DESIGN AND SELECTION OF PADDLE MATERIALS FOR HIGH-LEVEL ROWING COMPETITION APPLICATIONS USING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS

Abstract

The study evaluated a variety of material alternatives including wood, bamboo, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), and ceramics for use in high-performance paddleboard. The selection process considers factors such as strength, density, cost, and durability with a focus on the most relevant material criteria for the product. The weighted addition method is used to evaluate and rank several alternative materials that have been selected based on these criteria. Wood and bamboo are chosen for their sustainability, CFRP for their superior strength-to-weight ratio, and ceramics for their resistance to extreme conditions. The study found that CFRP had the highest score of around 85.40 due to its superior strength and lightweight. The framework proposed in this study could provide tools for rowing teams to optimize paddle materials so that they offer the potential for increased speed and performance in the competition.

Full text

Indonesian Physical Review
Volume 08 Issue 01, January 2025
P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
31
Design and Selection of Paddle Materials for High-level
Rowing Competition Applications Using Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis
Aditya Eka Nurfitrah1*, Iksan Riva Nanda1, Anne Zulfia Syahrial1*
1 Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Kampus
Baru UI Depok, Indonesia.
*Corresponding Authors E-mail: aditya.eka31@ui.ac.id, anne.zulfia@ui.ac.id
Article Info
Abstract
Article info:
Received: 25-06-2024
Revised: 01-11-2024
Accepted: 11-11-2024
Keywords:
Paddle Performance;
MCDA Analysis;
Structural integrity; CFRP
Materials; Rowing
Competitions
How To Cite:
A. E. Nurfitrah, I. R.
Namda, A. Z. Syahrial.
“Design and selection of
paddle materials for high-
level rowing competition
applications using multi-
criteria decision analysis”.
Indonesian Physical
Review, vol. 8, no. 1, p 31-
47, 2025.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29303/ip
r.v8i1.355.
The study evaluated a variety of material alternatives including wood,
bamboo, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), and ceramics for use
in high-performance paddleboard. The selection process considers
factors such as strength, density, cost, and durability with a focus on
the most relevant material criteria for the product. The weighted
addition method is used to evaluate and rank several alternative
materials that have been selected based on these criteria. Wood and
bamboo are chosen for their sustainability, CFRP for their superior
strength-to-weight ratio, and ceramics for their resistance to extreme
conditions. The study found that CFRP had the highest score of around
85.40 due to its superior strength and lightweight. The framework
proposed in this study could provide tools for rowing teams to optimize
paddle materials so that they offer the potential for increased speed and
performance in the competition.
Copyright (c) 2025 by Author(s), This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Introduction
The performance of paddle materials in high-level rowing competitions plays a crucial role in
determining an athlete's speed and competition outcomes. However, wood is still the most
widely used material in the construction of paddles [1], [2]. Determining the most suitable
material for the paddle is a challenge that exists in the manufacturing process, this is because each
material has its characteristics and limitations. For example, carbon fiber materials have
advantages such as being strong and lightweight, but this material requires advanced

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
32
manufacturing technology and is relatively expensive [3]. In addition, fiberglass materials are not
able to provide the same strength and rigidity as more affordable materials such as carbon fiber
[4]. Paddle applications require standard materials such as carbon fiber reinforcement polymer
(CFRP) because this material has advantages such as lightweight and high durability. In addition,
it is also necessary to consider the use of alternative materials from Indonesia such as bamboo
which has a sustainable and easy-to-find characteristic profile, but more research is needed to see
how the characteristics of this material are suitable to be used as a paddle product. The properties
of CFRP are perfect for improving athlete performance while demanding repetitive rowing
cycles. Evaluating and identifying various alternative materials is the main point to be considered
comprehensively both from a technical and non-technical perspective. Conventional methods
also often fail to handle the complexity and multidimensionality of the right material selection
criteria. Therefore, it is necessary to have a solution that can accommodate various factors
interacting with each other in making appropriate material decisions. Multi-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) emerged as an effective solution to the above problems.
MCDA is a technique used in identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing how alternative materials
are selected based on predetermined criteria. In this study, techniques such as rating and
lightweight are the main criteria for assessing materials. In addition, MCDA also assesses how
other material criteria have been determined by manufacturers in making a product. For example,
the criteria of modulus of elasticity, corrosion resistance, strength, and cost. This technique also
provides a practical, systematic, and objective study in evaluating and ranking which material
criteria are more dominant for a product to help manufacturers make the right and more careful
decision [5]. Various existing studies have examined how MCDA is chosen as the right method
to evaluate material selection [6-12].
Research conducted by Kumar (2021) has identified and evaluated how MCDA methods such as
the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) have successfully
assessed hybrid bio composite materials. The results show the importance of combining
thermoset fibers and polymers in mechanical strength performance [6]. In addition, other MCDA
methods such as the two-tuple linguistics method managed to identify improvements in
precision in overcoming information loss and handling qualitative data for the proper material
selection itself [7]. In addition, research conducted by Chidambaram et al. (2022) provides a new
overview of one of the existing methods in MCDA such as the Weighted Product Method (WPM)
in evaluating material preferences based on specific strength and corrosion resistance criteria. In
this method, the importance of accurate ranking in selecting materials is emphasized [8]. The
selection of materials that have various combinations of criteria in product design such as paddle
is chosen plastic material because it is to facilitate the selection process [9]. Research conducted
by Simskus et al. (2020) using MCDA methods such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
succeeded in identifying important and optimal parameters in the design of paddle products for
sprint rowing competitions [10]. In addition, the technique of combining six MCDA algorithms
in selecting suitable materials was developed in a hybrid model. The results of the study show
that the existence of various algorithm methods can have integrated results, and the reliability of
material selection results can be improved [11]. Other MCDA methods such as the Simple
Ranking Procedure (SRP) are carried out with a simple ranking method where this method covers
more normalization steps. One of the mistakes of the MCDA method is that there is no
normalization in the existing material selection process because manufacturers often eliminate
this technique. Different from previous research, this technique uses a criterion weighting method

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
33
so that by integrating this advanced method with other MCDA methods such as TOPSIS and two-
tuple linguistics can identify and evaluate more deeply in determining the appropriate material
criteria [12].
This study aims to evaluate and identify the most suitable and appropriate materials for paddle
construction design comprehensively according to various material criteria given and analysed
through the MCDA method. The MCDA method analysis integrates the most effective
approaches to generate material recommendations. Various criteria factors are made to interact
with each other regarding the material, characteristics and how those criteria are involved in
making MCDA technical decisions in paddle products. This research can indirectly contribute
significantly to designing and selecting the right materials for sports competition products such
as rowing.
Methods
The MCDA method was chosen because of its systematic, practical, and structured approach that
involves several important steps. This method can start by identifying what material criteria are
best suited to the paddle product. As a result, eight criteria have been identified for materials that
are designed accordingly such as 1) strength, 2) modulus of elasticity, 3) fracture toughness, 4)
durability, 5) cost, 6) density, 7) corrosion resistance, and 8) thermal and UV stability. This
material criterion was chosen because it is directly related to two important segmentations both
product and the athlete. In terms of products, it is very important to resist the repetitive cycles
that exist in competitions so that it is suitable for material criteria such as strength and endurance
while in terms of athletes, lighter weights can increase the speed and efficiency of athletes. In
addition, considering costs is also efficient in balancing budget efficiency with product
performance. Pre-defined criteria are essential to ensure that the paddle product is made to offer
the performance and durability currently required in rowing competitions [13]. The analysis of
the identified material criteria determines the importance of which criteria first match the product
[14].
Materials that are selected appropriately and carefully are carried out using MCDA methods such
as the Weighted Sum Method (WSM) which combines objective and subjective criteria in helping
the identification process of decision-making [15]. The weights in each criterion are determined
based on the author's analysis by comparing the material characteristics with each other so that
in this case each criterion has a dialogue. This approach ensures that each criterion is measured
based on the impact that is most suitable for the performance of the paddle. In addition,
alternative materials such as wood, bamboo, and CFRP were chosen because of their prevalence
in the market that is already widely circulated and has been used as a suitable material in the
production of paddles for rowing competitions. In the next step, the performance of each material
is analysed through software-based simulations and literature reviews from previous studies.
After that, the selected material is validated using the preference value of the material criteria. If
the material criteria are needed, it is given the notation "1", if it is not needed, it is given the
notation "0". Next, several alternative materials are ranked based on the results of decision
calculation. Materials that have a higher value are the best. By combining this structured
methodology, the material selection process in rowing can produce the optimal performance and
durability required in high-level rowing competitions. The measurement of criteria in the MCDA
process is performed using software "material selection software", rather than physical testing.
The software simulates material characteristics such as strength and modulus of elasticity based
on predefined parameters and data from validated material databases. These simulations are

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
34
used to assess material performance in the MCDA framework. This method provides accurate
results without the need for physical laboratory equipment.
Result and Discussion
Requirements Shape How Something Functions and Function Shapes its Form
The paddle design is a perfect example of the principle that "the requirements form a function,
and function determines its shape," as seen in Figure 1. The invention and evolution of paddle
design can be considered a technical and mechanical marvel. Several references, such as
engineering journals, explain the basic principles of designing components such as paddles that
are closely related to lightweight, high strength, and high elastic modulus requirements. In this
case, the materials used in paddle production are usually made of fiberglass and carbon fiber.
The material was chosen because it offers a unique combination of strength and elastic modulus
without increasing the product's weight [5]. The primary function of the paddle is to transfer
power from the paddler to the water efficiently; to achieve this, the paddle must have a specially
designed shape. For example, a curved or spoon-shaped paddle design increases the surface area
in contact with water, allowing for more efficient force transfer with each stroke. The ergonomic
design of the paddle handle is also optimized to ensure the comfort and efficiency of the rower
during long competitions [16]. Uzan et al. (2021) [5] discuss the evolution of paddle materials in
competitive sports, focusing on innovations like carbon fiber composites. Meanwhile, Dean (2000)
[16] provides a comprehensive analysis of the mechanical properties of modern paddle materials,
comparing their tensile strength and fatigue resistance.
Figure 1. The paddle product is a functional unit.
Paddle products can be broken down into more specific functional units. Rowing generally
consists of three main components: (1) Handle, (2) Body, (3) Spoon. Each functional unit of the
paddle design, from material selection to its shape, is tailored to its functional needs. These
technical requirements determine paddle performance and shape evolving design innovations.
For example, oval oars of carbon composite material offer great torsion strength and are
lightweight, providing a stable, firm handle and allowing angle adjustment based on product
mechanics. This fundamental principle of design ensures that the specific needs of athletes dictate
the functionality, which in turn influences the overall shape and construction of the paddle and is
evident in every stage of rowing material development. The effectiveness of paddle design in
competitive rowing comes from specific factors such as the optimized weight distribution, which
reduces fatigue, and the spoon-shaped blade, which maximizes water contact for better
propulsion. Continuous research and development in this field resulted in increasingly
sophisticated designs and made modern rowing the perfect combination of art, engineering, and
science [17].

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
35
Converting Design Needs into a Set of Criteria for Selecting Materials
Converting design requirements into criteria for material selection is an essential step in the
paddle design process. The design conversion process can be seen in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows the
process of transforming design requirements into a set of criteria for material selection. This
diagram illustrates how the design requirements (constraints and objectives) as well as material
data (attributes and documentation) are processed through a 'selection engine' that includes
screening, ranking, and documentation to arrive at the final material selection. The chosen
material criteria must withstand massive loads and have a sufficient modulus of elasticity to
effectively transfer energy from the rower, thereby improving its performance during rowing.
The carbon fiber selected based on previous journals offers a unique combination of lightweight
and very high strength, making it an important player in rowing competitions [17], [18], [19].
Carbon fiber offers an excellent strength-to-weight ratio so it can allow athletes to generate more
power with less effort while maintaining structural integrity even under repetitive stress.
The material selection process is obtained based on the appropriate product specification. This
process is then translated into target values or limits in determining the appropriate material.
Parameters that play an important role in paddle products to consider include modulus of
elasticity, strength, and lightweight. In this study, material criteria refer to specific performance
requirements that must be met by the material such as weight and strength criteria while material
properties refer to the characteristics inherent in the material itself such as elasticity and tensile
strength criteria. After making a list of material criteria needed in rowing products, then these
criteria are evaluated based on their ability to meet the desired product specifications. This
existing approach allows an engineer to screen materials that fail to meet standards and
requirements to achieve the optimal combination of desired properties [20]. The material
selection process involves cost, environmental, and material factors that must be economical to
produce [21], [22]. Materials such as carbon fiber have a higher carbon footprint in the
manufacturing process however, they offer superior performance. On the other hand, materials
like bamboo are more environmentally friendly because they can be renewed and recycled.
Therefore, material selection decisions must consider the balance between technical performance
and environmental impact. A systematic methodology in material selection ensures that every
step in the process is well documented so that decisions can be traced and re-evaluated if
necessary. For example, Ashby showed that material selection can be optimized by using material
property graphs to display materials that meet criteria on relevant axes of material properties.
Design requirements for paddles can be seen in Table 1 [23]. Table 1 presents the design
requirements for the paddle that focuses on strength and stiffness. The goal is to minimize mass
while considering independent variables such as shaft diameter and material selection where it
aims to meet the functional demands of the paddle.
Table 1. Design Requirements for the Paddle
Design Requirements
Function
Objective
Free Variable
Strength
Minimize the mass m
Shaft diameter
Stiff beam (square)
The choice of material
Meaning light
To provide a clear illustration, the author will limit the discussion to the handle and spoon, which
transmit strength and resistance to the handle, and the hydrodynamic efficiency of the spoon [24],

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
36
[25]. When transmitting its strength, durability, and maintaining durability, the material must
meet several requirements: 1) It must be strong to withstand force without breaking, 2) it must be
rigid enough for energy transmission, 3) it must be resistant to cracks and damage, 4) it must be
resistant to wear and damage, 5) it must have a suitable length, 6) it must be light to improve
performance, 7) it must be resistant to corrosion, 8) must have an attractive appearance, 9) must
be resistant to temperature changes and UV radiation. Tables 2 and 3 show how these material
criteria translate into requirements for application in paddle products.
Figure 2. Converting Design Needs into a Set of Criteria for Selecting Materials.
Composite materials such as carbon fiber are selected for paddle design. This material was chosen
because it meets the criteria for material properties such as modulus of elasticity and strength,
enabling a lighter-weight and more responsive paddle fabrication process. The selected carbon
fiber material can also reduce fatigue during competition and increase the rower's speed
efficiency when competing. A structured, rational, and careful approach to material selection
ensures that the resulting paddle design and fabrication process meets the specifications required
to support performance under planned conditions of use [26].
Handle and Spoon Geometry
The design of the handle and spoon in the paddle are two critical components that determine the
rower's efficiency and comfort when using the paddle. The handle part determines how
comfortable the handle is. It is designed to provide comfort and safety [27]. At the same time, the
spoon part must ensure that the power transfer process to the rower can work optimally to
provide the appropriate speed during rowing. Selecting suitable materials and ergonomic design
plays a crucial role in improving performance and reducing the risk of injury for rowers. The
following analysis will discuss various aspects of handle and spoon design, including the handle
trajectory, handle techniques, paddle force, and innovations in handle design. This research
Paddle Design

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
37
includes studying the evaluation and efficiency of the force generated during rowing. Handle
and spoon analysis can be seen in Figure 3.
Table 2. The Essential Criteria for Selecting Materials Handle and Spoon Paddle
No.
Criteria of Materials
Constraints
Material of properties
1.
Strength
Must be able to withstand force without
breaking
Strength, Stiffness
2.
Modulus of elasticity
It must be rigid enough for energy
transmission
Young’s Modulus
3.
Fracture toughness
Must be aware of cracks and damage
Fracture Toughness
4.
Durability
Must withstand wear and impact
Wear Resistance,
Hardness
5.
Density
It must be lightweight to improve
performance
Density
6.
Corrosion resistance
Must be resistant to corrosion
Corrosion resistance
7.
Cost
Must be able to have an efficient and
economical cost
Finish Quality
8.
Thermal and UV Stability
Must be resistant to temperature changes
and UV radiation
Thermal Stability, UV
Resistance
The paddle handle is usually oval with a transverse profile that is wider horizontally than
vertically to provide a more ergonomic handle. These handles can generally be made of wood
and then designed to be removable and reassembled. Trajectory analysis of the handle is used to
assess the user's rowing technique and fatigue. Measurements were made using the Vicon motion
capture system. The results showed that fatigue can be indicated by the increased stroke time and
decreased handle speed. Assessors evaluate rowing techniques based on the handle's position
within specified limits, the area the handle trajectory covers outside the specified range, the
timing of improper rowing techniques, and the handle's slope [28]. Analysis of the forces acting
on rowing movements with two types of handles in the semi-prone position resulted in a greater
force output than regular handles so that the speed performance of the rowing paddles could
move optimally. The handle technique also influences rowing efficiency. The paddle force-angle
measurement system evaluates paddle performance on water. This system provides innovative
and valuable information for rowers that can help improve performance by providing accurate
data on rowing angle and force [29]. A handle for a sculling paddle has a truncated elliptical
profile with finger grooves running diagonally along the tubular body. This helps facilitate the
paddle by providing a more ergonomic and comfortable handle [30].

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
38
Figure 3. Handle and Spoon Geometry.
Performance Analysis
The performance evaluation of paddle design and material selection in bearing the load is
fundamental to analysing. In the context of water sports, the handle and spoon are crucial
components that directly affect the efficiency and speed of the boat. Therefore, understanding the
various factors that affect rowing performance is critical. This analysis covers aspects such as the
paddle's geometry design, the material's characteristics, and how the combination of the two can
affect the overall performance [31], [32], usually referred to as the material index. Reference
references have widely discussed the general steps for determining the material index [23] which
can be seen in Equations (1) to (3).
Material performance indications are determined based on the primary function and selected
critical constraints. These functions and constraints can be expressed as two stiffness formulas
and one strength formula:
M1 = 
 (1)
The second Material Index can be defined as:
M2 = 
 (2)
The Third Material Index can be defined as:
M3 = 
 (3)

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
39
Critical Criteria Analysis
In the material selection and adjustment process, material criteria for rowing include cost,
mechanical properties, and sustainability. An engineer must be able to design what
considerations must be considered when designing a product. The mechanical characteristics of
the material, such as modulus of elasticity and strength, and cost implications determine the most
selected material for rowing [33]. Modulus of elasticity refers to a material’s ability to deform
under stress, an important factor in ensuring the paddle can flex without breaking under heavy
loads. 'Massive loads' in this context refer to the repeated forces exerted on the paddle during
competitive rowing strokes. Some material characteristics in the handle and spoon of the paddle
have been discussed earlier in Tables 1 and 2. The conceptual design stage is crucial because
improper design can lead to extensive rework and production problems [34], [35]. Effective
conceptual design involves thoroughly assessing design solutions to meet product design
specifications [36]. Additionally, the fabrication method and materials used play an important
role in the design of the paddle. Material perception and user-centered design require critical
provision of materials to meet product requirements [37].
The digital logic decision matrix method is an effective tool to overcome the weighting of
complicated criteria. This method makes decisions by comparing two criteria simultaneously to
reduce complexity [38], [39]. More specific material selection and appropriate databases can
improve decision-making in the evaluation matrix. Remember that all qualitative criteria must be
converted into numbers, and all data must be normalized before making numerical decisions.
The results showed a selection of materials suitable for paddles: bamboo, wood, CFRP, and
ceramics [23].
Tables 3 and 4 show the weighting criteria for material components, namely the handle and spoon
on the paddle using the digital logic method. Each criterion of the existing material is compared
in a matrix. The value "1" is defined as a preference for material criteria that are more needed in
the product, while the value "0" states the opposite definition [40]. This process is repeated for
each pair of material criteria. Equation (4) is the equation used to determine the weight of each
criterion on the material.
Weight (α) = 󰇛󰇜
 (4)
In Table 3, the most important criterion for the paddle handle is Strength, with the highest weight
of 0.25, followed by the modulus of elasticity, 0.21. Then, durability, with a weight of 0.14.
Fracture Toughness and Corrosion resistance weigh 0.11 each, while Density and Thermal and
UV Stability each have a lower weight of 0.07. Cost has the lowest weighting of 0.04. In Table 4,
which weight the material criteria for paddle spoons, strength remains the most critical criterion
with the same weight of 0.25, followed by the modulus of elasticity with a weight of 0.21. Fracture
toughness and corrosion resistance: Each criterion has a higher weight, 0.14. This weighting
shows a significant improvement compared to the paddle handle. Thermal and UV stability and
density have lower weighting criteria of 0.04 and 0.07, respectively. Durability and cost are
important criteria, with weights of 0.11 and 0.04. The main difference between the two tables is
that the durability and fracture toughness criteria are prioritized for paddle spoon products
compared to paddle handles. The modulus of elasticity and strength remain the most critical
criteria in both components, but the spoon paddle shows the importance of the requirements of
durability and toughness.

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
40
Table 3. Weighting of Material Criteria for Handle Paddle Using the Digital Logic Method
Criteria (n)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
+
Weight (α)
Strength-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
0.25
Modulus of elasticity-2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
0.21
Fracture toughness-3
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
0.11
Durability-4
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
4
0.14
Density-5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0.07
Corrosion resistance-6
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
0.11
Cost-7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0.04
Thermal and UV
Stability-8
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0.07
Total positive decision (n(n-1)/2)
28
1.00
Tables 5 and 6 show the four materials evaluated: Bamboo, Wood, CFRP, and Ceramics for
paddles. CFRP has the highest power of 1500 MPa, followed by ceramics, which has 300 MPa.
Bamboo and wood have lower strengths, 125 MPa, and 90 MPa, respectively. Bamboo and wood
have a low modulus of elasticity values of 20 GPa and 12 GPa, respectively. The highest modulus
of elasticity was found in ceramics (400 GPa). Ceramics performed poorly on the fracture
toughness criterion, while CFRP performed very well. The durability of ceramics and CFRP is
better than that of bamboo and wood. Ceramic has a higher weight, while bamboo has a lower
weight. Ceramics and CFRP have better corrosion resistance, followed by wood and bamboo. In
terms of cost, bamboo is cheaper, while CFRP is more expensive. CFRP is the material that has
the highest thermal and UV stability, while wood is considered acceptable.
Table 4. Weighting of Material Criteria for Spoon Paddle Using the Digital Logic Method
Criteria (n)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
+
Weight
(α)
Strength-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
0.25
Modulus of elasticity-2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
0.21
Fracture toughness-3
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
4
0.14
Durability-4
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
0.11
Density-5
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0.07
Corrosion resistance-6
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
4
0.14
Cost-7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0.04
Thermal and UV Stability -8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0.04
Total positive decision (n(n-1)/2)
28
1.00

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
41
Table 5. Scaling β values for each material option of the handle paddle
Criteria
α
Bamboo (β)
Wood (β)
CFRP (β)
Ceramics (β)
Strength-MPa
0.25
125
90
1500
300
Modulus of
elasticity – GPA
0.21
20
12
250
400
Fracture Tougness –
Mpa (m)1/2
0.11
Fair
Good
Excellent
Poor
Durability
0.14
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Density – g/cm3
0.07
0.80
0.90
1.60
6.0
Corrosion
Resistance
0.11
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Cost
0.04
Acceptable
Good
Poor
Acceptable
Thermal and UV
stability
0.07
Acceptable
Acceptable
Excellent
Excellent
Tables 5 and 6 present the scale of values (β) for various material choices on paddle handles and
spoons based on quantitative values obtained from material standard values (ASTM) and
qualitative values obtained based on the analysis of the range of values provided by the authors.
The range of values consists of; "0" is defined as unacceptable; "20" which is defined as Poor; "40"
which is defined as Fair; "60" which is defined as Acceptable; "80" which is defined as Good; and
"100" is defined as Excellent. These values are reanalysed using Equations (5) and (6), where
orange is the material criterion that must be maximized, green is the material criterion that must
be minimized, and then normalized values as in Tables 7 and 8. The criteria evaluated include
Strength, Modulus of Elasticity, Fracture Toughness, Durability, Density, Corrosion Resistance,
Cost, and Thermal and UV Stability.
β = 
 X 100 (5)
β = 
 X 100 (6)
Table 6. Scaling β values for each material option of the spoon paddle
Criteria
α
Bamboo (β)
Wood (β)
CFRP (β)
Ceramics (β)
Strength-MPa
0.25
125
90
1500
300
Modulus of
elasticity – GPA
0.21
20
12
250
400
Fracture Tougness –
Mpa (m)1/2
0.14
Fair
Good
Excellent
Poor
Durability
0.11
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Density – g/cm3
0.07
0.80
0.90
1.60
6.0
Corrosion
Resistance
0.14
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Cost
0.04
Acceptable
Good
Poor
Acceptable
Thermal and UV
stability
0.04
Acceptable
Acceptable
Excellent
Excellent

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
42
Table 7. Normalization scaling β values for each material option of the handle paddle
Criteria
α
Bamboo (β)
Wood (β)
CFRP (β)
Ceramics (β)
Strength-MPa
0.25
8.30
6.00
100
20.0
Modulus of
elasticity – GPA
0.21
5.00
3.00
62.5
100
Fracture Tougness –
Mpa (m)1/2
0.11
40.0
80.0
100
20.0
Durability
0.14
60.0
80.0
100
100
Density – g/cm3
0.07
100
88.9
50.0
13.3
Corrosion
Resistance
0.11
60.0
80.0
100
100
Cost
0.04
60.0
80.0
20.0
60.0
Thermal and UV
stability
0.07
60.0
60.0
100
100
Table 8. Normalization scaling β values for each material option of the spoon paddle
Criteria
α
Bamboo (β)
Wood (β)
CFRP (β)
Ceramics (β)
Strength-MPa
0.25
8.30
6.00
100
20.0
Modulus of
elasticity – GPA
0.21
5.00
3.00
62.5
100
Fracture Tougness –
Mpa (m)1/2
0.14
40.0
80.0
100
20.0
Durability
0.11
60.0
80.0
100
100
Density – g/cm3
0.07
100
88.9
50.0
13.3
Corrosion
Resistance
0.14
60.0
80.0
100
100
Cost
0.04
60.0
80.0
20.0
60.0
Thermal and UV
stability
0.04
60.0
60.0
100
100
Tables 9 and 10 present scale and normalization (γ) calculation results for various material choices
on paddle handles and spoons. The value of γ obtained using Equation (7).
(γ) = (α) * (β) (7)
Where,
α: Weight; β: The normalized value of material choice.

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
43
Table 9. The calculation for scaling and normalization results of the handle paddle
Criteria
Weight, α
Bamboo
Woods
CFRP
Ceramics
β
γ
β
γ
Β
γ
β
γ
Strength-1
0.25
8.30
2.07
6.00
1.50
100
25.0
20.0
5.00
Modulus of
elasticity-2
0.21
5.00
1.05
3.00
0.63
62.5
13.1
100
21.0
Fracture
toughness-3
0.11
40.0
4.40
80.0
8.80
100
11.0
20.0
2.20
Durability-4
0.14
60.0
8.40
80.0
11.2
100
14.0
100
14.0
Density-5
0.07
100
7.00
88.9
6.22
50.0
3.50
13.3
0.93
Corrosion
resistance-6
0.11
60.0
6.60
80.0
8.80
100
11.0
100
11.0
Cost-7
0.04
60.0
2.40
80.0
3.20
20.0
0.80
60.0
2.40
Thermal and
UV Stability -
8
0.07
60.0
4.20
60.0
4.20
100
7.00
100
7.00
Total
1.00
36.1
44.5
85.4
63.5
Table 10. The calculation for scaling and normalization results of the spoon paddle
Criteria
Weight,
α
Bamboo
Woods
CFRP
Ceramics
β
γ
β
γ
β
γ
Β
Γ
Strength-1
0.25
8.30
2.07
6.00
1.50
100
25.0
20.0
5.00
Modulus of
elasticity-2
0.21
5.00
1.05
3.00
0.63
62.5
13.1
100
21.0
Fracture
toughness-3
0.14
40.0
5.60
80.0
11.2
100
14.0
20.0
2.80
Durability-4
0.11
60.0
6.60
80.0
8.80
100
11.0
100
11.0
Density-5
0.07
100
7.00
88.9
6.22
50.0
3.50
13.3
0.93
Corrosion
resistance-6
0.14
60.0
8.40
80.0
11.2
100
14.0
100
14.0
Cost-7
0.04
60.0
2.40
80.0
3.20
20.0
0.80
60.0
2.40
Thermal and
UV Stability -
8
0.04
60.0
2.40
60.0
2.40
100
4.00
100
4.00
Total
1.00
35.5
45.1
85.4
61.1
In Table 9, CFRP shows the highest score of 85.4, which indicates superior performance across all
criteria. CFRP excels primarily in strength (25.0), fracture toughness (11.0), and durability (14.0)
despite having a low value in cost (0.80). Ceramics have excellent performance with a total score
of 63.5, where the material shows the best criteria for corrosion resistance and modulus of
elasticity. Still, they have low cost and fracture toughness. Bamboo and wood had total scores of
36.1 and 44.5, respectively. Bamboo's weakness shows significant fracture toughness and elastic
modulus. Material evaluation for spoon paddles also shows similar results in Table 10, where
CFRP again dominates with a total score of 85.4, which shows appropriate criteria for paddles in
terms of durability, modulus of elasticity, and strength. The ceramic has a total score of 61.1 and
is superior in corrosion resistance and modulus of elasticity but inferior in fracture toughness and
cost. Bamboo and wood had scores of 35.5 and 45.1, respectively, with similar weaknesses in
Table 9 for paddle handles.

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
44
CFRP is a suitable material from these two tables for the components discussed, such as the
handle and spoon on the paddle. This material is superior in fracture toughness, durability, and
strength. Ceramic also shows performance following product specifications, but its weakness is
fracture toughness, making it less ideal for use than CFRP. While CFRP is preferred because its
strength-to-weight ratio is identified as superior. Other alternative materials such as fiberglass
and aluminium can still be used in some of these product designs, but they have the same strength
and fatigue resistance, making CFRP preferable for high-performance paddles. In conclusion, the
choice of material in rowing products plays an important role in the performance of athletes so
by choosing the right material, CFRP can be recommended as a material that has high strength
and lightweight in rowing competitions. This research provides in-depth insights into how
factors such as their strength and durability influence material selection decisions.
Conclusion
This study has evaluated and identified CFRP as the best material for making paddles, especially
in handle and spoon components compared to other alternative materials such as wood,
bamboo, and ceramics. With MCDA analysis, CFRP material received the highest score of 85.40.
This decision score is calculated based on a weighted sum of various criteria such as strength,
weight, cost, and durability with a score of 100 as the maximum score. A score of 85.40 can be
defined as this material has superior strength, lightness, and durability compared to other
materials. This MCDA analysis assists engineers in creating rowing products that prioritize
athletes to help maintain their performance with minimized material fatigue.
Acknowledge
We are grateful to Ir. Rahmat Saptono, M.Sc. Tech, Ph.D. (Department of Metallurgical and
Materials Engineering, University of Indonesia), for his encouragement in creating this article
and for supplying critical resources that significantly supported this study.
References
[1] B. K. Filter, ‘Design and materials in rowing’, in Materials in Sports Equipment, Elsevier,
2019, pp. 375–401. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102582-6.00013-7.
[2] J. A. Meyer, ‘Wood-plastic materials and their current commercial applications’, Polym
Plast Technol Eng, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 181–206, Jan. 1977, doi: 10.1080/03602557708055839.
[3] M. Baysal, ‘Greenland Paddle in Carbon Fiber with a Split’, Thesis, Chalmers University
of Technology, Gothenburg, 2011. Accessed: Jun. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://odr.chalmers.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/ad55ed0b-f1ec-4150-a14e-
f426be70ce32/content
[4] R. Kendre, ‘Alternate Materials for Glass Fibre’, Adv Mat Res, vol. 1077, pp. 3–7, Dec. 2014,
doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.1077.3.
[5] Ş. Bozkurt Uzan, M. Subasi, and M. Vural Allaham, ‘Multi Criteria Decision Making
Approaches For Evaluation Of Equipment Selection Processes In Rowing’, Ankara
Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulu SPORMETRE Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri
Dergisi, pp. 211–222, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.33689/spormetre.858650.

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
45
[6] J. V Sai and P. Kumar, ‘Multiple Decision Criterion for Material Selection by using Ranking
System’, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1–06,
May 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i12.7253.
[7] D. Setti, M. N. Verona, B. B. Medeiros, and A. Restelli, ‘Materials selection using a 2-tuple
linguistic multi-criteria method’, Materials Research, vol. 22, 2019, doi: 10.1590/1980-5373-
MR-2018-0846.
[8] P.K. Chidambaram, C. Sivaji, A. Murugan, and M. Ramachandran, ‘Performance Analysis
of Materials Selection Using Weighted Product Method (WPM)’, Journal on Materials and
its Characterization, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 38–45, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.46632/jmc/1/1/5.
[9] R. Mircea, ‘Acta Technicia Napocensis Multicriterial Selection Of Plastic Materials In The
Design Process’, Acta Technicia Napocensis - Series: Applied Mathematics, Mechanics, and
Engineering, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 245–250, Jun. 2017, Accessed: Jun. 02, 2024. [Online].
Available: https://atna-mam.utcluj.ro/index.php/Acta/article/view/879
[10] A. Simkus, V. Navickas, J. Vveinhardt, and A. Alekrinskis, ‘The Technical Parameters of
the Creation Process for Kayak Paddles as a Sport Product’, Ann Appl Sport Sci, vol. 8, no.
4, pp. 1–17, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.29252/aassjournal.845.
[11] E. M. Abdelkader, A. Al-Sakkaf, and G. Alfalah, ‘Optimizing material selection using a
hybridized multi-attribute decision making model’, WSEAS Transactions on Systems and
Control, vol. 16, pp. 404–421, 2021, doi: 10.37394/23203.2021.16.36.
[12] S. Zakeri, P. Chatterjee, D. Konstantas, and F. Ecer, ‘A decision analysis model for material
selection using simple ranking process’, Sci Rep, vol. 13, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi:
10.1038/s41598-023-35405-z.
[13] P. T. R. Swain and S. Biswas, ‘Selection of materials using multi criteria decision making
method by considering physical and mechanical properties of jute/Al2O3 composites’, in
Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans Tech Publications Ltd, 2014, pp. 729–733. doi:
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.592-594.729.
[14] A. Jahan, K. L. Edwards, and M. Bahraminasab, ‘Multi-criteria decision-making for
materials selection’, in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the Selection of
Engineering Materials in Product Design, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 63–80. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-
100536-1.00004-7.
[15] G. Oghenewiroro Odu, ‘Multi-criteria decision making/selection using weighted sum
method and team-compromise instrument’, Industrial Engineering Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, pp.
64–78, 2018, Accessed: Jun. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IEL/article/view/43875
[16] W. C. Dean, ‘Ergonomic Canoe Paddle’, US006042438A, Mar. 18, 2000
[17] F. Erazo, J. Laliberte, X. Huang, and C. L. Benard, ‘An Investigation of the Failure
Mechanisms of a Polymer Matrix Composite Crew Oar’, Journal of Failure Analysis and
Prevention, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 716–729, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11668-019-00651-9.

P-ISSN: 2615-1278, E-ISSN: 2614-7904
46
[18] Y. Liu and M. Guan, ‘Selected physical, mechanical, and insulation properties of carbon
fiber fabric-reinforced composite plywood for carriage floors’, European Journal of Wood and
Wood Products, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 995–1007, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00107-019-01467-y.
[19] M. Ware, ‘Racing Paddle and Method of Making The Same’, US4061106, Dec. 06, 1977
[20] A. Mital, A. Desai, A. Subramanian, and A. Mital, ‘Consideration and Selection of
Materials’, in Product Development, Elsevier, 2014, pp. 109–132. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-
799945-6.00005-3.
[21] C. L. Simões, L. M. Costa Pinto, R. Simoes, and C. A. Bernardo, ‘Integrating environmental
and economic life cycle analysis in product development: A material selection case study’,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1734–1746, Nov. 2013, doi:
10.1007/s11367-013-0561-9.
[22] B. R. Allenby, ‘A Design For Environment Methodology For Evaluating Materials’,
Environmental Systems Design and Implementation, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 69–84, 1996, doi:
doi:10.1002/tqem.3310050409.
[23] M. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Fourth Edition. United States: Elsevier,
2011.
[24] F. K. Fuss, S. Fundel, Y. Weizman, and R. M. Smith, ‘Smart Oar Blade for Hydrodynamic
Analysis of Rowing’, in Procedia Engineering, Elsevier Ltd, 2016, pp. 735–740. doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.268.
[25] A. Coppel, T. N. Gardner, N. Caplan, and D. M. Hargreaves, ‘Simulating the fluid dynamic
behaviour of oar blades in competition rowing’, Proc Inst Mech Eng P J Sport Eng Technol,
vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 25–35, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1243/17543371JSET37.
[26] P. Sirisalee, M. F. Ashby, G. T. Parks, and P. J. Clarkson, ‘Multi-criteria material selection
of monolithic and multi-materials in engineering design’, Adv Eng Mater, vol. 8, no. 1–2,
pp. 48–56, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1002/adem.200500196.
[27] G. Harih, M. Borovinsek, Z. Ren, and B. Dolsak, ‘Optimal products’ hand-handle interface
parameter identification’, International Journal of Simulation Modelling, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
404–415, 2015, doi: 10.2507/IJSIMM14(3)3.285.
[28] M. M. jerzy; L. E. P.-P. I. R. B. K. S. J. P. B. Skublewska-Paszkowska, ‘Motion Capture As a
Modern Technology For Analysing Ergometer Rowing’, Advances in Science and Technology
Research Journal, vol. 10, no. 29, pp. 132–140, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.12913/22998624/61941.
[29] T. Turner, R. Smith, and C. Draper, ‘Design, validation and application of an unobtrusive
oar force-angle measurement system’, in 33rd International Conference on Biomechanics in
Sports, Poitiers., F. Colloud, M. Domalain, and T. Monnet, Eds., France, Jun. 2015, pp. 727–
730.
[30] B. J. Larson and L. F. Gunnel, ‘Ergonomic Paddle Grip’, USOO6537117B1, Mar. 25, 2003
[31] X. Xu, ‘Research on material features in design technique of tennis materials’, in Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 2012, pp. 47–51. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.214.47.

Indonesian Physical Review. 8(1):31-47
47
[32] E. Cetkin, S. Lorente, and A. Bejan, ‘Constructal paddle design with “fingers”’, J Appl Phys,
vol. 113, no. 19, May 2013, doi: 10.1063/1.4804961.
[33] A. Jahan, K. L. Edwards, and M. Bahraminasab, ‘Materials selection in the context of design
problem-solving’, in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the Selection of
Engineering Materials in Product Design, Second Edition., Cambridge: Elsevier, 2016, ch. 2,
pp. 25–40.
[34] K. R. Al-Momani and J. E. A. Qudeiri, ‘Definition of Flexible Transfer Line with Rework
Paths and Its Simulator for Optimal Production Design’.
[35] C. H. Glock and M. Y. Jaber, ‘A multi-stage production-inventory model with learning and
forgetting effects, rework and scrap’, Comput Ind Eng, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 708–720, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.cie.2012.08.018.
[36] M. Rajak Dipen Kumar and Gupta, ‘Materials Selection and Design Considerations’, in An
Insight Into Metal Based Foams: Processing, Properties and Applications, Singapore: Springer
Singapore, 2020, pp. 53–80. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-9069-6_4.
[37] J. Choi, ‘Material Selection: Exploring the Reliability of Material Perception Data and Its
Relevance to Materials’, Metals and Materials International, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1599–1604, Jun.
2021, doi: 10.1007/s12540-019-00574-y.
[38] S. Ramdhani and J. Jamari, ‘The Modeling of A Conceptual Engineering Design System
Using the Decision-Matrix Logic’, in MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, Mar. 2018.
doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201815902022.
[39] M. Alemi-Ardakani, A. S. Milani, S. Yannacopoulos, and G. Shokouhi, ‘On the effect of
subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A
case study on impact optimization of composites’, Expert Syst Appl, vol. 46, pp. 426–438,
Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.11.003.
[40] R. S. Duryat, ‘The screwdriver: A basic review on design and material selection’, in AIP
Conference Proceedings, American Institute of Physics Inc., Sep. 2020. doi:
10.1063/5.0016431.