Material Selection Method Based on Health, Reliability and Cost for Water Supply Pipe

Sattar Mutlag; Kadhum Abed; Yousif Al Mashhadany

doi:10.12688/f1000research.176577.1

Home Browse Material Selection Method Based on Health, Reliability and Cost for...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Material Selection Method Based on Health, Reliability and Cost for Water Supply Pipe

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Sattar Mutlag¹, Kadhum Abed², Yousif Al Mashhadany ³

PUBLISHED 05 Mar 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Anbar, Anbar, Iraq, Iraq
² Biomedical Engineering Research Center, University of Anbar, Ramadi, Al Anbar Governorate, Iraq
³ Biomedical Engineering Research Center,, university of anbar, Anbar, Iraq, Iraq

Sattar Mutlag
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Kadhum Abed
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Yousif Al Mashhadany
Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Fallujah Multidisciplinary Science and Innovation gateway.

Abstract

Background

This study develops an enhanced decision-making framework to support the selection of suitable non-metallic and metallic materials for water supply pipes (WSPs), with an emphasis on health safety, reliability and cost efficiency. The originality of the research lies in integrating three interdisciplinary domains—engineering, public health, and economics—within a unified material selection (MS) process. Based on user requirements and expert opinions, three key evaluation criteria for WSPs were identified: (i) safety and reliability, (ii) cost, and (iii) health and cleanliness.

Methods

The study addresses two main challenges. First, overcoming the difficulty of constructing a consistent pairwise comparison matrix in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Second, selecting an appropriate pipe material that simultaneously satisfies engineering performance, health considerations, and economic feasibility. To address the first issue, Yang’s improved paired-comparison approach was adopted using a newly designed questionnaire. Five commonly used pipe materials were evaluated: thin-walled copper, PVC-lined galvanized steel, PP-R, PVC-U, and thin-walled stainless steel. Their key characteristics were analyzed, and the materials were quantitatively optimized using the AHP method with a nine-point comparison scale.

Results

The results indicate that PP-R pipes achieved the highest overall priority weight (0.695), making them the most suitable option for water supply systems under the selected criteria. Sensitivity analysis further confirmed the robustness of the improved AHP model, as the ranking of PP-R (M4) remained stable under 10–20% variations in the weights of safety and reliability, health, and cost criteria.

Conclusions

These findings are consistent with recent improved AHP and multi-criteria decision-making studies on pipe material selection. The proposed framework provides a practical guide for decision-makers in selecting appropriate materials for water supply systems.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Material Selection, PP-R Pipe, stainless steel pipe, Water Supply Pipe.

Corresponding author: Yousif Al Mashhadany

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2026 Mutlag S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Mutlag S, Abed K and Al Mashhadany Y. Material Selection Method Based on Health, Reliability and Cost for Water Supply Pipe [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:361 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176577.1) First published: 05 Mar 2026, 15:361 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176577.1) Latest published: 05 Mar 2026, 15:361 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176577.1)

1. Introduction

The construction of infrastructure is not complete without the installation of water supply networks, which are the main components of WSSs and have a significant impact on people’s lives and employment.¹ According to,^2–4 the development WSP network can, to some extent, reflects the economic development of a nation. Since installing pipes is a necessary part of building water supply networks, knowing how to choose pipes is critical when developing a WSP network, since it represents a significant portion of the overall cost of building a pipe network.⁵ The pipe is the primary limiting factor in the WSP network, according to studies in references.^5–7

The key limiting element on the WSP network is pipe. There are several current unresolved issues related to the WSP network. Of them is: Corrosion, which is a serious issue, and secondary water quality pollution that occurs due to pipeline aging. Another issue is accumulated dirt which is even more problematic^8,9 must pay enough attention to Water Supply Pipe because the operation’s energy consumption is higher as a result of leakage in network. WSP materials must be carefully selected in order to meet the following goals: reliability of the water pipe network, affordable and reasonable cost, easy maintenance, and absence of secondary pollutants.

The Primary Issues with Water Supply Pipe that because of the rapid increase of residential WSS building in latest years,¹⁰ state, the latest trend of WSPs has diversified, and expectations for WSP performance have risen. At the time, water delivery networks in many countries are challenged by pipe breaks, corrosion, aging, and secondary contamination, which can degrade water quality and increase energy consumption.^2,4 The issue, according to,^11,12 leads to decreased water quality and increased water energy consumption, which has a significant impact on the financial advantages of customers and user water security. Given that a WSP network was not built perfectly and still has some issues, in order to save money, cut operating expenses, and maintain a stable and efficient water supply, the WSP chosen for the process of upgrading the pipe network should be guided by trustworthy quality and reasonable economic parameters.¹³

The study’s objectives focus on two problems: the AHP process and material selection. Initially, one of the difficulties in the material selection process is deciding on a particular type of metal for Water Supply Pipes (WSPs) that should integrate three scientific domains: economical, healthful, and engineering. Second, building a pairwise comparison matrix and satisfying the consistency criterion is challenging (AHP). Researchers used a new questionnaire to conduct¹⁴ proposed matched comparison.

This study contributes to the AHP-based material selection framework for potable water pipes by (i) employing a simplified questionnaire design with a structured procedure to reduce inconsistent pairwise judgments,¹³ and (ii) consolidating health, reliability, and cost criteria into a single transparent decision model. The proposed method includes health considerations for drinking water, as well as reliability and lifecycle economic suitability, making it a reproducible decision support tool for practical network planning. This is different from many previous studies on material selection that focus on economic or mechanical factors.

2. Materials and methods

Several most popular and analytical MS procedures are introduced below^5,8:

1. Performance versus cost.
2. Property Indices That Are Weighted.
3. Value Evaluation.
4. Failure Investigation.
5. Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Materials selection in mechanical design, as per Ashby’s methodology, focuses on the economic evaluation of the alternatives and entails four basic steps, which are^4,5:

1. The quick design aspirations as objectives and limitations.
2. Ranking: the identification of elements that do the job more effectively.
3. Screening: the removal of things that are ineffective for the task.
4. Additional data: list of pedigrees of top nominees.

Modern decision-making in academia and industry necessitates the equilibrium of several, frequently conflicting aims, such as quality improvement, regulatory adherence, and cost minimization.¹⁵ The difficulty is in formulating and implementing action plans to address these concerns in a climate of rapid and complicated change, limited human and financial commitment, and tight timelines. Future products will have better performance, comfort, and functionality while producing fewer emissions, harming fewer people, and costing less to produce and buy. Taking a systemic approach to the product and production is the only way to reconcile these competing objectives. Systems discipline is still not a standard operating procedure, though.^16,17

In¹⁸ looked at the related inefficiencies or variables required to enhance a method for systematic and efficient MS. The preliminary study findings and the frequency data analysis indicate several potential implications on designers’ selection of local, environmentally and friendly construction materials during the design process. They talked about using the AHP method to calculate quantitatively and choose the best alternative for construction materials. A multi- factorial methodical decision support was developed to aid designers in assessing their symbolic meanings for whether or not the MS is likely appropriate for sustainability goals. The evaluation of the social, economic, technical, sensory, and environmental implications of potential MS is a key component of the MS process.

2.1 The competitive factor of material selection (MS)

The three Cs (Customers, Change, and Competition) are the three forces influencing businesses today.¹⁹ Three factors time, cost, and quality are directly impacted by marketing and competition. The company that could win over customers by offering a superior product or service at the most competitive price would win the sale. According to Ref. [20], the two most crucial aspects of a company’s economics are cost and quality.

2.2 Commonly used pipe and its features

Pipe is a crucial component of the water distribution system, and there is a number of things to take into account when choosing pipes. Worries regarding the quality of the water comes in second, network installation and ease of maintenance comes third, and the feed water flow and pressure of the WSPs comes first, according to.^21,22

2.2.1 Metal pipe:

Corrosion phenomena, primarily chloride and sulfide deposit, can also be seen when metal pipes, including copper and thin-walled stainless steel pipes, are used. By using a protective film that can be maintained and restored for a very long period, corrosion is stopped in the surface oxidation. The PH of water has a major effect on copper pipes, as reported by,²³ if the acidity is high, corrosion will start to occur. High concentrations of dissolved oxygen and demineralized water can also cause copper to corrode, so it is best to avoid using brass in these situations. If the water’s chloride ion level is higher, which also causes austenitic stainless-steel pipes to corrode, thin-walled stainless steel pipes are a poor choice. Based on,²⁴ numerous methods exist for connecting metal pipes, each with benefits and drawbacks. Pipes must be chosen carefully, taking into account the material, wall thickness, and use scenarios. If various metal tubes or pipes are connected, due consideration should be given to the electrochemical corrosion of the pipeline.

2.2.2 Plastic pipe:

Plastic pipes generally had a higher linear expansion coefficient than metal pipes, which is another significant distinction between the two types of pipes. According to reference [18], plastic pipe deformation typically takes place in the shaft upward. Bending, typically in the horizontal direction, is the most common type of deformation, and the severity of deformity is directly connected to temperature difference. The problem must therefore be taken into account while designing and building the installation. It is possible to employ the slip joint or angle natural compensation approach. Avoiding adhesives containing benzene class organic solvent when choosing plastic pipe fittings will help prevent secondary pollution of the water supply. The authorities responsible for quality control and inspection must be followed when selecting the detection qualified tubing.

2.2.3 Composite pipe:

In^23,24 welded aluminum alloy and polyethylene together to develop a luminous model multiple tube that integrated the benefits of both metal and plastic pipe, especially resilience to high pressure and corrosion. Aluminous model multiple tubes can be divided into cross-linked and high-density polyethylene based on the various uses of hot and cold water. The plastics-steel multiple tube, which also combines the benefits of steel pipe and plastic steel pipe, is created by coating the interior of the galvanised tube with UPVC. A cold- water pipe was formerly attached to the more expensive plastic-steel multiple tube. A new type of pipeline that delivers the benefits of the double anti-corrosion pressure is steel skeleton PE pipe. PE pipe has been used extensively in municipal water supply engineering despite being more expensive. Non-toxic polypropylene and other organic materials were applied to the inner wall of the steel tube to create the plastic-coated pipe, which has good hardness, water resistance, resistance to corrosion, is not easily clogged, and has a long service life.

2.3 Guidelines for selecting WSPs material

In order to provide the user with clean water, WSP is essential. The feed water pipe significantly affects the water’s quality.²⁴ The three main product lines for WSP at the moment are plastic pipes, metal pipes, and composite pipes. Each has benefits and drawbacks. In^25,26 both agree that the best choice must be made after carefully balancing the pros and cons. The following guidelines should be used while selecting WSPs material.

The applicability of the following parameters varies by project conditions (pressure, temperature, water chemistry, etc.). This adaptability enhances practical applicability while keeping the same evaluation framework aligned with local standards.

2.3.1 Safe and Reliable SR:

A certain water pressure must be withstood by the WSP in the water distribution and supply process. It must have excellent sealing to prevent leakage phenomena and meet that same mechanical property grade to prevent rupture. According to,²⁶ as pipes can tolerate vibration, heat bilges, water hammer, and cold shrinkage, all of these issues must be considered while constructing the pipe network.

SR: Reliability reflects the expected service performance of the pipe material, emphasizing durability, resistance to failure and corrosion, and stability under operating conditions.

2.3.2 Clean Sanitation CS:

Freshwater from the plant of water often goes through a long pipeline before it reaches the customer. A new chemical and physical reaction between the chlorine in pipes water and the pipe wall may occur during this period, decreasing the quality of the water that customers receive and corroding the pipe’s inner wall.²⁷ Therefore, the state’s authority monitoring divisions require the use of certified pipes for health testing process.²⁸

SE: Health/Safety represents the material’s suitability for potable water, focusing on hygienic performance, low leaching risk, and compliance with drinking-water regulations.

2.3.3 Cost as Saving Energy SE:

Any pipe material must use energy throughout the manufacturing and installation processes. Production of thin-wall pipes is often more effective than that of thick- wall pipes. Plastic, steel-plastic composite, and metal pipes all use less energy to produce than their counterparts. From a construction perspective, utilizing a besmear brush with twisting teeth is much energy-efficient than hot melt connections, electric welding, and gas welding. In the event that a second pressure was required for the water distribution process, the pipeline’s local head loss would increase the amount of energy used.²⁹ CS: Cost is expressed as cost-effectiveness (affordability), where higher values indicate lower life-cycle costs (purchase, installation, operation/maintenance, and replacement) and thus better economic suitability.

2.3.4 Conducive to environmental protection:

Technical staff must take into account the fact that feed water pipe can be recycled and used again without harming the environment, especially in light of the nation’s recent environmental protection legislation. Rust is a common problem with galvanized tubing that has virtually been resolved. A significant component of high-end decoration is copper pipe because of its good pressure and anticorrosion properties. In³⁰ state that the majority of plastic pipes can be recycled.

2.3.5 Saving investment:

The price of pipe material, the cost of construction installation, and the selection of appropriate pipes must all be considered in a technical and economic study in order to maintain health and safety.^31,32

2.4 Using AHP to choose construction WSP

The AHP is used to better integrate qualitative and quantitative analysis for Decision making DM problems that are inclined by a variety of factors. Saaty (1977) was the one who first mentioned AHP,⁸ which was appropriate for the problem and could be sorted in terms of benefits and drawbacks. Building WSP has more influencing factors, so using AHP to optimize choice is appropriate.

The problem is structured, decision-making factors are identified, and the significance of sub-factors is evaluated as part of a sequence of sequential processes that make up the AHP and combining the weights of all the decision-making factors.³³ The AHP’s overall process is depicted in Figure 1 and the main stages of the conventional AHP are summarized in the next subsection 3.1.2.

Figure 1. The AHP’s overall process is depicted.³³

In this study, AHP was selected because it can integrate qualitative and quantitative criteria in a transparent hierarchical structure, supports consistency checking of expert judgments, and is widely used for multi-criteria material selection problems where trade-offs between health, reliability, and cost must be explicitly balanced.

3. Results and discussion

A structure model’s levels are set as follows: the rule layer, target layer, and solutions layer make up the majority of a WSP model. The layer that needs to be built is called Building WSP. According to the survey administered on experts and clients, the three most important elements of the rule layer are health and cleanliness, safety and reliability, and cost of energy conservation. The study will look at five different types of pipes: PP-R, PVC-U, thin- walled copper, lining of PVC galvanised pipe, and thin-walled stainless steel pipe. A WSP hierarchical model is created, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Building WSP structure model [By authors].

3.1 Judgment matrix construction

It is difficult to construct a pairwise comparison matrix and meet the consistency requirement. Researchers carried out¹² suggested paired comparison using a new questionnaire to. The element size values of the judgment matrix are determined using the nine-scaling(1 to 9) method, as stated in Tables (1 to 4), based on the engineers’ experience and professional guidance.^6,12

Table 1. Building a target table for WSP decision-making.

Table 2. CS indicators for target buildings.

Table 3. Creating a table for the WSP SR index.

Table 4. Construction SE index.

3.2 Check for consistency

To determine whether a matrix is consistent, use the eigen value method^12–14:

(1)

CI = (λ_{\max} - n) / (n - 1)

The consistency index (CI) formula displays the maximum eigenvalue, λ_max, while n shows the overall number of items, also known as the order number, the consistency ratio (CR) and mean random consistency index (RI) are both listed in Table 5.¹²

(2)

CR = C^{*} I

Table 5. The relationships between the matrix order and the mean CR index.¹²

Matrix order	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
R.I	0	0	0.521	0.892	1.121	1.262	1.362	1.412	1.461	1.491	1.52	1.54

When CR < 0.1, Consistency of the outcome of the hierarchy sort can be accepted.

Total sorts consistency check^6,12:

(3)

{CI}_{Tot} = \sum_{J = 1}^{5} a_{j} {CI}_{j}

(4)

{RI}_{Tot} = \sum_{J = 1}^{5} a_{j} {RI}_{j}

(5)

{CR}_{Tot} = \frac{{CI}_{Tot}}{{RI}_{Tot}}

The discussion results and analysis: were completed using the AHP software version 14.2, with the key findings displayed in Table 6. The AHP software was able to obtain the largest characteristic value, λ_max. The consistency ratio (CR) was determined using the Equation (2), Using the Equation (1), CI was calculated, and the total sorts were tested for consistency using the Table 5, CR_Tot = 0.04% < 0.1 (see Figure 3).

Table 6. Creating a weight calculation table for WSP.

Score of material selection by using (AHP)
Material selection methods of WSP	1	2	3	Weight ∑ wi/n	Score
Material selection methods of WSP	SR	SE	CS
Copper pipe M1	0.17	0.21	0.12	0.637	0.172
PVC-U pipe M3	0.14	0.35	0.14	0.258	0.186
Stainless steel pipe M2	0.13	0.29	0.32	0.105	0.183
PP-R pipe M4	0.45	0.07	0.18		0.317
PVC galvanized pipe M5	0.11	0.08	0.25		0.142

Figure 3. AHP software results of value λ_max and CR.

Table 6 illustrates the overall sequencing result’s acceptable consistency as Figure 2.

Table 6 demonstrates that PP-R pipe is the best when it comes to cleanliness and health (0.317), thin- walled stainless steel pipe is the best when it comes to safety and reliability (0.751), and PVC-U pipe is the best when it comes to price (0.831). In other words, results of AHP method showed that the total weight (0.695) is the largest for PP-R pipe; specifically, the PP-R pipe’s overall performance is the best and it can be used for high-standard WSP line installations. The second is the PVC- U pipe, which is appropriate for typical WSP due to its superior overall performance, affordable price, and advantages of easy installation.

The paired comparison questionnaire the researchers used to develop the AHP method yielded acceptable results, but in a more easy to use than the traditional AHP method.

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

Following the normalization of the local priorities $\sum_{i} {SR}_{i} = \sum_{i} {SE}_{i} = \sum_{i} {CS}_{i} = 1$ . A sensitivity analysis was conducted employing three weight perturbation scenarios with an increase in weight (10–20%): (i) SE, (ii) SR, and (iii) CS priorities. For each scenario, the baseline criteria weights $w_{j}$ were adjusted to emphasize the target dimension and then re-normalized to satisfy $\sum_{j} {\tilde{w}}_{j} = 1$ by using $\tilde{w_{j}} = \frac{w_{j}}{\sum_{j} w_{j}}$ . The overall score of each material $m$ was recomputed by the weighted sum model $\sum_{J} {\tilde{w}}_{J} * S_{J} (m)$ , and the resulting rankings were compared against the baseline ranking to evaluate the robustness of the proposed AHP-based material selection method. Where $S_{J} (m)$ score of material m.^17,18

Table 7 shows the calculated sensitivity analysis scores for all of the suggested pipe materials in the baseline case. The resultes in Table 7 is used to check how stable the final material ranking is when the weights of the criteria are changed within reasonable limits. This tests how strong the suggested AHP-based selection method is.

Table 7. Sensitivity analysis results (scores) under three scenarios.

Material	Baseline	SR 10%	SE 10%	CS 10%	SR 20%	SE 20%	CS 20%	Rank
PP-R pipe (M4)	0.317	0.337	0.304	0.316	0.33	0.295	0.315	1
PVC-U pipe (M3)	0.186	0.178	0.197	0.185	0.175	0.201	0.184	2
Stainless steel pipe (M2)	0.183	0.176	0.191	0.186	0.175	0.194	0.189	3
Copper pipe (M1)	0.172	0.171	0.174	0.172	0.169	0.175	0.172	4
PVC galvanized pipe (M5)	0.142	0.139	0.136	0.141	0.138	0.133	0.138	5

In addition, Table 7 indicates that the material ranking remains unchanged across all three weight perturbation scenarios, confirming the robustness of the proposed AHP based selection framework to reasonable variations in criteria weights. PP-R (M4) consistently achieves the highest overall score, followed by PVC-U (M3), stainless steel (M2), copper (M1), and PVC galvanized (M5). The obtained ranking is broadly consistent with recent AHP/MCDM studies on pipe material selection, which report competitive performance of polymer based pipes for potable water applications due to their hygienic characteristics and corrosion resistance. In particular, the preference toward PP-R (M4) is in line with AHP based pipe material selection findings reported by Thavamony and Rajagopal,¹³ while improved decision support formulations for water distribution material selection have been highlighted in recent work such as Wei et al.¹⁷ Moreover, the use of a simplified questionnaire and inconsistency-modification procedure is aligned with the improved AHP methodology proposed by Yang et al.,¹⁸ supporting the methodological novelty of the present study.

4. Conclusion

It is very wonderful to find a tool that helps the decision maker make a multi-criteria decision within various engineering sciences, including material selection, optimal performance, environmental impacts, health, cost, operation, and maintenance. To choose the best pipe material for exerting its maximum efficiency, health and cleanliness, safety and reliability, and low economic cost of energy conservation, it should be familiar with the most often used pipe and its key characteristics, adhere to the pipe selection principle, take various aspects into account, and conduct in-depth analysis. All these issues were considered in this paper.

In addition, the proposed method was validated through an expanded discussion that benchmarks our ranking against prior AHP/MCDM pipe-material studies.^17,18 Based on Tables 6–7, the proposed improved-AHP framework yields a consistent top selection (PP-R, M4) and an unchanged overall ranking under SR, SE&CS weight perturbations (10–20%), demonstrating robustness and agreement with recent improved-AHP/MCDM developments for pipe material selection.

The study concluded that, the PP-R pipe with the largest overall weight (0.695) should be prioritized for use in building WSP basedon the AHP process. By overcoming the constraints of conventional approaches and taking into account a wider range of influencing elements, the application of new questionnaire of AHP can produce more reliable evaluation results.

Data availability

The datasets supporting the results of this work are openly available in Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18716424.³⁴

The dataset includes all pairwise comparison matrices, global weight calculations, normalized eigen vectors and sensitivity analysis findings used in this work. The data are provided under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Biomedical Engineering Research Center in the University of Anbar for their assistance. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments, which greatly improved the quality of this paper.

References

1. Gilani G, Hosseini SA, Pons-Valladares O, et al.: An enhanced multi-criteria decision-making approach oriented to sustainability analysis of building facades: A case study of Barcelona. J. Build. Eng. 2022; 54: 104630. Publisher Full Text
2. Mutlag SA: Decision making in materials selection: an integrated approach with AHP. Anbar J. Eng. Sci. 2019; 10(2): 399–407. Publisher Full Text
3. Abdulah Shrrat Omar O: Evaluation of Pipe Materials in Water System Networks Using the Theory of Advanced Multi-Criteria Analysis. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5): 4491. Publisher Full Text
4. Awsaj MK, Mashhadany YA, Fourati LC: Predicting Medicine Adherence with Precision: An MLP-Based Approach for Personalized Healthcare. 2023 16th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). Istanbul, Turkiye: 2023; pp. 356–361. Publisher Full Text
5. Arthur EK, Gikunoo E, Agyemang FO, et al.: Material selection for water pipes by the multi-objective decision-making method: the case of alternative materials for PVC pipes. J. Sci. Technol. 2020; 5(1): 29–42.
6. Awsaj MK, Mashhadany YA, Fourati LC: Real- Time Healthcare Monitoring and Treatment System Based Microcontroller with IoT. 2023 15th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). Baghdad & Anbar, Iraq: 2023; pp. 515–520. Publisher Full Text
7. Yuan Z, Wen B, He C, et al.: Application of multi-criteria decision-making analysis to rural spatial sustainability evaluation: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(11): 6572. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Pagano A, Giordano R, Vurro M: A decision support system based on AHP for ranking strategies to manage emergencies on drinking water supply systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2021; 35(2): 613–628. Publisher Full Text
9. Lilo MA, Al Mashhadany YI: Intelligent system for fault detection of phase failure and temperature. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021; 1090(1): 012030. Publisher Full Text
10. Maddela NR, Kakarla D, Venkateswarlu K, et al.: Additives of plastics: Entry into the environment and potential risks to human and ecological health. J. Environ. Manag. 2023; 348: 119364. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Boháčková J, Cajthaml T: Contribution of chemical toxicity to the overall toxicity of microplastic particles: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2024; 957: 177611. Publisher Full Text
12. Al Mashhadany ARY, Ramizy A, Al Mashhadany Y, et al.: Improvement of surface electromyography signal by nano-metals thin-film deposition. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2024; 35(16). Publisher Full Text
13. Thavamony AT, Rajagopal V: Selection of Suitable Pipe Material for New Water Distribution Network Using Analytic Hierarchy Process–A Case Study of Athivilai Village of India. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2024; 28(2): 532–545. Publisher Full Text
14. Taiwo R, Shaban IA, Zayed T: Development of sustainable water infrastructure: A proper understanding of water pipe failure. J. Clean. Prod. 2023; 398: 136653. Publisher Full Text
15. Al Mashhadany Y, Abd Rahim N: Real-time controller for foot-drop correction by using surface electromyography sensor. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H. 2013; 227(4): 373–383. Publisher Full Text
16. Mutlag SA, Kassam AH: Fuzzy Reliability-Vulnerability for Evaluation of Water Supply System Performance. Anbar J. Eng. Sci. 2019; 10(1): 72–82. Publisher Full Text
17. Wei X, Wang M, Wei Q, et al.: Piping Material Selection in Water Distribution Network Using an Improved Decision Support System. Water. 2025; 17. Publisher Full Text
18. Yang WC, Ri JB, Yang JY, et al.: Materials selection criteria weighting method using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with simplest questionnaire and modifying method of inconsistent pairwise comparison matrix. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2022; 236(1): 69–85. Publisher Full Text
19. Al-Faiz MZ, Al-Mashhadany YI: Analytical solution for anthropomorphic limbs model, (IK of human arm). 2009 IEEE Symposium on Industrial Electronics & Applications. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 2009; pp. 684–689. Publisher Full Text
20. Mutlag SA, Dawood HK: A maintenance management-based decision support system for Multicriteria using AHP methodology for power plants. TEST Engineering & Management. 2020; 82: 10146–10153.
21. Vo DHT, Nguyen VT, Nguyen TB, et al.: Microplastics contamination in water supply system and treatment processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2024; 926: 171793. Publisher Full Text
22. Alrawi AA, Lilo MA, Al Mashhadany Y: Design and Hardware Implementation of Combining PD with HSSC for Optimizing Behavior of Magnetic Levitation System. J. Robot. Control. 2025; 6(1): 65–75. Publisher Full Text
23. Mutlag SA, Dawood HK: Optimal Refrigerant by Integrated Operational and Environmental Criteria in Air Conditioner. 2019 12th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). IEEE; 2019; pp. 309–314. Publisher Full Text
24. Świetlik J, Magnucka M: Aging of drinking water transmission pipes during long-term operation as a potential source of nano-and microplastics. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2025; 263: 114467. Publisher Full Text
25. Alrawi AAA, Al-Ani A, Mashhadany YA, et al.: Performance and Latency Analysis of EEG Signal for Control System of Robotic Arm Movements Based on Sliding Mode Controller. 2025 IEEE 22nd International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD). Monastir, Tunisia: 2025; pp. 1123–1128. Publisher Full Text
26. Aldrees RM, Al-Gahtani KS, Alsugair AM, et al.: Integrated value engineering and multi-criteria decision-making process in BIM framework for pipe materials selection. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2025; 29(4): 100065. Publisher Full Text
27. Al Mashhadany YI: Optimal results presentation style for engineering research article. AIP Conference Proceedings 2400. 2022; 040008. Publisher Full Text
28. Kumar R, Singh BK, Kumar A, et al.: Design of water distribution pipes alongside modeling and simulation of water distribution system for efficient management. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (IJIDeM). 2024; 18(8): 6301–6316. Publisher Full Text
29. Al Mashhadany Y, Abbas AK, Algburi S: Global prospects, challenges, progress and environmental impact of solar energy in Iraq. AIP Conf. Proc. 3009. 2024; 030005. Publisher Full Text
30. Ramani K, Umamahesh NV: Multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of intermittent water distribution network. Water Supply. 2024; 24(4): 1176–1195. Publisher Full Text
31. Gaeid KS, Homod RZ, Al Mashhadany Y, et al.: Describing Function Approach with PID Controller to Reduce Nonlinear Action. IJEER. 2022; 10(4): 976–983. Publisher Full Text
32. Haleem N, Kumar P, Zhang C, et al.: Microplastics and associated chemicals in drinking water: A review of their occurrence and human health implications. Sci. Total Environ. 2024; 912: 169594. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Shafeeq F, Mohammed MK, Algburi S, et al.: Simulation and Analysis of High-Performance Temperature Control System for Buildings Based on Conventional Controller. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2025. Publisher Full Text
34. Mutlag SA, Abed KA, Al Mashhadany Y: Supplementary dataset for AHP-based material selection of water supply pipes. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 05 Mar 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Anbar, Anbar, Iraq, Iraq
² Biomedical Engineering Research Center, University of Anbar, Ramadi, Al Anbar Governorate, Iraq
³ Biomedical Engineering Research Center,, university of anbar, Anbar, Iraq, Iraq

Sattar Mutlag
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Kadhum Abed
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Yousif Al Mashhadany
Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 05 Mar 2026, 15:361

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176577.1

Copyright

© 2026 Mutlag S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Mutlag S, Abed K and Al Mashhadany Y. Material Selection Method Based on Health, Reliability and Cost for Water Supply Pipe [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:361 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176577.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 05 Mar 2026

Views

10

Reviewer Report 16 Apr 2026

Swati Sirsant, Research and Development, Hindustan Colas, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194642.r468668

The paper presents a decision making framework to support selection of suitable material for water supply pipes considering health safety, reliability and cost efficiency.
While the topic chosen is appropriate, the methodology and results are very poor considering its ... Continue reading

The paper presents a decision making framework to support selection of suitable material for water supply pipes considering health safety, reliability and cost efficiency.
While the topic chosen is appropriate, the methodology and results are very poor considering its suitability to be indexed as a journal paper.
The paper simply applies the AHP process, which is already a well established model, to a specific case.
The study should specifically include real case studies and data that can validate the suitability of the presented approach,
Also. comparison of the approach with other similar models should be tested.
The conclusion section can be enhanced by adding details of the additional analysis carried out.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Water Distribution Networks, Optimization, Soft Computing, Water Resources

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

8

Reviewer Report 13 Apr 2026

Bryan Karney, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194642.r465605

Recommendation: Approved with Reservations

I have read this paper with some interest but also with a degree frustration. Certainly, the issue of material selection for water supply in building is a complicated one. Insight into the range ... Continue reading

Recommendation: Approved with Reservations

I have read this paper with some interest but also with a degree frustration.   Certainly, the issue of material selection for water supply in building is a complicated one. Insight into the range of choices available the noted criteria – that is, of health, reliability and cost – used to evaluation these supply pipe choices are welcome and well-targeted.

Available material choices are broad and there IS a need to simplify any advocated selection choice approach lest it be bogged down in complexity. That complexity might produce the well-known challenge of “paralysis through analysis.”    But my frustration stems from what I view as an over-simplification of the selection approach, an over-simplification that might in some cases lead to poor material choices.

A minor frustration with the paper is the context of the pipeline material selection is not made clear from the outset. I have worked extensively in public water supply and the term "water supply pipe" is often used for the pipes that deliver water TO homes, factories, institutions and businesses. As one reads the paper, it gradually becomes clear the work is not about those pipes, but about building piping; that is, the water supply pipelines within a structure, rather than to a structure.    Once clarified, this does set the paper’s context, but as the range of buildings and applications is huge, it would be helpful to know what class of buildings the authors envision. The nature, size and use of those buildings is, in fact, never clarified. The building type is crucial to understanding how things like health, reliability and cost are nuanced. There are important distinctions between, say, a hospital, a home, an industrial process or a high-rise building. It is hard to imagine in these varied contexts that the same criteria and options have the same impact relative to cost, reliability and health.

One of the purposes of a supply pipe in a building is to convey sufficient water and with adequate pressure from the water source to the point of use. This implies hydraulic considerations are often rather central to the choice of many pipe parameters, though particularly pipe diameter.   But diameter, and the related issues of wall thickness and/or pressure class, influence the relative costs and performance of different materials.   Thus, for example, the kind of choice of a copper pipe is not necessarily thin walled, but might also have even medium or thick choices. Thus, hydraulics must often be included in the selection process (only thin walled is considered). If a pipe is subject to high pressures or is relatively large in diameter, say for example in a high-rise building, or the sources is somewhat low in pH, this context might have a strong impact on the choice of pipe material. Stainless steel tends to be rarely used except for certain industrial or health applications. Wall thickness is often highly relevant to the issue of material choice and it is not clear why this was omitted.

One other minor point might be raised. Interpreting or nuancing the different AHP outputs would appear to required some skill.   The authors might have given readers more assistance in interpreting the output of the AHP: how are different values and weights are reflected in the decision that might be suggested?

Overall, the paper does have some value as one of the inputs of pipe material choice. For the most part, the paper is clearly written and easily comprehensible.

There are some instances awkward expressions and there is some sudden jumping between topics that can be distracting, but these are minor.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Hydraulics, water supply, pumping, energy systems and hydro power, engineering decision; urban infrastructure

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 05 Mar 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 05 Mar 26	read	read

Bryan Karney, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Swati Sirsant, Hindustan Colas, Mumbai, India

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

16 Apr 2026 | for Version 1

Swati Sirsant, Research and Development, Hindustan Colas, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

10 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The paper presents a decision making framework to support selection of suitable material for water supply pipes considering health safety, reliability and cost efficiency.
While the topic chosen is appropriate, the methodology and results are very poor considering its suitability to be indexed as a journal paper.
The paper simply applies the AHP process, which is already a well established model, to a specific case.
The study should specifically include real case studies and data that can validate the suitability of the presented approach,
Also. comparison of the approach with other similar models should be tested.
The conclusion section can be enhanced by adding details of the additional analysis carried out.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Water Distribution Networks, Optimization, Soft Computing, Water Resources

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

13 Apr 2026 | for Version 1

Bryan Karney, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Recommendation: Approved with Reservations

I have read this paper with some interest but also with a degree frustration.   Certainly, the issue of material selection for water supply in building is a complicated one. Insight into the range of choices available the noted criteria – that is, of health, reliability and cost – used to evaluation these supply pipe choices are welcome and well-targeted.

Available material choices are broad and there IS a need to simplify any advocated selection choice approach lest it be bogged down in complexity. That complexity might produce the well-known challenge of “paralysis through analysis.”    But my frustration stems from what I view as an over-simplification of the selection approach, an over-simplification that might in some cases lead to poor material choices.

A minor frustration with the paper is the context of the pipeline material selection is not made clear from the outset. I have worked extensively in public water supply and the term "water supply pipe" is often used for the pipes that deliver water TO homes, factories, institutions and businesses. As one reads the paper, it gradually becomes clear the work is not about those pipes, but about building piping; that is, the water supply pipelines within a structure, rather than to a structure.    Once clarified, this does set the paper’s context, but as the range of buildings and applications is huge, it would be helpful to know what class of buildings the authors envision. The nature, size and use of those buildings is, in fact, never clarified. The building type is crucial to understanding how things like health, reliability and cost are nuanced. There are important distinctions between, say, a hospital, a home, an industrial process or a high-rise building. It is hard to imagine in these varied contexts that the same criteria and options have the same impact relative to cost, reliability and health.

One of the purposes of a supply pipe in a building is to convey sufficient water and with adequate pressure from the water source to the point of use. This implies hydraulic considerations are often rather central to the choice of many pipe parameters, though particularly pipe diameter.   But diameter, and the related issues of wall thickness and/or pressure class, influence the relative costs and performance of different materials.   Thus, for example, the kind of choice of a copper pipe is not necessarily thin walled, but might also have even medium or thick choices. Thus, hydraulics must often be included in the selection process (only thin walled is considered). If a pipe is subject to high pressures or is relatively large in diameter, say for example in a high-rise building, or the sources is somewhat low in pH, this context might have a strong impact on the choice of pipe material. Stainless steel tends to be rarely used except for certain industrial or health applications. Wall thickness is often highly relevant to the issue of material choice and it is not clear why this was omitted.

One other minor point might be raised. Interpreting or nuancing the different AHP outputs would appear to required some skill.   The authors might have given readers more assistance in interpreting the output of the AHP: how are different values and weights are reflected in the decision that might be suggested?

Overall, the paper does have some value as one of the inputs of pipe material choice. For the most part, the paper is clearly written and easily comprehensible.

There are some instances awkward expressions and there is some sudden jumping between topics that can be distracting, but these are minor.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Hydraulics, water supply, pumping, energy systems and hydro power, engineering decision; urban infrastructure

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Gilani G, Hosseini SA, Pons-Valladares O, et al.: An enhanced multi-criteria decision-making approach oriented to sustainability analysis of building facades: A case study of Barcelona. J. Build. Eng. 2022; 54: 104630. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Mutlag SA: Decision making in materials selection: an integrated approach with AHP. Anbar J. Eng. Sci. 2019; 10(2): 399–407. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Abdulah Shrrat Omar O: Evaluation of Pipe Materials in Water System Networks Using the Theory of Advanced Multi-Criteria Analysis. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5): 4491. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Awsaj MK, Mashhadany YA, Fourati LC: Predicting Medicine Adherence with Precision: An MLP-Based Approach for Personalized Healthcare. 2023 16th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). Istanbul, Turkiye: 2023; pp. 356–361. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Arthur EK, Gikunoo E, Agyemang FO, et al.: Material selection for water pipes by the multi-objective decision-making method: the case of alternative materials for PVC pipes. J. Sci. Technol. 2020; 5(1): 29–42.

[6] 6. Awsaj MK, Mashhadany YA, Fourati LC: Real- Time Healthcare Monitoring and Treatment System Based Microcontroller with IoT. 2023 15th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). Baghdad & Anbar, Iraq: 2023; pp. 515–520. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Yuan Z, Wen B, He C, et al.: Application of multi-criteria decision-making analysis to rural spatial sustainability evaluation: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(11): 6572. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Pagano A, Giordano R, Vurro M: A decision support system based on AHP for ranking strategies to manage emergencies on drinking water supply systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2021; 35(2): 613–628. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Lilo MA, Al Mashhadany YI: Intelligent system for fault detection of phase failure and temperature. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021; 1090(1): 012030. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Maddela NR, Kakarla D, Venkateswarlu K, et al.: Additives of plastics: Entry into the environment and potential risks to human and ecological health. J. Environ. Manag. 2023; 348: 119364. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Boháčková J, Cajthaml T: Contribution of chemical toxicity to the overall toxicity of microplastic particles: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2024; 957: 177611. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Al Mashhadany ARY, Ramizy A, Al Mashhadany Y, et al.: Improvement of surface electromyography signal by nano-metals thin-film deposition. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2024; 35(16). Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Thavamony AT, Rajagopal V: Selection of Suitable Pipe Material for New Water Distribution Network Using Analytic Hierarchy Process–A Case Study of Athivilai Village of India. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2024; 28(2): 532–545. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Taiwo R, Shaban IA, Zayed T: Development of sustainable water infrastructure: A proper understanding of water pipe failure. J. Clean. Prod. 2023; 398: 136653. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Al Mashhadany Y, Abd Rahim N: Real-time controller for foot-drop correction by using surface electromyography sensor. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H. 2013; 227(4): 373–383. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Mutlag SA, Kassam AH: Fuzzy Reliability-Vulnerability for Evaluation of Water Supply System Performance. Anbar J. Eng. Sci. 2019; 10(1): 72–82. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Wei X, Wang M, Wei Q, et al.: Piping Material Selection in Water Distribution Network Using an Improved Decision Support System. Water. 2025; 17. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Yang WC, Ri JB, Yang JY, et al.: Materials selection criteria weighting method using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with simplest questionnaire and modifying method of inconsistent pairwise comparison matrix. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2022; 236(1): 69–85. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Al-Faiz MZ, Al-Mashhadany YI: Analytical solution for anthropomorphic limbs model, (IK of human arm). 2009 IEEE Symposium on Industrial Electronics & Applications. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 2009; pp. 684–689. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Mutlag SA, Dawood HK: A maintenance management-based decision support system for Multicriteria using AHP methodology for power plants. TEST Engineering & Management. 2020; 82: 10146–10153.

[21] 21. Vo DHT, Nguyen VT, Nguyen TB, et al.: Microplastics contamination in water supply system and treatment processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2024; 926: 171793. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Alrawi AA, Lilo MA, Al Mashhadany Y: Design and Hardware Implementation of Combining PD with HSSC for Optimizing Behavior of Magnetic Levitation System. J. Robot. Control. 2025; 6(1): 65–75. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Mutlag SA, Dawood HK: Optimal Refrigerant by Integrated Operational and Environmental Criteria in Air Conditioner. 2019 12th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). IEEE; 2019; pp. 309–314. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Świetlik J, Magnucka M: Aging of drinking water transmission pipes during long-term operation as a potential source of nano-and microplastics. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2025; 263: 114467. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Alrawi AAA, Al-Ani A, Mashhadany YA, et al.: Performance and Latency Analysis of EEG Signal for Control System of Robotic Arm Movements Based on Sliding Mode Controller. 2025 IEEE 22nd International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD). Monastir, Tunisia: 2025; pp. 1123–1128. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Aldrees RM, Al-Gahtani KS, Alsugair AM, et al.: Integrated value engineering and multi-criteria decision-making process in BIM framework for pipe materials selection. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2025; 29(4): 100065. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Al Mashhadany YI: Optimal results presentation style for engineering research article. AIP Conference Proceedings 2400. 2022; 040008. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Kumar R, Singh BK, Kumar A, et al.: Design of water distribution pipes alongside modeling and simulation of water distribution system for efficient management. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (IJIDeM). 2024; 18(8): 6301–6316. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Al Mashhadany Y, Abbas AK, Algburi S: Global prospects, challenges, progress and environmental impact of solar energy in Iraq. AIP Conf. Proc. 3009. 2024; 030005. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Ramani K, Umamahesh NV: Multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of intermittent water distribution network. Water Supply. 2024; 24(4): 1176–1195. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Gaeid KS, Homod RZ, Al Mashhadany Y, et al.: Describing Function Approach with PID Controller to Reduce Nonlinear Action. IJEER. 2022; 10(4): 976–983. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Haleem N, Kumar P, Zhang C, et al.: Microplastics and associated chemicals in drinking water: A review of their occurrence and human health implications. Sci. Total Environ. 2024; 912: 169594. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Shafeeq F, Mohammed MK, Algburi S, et al.: Simulation and Analysis of High-Performance Temperature Control System for Buildings Based on Conventional Controller. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2025. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Mutlag SA, Abed KA, Al Mashhadany Y: Supplementary dataset for AHP-based material selection of water supply pipes. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text

Material Selection Method Based on Health, Reliability and Cost for Water Supply Pipe

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1 The competitive factor of material selection (MS)

2.2 Commonly used pipe and its features

2.3 Guidelines for selecting WSPs material

2.4 Using AHP to choose construction WSP

Figure 1. The AHP’s overall process is depicted.33

3. Results and discussion

Figure 2. Building WSP structure model [By authors].

3.1 Judgment matrix construction

Table 1. Building a target table for WSP decision-making.

Table 2. CS indicators for target buildings.

Table 3. Creating a table for the WSP SR index.

Table 4. Construction SE index.

3.2 Check for consistency

(1)

(2)

Table 5. The relationships between the matrix order and the mean CR index.12

(3)

(4)

(5)

Table 6. Creating a weight calculation table for WSP.

Figure 3. AHP software results of value λmax and CR.

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

Table 7. Sensitivity analysis results (scores) under three scenarios.

4. Conclusion

Data availability

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Figure 1. The AHP’s overall process is depicted.³³

Table 5. The relationships between the matrix order and the mean CR index.¹²

Figure 3. AHP software results of value λ_max and CR.