LAUSR

Designing excellent hip implant composite material with optimal physical, mechanical and wear properties is challenging. Improper hip implant composite design may result in a premature component and product failure. Therefore, a hybrid decision-making tool was proposed to select the optimal hip implant composite according to several criteria that are probably conflicting. In varying weight proportions, a series of hip implant composite materials containing different ceramics (magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, chromium oxide, silicon nitride and aluminium oxide) were fabricated and evaluated for wear and physicomechanical properties. The density, void content, hardness, indentation depth, elastic modulus, compressive strength, wear, and fracture toughness values were used to rank the hip implant composites. It was found that the density and void content of the biocomposites remain in the range of 3.920–4.307 g/cm3 and 0.0021–0.0089%, respectively. The composite without zirconium oxide exhibits the lowest density (3.920 g/cm3), while the void content remains lowest for the composite having no chromium oxide content. The highest values of hardness (28.81 GPa), elastic modulus (291 GPa) and fracture toughness (11.97 MPa.m1/2) with the lowest wear (0.0071 mm3/million cycles) were exhibited by the composites having 83 wt.% of aluminium oxide and 10 wt.% of zirconium oxide. The experimental results are compositional dependent and without any visible trend. As a result, selecting the best composites among a group of composite alternatives becomes challenging. Therefore, a hybrid AHP-MOORA based multi-criteria decision-making approach was adopted to choose the best composite alternative. The AHP (analytic hierarchy process) was used to calculate the criteria weight, and MOORA (multiple objective optimisation on the basis of ratio analysis) was used to rank the composites. The outcomes revealed that the hip implant composite with 83 wt.% aluminium oxide, 10 wt.% zirconium oxide, 5 wt.% silicon nitride, 3 wt.% magnesium oxide, and 1.5 wt.% chromium oxide had the best qualities. Finally, sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the ranking’s robustness and stability concerning the criterion weight.