Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Selection of Optimal Material from Stir Cast Aluminum Graphene Nano Platelets Composites for Aerospace Applications

Written By

Bhanu Prakash Palampalle, Babu Dharmalingam and Devika Royal

Submitted: 05 July 2021 Reviewed: 16 September 2021 Published: 25 October 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.100478

From the Edited Volume

Aluminium Alloys - Design and Development of Innovative Alloys, Manufacturing Processes and Applications

Edited by Giulio Timelli

Chapter metrics overview

219 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Qualitative and quantitative requirements when selecting materials for different properties can be difficult and ambiguous. An insufficient variety of materials can lead to component malfunction and failure at any point during their service. Owing to the vast availability of dissimilar materials, material selection in the engineering design phase is difficult and elusive. This study presents an EDAS (Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution) and VIKOR (VIse Kriterijumska Optimizacijakompromisno Resenje) techniques for effective material selection for aviation applications. In this research, the selection index value was calculated using the EDAS and VIKOR entropy-based weight techniques. The MADM (multi-attribute decision making) procedure also selects the best weight per cent combination among pure aluminum reinforced with GNPs (graphene nanoplatelets) for aircraft applications based on its physical and mechanical properties. The results demonstrate that 0.5 wt% GNPs reinforced in pure aluminum has the best combination of both physical and mechanical qualities, according to the EDAS and VIKOR multi-criteria decision-making methodologies. The composites were made using the stir casting technique. MATLAB R2020a is used to grade and compare the composite materials.


  • pure aluminum
  • multi-attribute decision making
  • graphene nanoplatelets
  • EDAS
  • MATLAB R2020a

1. Introduction

Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites are favored over other conventional materials in aerospace, automotive, and marine applications because of improved properties such as high strength-to-weight ratio, good wear resistance, and so on. Graphene’s mechanical, physical, optical, and thermal properties make it an outstanding metal composite reinforcement material. Pure aluminum graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) were reinforced in a base matrix (pure Al) with different weight percentages to form aluminum metal matrix composites using stir casting [1, 2] powder metallurgy [3] and other techniques. The uniform distribution of graphene nanoplatelets [4, 5] in the aluminum matrix improves mechanical properties significantly. Stephen et al. [6] discovered that graphene-aluminum nanocomposites had lower strength and stiffness than pure aluminum reinforced with multi-walled carbon nanotube composites due to the production of enhanced aluminum carbide with the graphene filler. Venkata Subbaiah et al. [7] investigated the microstructural and mechanical properties of AA7075-GNPs. In an aluminum 7075 base matrix, ultrasonic-assisted stir casting was used to produce graphene nanoplatelets varying from 0.5 to 2.0 wt%. The composite with 0.5% GNPs had the highest tensile strength and microhardness due to the less porosity and uniform distribution of GNPs in the AA7075 matrix. According to Bhanu Prakash et al. [8], the microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminum 7075 graphene nanoplatelets ranged from 0.50 to 2 wt% in base matrix fabricated using the stir casting technique. In comparison with other weight percentages, AA 7075–1.5% GNPs provided the composite with better mechanical properties. Due to the graphene’s uniform distribution with the base metal, Muhammed Emre Turan et al. [9] discovered that adding graphene to pure magnesium in different weight proportions improved hardness values. Xin Gao et al. [10] stress the contents of graphene reinforced with base minerals. The effect of graphene on the tensile strength of the prepared composites increases by 0.3 wt% as the graphene content increases. As the proportion of graphene in the composite increases, the tensile strength and percentage of elongation to fracturing decrease. A systematic approach to GNP composites’ selection is necessary to choose the best material for a given application. The correct material selection technique entails precisely describing the application requirement in terms of mechanical properties, primarily for the utility class defined in the proposed application. Various researchers have used MADM methods such as VIKOR, EDAS, WSM PROMETHE, and TOPSIS to select the best material for specific applications in a range of fields such as automotive [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16], marine [17, 18], medical [19], and agriculture [20, 21, 22]. The VIKOR method outperformed the other 10 most common methods for selecting suitable materials for a sailing boat mast, a flywheel, and a cryogenic storage tank, according to the author [23]. The optimal material, according to the researcher [24], is solely determined by the criterion’s maximum priority value. The most conclusive of the three MCDM methods is VIKOR (TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE). Caliskan et al. [25] rated the materials using the PROMETHEE II, TOPSIS, and VIKOR methods and compared the results obtained by each process. Tungsten carbide-cobalt and Fe-5Cr-Mo-V aircraft steel were found to be the best materials for tool holder production. A new version of the VIKOR method, based on criteria for selecting the best material, particularly in the biomedical field, was proposed by Jahan et al. [26]


2. Problem description and experimental details

In this research, the best material for aircraft application was chosen from five options of aluminum graphene nanoplatelet composites. Figure 1 depicts the beneficial and non-beneficial criteria. MADM’s EDAS and VIKOR methods are used to choose the right option. Procedural steps for criterion methods are represented in Figure 2.

Figure 1.

Beneficial and non-beneficial criterion.

Figure 2.

Applied steps for EDAS and VIKOR.

2.1 Composite fabrication

Stir casting has been used for the manufacturing of pure aluminum GNPs composites because it has a lower initial cost than other fabrication techniques. The author detailed the manufacturing of Al-GNPs composites in his prior work [1]. Mechanical stirring was used to distribute the reinforcing phases in the molten matrix metal during the fabrication process. Table 1 displays the matrix and reinforcing materials used in the composite fabrication process.

Sl. no.Matrix materialsReinforcementsSize of reinforcements
1Pure aluminum (99.5%)GNPs (0.5–2.0 wt.%)2–10 nm

Table 1.

Material and reinforcement for composite fabrication.

2.2 Characterization of a composite of pure aluminum and graphene nanoplatelets

Physical and mechanical tests on the fabricated composite were used to classify the pure aluminum GNPs composite. These experiments were carried out on well-prepared specimens prepared according to ASTM Standards such as ASTM E8 & ASTM A370 for Tensile Test and Impact test, to investigate the impact of reinforcements in pure aluminum for aircraft applications.


3. Decision methods

A multi-attribute decision-making problem is represented by a matrix X, which contains n alternatives and m criteria.


where Xij is the ith alternative’s output on the jth criterion. In MADM methods, the weight value (wj) for each criterion must be determined such that the number of all criterion weights equals to one. The entropy approach is used to calculate these weights.

3.1 Evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) method

The EDAS method is a distance-based technique that employs positive and negative distances from the average solution. The options are listed in ascending order. The procedural steps for n alternative composite and m parameters suggested [27, 28] are as follows:

LetXnmbethe decisionmaking matrixE2

Step 1. The average solution (AVj).


Step 2. The positive distance from average (PDA) for beneficial and non-beneficial criterion.

Ifjthcriterion is beneficial,PDAij=max0XijAVjAVjAnd ifjthcriterion is nonbeneficial,PDAij=max0AVjXijAVjE4

Step 3. The negative distance from average (NDA) for beneficial and non-beneficial criterion.

Ifjthcriterion is beneficial,NDAij=max0(AVjXij)AVjAnd ifjthcriterion is nonbeneficial,NDAij=max0(XijAVj)AVjE5

Step 4.Eq. (6) calculates the positive and the negative weighted sums.


Wj = weight of jth criterion.

Step 5. Normalized values of SPi and SNi.


Step 6. The appraisal score (ASi) for all alternatives is calculated using Eqs. (8) and (9).


Where 0 ≤ ASi ≤ 1.

The alternative with the outstanding appraisal score is chosen as the best, among the other selective alternatives.

3.2 VIse Kriterijumska Optimizacija kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method

According to the VIKOR technique given by Rao [29] and Chatterjee et al. [30] for material selection, the compromise may be common for resolving the dispute, and the practicable option may be nearest to the ideal solution. The options are primarily assessed based on all of the characteristics taken into account.

Step 1. Determine the decisive criteria and select the best alternatives based on those criteria.

Step 1: (a) In the decision matrix, determine the best, (xij) max and the worst, (xij) min values of all the criteria.


Step 2: Compute the values of utility measure (Si) and regret measure (Ri).


Step 3: Find the values of S*, S, R*, R.


Step 4. Compute the value of Q  i for j = 1, 2, …, m.


The alternatives are ranked in the ascending order for the Q  i values. The one having the lower value of Q  i is considered as the best alternative.


4. Results and discussions

Table 2 displays the decision matrix for the pure aluminum graphene nanoplatelets (GNP’s) composites, which contains five alternatives and five parameters (1 & 2). The entropy method was used to calculate the objective weights, which are described in Table 3. MATLAB R2020a software was used to create a programme that used the formulae for the methods (EDAS and VIKOR) to determine performance measures. The entropy methods are used to measure the weights of different parameters such as mass, percentage elongation, tensile strength (TS), hardness, and impact strength (IS). The material that is used for fuselage construction is of lightweight and good strength and is more corrosion resistant. An attempt was made by developing an alternative material to serve the purpose.

4.1 Evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) method

Table 1 decision matrix displays the average solution (AVj) determined using Eq. (3). Eqs. (4) and (5) were used to quantify positive and negative distances based on the types of beneficial and non-beneficial parameters mentioned in Tables 4 and 5. Eqs. (6) and (7) are used to measure the positive and negative weighted sums (7). Eqs. (8) and (9) are used to measure the normalized positive and negative weighted sums (9). Eq. (10) is used to measure the final assessment score (ASi) for all alternatives, as shown in Table 6. 5-1-2-3-4 is the ranking of alternative composite materials. The best composite for the fuselage in aircraft applications is pure aluminum reinforced with 0.5wt% GNP, though pure aluminum is the least favored.

S. noAl + wt.% GNPsDensity(g/cc)% ElongationUTS (MPa)Micro-hardnessImpact strength(kJ/m2)
1Pure Al2.68387725127
2Pure Al + 0.52.68648856850
3Pure Al + 1.02.68568544775
4Pure Al + 1.52.68387738750
5Pure Al + 2.02.68356535735

Table 2.

Decision matrix.

WeightDensity%ElongationUTSMicro-hardnessImpact strength

Table 3.

Entropy weights of criteria.

Based on the Entropy method, weights were calculated and used for criterion selection.

S. noAl + GNP wt%Density% ElongationUTSHardnessIS
1Pure Al00000
2Pure Al + 0.50.000670.389770.125730.419890.31311
3Pure Al + 1.00.000670.216250.080640.10340.19725
4Pure Al + 1.50.000670000.15863
5Pure Al + 2.00.000670000.13546

Table 4.

(PDA) positive distance from average.

S. noAl + Wt.%GNPDensity% ElongationUTSMicro-hardnessImpact strength
1Pure Al0.002680.181760.018060.367020.80445
2Pure Al + 0.500000
3Pure Al + 1.000000
4Pure Al + 1.500.181760.018060.034840
5Pure Al + 2.000.242510.170250.121430

Table 5.

(NDA) negative distance from average.

S. noAl + wt% GNPSPiSNiNSPiNSNiASiRank
1Pure Al0.0000000.5955970005
2Pure Al + 0.50.3403590.0000001111
3Pure Al + 1.00.1799260.0000000.5286410.764322
4Pure Al + 1.50.0979700.0378580.287840.936440.612143
5Pure Al + 2.00.0836580.0684560.245790.885060.565434

Table 6.

Normalized positive and negative weighted sums, appraisal scores, and rank of alternatives.

4.2 VIse Kriterijumska OptimizacijaKompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method

The related utility and regret measures, as well as Qi values for the five alternative composite materials and the parameters, are determined using Eqs. (13)(17), as shown in Table 7 (taking N = 0.5). Table 8 shows the best and worst values for the beneficial and non-beneficial criteria measured using Eqs. (11) and (12). The ranks of alternative composite materials are 5-1-2-3-4. The first place winner is pure aluminum reinforced with 0.5 wt% GNPs. VIKOR is more beneficial compared to EDAS, though the results are comparatively same. All the expressions were objective with respective to VIKOR to EDAS.

S. noAl + wt% GNPSiRiQiRank
1Pure Al0.968860.617615
2Pure Al + 0.50001
3Pure Al + 1.00.188890.073750.157182
4Pure Al + 1.50.359220.153930.313
5Pure Al + 2.00.423350.170290.356344

Table 7.

Utility and regret measure values and rank of the alternatives.

TypeDensity% ElongationUTSMicro-hardnessImpact strength
Best Xi+2.6864.07588.3956.08850
Worst Xi2.68934.92465.1525126.58

Table 8.

Best and worst of criterion.


5. Conclusion

The EDAS and VIKOR methods were used in this research to assist in the selection of the best alternative composite material for aircraft applications. The study was performed on pure aluminum graphene nanoplatelets composites manufactured using the stir casting technique. As shown in Figure 3, decision-making using EDAS and VIKOR methodology using MATLAB R2020a shows that out of the five alternatives, alternative 2 (pure Al + 0.5 wt% GNP) is the best suitable material for fuselage construction in the aerospace industry.

Figure 3.

Comparison of ranks.



Xi+, Xi−ideal best and worst solutions
SPI, SNipositive and negative weighted sums
NSPI, NSNinormalized weighted sums
ASiappraisal score
MADMmulti-attribute decision making
AHPanalytical hierarchy process
TOPSISTechnique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
VIKORVIse Kriterijumska OptimizacijaKompromisno Resenje
EDASEvaluation based on Distance from Average Solution
PROMETHEEPreference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation
ELECTREELimination and Choice Expressing REality
UTSultimate tensile strength
ISimpact strength
GNPsgraphene nanoplatelets


  1. 1. Subbaiah V et al. Microstructural analysis and mechanical properties of pure Al–GNPs composites by stir casting method. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series C. 2019;100:493-500. DOI: 10.1007/s40032-018-0491-1
  2. 2. Venkatesan S et al. Mechanical behaviour of aluminium metal matrix composite reinforced with graphene particulate by stir casting method. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017;1:55-59
  3. 3. Rashad M et al. Investigation on micro structural, mechanical and electro chemical properties of aluminium composites reinforced with graphene nano platelets. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International. 2015;25:460-470
  4. 4. Yolshina LA et al. Enhancement of the mechanical properties of aluminium–graphene composites. American Institute of Physics. 2016;1785:040093
  5. 5. Shin SE et al. Deformation behaviour of aluminium alloy matrix composites reinforced with few-layer graphene. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 2015;78:42-47
  6. 6. Bartolucci SF et al. Graphene–aluminium nano composites. Materials Science and Engineering A. 2011;528:7933-7937
  7. 7. Subbaiah KV et al. Microstructural analysis and mechanical behaviour of aluminium-GNPs composites fabricated by ultrasonic assisted stir casting technique. IJMPERD. 2018;8(8):385-392. ISSN (P): 2249-6890; ISSN (E): 2249-8001
  8. 8. Prakash PB et al. Microstructure analysis and evaluation of mechanical properties of Al 7075 GNP’s composites. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2018;5:14281-14291
  9. 9. Turan ME et al. The effect of GNPs on wear and corrosion behaviours of pure magnesium. Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 2017;724:14-23
  10. 10. Gao X et al. Preparation and tensile properties of homogeneously dispersed graphene reinforced aluminium matrix composites. Materials and Design. 2016;94:54-60
  11. 11. Dev S, Aherwar A, Patnaik A. Material selection for automotive piston component using entropy-VIKOR method. Silicon. 2019;12(1):155-169
  12. 12. Moradian M, Modanloo V, Aghaiee S. Comparative analysis of multi criteria decision making techniques for material selection of brake booster valve body. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. 2019;6(5):526-534
  13. 13. Sen B, Bhattacharjee P, Mandal U. A comparative study of some prominent multi criteria decision making methods for connecting rod material selection. Perspectives on Science. 2016;8:547-549
  14. 14. Giorgetti A, Cavallini C, Arcidiacono G, Citti P. A mixed C-VIKOR fuzzy approach for material selection during design phase: A case study in valve seats for high performance engine. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. 2017;12(12):3117-3129
  15. 15. Sasanka CT, Ravindra K. Implementation of VIKOR method for selection of magnesium alloy to suit automotive applications. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 2015;83(5):49-58
  16. 16. Girubha RJ, Vinodh S. Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component. Materials and Design. 2012;37:478-486
  17. 17. Gangwar S, Arya P, Pathak VK. Optimal material selection for ship body based on fabricated zirconium dioxide/silicon carbide filled aluminium hybrid metal alloy composites using novel fuzzy based preference selection index. Silicon. 2021;13:2545-2562. DOI: 10.1007/s12633-020-00600-4
  18. 18. Yadav S, Pathak VK, Gangwar S. A novel hybrid TOPSIS-PSI approach for material selection in marine application. Sådhanå. 2019;44(58):1-12
  19. 19. Bahraminasab M and Jahan A Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR Materials and Design. September 2011;32(8–9):4471-4477. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.046
  20. 20. Sudha AS. Application of EDAS method on water requirement in agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. 2019;8(12):558-561
  21. 21. Sowmya Dhanalakshmi C, Madhu P, Karthick A, Mathew M, Kumar RV. A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS and EDAS as an auxiliary tool for pyrolysis material selection and its application. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-020-01009-0, ISSN: 2190-6815
  22. 22. Mitta A. Selection of cotton fabrics using EDAS method. Journal of Natural Fibers. 2020:1-13. DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2020.1821289
  23. 23. Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Material selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A comparative study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications. 2012;226(4):266-285. DOI: 10.1177/1464420712448979
  24. 24. Chakraborty S, Chatterjee P. Selection of materials using multi-criteri decision making methods with minimum data. Decision Science Letters. 2013;2(3):135-148
  25. 25. Çalıskan H, Kursuncu B, Kurbanoğlu C, Güven SY. Material selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions using different multi criteria decision making methods. Materials and Design. 2013;45:473-479
  26. 26. Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail M, Sapuan S, Bahraminasab M. A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Materials and Design. 2011;32:1215-1221
  27. 27. Chatterjee P, Banerjee A, Mondal S, Boral S, Chakraborty S. Development of a hybrid meta-model for material selection using design of experiments and EDAS method. Engineering Transactions. 2018;66(2):187-207
  28. 28. Ghorabaee MK, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J. Stochastic EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. 2017;33(3):1627-1638. DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-17184
  29. 29. Rao RV. A decision making methodology for material selection using an improved compromise ranking method. Materials and Design. 2008;29(10):1949-1954
  30. 30. Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods. Materials and Design. 2009;30(10):4043-4053. DOI: 10.1007/s40032-018-0491-1

Written By

Bhanu Prakash Palampalle, Babu Dharmalingam and Devika Royal

Submitted: 05 July 2021 Reviewed: 16 September 2021 Published: 25 October 2021