Abstract
Recently, Additive Manufacturing (AM) has been widely used in many applications. For a particular AM component, the choice of available AM processes is critical to the component’s quality, mechanical properties, and other important factors. In that context, this article presents an efficient decision support system for the selection of an appropriate AM process. A novel hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique has been proposed to select an appropriate AM process from available AM processes. The Best Worst Method (BWM) is used to determine optimal weights of criteria and the Proximity Indexed Value (PIV) method is employed to rank the available AM processes. For benchmarking the abilities of an AM process, a conceptual model of spur gear was fabricated by four available AM processes viz., Vat Photopolymerization (VatPP), Material Extrusion (ME), Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), and Material Jetting (MJ). Additionally, Dimensional accuracy (A), surface roughness (R), tensile strength (S), percentage elongation (%E), heat deflection temperature (HDT), process cost (PC) and build time (BT) has been considered as most significant criteria. Further, sensitivity analysis has been performed to validate the reliability of the results. The results suggested that the Material Jetting (MJ) process produces dimensionally accurate and quality parts among available alternatives AM processes. The ranking obtained using the PIV method is consistent and reliable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- AM:
-
Additive Manufacturing
- 3DP:
-
Three-Dimensional Printing
- CAD:
-
Computer-Aided Design
- ISO:
-
International Standards Organization
- ASTM:
-
American Society for Testing and Materials
- MCDM:
-
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- LOM:
-
Laminated Object Manufacturing
- LENS:
-
Laser-Engineered Net Shaping
- SGC:
-
Solid Ground Curing
- SLS:
-
Selective Laser Sintering
- FDM:
-
Fused Deposition Modeling
- SLA:
-
Stereolithography
- BWM:
-
Best Worst Method
- PIV:
-
Proximity Indexed Value
- AHP:
-
Analytical Hierarchy Process
- TOPSIS:
-
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
- HDT:
-
Heat Deflection Temperature
- PC:
-
Part Cost
- BT:
-
Build Time
- MJ:
-
Material Jetting
- ME:
-
Material Extrusion
- PBF:
-
Powder Bed Fusion
- VatPP:
-
Vat Photopolymerization
- A:
-
Dimensional Accuracy
- R:
-
Average Surface Roughness
- S:
-
Tensile Strength
- E:
-
%age Elongation
- wj :
-
Weight of criteria
- di:
-
Overall Proximity Value
- ξL* :
-
Average consistency ratio
- *.STL:
-
Stereo-Lithography file
References
ISO/ASTM 52900 2015 ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 (en) – Additive manufacturing General Principles terminology. In: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-astm:52900:ed-1:v1:en (Accessed on 07/04/2019)
ASTM Standard 2012 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies. ASTM Standard F2792-12a ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
Gibson I, Rosen D W and Stucker B 2009 Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing, USA: Springer, Chapter 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1120-9
Srivastava S, Garg R K, Sharma V S, Alba-Baena N G, Sachdeva A, Chand R and Singh S 2020 Multi-Physics Continuum Modelling Approaches for Metal Powder Additive Manufacturing: A Review. Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print, pp. ahead-of-print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2019-0189
Senvol LLC 2015 Senvol database of additive manufacturing machines & materials. In: http://senvol.com/database/ (Accessed on 07/05/2019)
Byun H S and Lee K H 2005 A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping process using the modified TOPSIS method. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 26: 1338 – 1347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2099-2
Pham D T and Gault R S 1998 A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 38: 1257 – 1287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(97)00137-5
Braglia M and Petroni A 1999 A Management-Support Technique for the Selection of Rapid Prototyping Technologies. Journal of Industrial Technology 15. In: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.29&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Masood H S and Soo A 2002 A rule based expert system for rapid prototyping system selection. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 18: 267 – 274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5845(02)00017-0
Rao R V and Padmanabhan K K 2007 Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory and matrix approach. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 194: 81 – 88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.04.003
Munguia J, Lloveras J, Lloveras S and Laoui T 2010 Development of an AI-based Rapid Manufacturing Advice System. International Journal of Production Research 48: 2261 – 2278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540802552675
Lokesh K and Jain P K 2010 Selection of rapid prototyping technology. Advances in Production Engineering and Management 5: 75 – 84. Available at: http://apem-journal.org/Archives/2010/APEM5-2_075-084.pdf
Mahapatra S S and Panda B N 2013 Benchmarking of rapid prototyping systems using grey relational analysis. International Journal of Services and Operation Management 16: 460 – 477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsom.2013.057509
Ghazy M M 2012 Development of an Additive Manufacturing Decision Support System (AMDSS). MSc Thesis, Newcastle University, Newcastle. In: https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/bitstream/10443/1692/1/Ghazy%2012.pdf
Shende V and Kulkarni P 2014 Decision support system for rapid prototyping process selection. Internation Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 4. In: http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0114/ijsrp-p2588.pdf
Vimal K E K, Vinodh S, Brajesh P and Muralidharan R 2016 Rapid prototyping process selection using multi criteria decision making considering environmental criteria and its decision support system. Rapid Prototyping Journal 22: 225 – 250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2014-0040
Vinodh S, Nagaraj S and Girubha J 2014 Application of Fuzzy VIKOR for selection of rapid prototyping technologies in an agile environment. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20: 523 – 532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2012-0060
Anand M B and Vinodh S 2016 Application of Fuzzy AHP – TOPSIS for ranking Additive manufacturing process for microfabrication. Rapid Prototyping Journal 24: 424 – 435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-10-2016-0160
Mançanares C G, Zancul E de S, Silva J C da and Miguel P A C 2015 Additive manufacturing process selection based on parts’ selection criteria. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 80: 1007 – 1014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7092-4
Peko I, Gjeldum N and Bilić B 2018 Application of AHP, Fuzzy AHP, and PROMETHEE Method in Solving Additive Manufacturing Process Selection Problem. Technical Gazzatte 25: 453–461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20170124092906
Wang Y, Zhong R Y and Xu X 2018. A decision support system for additive manufacturing process selection using a hybrid multiple criteria decision-making method. Rapid Prototyping Journal 24: 1544–1553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2018-0002
Önüt S, Kara S S and Efendigil T 2008 A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 19: 443 – 453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0095-3
Hosseini S and Khaled A Al 2019 A hybrid ensemble and AHP approach for resilient supplier selection. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 30: 207 – 228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1241-y
Emovon I, Norman R A and Murphy A J 2018 Hybrid MCDM based methodology for selecting the optimum maintenance strategy for ship machinery systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 29: 519 – 531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1133-6
Rezaei J 2015 Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53: 49–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Mufazzal S and Muzakkir S M 2018 A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals. Computers and Industrial Engineering 119: 427 – 438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.045
International Standards Organisation (ISO) 2014 International standards Additive manufacturing — General. 17296 – 3: 1–5.
3D Systems (USA) 2019 3D Systems MultiJet Printing (MJP) systems. In: https://www.3dsystems.com/3d-printers/projet-mjp-2500-series (Accessed on 05/08/2019)
Make3d 2019 3d printer user manual. In: https://www.make3d.in/printer-category-details/dlp-3d-printer-india (Accessed on 02/06/2019)
Make 3D Pratham Printer 2019 Make3d Pratham 3d Printer In India | Best 3d Printer To Buy – Make3d. In: https://www.make3d.in/printer-category/pratham-3d-printer (Accessed on 02/06/2019)
EOS Germany 2018 Laser-Sinter-System EOS P 396 for Additive Manufacturing of serial components and functional prototypes. In: https://www.eos.info/systems_solutions/plastic/systems_equipment/eos_p_396 (Accessed on 02/06/2019)
Rezaei J 2016 Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64: 126–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001
Sadjadi S J and Karimi M 2018 Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: A robust approach. Decision Science Letters 7: 323 – 340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2018.3.003
Abouhashem A F, Ghasemian S I, Arab A, Alavi A and Karachi H 2017 Application of the best-worst method in evaluation of medical tourism development strategy. Decision Science Letters 7: 77–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2017.4.002
Badri A H, Kusi-Sarpong S and Rezaei J 2017 Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 126: 99 – 106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020
Poovarasan V and Kaviyarasu M 2014 Sensitivity Analysis of TOPSIS Technique: An Approach to Archives Websites’ Performance Evaluation in Our Country with Interval Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 13: 89 – 94. In: https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jdms/papers/Vol13-issue8/Version-2/R013828994.pdf
Prakash C and Barua M K 2015 Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37: 599 – 615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001
Kumar S, Kumar P and Kumar M 2015 Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 104: 375–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raigar, J., Sharma, V.S., Srivastava, S. et al. A decision support system for the selection of an additive manufacturing process using a new hybrid MCDM technique. Sādhanā 45, 101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-020-01338-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-020-01338-w