Fig 1.
The proposed framework for the decision-making process.
Table 1.
Detailed information about the decision makers.
Fig 2.
The hierarchical structure of the MCDM for conveyor evaluation and selection.
Table 2.
Linguistic scale for importance.
Fig 3.
The intersection between TFNs A1 and A2.
Fig 4.
Flowchart of fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ARAS for conveyor selection.
Table 3.
The pairwise comparison matrix of the criteria with respect to the goals.
Table 4.
The pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criteria with respect to the Technical criterion.
Table 5.
The pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criteria with respect to the Cost criterion.
Table 6.
The pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criteria with respect to the Operational criterion.
Table 7.
The pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criteria with respect to the Strategic criterion.
Table 8.
The pairwise comparison matrix of sub-criteria with respect to the Ergonomic criterion.
Fig 5.
The weights of the criteria and sub-criteria determined based on the fuzzy AHP method.
Fig 6.
The total weights of the sub-criteria.
Table 9.
The total weights of the sub-criteria.
Table 10.
The linguistic terms used to evaluate the alternatives.
Table 11.
The decision-making matrix of alternatives with respect to each sub-criterion.
Table 12.
The decision-making matrix with triangular fuzzy numbers.
Table 13.
The changed decision-making matrix.
Table 14.
The normalized decision-making matrix.
Table 15.
The weighted normalized decision-making matrix.
Fig 7.
The utility degree of the alternatives.
Fig 8.
Comparative analysis of ranking between fuzzy ARAS and fuzzy TOPSIS.
Table 16.
Comparison between fuzzy ARAS and fuzzy TOPSIS.