Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
A                 Presentation                 on the topicSELECTION OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM USING    MULTI CRITERIA D...
Contents Introduction Company’s Profile Literature Review Problem Formulation Methodology Result & Discussions Conc...
Introduction   Material handling systems:- Material handling systems consist of discrete or continuous  resources to move...
TEN PRINCIPLES OF MATERIAL HANDLING                   Planning                Standardization                     Work    ...
TYPES OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS Conveyors (belt conveyors, bucket conveyors, etc.) Cranes (jib crane, bridge crane, e...
TYPES OF CONVEYORSFlat belt conveyor   Trough belt conveyor                                            6
Chain driven roller conveyor   Screw conveyor                                                7
Roller Bed Belt conveyor                           8
Company Profile Imperial Porcelain Private Limited is one of the pioneer    ceramic industry in the western Rajasthan loc...
Process chart                10
Products 1.1 KV transformer          33 KV Pin Insulator    Bushing                   LT Pin Insulator   12-17.5 KV Tr...
Company Layout                 12
Literature Review(Concluding Remarks) For problem in different field of engineering viz. selection of  best equipment, pr...
Contd.. Out of these techniques AHP, ANP, TOPSIS has been applied  for solving various engineering problem and has been f...
Contd.. TOPSIS is a practical and useful technique for ranking and  selection of a number of externally determined altern...
Problem Identification For the last 2 years, observation of the management of the  company was that the production of the...
Contd.. The extra removed material which is removed during shaping    and copying process dumped around the machines.   ...
Contd.. Thus it was observed that the main reason for large percentage  of cracks is the material recovered from the shap...
Contd.. The management wanted to select the most suitable material  handling system which would increase productivity wit...
Methodology              20
Contd.. Identification of criteria The first step is to go for detailed study of existing process, products and layout of ...
contd..Listing of alternativesA number of alternatives are available in material handling systemssuch as conveyors, overhe...
contd..Application of MCDM TechniquesThere are number of MCDM techniques available. Out ofthese techniques AHP, ANP and TO...
Methodology for Analytical Hierarchy Process Step 1: Cost Factor Component of the Equipments                            C...
Step 2: Developing the Decision Tree                                       25
Step 3: Objective Factor Measure (OFM) Objective Factor Measure (OFM) values are determined for each of the alternatives o...
Chain Driven                                       Flat Belt    Roller Bed      Screw     Troughed BeltS. No.   Equipments...
Questionnaire                28
Step 4: Decision Matrix         I    II   III   IV    V     VI    VII   VIII  I     1     4    2     1/5   1/2   1/2    2 ...
Step 5: Pairwise Comparison Matrices1.Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of product              C1         C2...
2. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed3. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Cost4. Pair-wise comparison matrix fo...
Step 6: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)           I        II      III      IV      V       VI      VII     V...
Normalize Matrix for decision matrix          I        II      III      IV        V       VI       VII     VIII      PV  I...
Graphical representation of decision matrix                     PV values for Decision Matrix              0.35           ...
PV Value for Characteristic of Product                                         35
PV Value for Conveying Speed                               36
PV Valve for Cost                    37
PV Valve for Distance Movement                                 38
PV Valve for Load Flexibility                                39
PV Valve for Physical Shape of the Product                                             40
PV Valve for Property of the Product                                       41
PV Valve for Volume to be moved                                  42
Step 7: Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the Matrices The Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the matrix is    calcu...
Step 9: Consistency Ratio (C.R.)  The consistency Ratio for each of the matrix is calculated by  the ratio of Consistency ...
Step 10: Subjection Factor Measure Valve for Alternatives  SFMi can be calculated by multiplying each of the PV  values of...
CRITERIA       I        II      III      IV        V       VI       VII     VIII     SFM     0.0810   0.0268   0.0481   0....
47
Step 11: Material Handling Equipment MeasureValve for Alternatives       MEMi = [(α x OFMi) + (1 - α) x SFMi ]            ...
The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per thecriteria selected for Imperial Porcelain Private Limited   ...
Methodology for Analytical Network ProcessThe ANP is a more general form of the AHP used in multicriteria decision analysi...
Step 1: Network Structure                            51
Step2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices1. Comparison Matrices of Alternative –Alternative with respect   to Criteria2. Compari...
Comparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respectto AlternativeComparison with respect to Chain Drive Roller Conveyor No...
Step 3: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)             I        II      III      IV        V       VI       VII ...
Step 4: Consistency Index (C.I.) For each of the Matrices.             C.I. = (λmax – n) / (n-1)• C.I. = (8.638228533 - 8)...
Step 5: Random Consistency index (R.I.)            n        5          8           R.I.     1.11       1.41Step 6: Consist...
The Unweighted Supermatrix                                   Alternative                                                  ...
Step 8: The Cluster Matrix                             Alternatives     Criteria          Alternatives            1.0000  ...
Step 8: Weighted Supermatrix                               Alternative                                                   C...
Step 9: Limit Supermatrix                                   Alternative                                                   ...
The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteria selectedfor Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited and f...
Methodology For Technique For Order Preference BySimilarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)   TOPSIS is based on the idea that...
Steps for TOPSISStep 1: Decision Matrix:Step 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices:  1)   Pair-wise comparison matrix for Charac...
Step 7: Construct a Normalize matrix: The vector normalization is used for computing rij, which is given as               ...
Step 8: Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix For constructing the weighted normalized decision matrix multiply each column ...
Step 9: Determine the positive ideal and negativeideal solution  Positive ideal solution:  A* ={ V1*, . . . ., Vn*}, where...
Step 10: Separation measure for the positive idealalternative                                        CRITERIA             ...
Separation measure for the Negative ideal alternative                                        CRITERIA                     ...
Step 11: Calculation for relative closeness  Calculation for relative closeness coefficient to rank the  alternatives. The...
Relative Closeness of the AlternativesThe result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteriaselected for...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONResult obtained using Multi Criteria Decision techniques1.     AHP Result for selection of Alternati...
2. ANP Result for selection of Alternative                   Alternatives       Result    Rank       Chain driven roller c...
3. TOPSIS Result for selection of Alternative             Alternatives              Result      Rank      Chain driven rol...
4. Comparative Result of MCDM TechniquesThe chart shows that the flat belt conveyor was ranked first. The ranking of troug...
Discussion on Rankings of Material handling Systems  Results obtained by using MCDM Techniques are discussed with  referen...
Cost analysis of flat belt conveyor installation atImperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited The flat belt conveyor was ranked firs...
Discussion….. After installation the conveyor system, there is indirect benefit  of decrement in the defective pieces tha...
CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK  Conclusion For selection of suitable material handling system, the dominant  facto...
Conclusion …. The results obtained from AHP,ANP and TOPSIS techniques  were correlated with factors affecting the process...
Limitation of Multi Criteria Decision Method Technique1.   The result obtained were forwarded to the management of the    ...
Scope for Future Work The measure evaluated as weighted average of objective and  subjective factor measure while computi...
Some aggregation technique may be used to improve the data collection and the preliminary results of the system.Some oth...
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY1.   Satty T.L, ―Fundamental of the Analytical network process‖, ISAHP,     August (1999), pp.1...
7.    Markovic Z., ‖Modification Of TOPSIS Method For Solving Of Multicriteria      Tasks‖ Yugoslav Journal of Operations ...
14. Meade L.M. and Presley A., ―R&D project selection using the analytic      network process‖, IEEE Transactions on Engin...
20. Dilay Çelebi , Demet Bayraktar and Levent Bingöl, ―Analytical      Network Process for logistics management: A case st...
Thanks         87
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

SELECTION OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM USING MULTI CRITERIA DECISION TECHNIQUES AT IMPERIAL PORCELAIN PRIVATE LIMITED

10,255 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

SELECTION OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM USING MULTI CRITERIA DECISION TECHNIQUES AT IMPERIAL PORCELAIN PRIVATE LIMITED

  1. 1. A Presentation on the topicSELECTION OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM USING MULTI CRITERIA DECISION TECHNIQUES AT IMPERIAL PORCELAIN PRIVATE LIMITED Presented By: Ankur Mahajan NITTTR, Chandigarh Email:ankurmahajan786@gmail.com
  2. 2. Contents Introduction Company’s Profile Literature Review Problem Formulation Methodology Result & Discussions Conclusions & Scope for Future Work References 2
  3. 3. Introduction Material handling systems:- Material handling systems consist of discrete or continuous resources to move entities from one location to another. Material movement occurs everywhere in a factory or warehouse—before, during, and after processing. Although the cost associated with the material movement does not add value in the manufacturing process, sometimes half of the companys expenditure incurred in material handling. Therefore, each effort to keep the material handling activities at a minimum is appreciable. Due to the increasing demand for a high variety of products and shorter response times in todays manufacturing industry, there is a need for highly flexible and efficient material handling systems. Basic design of a material handling system comprises of machine layout, product routings, and material flow control. 3
  4. 4. TEN PRINCIPLES OF MATERIAL HANDLING Planning Standardization Work Ergonomics Unit Load Space Utilization System Automation Environment Life Cycle 4
  5. 5. TYPES OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS Conveyors (belt conveyors, bucket conveyors, etc.) Cranes (jib crane, bridge crane, etc.) Palletizers Industrial trucks (fork lift) Excavators, bull-dozers AGV Robots Automated Storage and Retrieval System 5
  6. 6. TYPES OF CONVEYORSFlat belt conveyor Trough belt conveyor 6
  7. 7. Chain driven roller conveyor Screw conveyor 7
  8. 8. Roller Bed Belt conveyor 8
  9. 9. Company Profile Imperial Porcelain Private Limited is one of the pioneer ceramic industry in the western Rajasthan located in Bikaner to produce porcelain insulators. The basic raw material is Quartz which is abundantly available at Bikaner. With government’s impetus on electrification in India, the company diversified its entire production to Low Tension & High Tension insulators for attaining higher value addition. The industry was established in the year 1991 with capacity of 6-8 tonnes /day. The company is small scale and having manpower 150. The major clients are RVUNL, NTPC, NHPL etc 9
  10. 10. Process chart 10
  11. 11. Products 1.1 KV transformer  33 KV Pin Insulator Bushing  LT Pin Insulator 12-17.5 KV Transformer  11 KV post Insulator Bushing  11 KV 45 KN Disc 36 KV Transformer Insulator Bushing  11 KV 70&90 KN Disc 11 KV Pin Insulator Insulator 22 KV Pin Insulator  LT shackle insulator 11
  12. 12. Company Layout 12
  13. 13. Literature Review(Concluding Remarks) For problem in different field of engineering viz. selection of best equipment, process, logistic, vendor, product etc. a number of alternatives are usually available for selecting the best possible solution some quantifying methods are required. From the literature survey it has been found that a number of Multi Criteria Decision Method are available which can help in making a optimal selection. Some of the Multi Criteria Decision Method technique reported in the literature are Analytical Hierarchy Process, Analytical Network Process, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluation, Social choice theory method: preferential or non preferential etc. 13
  14. 14. Contd.. Out of these techniques AHP, ANP, TOPSIS has been applied for solving various engineering problem and has been found to be effective These three techniques i.e. AHP, ANP and TOPSIS establish the priorities in the same way by using pair wise comparisons and judgment. The AHP reduces a multidimensional problem into a one dimensional problem. AHP structures a decision problem into a hierarchal structure with a goal, decision criteria and alternatives. The basic structure of ANP is an influence network of clusters and nodes contained within the clusters. 14
  15. 15. Contd.. TOPSIS is a practical and useful technique for ranking and selection of a number of externally determined alternatives through distant measures. However there is no indicator available for selecting a suitable technique for a given problem. Therefore it is proposed to apply these three techniques for selecting the material handling system for Imperial Porcelain Private Limited, Bikaner. 15
  16. 16. Problem Identification For the last 2 years, observation of the management of the company was that the production of the organization is low and cracks were appearing in the insulators during drying and baking. The percentage of defects were observed in the range of 13% to 17%. After analyzing the whole manufacturing process it was found that three processes namely pugging, shaping and copying play an important role for preparing the required and specified preliminary sizing and shaping of the final product. These processes are providing the required properties of electrical and mechanical for final product. 16
  17. 17. Contd.. The extra removed material which is removed during shaping and copying process dumped around the machines. This material is later on reused in the pugging machine mixed with fresh raw material. The extra material is fed back into the pug mill manually at irregular intervals. During this process the material gets dry and its properties become different from the fresh raw material and therefore the basic properties of the mixture on the pug mill are changed. Due to intermittent feeding process some material becomes completely dry. 17
  18. 18. Contd.. Thus it was observed that the main reason for large percentage of cracks is the material recovered from the shaping and copying machines which is mixed with the fresh raw material. By the time this material is transported manually to the pugmill for recycling it loses moisture and it contains chunks due to the operation carried out during shaping and copying. It was therefore proposed to the management that the material from the shaping and copying be transported back to blunger instead of pugmill for proper mixing. Further a suitable material handling system be installed so that irregular transportation can be avoided which was causing moisture loss and reduced productivity. 18
  19. 19. Contd.. The management wanted to select the most suitable material handling system which would increase productivity with least investment. Since a number of alternative are available in material handling system. It was decided to select a system which meet maximum possible criteria of the process. Therefore in the present work, different MCDM techniques will be used for the optimum selection of material handling system, by using AHP, ANP and TOPSIS techniques in context of different criteria defined/specified by the company. 19
  20. 20. Methodology 20
  21. 21. Contd.. Identification of criteria The first step is to go for detailed study of existing process, products and layout of the organization. The selection of material handling system depends upon different criteria. In this step the criteria applicable to the existing problem will be identified. Criterion/Factors Factor I : Characteristic of product (Gas, Liquid & Solid) Factor II : Conveying speed (Low, Medium, High) Factor III : Cost (Installation, Maintenance & Operation) Factor IV : Movement (Distance and frequency of moves) Factor V : Load Flexibility (Light, Medium & Heavy) Factor VI : Physical shape of the product (Long & Flat) Factor VII : Property of the product (Wet, Sticky, Hot) Factor VIII : Volume to be moved 21
  22. 22. contd..Listing of alternativesA number of alternatives are available in material handling systemssuch as conveyors, overhead cranes, trucks, AGV’s etc. furtheroptions are there in each of these systems. The criteria identified inthe previous steps will be used for choosing a giving type of materialhandling system using MCDM techniques. The different materialhandling systems are as followsC-1 : Chain Driven Roller ConveyorC-2 : Flat belt ConveyorC-3 : Roller bed belt conveyorC-4 : Screw ConveyorC-5 : Troughed Belt ConveyorIt is the major concern of the company to install an appropriatematerial handling system in view of its specific nature of the flow ofmaterial and cost. 22
  23. 23. contd..Application of MCDM TechniquesThere are number of MCDM techniques available. Out ofthese techniques AHP, ANP and TOPSIS are proposed forselecting the material handling system for the givenproblem. The three technique will be applied one by onefor ranking the different alternatives based upon theselected criteria. 23
  24. 24. Methodology for Analytical Hierarchy Process Step 1: Cost Factor Component of the Equipments Chain Roller bed Troughed Equipment driven Flat belt Screw S. No belt belt s roller conveyor conveyor conveyor conveyor curve Cost of 1 165000 120000 159000 256000 138000 Acquisition Cost of 2 30000 20000 25000 35000 30000 installation Cost of 3 12000 12000 15000 18000 16000 Operation Cost of 4 Maintenan 26000 20000 27000 18000 23000 ce 5 Total Cost 233000 172000 226000 327000 207000 24
  25. 25. Step 2: Developing the Decision Tree 25
  26. 26. Step 3: Objective Factor Measure (OFM) Objective Factor Measure (OFM) values are determined for each of the alternatives of equipment. The formula is given below: OFMi = [OFCi x Σ(1/OFCi)]-1 Where OFCi = Objective Factor Component for i = 1, 2… n number of alternatives of equipment. (1/OFCi) = (1/OFC1+1/OFC2+1/OFC3+1/OFC4+1/OFC5) = (1/233000 + 1/172000 + 1/226000 + 1/327000 + 1/207000) Σ(1/OFCi) = 2.242*10-5 26
  27. 27. Chain Driven Flat Belt Roller Bed Screw Troughed BeltS. No. Equipments Roller Conveyor Belt Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor Cost of 1 165000 120000 159000 256000 138000 Acquisition Cost of 2 30000 20000 25000 35000 30000 installation Cost of 3 12000 12000 15000 18000 16000 Operation Cost of 4 26000 20000 27000 18000 23000 Maintenance 5 Total Cost 233000 172000 226000 327000 207000 6 OFM 0.1914 0.2593 0.1973 0.1364 0.2154 27
  28. 28. Questionnaire 28
  29. 29. Step 4: Decision Matrix I II III IV V VI VII VIII I 1 4 2 1/5 1/2 1/2 2 1/2 II 1/4 1 1/2 1/8 1/4 1/7 1/2 1/6 III 1/2 2 1 1/8 1/4 1/5 2 1/4 IV 5 8 8 1 2 2 7 4 V 2 4 4 1/2 1 1/2 4 2 VI 2 7 5 1/2 2 1 6 2 VII 1/2 2 1/2 1/7 1/4 1/6 1 1/4 VIII 2 6 2 1/4 1/2 1/2 4 1 29
  30. 30. Step 5: Pairwise Comparison Matrices1.Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of product C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C1 1 1/5 2 2 1/6 C2 5 1 6 8 2 C3 1/2 1/6 1 3 1/6 C4 1/2 1/8 1/3 1 1/6 C5 6 1/2 6 6 1 30
  31. 31. 2. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed3. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Cost4. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Distance Movement5. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Load Flexibility6. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Physical Shape of The Product7. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Property of the Product8. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Volume to be Moved 31
  32. 32. Step 6: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.) I II III IV V VI VII VIII I 1 4 2 1/5 1/2 1/2 2 1/2 II 1/4 1 1/2 1/8 1/4 1/7 1/2 1/6 III 1/2 2 1 1/8 1/4 1/5 2 1/2 IV 5 8 8 1 2 2 7 4 V 2 4 4 1/2 1 1/2 4 2 VI 2 7 5 1/2 2 1 6 2 VII 1/2 2 1/2 1/7 1/4 1/6 1 1/4 VIII 2 6 2 1/4 1/2 1/2 4 1 TOTAL 13.250 34.000 23.000 2.842 6.750 5.009 26.500 10.416 32
  33. 33. Normalize Matrix for decision matrix I II III IV V VI VII VIII PV I 0.0755 0.1176 0.0870 0.0704 0.0741 0.0998 0.0755 0.0480 0.0810 II 0.0189 0.0294 0.0217 0.0440 0.0370 0.0285 0.0189 0.0160 0.0268 III 0.0377 0.0588 0.0435 0.0440 0.0370 0.0399 0.0755 0.0480 0.0481 IV 0.3774 0.2353 0.3478 0.3518 0.2963 0.3992 0.2642 0.3840 0.3320 V 0.1509 0.1176 0.1739 0.1759 0.1481 0.0998 0.1509 0.1920 0.1512 VI 0.1509 0.2059 0.2174 0.1759 0.2963 0.1996 0.2264 0.1920 0.2081 VII 0.0377 0.0588 0.0217 0.0503 0.0370 0.0333 0.0377 0.0240 0.0376 VIII 0.1509 0.1765 0.0870 0.0879 0.0741 0.0998 0.1509 0.0960 0.1154TOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33
  34. 34. Graphical representation of decision matrix PV values for Decision Matrix 0.35 CHARACTERISTIC OF PRODUCT 0.30 CONVEYING SPEED 0.25 COST PV Average 0.20 DISTANCE MOVEMENT 0.15 LOAD FLEXIBILITY PHYSICAL SHAPE OF THE 0.10 PRODUCT PROPERTY OF THE 0.05 PRODUCT QUANTITY TO BE MOVED 0.00 Critrion 34
  35. 35. PV Value for Characteristic of Product 35
  36. 36. PV Value for Conveying Speed 36
  37. 37. PV Valve for Cost 37
  38. 38. PV Valve for Distance Movement 38
  39. 39. PV Valve for Load Flexibility 39
  40. 40. PV Valve for Physical Shape of the Product 40
  41. 41. PV Valve for Property of the Product 41
  42. 42. PV Valve for Volume to be moved 42
  43. 43. Step 7: Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the Matrices The Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the matrix is calculated using following formula: C.I. = (λmax – n) / (n-1) Where n = number of elements of each of the matrices. Here λmax = Principle Eigen value λmax can be calculated by summation of the multification of sum of each column with the corresponding PV value for each of the matrix.Step 8: Random Consistency index (R.I.) n 5 8 R.I. 1.11 1.41 43
  44. 44. Step 9: Consistency Ratio (C.R.) The consistency Ratio for each of the matrix is calculated by the ratio of Consistency index and Random Index. C.R. = C.I. / R.I. C.R. for decision matrix: = 0.02994901 C.R. for Characteristic of product: = 0.0733575 C.R. for Conveying speed: = 0.0858189 C.R. for Cost: = 0.0798872 C.R. for Distance Movement: = 0.0501446 C.R. for Load Flexibility: = 0.0900662 C.R. for Physical shape of the product: = 0.011578 C.R. for Property of the product: = 0.070508 C.R. for Volume to be moved:= 0.0864858 44
  45. 45. Step 10: Subjection Factor Measure Valve for Alternatives SFMi can be calculated by multiplying each of the PV values of decision matrix to each of the PV values of each alternatives of equipment for each factor. The product is then summed up for each alternative. SFM1 = 0.1893 SFM2 = 0.266 SFM3 = 0.1883 SFM4 = 0.1248 SFM5 = 0.2300 45
  46. 46. CRITERIA I II III IV V VI VII VIII SFM 0.0810 0.0268 0.0481 0.3320 0.1512 0.2081 0.0376 0.1154C1 0.0911 0.1178 0.0671 0.0580 0.1485 0.4027 0.2856 0.3408 0.1893C2 0.4499 0.1829 0.5268 0.4733 0.0656 0.0799 0.0744 0.1254 0.2676C3 0.0770 0.0685 0.1197 0.0780 0.1949 0.3875 0.1309 0.2915 0.1883C4 0.0441 0.0569 0.0529 0.0402 0.4799 0.0474 0.4445 0.0409 0.1248C5 0.3379 0.5739 0.2334 0.3505 0.1111 0.0825 0.0646 0.2015 0.2300 46
  47. 47. 47
  48. 48. Step 11: Material Handling Equipment MeasureValve for Alternatives MEMi = [(α x OFMi) + (1 - α) x SFMi ] Equipment MEM valve Rank CHAIN DRIVEN ROLLER CONVEYOR 0.1907328 3 FLAT BELT CONVEYOR 0.2620521 1 ROLLER BED BELT CONVEYOR 0.1943825 4 SCREW CONVEYOR 0.1325751 5 TROUGHED BELT CONVEYOR 0.2202575 2 The best alternative on the basis of the highest value of the MEM is Flat belt Conveyor. 48
  49. 49. The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per thecriteria selected for Imperial Porcelain Private Limited 49
  50. 50. Methodology for Analytical Network ProcessThe ANP is a more general form of the AHP used in multicriteria decision analysis.AHP structures a decision problem into hierarchy with agoal, decision criteria and alternatives while the basic structureof ANP is an influence network of clusters and nodes containedwithin the clusters.ANP is a multi-criteria decision analysis method that takessimultaneously, several criteria, both qualitative andquantitative into consideration, allowing dependence andmaking numerical tradeoffs to arrive at a synthetic conclusionindicating the best solution of a set of possible alternatives. 50
  51. 51. Step 1: Network Structure 51
  52. 52. Step2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices1. Comparison Matrices of Alternative –Alternative with respect to Criteria2. Comparison Matrix Alternative –Alternative with respect to Alternative3. Comparison Matrix Criteria-Criteria with respect to Criteria4. Comparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respect to Alternative 52
  53. 53. Comparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respectto AlternativeComparison with respect to Chain Drive Roller Conveyor Node in "Criteria" Cluster I II III IV V VI VII VIII I 1 1/6 1/4 1/3 1/6 1/2 2 1/2 II 6 1 1/2 1/2 1/4 2 5 3 III 4 2 1 1/2 1/3 4 4 2 IV 3 2 2 1 1/2 3 4 3 V 6 4 3 2 1 4 7 4 VI 2 1/2 1/4 1/3 1/4 1 2 1/3 VII ½ 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/7 1/2 1 1/4 VIII 2 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/4 3 4 1 Total 24.5000 10.2000 7.7500 5.2500 2.8929 18.0000 29.0000 14.0833 53
  54. 54. Step 3: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.) I II III IV V VI VII VIII PV I 0.0408 0.0163 0.0323 0.0635 0.0576 0.0278 0.0690 0.0355 0.0429 II 0.2449 0.0980 0.0645 0.0952 0.0864 0.1111 0.1724 0.2130 0.1357 III 0.1633 0.1961 0.1290 0.0952 0.1152 0.2222 0.1379 0.1420 0.1501 IV 0.1225 0.1961 0.2581 0.1905 0.1728 0.1667 0.1379 0.2130 0.1822 V 0.2449 0.3922 0.3871 0.3810 0.3457 0.2222 0.2414 0.2840 0.3123 VI 0.0816 0.0490 0.0323 0.0635 0.0864 0.0556 0.0690 0.0237 0.0576 VII 0.0204 0.0196 0.0323 0.0476 0.0494 0.0278 0.0345 0.0178 0.0312 VIII 0.0816 0.0327 0.0645 0.0635 0.0864 0.1667 0.1379 0.0710 0.0880 Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 54
  55. 55. Step 4: Consistency Index (C.I.) For each of the Matrices. C.I. = (λmax – n) / (n-1)• C.I. = (8.638228533 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.091175505• C.I. = (8.667012993 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.09528757• C.I. = (8.693005629 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.099000804• C.I. = (8.609240185 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.087034311• C.I. = (8.681107493 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.09730107 55
  56. 56. Step 5: Random Consistency index (R.I.) n 5 8 R.I. 1.11 1.41Step 6: Consistency Ratio (C.R.) C.R. = C.I./ R.I. C.R. for Chain drive roller conveyor = 0.06512536 C.R. for Flat belt conveyor = 0.06806255 C.R. for Roller bed belt conveyor = 0.07071486 C.R. for Screw conveyor = 0.062167365 C.R. for Troughed belt conveyor = 0.069500765 56
  57. 57. The Unweighted Supermatrix Alternative Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 I II III IV V VI VII VIII C1 0.0883 0.0897 0.1159 0.1098 0.1004 0.0911 0.1178 0.0671 0.0580 0.1485 0.4027 0.2856 0.3408 C2 0.4607 0.4949 0.3947 0.4579 0.2920 0.4499 0.1829 0.5268 0.4733 0.0656 0.0799 0.0744 0.1254Altern C3 0.0805 0.0617 0.0926 0.0843 0.0758 0.0770 0.0685 0.1197 0.0780 0.1949 0.3875 0.1309 0.2915 ative C4 0.0397 0.0396 0.0398 0.0421 0.0412 0.0441 0.0569 0.0529 0.0402 0.4799 0.0474 0.4445 0.0409 C5 0.3308 0.3140 0.3569 0.3060 0.4906 0.3379 0.5739 0.2334 0.3505 0.1111 0.0825 0.0646 0.2015 I 0.0428 0.0487 0.0420 0.0382 0.0374 0.0810 0.0219 0.0218 0.0322 0.0269 0.0255 0.3023 0.1471 II 0.1357 0.0251 0.1444 0.0244 0.0719 0.0268 0.0934 0.1175 0.0332 0.1393 0.2725 0.0247 0.0436 III 0.1501 0.1062 0.0756 0.3309 0.1315 0.0481 0.2145 0.3215 0.0645 0.1203 0.1197 0.0890 0.1006 IV 0.1822 0.0993 0.1884 0.1604 0.3462 0.3320 0.1470 0.1284 0.3055 0.0923 0.1732 0.0436 0.2888Criteri a V 0.3123 0.2437 0.3270 0.0941 0.2016 0.1512 0.0785 0.0349 0.1821 0.2935 0.0343 0.0690 0.0965 VI 0.0576 0.0747 0.0803 0.2400 0.0751 0.2081 0.0758 0.1481 0.1479 0.0289 0.2212 0.1232 0.2027 VII 0.0312 0.0414 0.0633 0.0814 0.0242 0.0376 0.0360 0.0586 0.0272 0.0480 0.0527 0.1670 0.0294 VIII 0.0880 0.3610 0.0789 0.0306 0.1120 0.1154 0.3330 0.1692 0.2075 0.2508 0.1009 0.1811 0.0913 57
  58. 58. Step 8: The Cluster Matrix Alternatives Criteria Alternatives 1.0000 1.0000 Criteria 1.0000 1.0000 Total 2.0000 2.0000 Alternatives Criteria PV Average Alternative 0.5 0.5 0.500 s Criteria 0.5 0.5 0.500 Total 1 1 1.000 58
  59. 59. Step 8: Weighted Supermatrix Alternative Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 I II III IV V VI VII VIII C1 0.0441 0.0449 0.0580 0.0549 0.0502 0.0455 0.0589 0.0336 0.0290 0.0743 0.2013 0.1428 0.1704 C2 0.2304 0.2475 0.1974 0.2289 0.1460 0.2249 0.0915 0.2634 0.2367 0.0328 0.0400 0.0372 0.0627Altern C3 0.0403 0.0309 0.0463 0.0422 0.0379 0.0385 0.0342 0.0598 0.0390 0.0975 0.1937 0.0654 0.1457 ative C4 0.0198 0.0198 0.0199 0.0210 0.0206 0.0221 0.0284 0.0265 0.0201 0.2399 0.0237 0.2223 0.0204 C5 0.1654 0.1570 0.1784 0.1530 0.2453 0.1690 0.2870 0.1167 0.1752 0.0556 0.0413 0.0323 0.1007 I 0.0214 0.0243 0.0210 0.0191 0.0187 0.0405 0.0110 0.0109 0.0161 0.0134 0.0127 0.1511 0.0735 II 0.0679 0.0125 0.0722 0.0122 0.0360 0.0134 0.0467 0.0587 0.0166 0.0696 0.1363 0.0124 0.0218 III 0.0751 0.0531 0.0378 0.1655 0.0657 0.0240 0.1073 0.1608 0.0322 0.0601 0.0598 0.0445 0.0503 IV 0.0911 0.0496 0.0942 0.0802 0.1731 0.1660 0.0735 0.0642 0.1527 0.0462 0.0866 0.0218 0.1444Criter ia V 0.1562 0.1219 0.1635 0.0471 0.1008 0.0756 0.0392 0.0174 0.0910 0.1468 0.0172 0.0345 0.0482 VI 0.0288 0.0374 0.0401 0.1200 0.0376 0.1040 0.0379 0.0741 0.0740 0.0145 0.1106 0.0616 0.1014 VII 0.0156 0.0207 0.0317 0.0407 0.0121 0.0188 0.0180 0.0293 0.0136 0.0240 0.0264 0.0835 0.0147 VIII 0.0440 0.1805 0.0395 0.0153 0.0560 0.0577 0.1665 0.0846 0.1037 0.1254 0.0505 0.0906 0.0456 59
  60. 60. Step 9: Limit Supermatrix Alternative Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 I II III IV V VI VII VIII C1 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 C2 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685 0.1685Altern C3 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 0.0635 ative C4 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 C5 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 0.1527 I 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 II 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 0.0413 III 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677 0.0677Criteri IV 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 0.1020 a V 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 0.0942 VI 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 0.0562 VII 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 VIII 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 0.0914 60
  61. 61. The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteria selectedfor Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited and followed by Troughed belt conveyor 61
  62. 62. Methodology For Technique For Order Preference BySimilarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)  TOPSIS is based on the idea that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and on the other side the farthest distance of the Negative Ideal Solution (NIS).  The Positive Ideal Solution maximizes the benefit criteria and minimizes the cost criteria, whereas the Negative Ideal Solution maximizes the cost criteria and minimizes the benefit criteria. In the process of TOPSIS, the priority valves are same as in AHP. 62
  63. 63. Steps for TOPSISStep 1: Decision Matrix:Step 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices: 1) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of product 2) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed 3) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Cost 4) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Distance Movement 5) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Load Flexibility 6) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Physical Shape of The Product 7) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Property of the Product 8) Pair-wise comparison matrix for Volume to be MovedStep 3: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)Step 4: Consistency Index (C.I.) For Each of the Matrices.Step 5: Random Consistency index (R.I.)Step 6: Consistency Ratio (C.R.) 63
  64. 64. Step 7: Construct a Normalize matrix: The vector normalization is used for computing rij, which is given as CRITERIA I II III IV V VI VII VIII WEIGH 0.0810 0.0268 0.0481 0.3320 0.1512 0.2081 0.0376 0.1154 TS C1 0.1579 0.1899 0.1129 0.0970 0.2681 0.7034 0.5163 0.6696 ALTER NATIV C2 0.7799 0.2950 0.8859 0.7912 0.1183 0.1396 0.1344 0.2464 ES C3 0.1335 0.1104 0.2012 0.1303 0.3518 0.6769 0.2366 0.5726 C4 0.0765 0.0917 0.0890 0.0672 0.8661 0.0828 0.8036 0.0803 C5 0.5858 0.9254 0.3924 0.5858 0.2006 0.1442 0.1169 0.3958 64
  65. 65. Step 8: Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix For constructing the weighted normalized decision matrix multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight. The weighted normalized value Vij is calculated as: Vij = Wj*rij CRITERIA I II III IV V VI VII VIII WEIG 0.0810 0.0268 0.0481 0.3320 0.1512 0.2081 0.0376 0.1154 HTS C1 0.0128 0.0051 0.0054 0.0322 0.0405 0.1463 0.0194 0.0773 ALTER C2 0.0632 0.0079 0.0426 0.2627 0.0179 0.0290 0.0051 0.0284 NATIV ES C3 0.0108 0.0030 0.0097 0.0433 0.0532 0.1408 0.0089 0.0661 C4 0.0062 0.0025 0.0043 0.0223 0.1309 0.0172 0.0302 0.0093 C5 0.0474 0.0248 0.0189 0.1945 0.0303 0.0300 0.0044 0.0457 65
  66. 66. Step 9: Determine the positive ideal and negativeideal solution Positive ideal solution: A* ={ V1*, . . . ., Vn*}, where = {0.0061926, 0.00245856, 0.004278, 0.02230477, 0.0178841, 0.017232, 0.0043905, 0.009266231} Negative ideal solution: A = { V1’, . . . ., Vn’}, where Vj’, = { if jε J ; if j ε J’ } = {0.0061926, 0.00245856, 0.004278, 0.02230477, 0.0178841, 0.017232, 0.0043905, 0.009266231} 66
  67. 67. Step 10: Separation measure for the positive idealalternative CRITERIA SUM S* I II III IV V VI VII VIII C1 0.0025 0.0004 0.0014 0.0531 0.0082 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0659 0.2566 C2 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0128 0.0125 0.0006 0.0014 0.0276 0.1662ALTERN-- C3 0.0027 0.0005 0.0011 0.0481 0.0060 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0589 0.2428ATIV ES C4 0.0032 0.0005 0.0015 0.0578 0.0000 0.0153 0.0000 0.0032 0.0815 0.2855 C5 0.0002 0.0000 0.0006 0.0046 0.0101 0.0123 0.0007 0.0004 0.0289 0.1701 67
  68. 68. Separation measure for the Negative ideal alternative CRITERIA SUM S’ I II III IV V VI VII VIII C1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 0.0167 0.0002 0.0046 0.022 0.148 C2 0.0032 0.0000 0.0015 0.0578 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0004 0.063 0.251ALTE RN-- C3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0012 0.0153 0.0000 0.0032 0.020 0.142ATIVE S C4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0128 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.013 0.115 C5 0.0017 0.0005 0.0002 0.0296 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0013 0.033 0.183 68
  69. 69. Step 11: Calculation for relative closeness Calculation for relative closeness coefficient to rank the alternatives. The closeness coefficient is the distance to the positive ideal solution (S*) and negative ideal solution (S-) simultaneously by taking the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution. The closeness coefficient () for each alternative is calculated as follow 69
  70. 70. Relative Closeness of the AlternativesThe result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteriaselected for Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited and followed by Troughed beltconveyor 70
  71. 71. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONResult obtained using Multi Criteria Decision techniques1. AHP Result for selection of Alternative Alternatives Result(MEM) Rank Chain driven roller conveyor 0.1907328 3 Flat belt conveyor 0.2620521 1 Roller bed belt conveyor 0.1943825 4 Screw conveyor 0.1325751 5 Troughed belt conveyor 0.2202575 2 The ranking obtained based upon Material Handling Equipment Measure show that flat belt conveyor is the most suitable system for present work followed by Troughed belt conveyor, Chain driven roller conveyor, Roller bed belt conveyor and Screw conveyor. 71
  72. 72. 2. ANP Result for selection of Alternative Alternatives Result Rank Chain driven roller conveyor 0.0692 3 Flat belt conveyor 0.1685 1 Roller bed belt conveyor 0.0635 4 Screw conveyor 0.0461 5 Troughed belt conveyor 0.1527 2 The ranking obtained based upon Limit super matrix show that flat belt conveyor is the most suitable system for present work followed by Troughed belt conveyor, Chain driven roller conveyor, Roller bed belt conveyor and Screw conveyor. 72
  73. 73. 3. TOPSIS Result for selection of Alternative Alternatives Result Rank Chain driven roller conveyor 0.367225107 4 Flat belt conveyor 0.601727435 1 Roller bed belt conveyor 0.369599639 3 Screw conveyor 0.288850778 5 Troughed belt conveyor 0.519016039 2 The ranking obtained based upon relative closeness to the ideal solution show that flat belt conveyor is the most suitable system for present work followed by Troughed belt conveyor, Roller bed belt conveyor, Chain driven roller conveyor and Screw conveyor. 73
  74. 74. 4. Comparative Result of MCDM TechniquesThe chart shows that the flat belt conveyor was ranked first. The ranking of troughed beltconveyor and screw conveyor are second and fifth by all the three techniques. Chain drivenroller conveyor and roller bed belt conveyor are preferred over belt driven in case of heavierloads. Therefore both of them can be used interchangeably when the material to betransported is heavy. Accordingly they have been ranked in the range of three to four. 74
  75. 75. Discussion on Rankings of Material handling Systems Results obtained by using MCDM Techniques are discussed with reference to the criterion/factors of the problem Factor I : Characteristic of product (Gas, Liquid & Solid) Factor II : Conveying speed (Low, Medium, High) Factor III : Cost (Installation, Maintenance & Operation) Factor IV : Movement (Distance and frequency of moves) Factor V : Load Flexibility (Light, Medium & Heavy) Factor VI : Physical shape of the product (Long & Flat) Factor VII : Property of the product (Wet, Sticky, Hot) Factor VIII : Volume to be moved 75
  76. 76. Cost analysis of flat belt conveyor installation atImperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited The flat belt conveyor was ranked first by AHP, ANP and TOPSIS techniques in selection of material handling system for the present problem. The cost price of flat belt conveyor suitable for the present problem is one lac seventy five thousand approximately and the operational cost is Rs fifteen thousand per month approximately. Therefore the total cost for installing and operating the conveyor system in the first year will be Rs. Three lac fifty five thousand to the company. But installation of the conveyor system the requirement of labour will be reduce to six from the present numbers i.e. ten. The present labour cost is Rs. Three hundred per person per day. With the reduction of labour requirement the company will be saving Rs. 300x4x30 =36000/- per month. Thus there will be a annual saving of Rs. 36000x12 = 4,32,000/- in the first year. Thus the company will will be able to recover the cost price in the very first year along with substantial savings which will further increase in the subsequent year. 76
  77. 77. Discussion….. After installation the conveyor system, there is indirect benefit of decrement in the defective pieces that occur due to the transportation of extra material from shaping and copying machine to the blunger is intermittent and at irregular intervals and the material dried. The basic properties of the extra material on the pug mill get changed. After installation of conveyor system for providing continuous movement of chunks from copying and shaping to blunger which will enhance the overall productivity of the system. Keeping in view the different factors which affect the selection of material handling system at Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited, Bikaner and the cost analysis, it is stated that the Flat belt conveyor selected using the different Multi Criteria Decision Method techniques is the optimal selection. 77
  78. 78. CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK Conclusion For selection of suitable material handling system, the dominant factors considered were characteristic of product, conveying speed, cost, distance movement, load flexibility, physical shape of the product, property of the product and volume to be moved. Multi Criteria Decision Method techniques viz. AHP,ANP and TOPSIS were used for selection of suitable material handling system. The results show that the flat belt conveyor was ranked first by AHP,ANP and TOPSIS techniques for selection of material handling system for the present problem. The ranking of troughed belt conveyor and screw conveyor are second and fifth by all the three techniques. Chain driven roller conveyor and roller bed belt conveyor are preferred over belt driven in case of heavier loads. Therefore both of them can be used interchangeably when the material to be transported is heavy. Accordingly they have been ranked in the range of three to four. 78
  79. 79. Conclusion …. The results obtained from AHP,ANP and TOPSIS techniques were correlated with factors affecting the process and it was found that the results providing by all the Multi Criteria Decision Method techniques were optimal. Thus it may be concluded that Multi Criteria Decision method techniques are an effective tool for this type of problem. The cost analysis of the material handling system shows that installing the said conveyor system would result in economic benefit for the company. The indirect benefit is reduction in the percentage of defective pieces due to continuously supply of extra material to blunger so that the properties of extra material is not changed. 79
  80. 80. Limitation of Multi Criteria Decision Method Technique1. The result obtained were forwarded to the management of the company. The benefits of implementing the selected material handling system can be measured only after the company management decides to implement the system.2. The single set of input data for the Multi Criteria Decision Method Technique was obtained in the form of rankings scale for different options in the questionnaire from the company management and technical experts. Obtaining different sets of input from different people and using aggregation technique for converging may have resulted in the different result.3. The procedure uses weighing the importance of a decision maker on the basis of his experience and knowledge in the field. Although the method is widely used but may introduce biasing based on decision maker’s preferences. 80
  81. 81. Scope for Future Work The measure evaluated as weighted average of objective and subjective factor measure while computing MEM, life of the equipment and present value of the money has not been considered explicitly. As different alternatives have different life span, it should be included in the analysis. Further money in absolute terms cannot be compared and it needs to be analyzed in relation to time factor. In the MCDM analysis, decision-makers are asked to express their opinions on comparative importance of various criteria in exact numerical values. However, in practice, the decision is very subjective and it is usually expressed in linguistic terms rather than exact numerical values. These linguistic variable scales, such as "very important, "important", "equal", "less important, can then be converted into fuzzy numbers, since it becomes more meaningful to quantify a subjective measurement into a range rather than in an exact value. Therefore, further work is suggested to explore the application of fuzzy theory in developing this decision system. 81
  82. 82. Some aggregation technique may be used to improve the data collection and the preliminary results of the system.Some other Multi Criteria Decision methods may be used for the problem viz. Preference Ranking Organization Method Enrichment of Evaluation (PROMETHEE), Social Choice Theory Method: Preferential or Non Preferential, Compromise Programming, Borda technique, Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality(ELECTRE) etc. 82
  83. 83. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Satty T.L, ―Fundamental of the Analytical network process‖, ISAHP, August (1999), pp.12-14.2. Chakraborty S. and Banik Debabrata, ―Design of a material handling equipment selection model using analytic hierarchy process‖ International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology (2006), pp. 1237-1245.3. Chakraborty P S, Majumdar G. and Sarkar B. ‖Performance evaluation of material handling system for a ware house‖ Journal of scientific and Industrial Research, vol. 66 (2007), pp. 325-329.4. Momani A. M. and Ahmed A. A., ”Material Handling Equipment Selection using Hybrid Monte Carlo Simulation and Analytic Hierarchy Process‖ World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 59( 2011), pp.953-958.5. Ghosh D. N., ―Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education‖ UNIASCIT, Vol. 1 (2), (2011), pp.63-70.6. Jadidi O, Fatemeh F. and Bagliery E., ―TOPSIS Method for Supplier Selection Problem‖ World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 71 (2010), pp.965-967. 83
  84. 84. 7. Markovic Z., ‖Modification Of TOPSIS Method For Solving Of Multicriteria Tasks‖ Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research Volume 20 (2010), pp. 117-143.8. Gulfem Tuzkaya, Bahadır Gulsun, Cengiz Kahraman and Dog˘an Ozgen , ―An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application‖, Expert Systems with Applications voll37 (2010), pp. 2853–2863.9. Mustafa Yurdakul, ―AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection‖ Journal of Materials Processing Technology Vol. 146 (2004), pp.365–376.10. Tesfamariam D. and Lindberg B., ―Aggregate analysis of manufacturing systems using system dynamics and ANP‖ Computers and Industrial Engineering 49 (1), (2005), pp. 98-117.11. Pourjavad E.,Shirouyehzad H., ―A MCDM Approach for Prioritizing Production Lines: A Case Study”, International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10;(2011),pp. 221-228.12. Cheng E.W.L., ―Contractor selection using the analytic network process‖ Construction Management and Economics 22 (2010), pp. 1021-1032.13. Senba H. and Mori K., ―Analysis of decision making process of an expert in cutting condition set up using ANP‖ Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Part C 69 (2011), pp. 3100-3107. 84
  85. 85. 14. Meade L.M. and Presley A., ―R&D project selection using the analytic network process‖, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (2001), pp. 59-66.15. Paramasivam V., Senthil V. and Rajam Ramasamy N., ―Decision making in equipment selection: An integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP‖, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 54 (2009), pp. 1233-1244.16. Hsing Hung Chen, Amy H.I. Lee and He-Yau Kang, ―A model for strategic selection of feeder management systems: A case study‖, Electrical Power and Energy Systems Vol32 (2010) , pp. 421–427.17. Chung S.H., Lee A.H.I. and Pearn W.L. ―Product mix optimization for semiconductor manufacturing based on AHP and ANP analysis‖, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25 (11-12), pp. 1144-1156.18. Chang Che-Wei, Horngand D. J. and Lin H. L., ―A measurement model for experts knowledge-based systems algorithm using fuzzy analytic network process‖, Expert Systems with Applications vol.38 (2011), pp.12009–12017.19. Theresa J. Barker and Zelda B. Zabinsky, ―A multicriteria decision making model for reverse logistics using analytical hierarchy process‖, Omega vol.39 (2011), pp. 558–573. 85
  86. 86. 20. Dilay Çelebi , Demet Bayraktar and Levent Bingöl, ―Analytical Network Process for logistics management: A case study in a small electronic appliances manufacturer‖, Computers & Industrial Engineering Vol. 58 (2010), pp. 432–441.21. V. Ravi, Ravi Shankar and M.K. Tiwari, ―Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach‖, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.48 (2005), pp. 327– 356.22. Claudio Garuti and Mario Sandoval, ―Comparing AHP and ANP Shiftwork Models: Hierarchy Simplicity V/S Network Connectivity‖, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B. C. Canada August 6-11, (2004).23. Ido Millet and Bertram Schoner, ―Incorporating negative values into the Analytic Hierarchy Process‖, Computers & Operations Research Vol.32 (2005), pp.3163–3173.24. Joseph Sarkis, ―Quantitative models for performance measurement systems—alternate considerations‖, International Journal Production Economics Vol. 86 (2003), pp.81–90.25. Chun Yut , Chuah and Kong Bieng “Evaluation of Eco design alternatives by integrating AHP and TOPSIS methodology under a fuzzy environment” UK International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, (2012), pp. 43-52.26. Product Catalogue, D K Industries, Bikaner. 86
  87. 87. Thanks 87

×