Integrated Fuzzy AHPTOPSIS for selecting the best plastic

recycling method: A case study

S. Vinodh

, M. Prasanna, N. Hari Prakash

Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620 015, Tamil Nadu, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 January 2012
Received in revised form 11 February 2014
Accepted 7 March 2014
Available online 27 March 2014
Keywords:
Multi-criterion decision making
Analytic Hierarchy Process
TOPSIS
Recycling
Plastics
a b s t r a c t
Due to the rapid depletion of natural resources and undesired environmental changes in a
global scale, it is necessary to conserve the natural resources and protect the environment.
Industries which manufacture plastic based products have the necessity to recycle plastics.
There are number of methods to recycle plastics. Since the selection of the best recycling
method involves complex decision variables, it is considered to be a multiple criteria deci-
sion-making (MCDM) problem. This article develops an evaluation model based on the
fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the technique for order performance by simi-
larity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to enable the industry practitioners to perform perfor-
mance evaluation in a fuzzy environment. The purpose of the study is to determine the
best method for recycling plastics among the various plastic recycling processes. By
observing the results, it is identied that mechanical recycling process is found to be the
best plastic recycling process using the integrated approach.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Due to the rapid depletion of natural resources, many organizations have realized that recycling of used products is
important to achieve competitive advantage [1]. Plastics recycling have become one of the most important processes in man-
ufacturing organizations which produce plastic products. There are number of processes in recycling plastics [2]. Selecting
the best process for recycling plastics involves complex decisions. Such a problem can be solved using Multi Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) approach. MCDM approach has become a main area of research for dealing with complex decision prob-
lems. There are many studies that investigated the method about performance evaluation among the given alternatives.
In the literature, there are few fuzzy based methods aimed at evaluating the relative performance considering multiple
dimensions [3]. The main purpose of this study is to utilize Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Pref-
erence by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method under fuzzy environment to identify and rank the best alternatives
among the various plastic recycling processes. Integrated Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS have already been applied to evaluate the
performance of global top four notebook computer Original Design Manufacturing (ODM) companies [4]. This combination
has not been yet explored in automotive component manufacturing industries to identify the best alternative among the var-
ious plastic recycling methods. In this case study, Fuzzy AHP is used to determine the preference weights of evaluation. Then,
the weights are adopted in fuzzy TOPSIS to improve the gaps of alternatives between real performance values and achieving
aspired levels in each dimension/criterion and nd out the best alternative for achieving the aspired/desired levels based on
three recycling processes. The three recycling processes include chemical recycling, mechanical recycling and energy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.007
0307-904X/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vinodh_sekar82@yahoo.com (S. Vinodh), prasanna.krystal@gmail.com (M. Prasanna), prakahari@gmail.com (N. Hari Prakash).
Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Mathematical Modelling
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ apm
recovery process [2]. The scope of the research study is to identify the best recycling process among the alternatives for an
automotive component manufacturing industry. The identied best recycling method is subjected to implementation in the
case organization.
2. Literature review
The literature has been reviewed from the perspectives of plastics recycling and integrated MCDM methods
2.1. Literature review on plastics recycling
Fletcher and Mackay [5] proposed a model for recycling plastics and discussed about the reduction of waste due to various
recycling methods. They discussed about the total waste obtained fromthe plastic recycling process and its importance. Rich-
ard et al. [6] proposed a device conguration for the optimization of recovery of plastics for recycling using density media sep-
aration cyclones. They suggested it to be economically viable for industrial plastics recycling operations and producing a
number of different plastics with purity to be used as a substitute for virgin material. Patel et al. [7] have assessed the recycling
and recovery processes for plastics waste from all sectors in Germany in terms of their potential contribution due to energy
saving and Carbon dioxide abatement. They showed that plastics waste management offers scope for reducing environmental
burdens. Shent et al. [8] summarized the importance of plastic waste recycling and plastic waste separation based on reviewof
plastics waste recycling and the oatation of plastics. They concluded that the otation of plastics is a fairly exible technique
and could prove to be a useful process for the separation of mixtures of several different types of plastics. Subramanian [9]
suggested the increasing awareness of plastics recycling and waste management in US. This study considered life cycle anal-
yses and management in plastics recycling as tools for decision making. Pacheco et al. [10] have studied about an overview of
plastic recycling in Rio de Janeiro. The objective of this study was to show how the plastic recycling has been carried out to
indicate its own difculty besides the evaluation for recycling of post consumed plastics. Curlee [11] discussed about the eco-
nomic and institutional issues in plastics recycling. The two major objectives of this study was to discuss the quantities of plas-
tic wastes that are candidates for different types of recycling process and to discuss the major economic and institutional
incentives and barriers faced by different private- and public-sector decision-makers when considering plastics recycling.
2.2. Literature review on integrated MCDM methods
Opricovic and Tzeng [12] have provided a compromise solution by comparing VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I
Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian, means Multi criteria Optimization and Compromise Solution) and TOPSIS method. The re-
search compares the two MCDM methods, VIKOR and TOPSIS by focusing on modeling aggregating function and normaliza-
tion, in order to reveal and to compare the procedural basis of these two MCDM methods. Dagdeviren et al. [3] have
integrated AHP and TOPSIS under fuzzy environment for the weapon selection process. This study proposed a systematic
evaluation model to help the actors in defense industries for the selection of an optimal weapon among a set of available
alternatives. Sun [4] has proposed a model to evaluate the performance of global top four notebook computer ODM compa-
nies. This study integrated two MCDM methods namely AHP and TOPSIS under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy AHP was used to
determine the preference weights of evaluation. Then the fuzzy TOPSIS method was used to improve the gaps of alternatives
between real performances. Kaya and Kahraman [1] have integrated AHP and Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalit
(ELECTRE) method under fuzzy environment to determine the environmental impact assessment. They proposed an environ-
mental impact assessment method which was based on an integrated Fuzzy AHPELECTRE approach in the context of urban
industrial planning. Ho et al. [13] have combined decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) technique with
a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. They identied that the factors of the CAPM possessed
a self-effect relationship according to the DEMATEL technique. Kuo and Liang [14] have combined VIKOR with Grey Relation
Analysis (GRA) techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment. They observed that this approach
is an effective means for tackling MCDM problems involving subjective assessments of qualitative attributes in a fuzzy
environment. Chen and Tzeng [15] have created the aspired intelligent assessment systems for teaching materials with
Analytical Network Process (ANP) approach where weights are based on DEMATEL technique. They have found that
improvement in the efciency and quality of the authored Mandarin Chinese teaching materials may be extended to other
Notations
r
i
fuzzy geometric mean for criteria
a
ij
a fuzzy set in a fuzzy decision matrix which shows the effect of criteria i, on alternative j
d
+
distance of each alternative from the ideal solution
d

gap of each alternative from the ideal solution

CC
i
closeness coefcient of ith plastic recycling method
S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672 4663
learning Areas. Chenayah et al. [16] have proposed a qualitative multicriteria decision aid by combining ELECTRE and Pref-
erence Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) methods. They have shown that in the case of
multiple decision makers, by comparing the ranking derived from the aggregated outranking relation matrix with one of
each decision making with different interest involved in the decision process, it can be observed that how much they are
close or different using the eigenvector method towards the collective decision. Salminen et al. [17] have compared multi-
criteria methods in the context of environmental problems. This study analyzed the use of ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE I, II
decision-aids in the context of four different real applications to environmental problems in Finland. They have concluded
that it is better to use several methods for the same problem whenever possible. Chen and Chen [18] used a novel conjunc-
tive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher edu-
cation. They proposed a novel innovation support system in which measurement criteria are extracted from top six weights
among all criteria. Hung [19] has used an activity-based divergent supply chain planning for competitive advantage in the
risky global environment using DEMATELANP fuzzy goal programming approach. This analysis showed that identifying and
relaxing crucial constraints can play an important role in divergent Supply chain planning for higher competitive advantage
and lower risk.
Peng [20] proposed an approach to assess the regional earthquake vulnerability by integrating results obtained using dif-
ferent MCDM methods. The weights of several MCDM methods were calculated using Spearmans ranking correlation coef-
cients. The MCDM method with highest weight was trusted most and was used to provide nal assessment by integrating
other MCDM methods. The method proved to produce a comprehensive assessment of regional earthquake vulnerability.
Grbz et al. [21] proposed an evaluation framework which integrates MCDM methodologies Analytic Network Process
(ANP), Choquet Integral (CI) and Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) used
for evaluating Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) alternatives. The applicability of the framework was illustrated using a
case study of the ERP software selection of a company. Yeh et al. [22] found that both Critical Success Factors (CSF) and
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) affecting the outcome of New Product Development (NPD) project. The authors used Fuzzy
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (FDEMATEL) to identify the correlation among critical factors and Analytic
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) to establish weights to the factors that affect NPD. Moghimi and Anwari [23] analyzed nancial
ratios of Iranian cement producers. The authors proposed an integrated fuzzy approach in which fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
Process (FAHP) was used to determine the criteria, where as Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions
(TOPSIS) was used to determine the option rankings. The authors suggested using this evaluation methodology to other sec-
tors too. Zolfani et al. [24] used two MCDM methods for evaluating potential alternatives of locations for establishment of
shopping malls. Relative importance of criteria and weights were calculated using Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Anal-
ysis (SWARA). Potential alternatives were evaluated using Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS). The
methodology was found to be applicable for choosing location alternatives in other business case studies. Kabak and
Dagdeviren [25] proposed a hybrid model integrating Benets, Opportunities, Costs and Risks (BOCR) and Analytic Network
Process (ANP) to determine energy status of Turkey and prioritize alternative renewable energy resources. The methodology
enabled taking precautions against the possible risks. The model also helped in making effective decisions. Hu et al. [26]
developed a hybrid MCDM model which combines DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP) and VIKOR. The method prioritized the rel-
ative inuence weights of dimensions and criteria. The method could handle complex interactions and interdependencies
thus facilitating the evaluation of various strategy processes.
2.3. Research gap
Based on literature review, it is inferred that several researchers have attempted integrated MCDM methods for several
applications. But the usage of integrated MCDM in the context of plastics recycling is found to be scant. Selection of the best
plastic recycling method involves complex decision variables. Since a single method is not sufcient to identify the best plas-
tic recycling method, there exists a need to apply the integrated approach to solve this problem. The case evaluates selection
of best recycling method by evaluating using a set of twenty criteria. This method solves problem in a fuzzy environment
since both criteria and weights are vague in nature. Furthermore, vagueness also exists in determining how each criterion
impacts the attributes for evaluation. In order to deal with vagueness and uncertainty associated with decision making prob-
lem, fuzzy based methods are being used in the present study.
3. Methodology
This research aims to select the best method among various plastic recycling process using the integrated AHP and TOPSIS
techniques under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy AHP is used to determine the preference weights of evaluation [1]. Fuzzy TOPSIS
is used to improve the gaps of alternatives between real performance values and achieve aspiration levels and to evaluate the
best process based on the various characteristics of three plastic recycling processes [18].
3.1. Fuzzy AHP
AHP is a method which is used to solve complex decision problems by determining the relative importance of a set of
activities in a problem [16]. AHP method decomposes a complex multi criteria decision problem into a series of interrelated
4664 S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672
decisions. However, the pure AHP model has some shortcomings. AHP method is used in nearly crisp-information decision
applications; the AHP method creates and deals with a very unbalanced scale of judgment [1]; AHP method does not take
into account the uncertainty associated with the process involved. To overcome these problems, several researchers inte-
grated fuzzy theory with AHP to improve the uncertainty. Fuzzy AHP based on the fuzzy interval arithmetic with triangular
fuzzy numbers and condence index a with interval mean approach to determine the weights for evaluative elements [18].
This research uses triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) for the evaluation. The steps in Fuzzy AHP are presented as follows:
Step 1: Building the evaluation hierarchy systems for evaluating the best alternative among the given alternatives con-
sidering the various criteria involved. The selection of best alternative will be done based on building the hierar-
chical system.
Step 2: Determining the evaluation dimensions weights using Triangular Fuzzy numbers. This research uses TFN for the
pair wise comparisons and nds the fuzzy weights. The reason for using a TFN is that it is intuitively easy for the
decision makers to use and calculate. In addition, modeling TFN has proven to be an effective way of formulating
decision problems where the information available is subjective and imprecise.
The computational process about Fuzzy AHP is detailed as follows. A triangular fuzzy number a can be dened by
a triplet (a1, a2, a3). The membership function l x
A
is dened by
l x
A

x l=m l; l 6 x 6 m;
u x=u m; m 6 x 6 u; 4
0; otherwise;
8
>
<
>
:
Linguistic variables take on values dened in its term set: it is set of linguistic terms. Linguistic terms are subjective cate-
gories for the linguistic variables. A linguistic variable is a variable whose values are words or sentences in a natural or arti-
cial language. Here, we use this kind of expression to compare two criteria comparing evaluation dimension using nine
basic linguistic terms, as Perfect, Absolute, Very good, Fairly good, Good, Preferable, Not Bad, Weak advan-
tage and Equal with respect to a fuzzy nine level scale. Each membership function (scale of fuzzy number) is dened
by three parameters of the symmetric triangular fuzzy number, the left point, and middle point.
Step 3: Determining the weights for the criteria involved. Determination of weights for evaluation criteria involves the
following steps:
a. The pair-wise comparison matrix showing the preference of one criterion over the other is build by entering the
judgmental values by the decision makers. Since the values are linguistic variables a triplet of triangular fuzzy num-
bers are entered.
b. The synthetic pair-wise comparison matrix is computed using geometric mean method Geometric mean r
i
dened
as
r
i
a
1
ij
a
2
ij
a
10
ij

1=10
: 4
Step 4: The weight for each criterion is determined. This is done by normalizing the matrix.
w
i
r
i
r
1
r
2
r
3
r
n

1
: 4
Step 5: The Best Non-Fuzzy Performance (BNP) value for each weight is determined. BNP value for a weight (l, m, u) is
given by
BNP value u l m l=3 l: 4
Step 6: The criteria are ranked based on the BNP values. The criterion having larger BNP value is considered to have a
greater impact when compared with other criterion.
3.2. Fuzzy TOPSIS
The primary concept of TOPSIS approach is that the most preferred alternative should not only have the shortest distance
from the positive ideal solution (PIS), but also have the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution (NIS) [3]. TOPSIS
has a relative advantage that only limited subjective input is needed from decision makers and the ability of the method to
identify the best alternative quickly. The steps involved in Fuzzy TOPSIS are presented as follows
Step 1: Obtain the weighting of criteria from Fuzzy AHP. The result of Fuzzy AHP contains the weights of each criterion
under consideration.
Step 2: Create Fuzzy evaluation matrix. The judgmental values from decision makers for each decision alternative cor-
responding to each criterion are tabulated with TFNs as entries.
Step 3: Normalize fuzzy decision matrix. The normalized fuzzy decision matrix is denoted by R whose elements are
r
i

mn
; i 1; 2; 3; . . . m, where m is the total number of criteria.
S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672 4665
~
r
ij

l
ij
u

j
;
m
ij
u

j
;
u
ij
u

j
!
; 4
where u

j
is the maximum value in the entire fuzzy decision matrix.
Step 4: Determine the fuzzy positive ideal and fuzzy negative ideal reference points. Fuzzy positive ideal solution
(FPIS) and fuzzy negative ideal solutions (FNIS) are dened by the area compensation technique.
FPIS A

i
. . . v

j
. . . v

FNIS A

i
. . . v

j
. . . v

and v
i
1; 1; 1 w
j

9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
: 4
Step 5: The distance from FPIS (d
+
) and gap from FNIS (d

) are identied by
D

j

X
n
j1
d
~
v
ij
;
~
v

j

X
n
j1
d
~
v
ij
;
~
v

i

9
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
;
; 3
where d(a, b) is the distance between the two fuzzy numbers a and b. It is dened as
d
~
a;
~
b

1
3
a
1
b
1

2
a
2
b
2

2
a
3
b
3

2
h i
r
: 3
Step 6: The relative closeness to the ideal value is determined and alternatives are ranked accordingly. The relative
closeness is given by
f
CC
i

~
d

i
~
d

i

~
d

i
: 4
4. Case study
The case study involves the selection of best recycling method using the Fuzzy AHPTOPSIS technique. The case study of
the proposed integrated model was applied in an automotive component manufacturing organization located in Bangalore,
India. The case organization produces automotive components using plastics. To identify the best plastic recycling method
the integrated approach was used.
4.1. Plastic recycling process
The growth in automotive production has increased the number of vehicles that needs to be recycled. The traditional ap-
proach for End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) option involves dismantling, shredding and disposing in the landll [27]. The use of
metals in automotive manufacturing has drastically reduced in the last 30 years with more emphasis on use of plastic com-
ponents [28]. The recycling of ber Reinforcement Plastics (FRP) in automotive industry is the new challenge and automotive
alliances are working for evaluating the recycling options for automotive industries [29]. 75% of ELVs total weight is recycled
and remaining 25% of Auto Shredder Residues (ASR) is disposed as landll [30].
There existed a need for the case organization to recycle plastics. Lardinois and Klundert [31] dened recycling of plastics
as the process by which plastic waste material that would otherwise become solid waste is collected, separated, processed
and returned for further usage. There are three major plastic recycling processes [2]. They are described below
4.1.1. Mechanical recycling process
Mechanical recycling involves the physical method of material reprocessing of waste plastics into plastics products. The
end products of consistent quality are generated by cleaning and processing the sorted plastics. The post process of recycling
depends on the kind of operation, but usually involve inspection for removal of contaminants or further sorting, grinding,
washing and drying and conversion into either akes or pellets.
4666 S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672
4.1.2. Chemical recycling process
Chemical recycling or feedstock recycling involves the breaking action of polymeric product into its individual compo-
nents (monomers for plastics or hydrocarbon feedstock synthesis gas) and broken components could then be fed back
as input raw material to reproduce the original product or others.
4.1.3. Energy recovery
Horrocks [32] compared locked-in potential (LIP) in terms of caloric value for plastics with conventional fuels. Associ-
ation of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME) (20022003) [33] reported that western European industries are increas-
ingly using energy recovery as the method of plastic recycling. Wienaah [2] applied energy recovery as one of the method of
plastic recycling for waste management in Ghana.
Plastics can be co-burned with other wastes or used as substitute fuel in several industry processes. Certain other thermal
and chemical processes like pyrolisis could be used for recovering the energy content of plastic waste. The generated plastic
waste on continuous recycling loses their physical and chemical properties at their end-of-life phase.
4.2. Criteria
There are certain criteria that are involved in the plastic recycling process. The post effect of the plastic recycling process
is well studied and based on the literature 20 criteria have been identied. These criteria were veried and validated by the
decision makers of the case organization. The decision makers possess rich experience regarding the working culture of the
organization and plastics recycling and the inputs are gathered in terms of linguistic variables. They are Economic perfor-
mance, Financial health, Potential nancial benets, Trading opportunities, Air resources, Water resources, Land resources,
Mineral and energy resources, Internal human resources, External population, Stake holder population, Macro social perfor-
mance [34]. Managerial ability, New technology acceptance, Interest support groups, Customer Satisfaction Technical sup-
port and training [35], Technical capability, Managerial effectiveness, Management ability [36].
4.3. Computation using integrated Fuzzy AHPTOPSIS
Step 1: The pair-wise comparison matrix for the fuzzy-AHP process was lled based on the discussion with the decision
makers. Decision makers provided the linguistic variables. The linguistic scales are transferred to the correspond-
ing fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy numbers are used for incorporating views of decision makers for the criteria. The pair-
wise comparison matrix showing the preference of one criterion over the other is built by entering the judgmental
values of the decision makers. This will enable to determine the weights of criteria. An excerpt of pair-wise com-
parison matrix for Fuzzy AHP process is shown in the Table 1.
Step 2: Fuzzy geometric mean is obtained. Each cell r
i
is described by Geometric mean technique. That is
r
i
a
1
ij
a
2
ij
a
10
ij
:
For example fuzzy geometric mean for the set (2, 3, 4) is given by
r 1; 1; 1 1; 1; 1 2; 3; 4
1=10
0:88; 1:14; 1:37:
The geometric mean is calculated by applying the above formula for values of decision makers for each criterion. The other
matrix elements are obtained by using the same computational procedure as shown in Table 2.
The values r
1
to r
20
refers to the Fuzzy geometric mean value. The values of fuzzy geometric mean values for twenty criteria
obtained by geometric mean calculation are a prerequisite to determine the weights for twenty criteria. These values are
used in the next step to calculate the AHP weight for criteria.
Step 3: The weight of each dimension is calculated. Each cell w
i
is dened by
w
i
r
i
r
1
r
2
r
3
r
n

1
:
For w
1
= (1.81, 1.2, 1.216) (20.098, 20.118, 20.136)
1
= (0.09, 0.06, 0.06). Similarly fuzzy weights w
1
to w
20
are calculated.
The weights are obtained for each criterion by dividing the corresponding geometric mean with the sum of geometric means
for all criteria.
The resulting weight is shown in Table 3.
The values w
1
to w
20
refers to the fuzzy geometric mean value. These weights will enable the prioritization of criteria. The
weights determined using Fuzzy-AHP method is used for evaluating three alternatives i.e. chemical recycling, mechanical
recycling and energy recovery for the set of twenty criteria. This weight is used in Fuzzy-TOPSIS method.
Step 4: The fuzzy decision matrix for the three plastic recycling processes was lled by the decision makers. The decision
matrix is obtained for the three alternatives for set of twenty criteria. These details are shown in Table 4.
This table shows the fuzzy decision values based on the impact of criteria on plastic recycling methods. Each value in the
cell a
ij
describes the impact of ith criteria on the jth alternative.
Step 5: Normalize the fuzzy decision matrix by taking the largest fuzzy number out of the complete set and divide it with
all the fuzzy set.
S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672 4667
Table 1
Excerpt of pair-wise comparison matrix for Fuzzy AHP.
r
1
r
2
r
3
r
4
r
5
r
6
r
7
r
8
r
1
(1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259)
r
2
(0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.175, 1.196, 1.215) (1.215, 1.231, 1.246) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259) (1.215, 1.231, 1.246) (1.116, 1.149, 1.175) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196)
r
3
(0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.196, 1.215, 1.231) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196) (1.196, 1.215, 1.231) (1.215, 1.231, 1.246) (1.196, 1.215, 1.231)
r
4
(0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259) (1.175, 1.196, 1.215) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259)
r
5
(0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.196, 1.215, 1.231) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259) (1.215, 1.231, 1.246)
r
6
(0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.149, 1.175, 1.196) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259)
r
7
(0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) (1.215, 1.231, 1.246)
r
8
(0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000)
r
9
(0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (1.231, 1.246, 1.259)
r
10
(0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (1.000, 1.000, 1.000)
r
11
(0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836)
r
12
(0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803)
r
13
(0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803)
r
14
(0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803)
r
15
(0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851)
r
16
(0.812, 0.813, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794)
r
17
(0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803)
r
18
(0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.812, 0.803, 0.794) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851)
r
19
(0.836, 0.823, 0.812) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.896, 0.871, 0.851) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803) (0.851, 0.836, 0.823) (0.871, 0.851, 0.836) (0.823, 0.812, 0.803)
4
6
6
8
S
.
V
i
n
o
d
h
e
t
a
l
.
/
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
M
o
d
e
l
l
i
n
g
3
8
(
2
0
1
4
)
4
6
6
2

4
6
7
2
Table 2
Fuzzy geometric mean for various criteria.
r
1
(1.181,1.200,1.216)
r
2
(1.160,1.177,1.191)
r
3
(1.126,1.142,1.156)
r4
(1.107,1.121,1.133)
r
5
(1.107,1.116,1.124)
r
6
(1.079,1.088,1.095)
r
7
(1.073,1.077,1.081)
r
8
(1.042,1.046,1.050)
r
9
(1.028,1.031,1.033)
r
10
(1.001,1.004,1.005)
r
11
(0.993,0.992,0.991)
r
12
(0.960,0.960,0.960)
r
13
(0.960,0.956,0.952)
r
14
(0.944,0.938,0.933)
r
15
(0.933,0.924,0.917)
r
16
(0.903,0.896,0.889)
r
17
(0.902,0.890,0.881)
r
18
(0.878,0.867,0.858)
r
19
(0.865,0.852,0.842)
r
20
(0.856,0.841,0.829)
Table 3
Fuzzy weights of AHP process for various criteria.
w
1
(0.059,0.060,0.060)
w
2
(0.058,0.058,0.059)
w
3
(0.056,0.057,0.057)
w
4
(0.055,0.056,0.056)
w
5
(0.055,0.055,0.056)
w
6
(0.054,0.054,0.054)
w
7
(0.053,0.054,0.054)
w
8
(0.052,0.052,0.052)
w
9
(0.051,0.051,0.051)
w
10
(0.050,0.050,0.050)
w
11
(0.049,0.049,0.049)
w
12
(0.048,0.048,0.048)
w
13
(0.048,0.048,0.047)
w
14
(0.047,0.047,0.046)
w
15
(0.046,0.046,0.046)
w
16
(0.045,0.045,0.044)
w
17
(0.045,0.044,0.044)
w
18
(0.044,0.043,0.043)
w
19
(0.043,0.042,0.042)
w
20
(0.043,0.042,0.041)
Table 4
Fuzzy decision matrix.
Alternative criteria Chemical recycling Mechanical recycling Energy recovery
1 (6.000,8.000,9.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
2 (5.000,6.000,7.000) (6.500,8.500,9.500) (4.000,5.000,6.000)
3 (4.000,5.000,6.000) (5.000,6.500,8.000) (7.000,8.000,9.000)
4 (7.000,8.000,9.000) (6.500,7.500,8.500) (5.500,6.500,7.000)
5 (6.000,7.000,8.000) (7.500,8.000,8.500) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
6 (4.500,6.000,7.500) (6.000,7.500,9.000) (6.500,8.000,9.500)
7 (6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
8 (5.500,7.000,8.500) (8.000,9.000,10.000) (5.000,6.500,7.000)
9 (6.000,7.000,8.000) (7.000,8.000,9.000) (7.500,8.000,8.500)
10 (5.000,6.000,7.000) (4.000,5.000,6.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
11 (6.000,7.000,8.000) (7.000,8.500,9.500) (4.000,6.000,8.000)
12 (4.000,5.000,6.000) (4.500,6.000,7.500) (7.000,8.000,9.000)
13 (7.000,8.000,9.000) (5.500,6.500,7.500) (5.500,7.000,8.500)
14 (5.000,6.000,7.000) (8.000,9.000,10.000) (5.500,7.000,8.500)
15 (6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
16 (6.000,7.000,8.000) (4.500,6.000,7.500) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
17 (5.500,7.000,8.500) (7.000,8.000,9.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
18 (5.500,7.000,8.500) (6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
19 (8.000,9.000,10.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
20 (4.500,6.000,7.500) (8.000,9.000,10.000) (4.500,6.000,7.500)
S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672 4669
In our case study 10.0 is the largest value. So the normalized fuzzy decision matrix is obtained by dividing all the fuzzy
numbers with 10.0. The normalized matrix will be used for determining the positive and negative ideal solutions for the
criteria.
Step 6: Determine the fuzzy positive ideal solution and fuzzy negative ideal solution by identifying cost and benet
criteria. If it is a cost criteria v+ is set assigned to (1, 1, 1) and v

is assigned to (0, 0, 0) and if it is a benet criteria v

+
is assigned (0, 0, 0) and v

as (1, 1, 1).
Step 7: Identify the distance of each alternative (d
+
) and the gaps associated with it (d

) by area compensation technique

and closeness coefcient is calculated. This will enable in identifying the distances of three attributes from the ideal
solution.
When fuzzy set a = (2, 3, 4) and b = (5, 6, 7) then
Da; b 1=3 5 2
2
6 3
2
7 4
2

1=3
2:08:
Tables 5 and 6 show the d
+
and d

values, correspondingly.
5. Results and discussions
The BNP values from Fuzzy AHP are shown in Table 7.
It can be seen from the ranking of criteria, that criteria 1 is economic performance has the larger impact. Similarly the
weights of criteria can be compared with each other to know the relative importance. These weights are used in the Fuzzy
TOPSIS method along with the Fuzzy decision matrix to identify the best method for plastic recycling.
Table 6
d

values for various alternatives in Fuzzy TOPSIS.

Alternative D

value (10
5
)
Chemical recycling 2.47
Mechanical recycling 8.30
Energy recovery 2.13
Table 5
d
+
values for various alternatives in Fuzzy TOPSIS.
Alternative D
+
value
Chemical recycling 0.517
Mechanical recycling 0.490
Energy recovery 0.520
Table 7
Crisp values of Fuzzy AHP weight for various criteria.
BNP1 0.0596012
BNP2 0.0584602
BNP3 0.0567218
BNP4 0.0556857
BNP5 0.0554434
BNP6 0.0540603
BNP7 0.0535428
BNP8 0.0520009
BNP9 0.0512273
BNP10 0.0498816
BNP11 0.0492954
BNP12 0.0477204
BNP13 0.0475242
BNP14 0.0466348
BNP15 0.0459688
BNP16 0.0445439
BNP17 0.0443005
BNP18 0.0431459
BNP19 0.0423953
BNP20 0.04
4670 S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672
The closeness coefcient is as shown in Table 8.
It is found that closeness coefcient ranks in the order of mechanical recycling greater than chemical recycling greater
energy recovery. This shows that mechanical recycling process is best suited for the case organization. Mechanical recycling
is the material reprocessing of waste plastics by physical means into plastics products. The sorted plastics are cleaned and
processed directly into end products or into akes or pellets of consistent quality acceptable to be manufactured [2]. The
steps taken to recycle post-consumer plastics typically involve inspection for removal of contaminants or further sorting,
grinding, washing and drying and conversion into either akes or pellets. Efforts are taken by the case organization towards
implementation of the mechanical recycling method.
6. Conclusions
In the growing competitive industrial scenario, recycling has become a major process in manufacturing industries [16].
Industries which manufacture plastic based products have the necessity to recycle plastics. There are number of methods to
recycle plastics [2]. Since selecting the best recycling method involves complex decision variables, it is considered to be an
MCDM problem. In this context, a case study was performed to decide the best plastic recycling process. The importance of
the dimensions was evaluated by industry experts, and the uncertainty of human decision-making was taken into account
using the fuzzy concept. In our study, integrated Fuzzy AHPTOPSIS method was used. Mechanical recycling process was
found to be the suitable recycling process among the given alternatives. Fuzzy TOPSIS has eliminated many procedures to
be performed only in AHPFuzzy AHP solution and enabled the deviation of conclusion in a shorter time. Additionally, in
the application, it was shown that calculation of the criteria weights is important in TOPSIS method and they could change
the ranking. This case study enables the decision analysts to choose the suitable plastic recycling method for their plastic
manufacturing organization.
6.1. Limitations and scope for future work
In the present study, integrated Fuzzy AHPTOPSIS is used for selecting the best plastics recycling process. In future, other
techniques like Fuzzy ANP, ELECTRE, VIKOR and other combination could be explored. The comparison of the results ob-
tained from other integrated techniques will help in better understanding of the criteria involved and in the selection
process.
References
[1] T. Kaya, C. Kahraman, An integrated Fuzzy AHPELECTRE methodology for environmental impact assessment, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 85538562.
[2] M.M. Wienaah, Sustainable plastic waste management a case of Accra, Ghana, KTH land and water resource engineering, TRITA-LWR (Master thesis),
LWR-EX-07-10, 2007.
[3] M. Dagdeviren, S. Yavuz, N. Kilinc, Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 8143
8151.
[4] C.C. Sun, A performance evaluation model by integrating Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 77457754.
[5] B.L. Fletcher, M.E. Mackay, A model of plastics recycling: does recycling reduce the amount of waste?, Resour Conserv. Recycl. 17 (2) (1996) 141151.
[6] G.M. Richard, M. Mario, T. Javier, T. Susana, Optimization of the recovery of plastics for recycling by density media separation cyclones, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 55 (4) (2011) 472482.
[7] M. Patel, N. Thienen, E. Jochem, E. Worrell, Recycling of plastics in Germany, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 29 (12) (2000) 6590.
[8] H. Shent, R.J. Pugh, E. Forssberg, A review of plastics waste recycling and the otation of plastics, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 25 (2) (1999) 85109.
[9] P.M. Subramanian, Plastics recycling and waste management in the US, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 28 (34) (2000) 253263.
[10] E.B. Pacheco, L.M. Ronchetti, E. Masanet, An overview of plastic recycling in Rio de Janeiro, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 60 (2012) 140146.
[11] T.R. Curlee, Plastics recycling: economic and institutional issues, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 9 (4) (1986) 335350.
[12] S. Opricovic, G.H. Tzeng, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156 (2004) 445455.
[13] W.R.J. Ho, C.L. Tsai, G.H. Tzeng, S.K. Fang, Combined DEMATEL technique with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM,
Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 1625.
[14] M.S. Kuo, G.S. Liang, Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment, Expert Syst. Appl. 38
(2011) 13041312.
[15] C.H. Chen, G.H. Tzeng, Creating the aspired intelligent assessment systems for teaching materials, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 1216812179.
[16] S. Chenayah, H. Chhaing, E. Takeda, Qualitative multicriteria decision aid by eigenvector method, in: The 14th Asia Pacic Regional Meeting of
International Foundation for Production Research, 2010.
[17] P. Salminen, J. Hokkanen, R. Lahdelma, Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104 (1998)
485496.
[18] J.K. Chen, I.S. Chen, Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for
Taiwanese higher education, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (3) (2010) 19811990.
Table 8
Closeness coefcient for the alternatives.
Alternative Closeness coefcient (10
4
)
Chemical recycling 4.7
Mechanical recycling 16.7
Energy recovery 4.1
S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672 4671
[19] S.J. Hung, Activity-based divergent supply chain planning for competitive advantage in the risky global environment: a DEMATELANP fuzzy goal
programming approach, Expert Syst. Appl. (2011).
[20] Y. Peng, Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods, Ann. Oper. Res. (2012) 116.
[21] T. Grbz, S.E. Alptekin, G. Is klar Alptekin, A hybrid MCDM methodology for ERP selection problem with interacting criteria, Decis. Support Syst. 54 (1)
(2012) 206214.
[22] T.M. Yeh, F.Y. Pai, C.W. Liao, Using a hybrid MCDM methodology to identify critical factors in new product development, Neural Comput. Appl. (2013)
115.
[23] Rohollah Moghimi, Alireza Anvari, An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach and analysis to evaluate the nancial performance of iranian cement
companies, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2013).
[24] S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M.H. Aghdaie, A. Derakhti, E.K. Zavadskas, M.H. Morshed Varzandeh, Decision making on business issues with foresight
perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating, Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (17) (2013) 71117121.
[25] M. Kabak, M. Dagdeviren, Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology, Energy Convers. Manage. 79
(2014) 2533.
[26] S.K. Hu, M.T. Lu, G.H. Tzeng, Exploring smart phone improvements based on a hybrid MCDM model, Expert Syst. Appl. (2014).
[27] J. Tian, M. Chen, Sustainable design for automotive products: dismantling and recycling of end-of-life vehicles, Waste Manage. (Oxford) 34 (2014)
458467.
[28] D. Duval, H.L. MacLean, The role of product information in automotive plastics recycling: a nancial and life cycle assessment, J. Cleaner Prod. 15
(2007) 11581168.
[29] Automotive industry rises to challenge set by recycling, Reinf. Plast., vol. 42 (5) (1998) pp. 4042.
[30] M. Nourreddine, Recycling of auto shredder residue, J. Hazard. Mater. A 139 (2007) 481490.
[31] I. Lardinois, A. Klundert, Plastic Waste: Options for Small Scale Recovery, Waste Consultants, The Netherlands, 1995.
[32] R.A. Horrocks, Recycling Textile and Plastic Waste, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England, 1996.
[33] Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME), Plastics in Europe an analysis of plastics consumption and recovery in Europe, 20022003.
[34] S. Vinodh, Assessment of sustainability using multi-grade fuzzy approach, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13 (3) (2010) 509515.
[35] Yksel, M. Dagdeviren, Using the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) for Balanced Scorecard (BSC): a case study for a manufacturing rm, Expert
Syst. Appl. 37 (2) (2010) 12701278.
[36] Yksel, Dagdeviren, Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis a case study for a textile rm, Inf. Sci. 177 (2) (2007) 33643382.
4672 S. Vinodh et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (2014) 46624672