0.56613 0.53910 1.00000
LBW 0.51133 0.59549 0.56326 0.53564 0.95955

Table 9
The weight of factors for the all research cases.

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5

Design application 0.40490 0.50463 0.46126 0.44902 0.82917

Joint configuration 0 0 0 0 0
Welding position 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment portability 0 0 0 0 0
Capital cost 0.17577 0 0.19235 0.19210 0
Operator factor 0.14886 0.20273 0.16212 0 0
Deposition rate 0.12174 0.13372 0 0.14927 0
Filler metal utilization 0 0 0 0 0
Thickness of parts 0.01509 0.03335 0.03922 0.06711 0
Alloy class 0.13364 0.12557 0.14505 0.14250 0.17083

application and alloy class are the effective factor for welding
process selection (see Table 9).
5. GTAW, PAW and EBW are the most appropriate welding pro-
cesses for high pressure vessel production in the research case 5
(see Table 8 or Fig. 5). This is because they enjoy the same design
application value and alloy class value (see Table 2).
6. Conclusions
The welding process selection factors have the complex rela-
tionships between each other. Due to this complexity, FAHP-TOPSIS
approach investigated the relative welding process selection fac-
tors according to guidelines for the selection of a fusion welding
process presented by Society of Manufacturing Engineering hand-
book. With regard to the preference value derived by TOPSIS, GTAW
and PAW are the most appropriate welding process and OFW and
SAW are not appropriate for high pressure vessel production in
all research cases. Also when the external parameters like capital
cost, operator factor and deposition rate are not limited as case 5,
the favorability of EBW and LBW rise and the favorability of OFW
and SAW go down rapidly. Therefore, generally, GTAW and PAW
are the most appropriate welding process for high pressure vessel
production.
References
[1] Veilleux Raymond F, Petro Louis W. Tool and manufacturing engineers hand-
book. Manufacturing Management, vol. 5, 4th edition Society of Manufacturing
Engineers; 1998, ISBN 978-0-872633-06-3.
[2] Darwish SM, Al Tamimi A, Al-Hadban S. A knowledge base for metal weld-
ing process selection. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture
1997;37((July) 7):1007–23.
[3] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information Control 1965;8:338–53.
[4] Zimmermann HJ. Fuzzy set theory and its application. 3rd edition Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers; 1996.
[5] Yu CS. A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP prob-
lems. Computers and Operations Research 2002;29:1969–2001.
[6] Liang GS, Wang MJ. Personnel selection using fuzzy MCDM algorithm. European
Journal of Operational Research 1994;78:22–33.
[7] Lee AHI, Chen W-C, Chang C-J. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating
performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert
Systems with Applications 2008;34(1):96–107.
[8] Abo-Sinna MA, Amer AH. Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale
nonlinear programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation
2005;162(1):243–56.
[9] Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Izadikhah M. Extension of the TOPSIS method for
decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Applied Mathematics and Compu-
tation 2006;181(2):1544–51.
[10] Shih H-S, Shyur H-J, Stanley Lee E. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision
making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2007;45(7–8):801–13.
[11] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[12] Tseng ML, Lin YH. Selection of competitive advantages in TQM implementa-
tion using fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis. Asia Pacific Management Review
2008;13(3):583–99.
[13] Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory.
Fuzzy Sets System 1983;11:1–3, 229–241.
[14] Buckley JJ. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets System 1985;17(3):233–47.
[15] Chang DY. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European
Journal of Operational Research 1996;95(3):649–55.
[16] Cheng CH. Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the
grade value of membership function. European Journal of Operational Research
1997;96(2):343–50.
[17] Deng H. Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparison. International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 1999;21(3):215–31.
[18] Leung LC, Cao D. On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP.
European Journal of Operational Research 2000;124(1):102–13.
[19] Mikhailov L. A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pair-
wise comparison judgments. European Journal of Operational Research
2004;159(3):687–704.
[20] Lootsma FA. Fuzzy logic for planning and decision making. London: Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1997.
[21] Kahraman C. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making, theory and applications
with recent developments. New York: Springer; 2008.
[22] Hsu YG, Tzeng GH, Shyu JZ. Fuzzy multiple criteria selection of gov-
ernment sponsored frontier technology R&D projects. R&D Management
2003;33(5):539–50.
[23] Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag;
1981.
[24] Milani AS, Shanian A, Madoliat R. The effect of normalization norms in multi-
ple attribute decision making models: a case study in gearmaterial selection.
Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 2005;29(4):312–8.
[25] Yoon KP, Hwang CL. Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1995.
[26] Steuer RE. Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation, and application.
NY: John Wiley; 1986.
[27] Berberian SK. Fundamentals of real analysis. NY: Springer; 1999.
[28] Jones DF, Mardle SJ. A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of
weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Journal of the Operational
Research Society 2004;55:869–75.
[29] Chen SJ, Hwang CL. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and
applications. Berlin: Springer; 1992.
[30] Megyesy E. Pressure vessel handbook. 14th edition PV publishing Inc.; 2008,
ISBN 978-0-914458-24-1.