PSI - Issue 72

Ruhit Bardhan et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 72 (2025) 507–519  A 3 : ZrO2-NiCoCrAlY FGM  A 4 : Al-SiC FGM For this application, eight key criteria were identified:  C 1 : Thermal conductivity gradient (benefit)  C 2 : Thermal expansion compatibility (benefit)  C 3 : Maximum service temperature (benefit)  C 4 : Elastic modulus gradient (benefit)  C 5 : Fracture toughness (benefit)  C 6 : Processing complexity (cost)  C 7 : Material cost (cost)  C 8 : Environmental impact (cost) The neutrosophic AHP approach was used to establish the criterion weights based on expert evaluations shows in Table 1: Table 1. Criteria Weights for FGM Selection Criterion Weight C 1 0.18 C 2 0.15 C 3 0.22 C 4 0.12 C 5 0.14 C 6 0.08 C 7 0.06 C 8 0.05 The neutrosophic decision matrix was constructed based on evaluations from three domain experts and available experimental data. Table 2 shows the aggregated neutrosophic decision matrix. 4.2. Application of Neutrosophic TOPSIS Following the steps described in Section Neutrosophic TOPSIS algorithm for FGM selection, we applied the neutrosophic TOPSIS method to the decision matrix. First, we normalized the neutrosophic decision matrix according to the benefit or cost nature of each criterion. For cost criteria (C 6 ,C 7 ,C 8 ), the complement operation was applied. Table 2. Neutrosophic Decision Matrix for FGM Selection Alternative A 1 Alternative A 2 Criterion T ij I ij F ij Criterion T ij I ij F ij C 1 0.75 0.15 0.20 C 1 0.60 0.20 0.30 C 2 0.70 0.20 0.25 C 2 0.75 0.15 0.20 C 3 0.65 0.10 0.30 C 3 0.70 0.10 0.25 C 4 0.80 0.15 0.15 C 4 0.65 0.25 0.20 C 5 0.70 0.20 0.15 C 5 0.80 0.10 0.15 C 6 0.35 0.25 0.60 C 6 0.40 0.20 0.50 C 7 0.30 0.15 0.65 C 7 0.45 0.15 0.50 C 8 0.45 0.25 0.50 C 8 0.60 0.20 0.35 Alternative A 3 Alternative A 4 Criterion T ij I ij F ij Criterion T ij I ij F ij C 1 0.85 0.10 0.10 C 1 0.70 0.20 0.25 C 2 0.80 0.15 0.20 C 2 0.65 0.25 0.30 C 3 0.90 0.05 0.10 C 3 0.60 0.15 0.35  A 5 : Ti-6Al-4V/TiC FGM 515