Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Smartphone Application for Badminton
Material selection in a sustainable manufacturing sports community
Nizirwan Anwar, Eric HendroAsali,
practice of a badminton racket frame using Heryanto et al.

- RETRACTED: Analysis of the Badminton

Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality Teaching Method of Goal Setting in
College Based on Computer Technology
(ELECTRE) Method Wen Tang

- Application of Core Strength Training in

Badminton Footwork Teaching with
To cite this article: Muhammad Firdhaus Che Hassan et al 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1020 012012 Computer Aid
Wei Huang and Fazhen Zhang

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 2.50.19.201 on 10/11/2023 at 06:51

ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

Material selection in a sustainable manufacturing practice of a

badminton racket frame using Elimination and Choice
Expressing Reality (ELECTRE) Method

Muhammad Firdhaus Che Hassan, Mohd Uzair Mohd Rosli and Muhammad
Afiq Mohd Redzuan
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Faculty of Engineering
Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis 02100 Padang Besar, Perlis, Malaysia

[email protected] / [email protected]

Abstract. Badminton is one of the leading sports in the world. It has its own set of
rules on the equipments used and general game play. One of the main equipment used
is the badminton racket. Each sections of a badminton racket have its own design
requirements and one of it is the racket’s material selection. Therefore, material
selection is very important to improve the usage of a badminton racket. This study
describes the use of the Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE)
method in the material selection of a badminton racket frame with reference to the
sustainable manufacturing practice of the frame. By categorizing the materials of the
badminton racket frame according to mechanical, physical, chemical and
environmental properties, and further detailed sub criteria were set according to the
usage of these frames, the ELECTRE I method was used to determine the dominant
material. Out of the six materials usually used in the manufacturing of a badminton
racket frame, carbon fibre was the dominant material selected from three out of the
four properties which are the mechanical, chemical and most importantly the
environmental properties, as to comply with the sustainable manufacturing practice of
these frames.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
In the sports world now there are different tools needed to perform the activities and develop and
innovate it up to date. Increasing sophisticated technology in sports has contributed a lot to increase
the usage of a sports equipment. The design requirements of a sports equipment is an important aspect
and commonly associated with conceptual design, material selection and process selection in terms of
principles of design and technology. This is especially to produce new material that improves the
quality of the sports equipment specifically and the game itself generally [1]. The basic reason to
produce a badminton racket is to improve the quality and use of the badminton racket. Factors that
needed to be improved are the quality of materials and optimizing the design of a badminton racket
[2].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

To design is to apply the latest methods and ideas. Each design stage requires a decision with
regard to materials in the manufacture of products and methods needed to produce it. The selection of
material is important in the production of a product. It is a key element in developing a product
because it is an impact or effect on a product developed. Material choice is a step inside the process of
designing any physical item. In the context of product design, the principle intention of material
selection is to minimize value even as meeting product performance desires [3].
In the manufacturing industry, any equipment which is derived require proper attention to avoid
any losses occurred as a loss in the use of raw materials to produce a product. Therefore, steps should
be taken to perform the sustainability in a manufacturing point of emphasis that whereby in every
material used will not be wasted. According to the definition from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, sustainable manufacturing is the creation of a manufactured product with
processes that have minimal negative impact on the environment, conserve energy and natural
resources, are safe for employees and communities, and are economically sound [4].
The focus of this study was to determine the criteria and sub criteria of the material properties of a
badminton racket frame, use ELECTRE I method to apply material selection thus the dominant
material will be chosen.

1.2. Badminton Racket Frame

A badminton racket consists of a head, a shaft that is joined to the head, and it is between the head and
a handle. Altogether it is called a frame. The head also holds strings to make it feasible to play with
[5]. All of these parts are shown in figure 1 below.

c a

Figure 1: Badminton racket - a) frame, b) head, c) shaft, d) handle and e) strings.

1.3. Materials in a Badminton Racket Frame

The following are the materials chosen to be included in this material selection process using
ELECTRE I method.

1.3.1. Carbon Fibre Carbon fibre is made from organic fibre classics carbonization and graphitization
processing. Carbon fibre consists of carbon that is 90% higher than that of inorganic polymer,
consisting of 99% carbon graphite fibre [6].

2
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

1.3.2. Boron Fibre Boron fibre is a wire of tungsten with elemental boron deposited during a reaction
of boron trichloride and hydrogen gas at 800°C to 2,000°C. Boron fibre is so stiff and strong that it has
been used to patch across the fuselage of jet fighter aircraft to hold the wings on [7].

1.3.3. Aluminium Primary aluminium is aluminium tapped from electrolytic cells or pots during the
electrolytic reduction of metallurgical alumina (aluminium oxide – Al2O3). It thus excludes alloying
additives and recycled aluminium. [8].

1.3.4. Carbon Steel Carbon steel is the most extensively used materials in the industry. This material is
very strong and holds shape memory well, making it ideal for springs and wire. Carbon steel is a
composite comprising of iron and carbon [9].

1.3.5. Nickel Titanium Nickel titanium (NiTi) is a combination of two different metals which are
nickel and titanium metals, where these elements have the same percentage of atoms. Nickel titanium
was developed 40 years ago in the Naval Ordnance Laboratory (NOL) in Silver Springs, Maryland
thus creating the acronym NiTiNOL, which is used worldwide for this special type of alloy [10].

1.3.6. Titanium Alloy Titanium alloys are widely used in the engineering field, namely in the
aerospace, automotive and biomedical parts, because of their high specific strength and exceptional
corrosion resistance [11].

1.4. Sustainable Manufacturing

Sustainable manufacturing has been adulated as of late for its huge advantages coordinated at triple
main concern factors (social, economy, and financial), but the majority of manufacturing strategies
remain limited to either one or two factors. No dependable rules exist to ensure the fruitful usage of
feasible assembling; accessible writing neglects to investigate such an unpredictable research theme
[12].

1.5. Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE)

Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality or ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la
REalité (ELECTRE) methods have a variety of methods such as of ELECTRE have been produced
including ELECTRE I, II, III, IV and TRI. All of these techniques are the same, but different in terms
of operation. Each technique based on the same basic concept but its operation is different. The
important thing of ELECTRE approach is the utilization of the idea of outranking relationship [13]
ELECTRE I is to determine higher-degree relations between exclusive bid schemes, thru
accordance and disaccord examine, and seek for the non-inferior scheme subset unceasingly, in the
end, decide the first-class bid scheme. This approach considered the actual situation and the fee
preference of creation units and overcame the supplementary state of affairs among evaluative
indicators, and it's going to offer a brand-new approach foundation for the selection-makers [14].

2. Methodology

2.1. Material Properties (Criteria) and Sub Criteria Identification

The material properties or criteria and its sub criteria were chosen based on the function or usage of
the badminton racket frame. Its function includes game playing, storing at home or travelling with in
transports. These provide clues as to which criteria and sub criteria to choose from and applied in the
calculations of ELECTRE I.

2.1.1. Mechanical Properties This was chosen with the sub criteria of Ultimate Tensile Strength
(Mpa), Elastic Modulus (Gpa), Poisson’s Ratio and Rockwell Hardness in mind, all relating to the
game play effect on the badminton racket frame.

3
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

2.1.2. Physical Properties The following sub criteria was identified with game play, storing and travel
use in mind - Density (g/cm3), Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K), Melting Point ( ) and Hardness
(Mpa).

2.1.3. Chemical Properties The sub criteria of Corrosion Resistant, Heat of Combustion (kJ/kg) and
Wear Resistance are more into the storing and travel usage in mind.

2.1.4. Environmental Properties These sub criteria are critical as it is related to the sustainable
manufacturing of this product, and it is the following: Energy Content (MJ/kg), CO2 Emission (g) and
Flammability.

2.2. ELECTRE I
The ELECTRE I technique is basically connected to the treatment of discrete options esteemed
quantitatively, to a fractional appointment of choices. The point is to isolate from the entire of the
choices the ones that are favoured on most of the assessment criteria and which don’t bring about
inadmissible level of discontent on other criteria.
The establishment of a relation of preference R makes the comparison between alternatives not
necessarily transitive. For example: a1, a2 and a3 are the different alternatives. If a1 R a2, it means
that a1 is preferable to a2. However, if a2 R a3 does not mean that a1 R a3. So, in the determination of
the relation of preference R, the concept of agreement and disagreement are very important to making
a good decision.
The agreement between two alternatives, i and j, represent the will of the decision maker in
choosing alternative i over alternative j. The agreement calculation { } represents the
set of n criteria evaluation, and { } represent the set of weights associated to n
criteria. These weights are determined by the judgment of value of the decision maker.
The following notation is used:

2.2.1. Index of Agreement & Index of Disagreement The index of agreement may be understood as a
pondered percentage of the calibre to which the alternative i is preferred to alternative j. By definition,
( ) It is convenient to present the indexes of agreement in an agreement matrix, , where
( ) is the element of row and column . The index of agreement is meant as:

( )
( )
( )

This is whereby ( , ) are component of matrix C that can be structured with component of row
and column . is the positive weightage which follow the rule of Index of Agreement, is the
equal weightage and is the negative weightage which do not follow the rule of Index of
Agreement.

The meaning of disagreement is complementary to the one of agreement and represents the
discomfort experienced in the choosing of alternative i above alternative j. In the order to calculate the
index of disagreement it is meaning a numerical scale common to all calibre. This scale is used to
compare of make a different the discomfort, to combine with all calibre, cause by the choosing of
alternative i instead of alternative j. By these considerations, the index of disagreement is meant as:

( ) ( )
( )

4
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

This is whereby ( , ) is the component of matrix that can be structured with component of row
and column , ( , ) is the evaluation of option , based on the numerical scale of model , and
is the higher prevalent value of numerical scales.
Where ( ) is the evaluation of alternative , according to the numerical scale of the criterion ,
and is the highest superior value of the numerical scales. A disagreement matrix can be
formation, where ( ) is the element of row and column for .
The connection of preference is meaning when organize which by the Decision Maker as far as
values ( ), between zero and one, so as alternative is contrived to a if and only if the ( )
and ( ) . (usually and )

2.2.2. ELECTRE Graph and Kernel’s Determination Inside this graph, every node or hub is shown as
a circled number. Every node compares to a choice. For example, there are 4 choices or option in the
set. The arrows exuding from the nodes are called coordinated ways and compare to an outranking
connection. Here option number 4 outranks 1, 2 and 3, and 1 outranks 2. The bit of the diagram in this
way comprises of four options and is the subset of non-overwhelmed options which the ELECTRE I
method characterizes.
In the ELECTRE I method, the set of alternatives in consideration is reduced by determining of a
subset denominated as Kernel, K, and defined by:
a) No system in K dominates another system in also in K
b) Each system outside Kernel is dominated by at least in K
Kernel contains the good fine system based in R. The systems outside Kernel are eliminated from
future considerations. The connections developed by ELECTRE I for this situation can be promptly
communicated as a diagram such as in figure 2 below, knowing that by applying Kernel’s
Determination, option number 4 is dominant and chosen.

Figure 2: The ELECTRE graph

3. Results

3.1. Material Properties (Criteria) and Sub Criteria Value Identification

The values of all sub criteria was searched and identified from sources such as handbooks and material
yearly reports to get the value usually used for these sub criteria towards the materials chosen.

3.1.1. Mechanical Properties Values Table 1 below shows the Mechanical Properties’ sub criteria
values.

Table 1: Mechanical properties values.

Materials
Criteria Sub Criteria High Titanium
Carbon Boron Aluminium Nickel
Carbon Alloy 6Al-
Fibre Fibre Alloy 7000 Titanium 60
Steel 4V
Mechanical Ultimate 4127 3500 600 1750 1172 950

5
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

Properties Tensile Strength

(Mpa)
Elastic Modulus 300 40 79 210 110 113.8
(Gpa)
Poisson’s Ratio 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34
Rockwell
57 40 49.8 70 62 36
Hardness (HR)

3.1.2. Physical Properties Values Table 2 below shows the Physical Properties’ sub criteria values.

Table 2: Physical properties values.

Materials
Criteria Sub Criteria High Titanium
Carbon Boron Aluminium Nickel
Carbon Alloy 6Al-
Fibre Fibre Alloy 7000 Titanium 60
Steel 4V
Density ( ) 2.22 2.57 2.82 7.85 6.45 4.43
Thermal
Physical Conductivity 24 45 180 52 18 7.1
Properties (W/m-K)
Melting Point ( ) 3550 2040 654 1400 1310 1605
Hardness (Mpa) 680 550 60 164 667 3370

3.1.3. Chemical Properties Values Table 3 below shows the Physical Properties’ sub criteria values.

Table 3: Chemical properties values.

Materials
Criteria Sub Criteria High Nickel Titanium
Carbon Aluminium
Boron Fibre Carbon Titanium Alloy 6Al-
Fibre Alloy 7000
Steel 60 4V
Corrosion Resistant 5 4 4 4 4 5
(1=Poor/
5=Excellent)
Chemical Heat of Combustion 3463 507 3098 715 378 425
Properties (kJ/kg)
Wear 4 3 3 3 4 3
Resistance (1=Poor
5=Excellent)

3.1.4. Environmental Properties Values Table 4 below shows the Environmental Properties’ sub
criteria values.
Table 4: Environmental properties values.
Materials
Criteria Sub Criteria High Titanium
Carbon Boron Aluminium Nickel
Carbon Alloy 6Al-
Fibre Fibre Alloy 7000 Titanium 60
Steel 4V
Energy Content 103 200 42.5 9.8 0.77 750
(MJ/kg)
CO2 Emission 44.0 15x 600 4.0 2.2x 5.2
Chemical
(g)
Properties
Flammability 3 4 5 4 5 5
(1=Poor
5=Excellent)

6
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

3.2. ELECTRE I Calculations

For the next step, the calculations of ELECTRE I will be applied and only the Mechanical Properties
values will be shown.

3.2.1. Index of Agreement and Index of Disagreement for Mechanical Properties

The first step is to calculate the Index of Agreement. For this step, decide on a weightage for each sub
criteria based on the Decision Maker’s Preferences: Ultimate Tensile Strength is 5, Elastic Modulus is
3, and the values for Poisson’s Ratio and Rockwell Hardness are 1. All values used must be enough
and no more than 10. Table 5 below shows the weights attributed to all sub criteria of mechanical
criteria.
Table 5: Weightage of the sub criteria in the mechanical properties criteria.
Sub Criteria Weightage
Ultimate Tensile Strength 5
Elastic Modulus 3
Poisson’s Ratio 1
Rockwell Hardness 1
Total Weightage 10

Each sub-criterion should have its own rank and code values. For these mechanical criteria, each
sub criterion has six fractional value levels. For the Ultimate Tensile Strength sub criteria, the values
of level used are divided are into: than 4100 for code A, range from 3501 to 4100 for code B, 1800 to
3500 for code C, 1200 to 1799 for code D, 701 to 1199 for code E and 0 to 700 for code F. For the
Elastic Modulus sub criteria, the values of level used are divided into: more than 250 for code G, range
from 200 to 250 for code H, 150 to 199 for code I, 100 to 149 for code J, 50 to 99 for code K and 0 to
49 for code L. As for Poisson’s Ratio sub criteria, it is also divided into six (6) values of sub criteria
which are: more than 0.35 for code M, range 0.29 to 0.35 for code N, 0.23 to 0.28 for code O, 0.17 to
0.22 for code P, 0.11 to 0.16 for code Q and 0 to 0.10 for code R. And last of the sub criteria of
mechanical properties is Rockwell Hardness, it is divided into: more than 70 for code S, range from
58 to 69 for code T, 46 to 57 for code U, 35 to 45 for code V, 23 to 34 for code W and 0 to 22 for code
X. All of these data are shown in table 6 below.

Table 6: The levels and codes of sub criteria in mechanical properties criteria

Sub Criteria Level Code

>4100 A
3501-4100 B
Ultimate Tensile Strength 1800-3500 C
(Mpa) 1200-1799 D
701-1199 E
0-700 F
>250 G
200-250 H
150-199 I
Elastic Modulus (Gpa)
100-149 J
50-99 K
0-49 L
>0.35 M
0.29-0.35 N
Poisson’s Ratio
0.23-0.28 O
0.17-0.22 P

7
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

0.11-0.16 Q
0-0.10 R
>70 S
58-69 T
Hardness Rockwell 46-57 U
35-45 V
23-34 W
0-22 X

Next step is spread out the matrix of the material selection evaluation of the badminton racket
frame for the mechanical criteria. Each of the materials is classified to numbers as coded from 1 to 5
and as follows; (1) Carbon Fibre, (2) Boron Fibre, (3) Aluminium Alloy 7000 series, (4) High Carbon
Steel, (5) Nickel Titanium 60, and (6) Titanium Alloy 6Al-4V. The table 7 below shows the matrix of
material selection of the badminton racket frame for the Mechanical Properties criteria.

Table 7: Matrix of the material selection evaluation for mechanical properties criteria.
Material
Sub-criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6
Ultimate Tensile
A B E C D E
Strength (Mpa)
Elastic Modulus (Gpa) G L K H I J

Poisson’s Ratio N O N N N N

Rockwell Hardness T V T S T V

Now, the calculation can be with done for index of agreement. Below shows an example of
calculation for Index of Agreement for Mechanical Properties between material 1 and 2.

( ) ( )

Do this for all possible materials contradictions for which every answer is then combined in a
matrix form, for it to become the Index of Agreement for Mechanical Properties, as below.

𝐶(𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠)
4
4 4

Next, make the calculations Index of Disagreement for Mechanical Criteria. For Index of
Disagreement, use the Decision Maker’s Preferences of Numerical Scale Value. Decide the Numerical
Scale Value for each sub criteria of Mechanical Criteria. The maximum Value of Numerical Scale is
100. Decide the Numerical Values on each sub criteria. The sub criteria’s numerical values: Ultimate
Tensile Strength is 100, Elastic Modulus is 70, Poisson’s Ratio is 50 and the Rockwell Hardness value
is 40, as shown in table 8 on the next page

8
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

Table 8: Maximum values of numerical scales in the mechanical properties criteria.

Sub Criteria Numerical Scale Value

Ultimate Tensile Strength (Mpa) 100

Elastic Modulus (Gpa) 70

Poisson’s Ratio 50

Hardness Rockwell 40

Then, arrange and determine the codes and Numerical Scale Value for Index of Disagreement for
each Numerical Scale Value of criteria as in table 9.

Table 9: Values determined for the Index of Disagreement in the mechanical properties.
Numerical
Sub Criteria Code
Scale Value
100 A
83 B
66 C
Ultimate Tensile Strength (Mpa) 49 D
32 E
15 F
70 G
59 H
48 I
Elastic Modulus (Gpa)
37 J
26 K
15 L
50 M
42 N
34 O
Poisson’s Ratio
26 P
18 Q
10 R
40 S
33.5 T
27 U
Hardness Rockwell
20.5 V
14 W
7.5 X

Then, calculate all sub criteria for the Index of Disagreement for Mechanical Properties. For this
calculation, use the same Matrix of the Material Selection Evaluation on table 7 for reference.
Calculate each sub criteria one by one and then compile all the data in four (4) different matrices
which are; Matrix D for Ultimate Tensile Strength sub criteria, Matrix D for Elastic Modulus sub
criteria, Matrix D for Poisson’s Ratio sub criteria and Matrix D for Rockwell Hardness. The
calculation of sub criteria for Ultimate Tensile Strength between material 2 and 1 is shown below. If a
negative (-) value was calculated, automatically it will become a zero value.

( )
( ) 8

9
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

In this step, determine the calculations in the Index of Disagreement for all four (4) sub criteria.

8 4
4
𝐷(𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)
4
8 4

𝐷(𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠)
4
4

𝐷(𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛′𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜)

𝐷(𝐻𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙)
4

Make comparison and combine all sub criteria by maintaining the highest value only. Below shows
the matrix form for all sub criteria of Mechanical Properties.

8 4
4
𝐷(𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎)
4
4 4
4 4

Then, compare between the Index of Agreement (matrix C) and Index of Disagreement (matrix D).
To make comparison, find the correlation using the rules. Below show the rules for comparison.

( ) ℎ (for Index of Agreement)

( ) ℎ (for Index of Disagreement)

From the matrices, value for the index of agreement must be 0.75 and above. Meanwhile, the value
of disagreement must be 0.20 and below.
8

𝐶(𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎)
4
4 4

10
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

8 4
4
𝐷(𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎)
4
4 4
4 4

From this matrix, the values highlighted have been determined to comply with the rules set
previously. Then, determine the same row and column to get the chosen materials contradictions from
Matrix C and Matrix D. From these matrices, the materials that coincides are (1, 2), (1, 3), (1, 4), (1,
5), (3, 2) and (3, 6).

3.2.2. ELECTRE Graph for Mechanical Properties From the matrices, the indices identified for both
sets are (1, 2), (1, 3), (1, 4), (1, 5), (3, 2) and (3, 6). ELECTRE graph can be constructed with using the
chosen matrices. Figure 3 below shows the ELECTRE graph for Mechanical Properties criteria.

Figure 3: ELECTRE graph for mechanical properties criteria.

3.2.3. Kernel’s Determination for Mechanical Properties Criteria The Kernel’s Determination can be
done by selecting the dominant node. From figure 3 above, only node number 1 satisfies this
condition. From this graph, the material to be considered is material 1. So, the best material to be
chosen for a badminton racket frame based on Mechanical Properties criteria is material 1 which is
Carbon Fibre.

3.2.4. Repetition of Calculations The procedure from subsubsections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 was repeated to get
the dominant material to be chosen for Physical Properties, Chemical Properties and Environmental
Properties criteria. The final ELECTRE graphs for all these criteria are shown below.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4: ELECTRE graph of a) physical properties, b) chemical properties and c) environmental

properties criteria.

11
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

4. Discussion

4.1. Materials, Criteria and Sub Criteria Identifications

For this research, the chosen materials were the ones usually used as for now. Due to data restrictions
from the industry and other sources, the criteria and sub criteria chosen was the ones that can get hold
of. Some of them are the ones that are useful. Some has been changed to become a numerical data as it
is more considerate to categorize them.

4.2. Applications
The method used, which was ELECTRE, can be applied in the industry of badminton racket frame
production. Materials with the best characteristics can be identified and chosen in the conceptual
design stage by using this method. From here, the customer or user can also identify which ones suit
their playing style and prepare in advanced on storage and travelling usage of the badminton rackets.

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1. Conclusion
The ELECTRE I method have chosen the dominant material of 1, which is Carbon Fibre as the
material to be used in a sustainable manufacturing practice of a badminton racket frame. This is
because it became dominant in Mechanical, Chemical and Environmental Properties criteria, with only
the Physical Properties criteria not able to be dominant.

5.2 Recommendation
Industrial data sharing is a must to get the best materials, criteria and subcriteria to be used as part of
the ELECTRE I calculations, whereby the locations of the production factories are all outside of
Malaysia. This is to get the most accurate dominant material in a material selection process of a
sustainable manufacturing practice of a badminton racket frame, and maybe more of the other parts
too.

6. Acknowledgments
Authors wished to acknowledge assistance and support from Universiti Malaysia Perlis by giving out a
Short Term Grant (9001-00518) to complete this research.

7. References

[1] Muller M, Senner V and Lindemann U 2007 Specific characteristics of sports equipment Proc.
Int. Conf. on Eng. Des. (ICED ’07) (Paris)
[2] Nasruddin F A, Syahrom A, Harun M N, Abdul Kadir M R and Omar A H 2014 Finite-element
study on effect of string tension toward coefficient of restitution of a badminton racket string-
bed Adv. Mater. Res. 845 417-420
[3] Ashby M F 2005 Materials Selection in Mechanical Design (Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann)
[4] Quadrennial Technology Review: An Assessment of Energy Technologies and Research
Opportunities 2015 Chapter 6: Innovating Clean Energy Technologies in Advanced
Manufacturing
[5] Nasruddin F A, Syahrom A, Harun M N, Abdul Kadir M R, Omar A H and Öchsner A 2016
Finite Element Analysis on Badminton Racket Design Parameters ed H Altenbach et al
(SpringerBriefs in Computational Mechanics) chapter 1 pp 1–14
[6] Zhang D, Liu H and Sun L 2015 Dynamic Analysis of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Wood
Composites Based on Finite Element Model BioResources 11(1)

12
ICoTSM IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1020 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012012 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1020/1/012012

[7] Kostick D S 2007 U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook-2006: Boron (U.S. Geological
Survey Publications)
[8] International Aluminium Institute 2015 Primary Aluminium Production Reporting Guidelines
(London)
[9] Popović O, Prokić-Cvetković R, Sedmak A, Grabulov V, Burzić Z, Rakin M 2010
Characterisation of high-carbon steel surface welded layer Strojniški vestnik – J. of Mech. Eng.
56(5) 295-300
[10] Ferreira M D A, Luersen M A and Borges P C 2012 Nickel-titanium alloys: A systematic
review Dent. Press J. of Orthodontics 17(3)
[11] Veiga C, Davim J P and Loureiro A J R 2013 Review on machinability of titanium alloys: The
process perspective Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 34 148-164
[12] Madan Shankar K, Kannan D and Udhaya Kumar P 2017 Analyzing sustainable manufacturing
practices - A case study in Indian context J. of Cleaner Prod. 164 1332-43
[13] Rogers M, Bruen M and Maystre L Y 2011 ELECTRE and decision support: Methods and
applications in engineering and infrastructure investment (New York: London: Springer)
[14] Wu Y, Huang Y and Chen W 2011 Construction project bid evaluation optimization model
based on the method of ELECTRE - I Proc. 2011 IEEE 18th Int. Conf. on Ind. Eng. and Eng.
Man. (Changchun) (Beijing: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.) p 1660-63

13