Top

The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Published in:

19-03-2020 | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Selection of suitable additive manufacturing machine and materials through best–worst method (BWM)

Authors: Manivel Palanisamy, Arivazhagan Pugalendhi, Rajesh Ranganathan

Published in: The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology | Issue 5-6/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In this competitive world, industries are looking for smart technologies to compete; these technologies help R&D people to explicit the ideas and bring the product to the market at shorter lead times and with affordable cost. Each AM machine has its own unique capabilities in manufacturing a product, utilising materials, material intake and wastages. Machine and material costs are the significant parameters, which play a major role in cost estimation of the prototypes. Costs of both machine and materials are prime factors in AM and it can be helpful for cost reduction due to their uniqueness. However, an alternate strategy is being concentrated on process optimization and consumption of material to reduce the overall cost of the prototype. In this paper, multi criterion decision making (MCDM) technique, namely, best-worst method (BWM), was adopted to select the suitable material for the product. This is along with the end user expectations in AM. In the initial phase, the suitable machine to be selected from the available machines is based on the parameters like cost, accuracy, variety of materials and material wastage. From the variety of materials, the suitable material was selected based on the respondent requirement. The criteria that influenced more in the overall cost of the product manufacture through AM is identified and used. According to BWM, the criteria to be selected by the decision maker based on the respondent expectations are identified. In BWM method, pairwise comparisons are carried out between the best and worst criterion suggested by the decision makers, as that it leads to the selection of the suitable material. Here, a demonstration of such a selection is detailed; this is certainly based on the respondent requirements. The result attained through the proposed methodology can be varied based upon the respondent requirements and further machine availabilities. In conclusion, the end result helps to identify the suitable machine and build materials for the prototype to be produced based on the respondent requirements.

previous article Laser ablation of silicon in water at different temperatures

next article Morphological characteristics and formation mechanisms of the UD-CFRP drill exit-damages

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Amindoust A et al (2012) Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Appl Soft Comp J. Elsevier B.V. 12(6):1668–1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.023 CrossRef

Badri Ahmadi H, Kusi-Sarpong S, Rezaei J (2017) Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resour Conserv Recycl. Elsevier 126(May):99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020 CrossRef

Bak D (2003) Rapid prototyping or rapid production? 3D printing processes move industry towards the latter. Assem Autom 23(4):340–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445150310501190 CrossRef

Bikas H, Stavropoulos P, Chryssolouris G (2016) Additive manufacturing methods and modeling approaches: a critical review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(1–4):389–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2 CrossRef

Boran FE et al (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl. Elsevier Ltd 36(8):11363–11368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039 CrossRef

Byun HS, Lee KH (2005) A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping process using the modified TOPSIS method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26(11–12):1338–1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2099-2 CrossRef

Chan FTS, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35(4):417–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.08.004 CrossRef

Chitsaz N, Azarnivand A (2017) Water scarcity Management in Arid Regions Based on an extended multiple criteria technique. Water Resour Manag 31(1):233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1521-5 CrossRef

Dizon JRC et al (2018) Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Addit Manuf. Elsevier B.V. 20:44–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002 CrossRef

10.

Drizo A, Pegna J (2006) Environmental impacts of rapid prototyping: an overview of research to date. Rapid Prototyp J 12(2):64–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540610652393 CrossRef

11.

Durão LFCS, Carvalho MM, Takey S, Cauchick-Miguel PA, Zancul E (2018) Internet of things process selection: AHP selection method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. Springer London 99(9–12):2623–2634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2617-2 CrossRef

12.

Frandsen CS, Nielsen MM, Chaudhuri A, Jayaram J, Govindan K (2020) In search for classification and selection of spare parts suitable for additive manufacturing: A literature review. Int J Prod Res 58(4):970–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1605226

13.

Gao J, Bernard A (2018) An overview of knowledge sharing in new product development. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. Springer London 94(5–8):1545–1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0140-5 CrossRef

14.

Gay P et al (2015) Analysis of factors influencing the mechanical properties of flat PolyJet manufactured parts. Proc Eng. Elsevier B.V. 132:70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.481 CrossRef

15.

Ghaffar SH, Corker J, Fan M (2018) Additive manufacturing technology and its implementation in construction as an eco-innovative solution. Autom Constr 93(May):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.005 CrossRef

16.

Gibson I, Rosen D, Stuker B (2013) Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing. Rapid Manuf Assoc 3:10–12. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2792-12A.2 CrossRef

17.

Goodman SP, Lockshin L and Cohen E (2006) ‘Using the best-worst method to examine market segments and identify different influences of consumer choice’, International Wine Business & Marketing Conference (3rd: 2006: Montpellier, France), (972 8), pp. 1–15

18.

Groth C et al (2014) Three-dimensional printing technology. J Clin Orthod: JCO 48(8):475–485 Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25226040. Accessed Sept 2017

19.

Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009 CrossRefMATH

20.

Jain MT, Jain PK (2013) Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: a review Mohammad Taufik * and Prashant K. Jain. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 27(1/2/3):47–73CrossRef

21.

Kim GD, Oh YT (2008) A benchmark study on rapid prototyping processes and machines: quantitative comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy, roughness, speed, and material cost. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 222(2):201–215. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM724 CrossRef

22.

Kumar A et al (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sust Energ Rev. Elsevier 69(October 2016):596–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191 CrossRef

23.

Manivel P, Ranganathan R (2016) Prioritized ABC - FSN analysis of inventory management in private and hospital pharmacy followed by questionnaire. Int Res J Pharm 7(12):104–113

24.

Mardani A et al (2015) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications - a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istrazivanja. Routledge 28(1):516–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139 CrossRef

25.

Masood SH, Soo A (2002) A rule based expert system for rapid prototyping system selection. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 18(3–4):267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5845(02)00017-0 CrossRef

26.

Petrovic V et al (2011) Additive layered manufacturing: sectors of industrial application shown through case studies. Int J Prod Res 49(4):1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903479786 CrossRef

27.

Pham D, Gault R (1998) A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38(10–11):1257–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(97)00137-5 CrossRef

28.

PrasannaVenkatesan S, Goh M (2016) Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk. Transp Res Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Elsevier Ltd 95:124–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.09.005 CrossRef

29.

Ramalingam S (2018) Fuzzy interval-valued multi criteria based decision making for ranking features in multi-modal 3D face recognition. Fuzzy Sets Syst. Elsevier B.V. 337:25–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2017.06.002 MathSciNetCrossRef

30.

Ramola M, Yadav V, Jain R (2019) On the adoption of additive manufacturing in healthcare: A literature review. J Manuf Technol Manag 30(1):48–69

31.

Rao RV, Padmanabhan KK (2007) Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory and matrix approach. J Mater Process Technol 194(1–3):81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.04.003 CrossRef

32.

Rezaei J et al (2016) A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.125

33.

Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model. Omega. Elsevier 64:126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001 CrossRef

34.

Rezaei J, Wang J, Tavasszy L (2015) Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using best worst method. Expert Syst Appl. Elsevier Ltd 42(23):9152–9164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.073 CrossRef

35.

Sarkis J, Talluri S (2002) A model for strategic supplier selection. J Supply Chain Manag. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 38(1):18–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2002.tb00117.x CrossRefMATH

36.

Sharma P, Singhal S (2017) Implementation of fuzzy TOPSIS methodology in selection of procedural approach for facility layout planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88(5–8):1485–1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8878-8 CrossRef

37.

Stallings W and Hall P (2010) Multi-criteria evaluation overview, (January), pp. 211–262

38.

Standard, A.S.T.M., F2792-12a (2012) “Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies” ASTM international. West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2792-12A

39.

Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ (2016) 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dental Mater:The Academy of Dental Materials 32(1):54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018 CrossRef

40.

Taylan O et al (2014) Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl Soft Comp J. Elsevier B.V. 17:105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003 CrossRef

41.

Vahdani B, Salimi M, Charkhchian M (2015) A new FMEA method by integrating fuzzy belief structure and TOPSIS to improve risk evaluation process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. Springer London 77(1–4):357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6466-3 CrossRef

42.

Velasquez M, Hester P (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56–66MathSciNet

43.

Vinodh S, Sai Balagi TS, Patil A (2016) A hybrid MCDM approach for agile concept selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(9–12):1979–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7718-6 CrossRef

44.

Vlasea M, Pilliar R, Toyserkani E (2015) Control of structural and mechanical properties in bioceramic bone substitutes via additive manufacturing layer stacking orientation. Addit Manuf. Elsevier BV 6:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2015.03.001 CrossRef

45.

Wan Ahmad WNK et al (2017) Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using best worst method. J Clean Prod. Elsevier B.V. 153:242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.166 CrossRef

46.

Wang YB, Blache R, Xu X (2017) Selection of additive manufacturing processes. Rapid Prototyp J 23(2):434–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-09-2015-0123 CrossRef

47.

Wang Z (2018) Short communication A note on A group decision making model based on a generalized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval preference matrices. Fuzzy Sets Syst. Elsevier B.V. 341:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2017.04.018 CrossRefMATH

48.

Xu F, Wong YS, Loh HT (2001) Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and process selection in rapid prototyping and manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 19(5):283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6125(01)89001-4 CrossRef

49.

Zanoni S, Ashourpour M, Bacchetti A, Zanardini M, Perona M (2019) Supply chain implications of additive manufacturing: a holistic synopsis through a collection of case studies. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. Springer London 102(9–12):3325–3340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03430-w CrossRef

Title: Selection of suitable additive manufacturing machine and materials through best–worst method (BWM)
Authors: Manivel Palanisamy
Arivazhagan Pugalendhi
Rajesh Ranganathan
Publication date: 19-03-2020
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology / Issue 5-6/2020
Print ISSN: 0268-3768
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05110-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 5-6/2020

Concept and validation of an active cooling technique to mitigate heat accumulation in WAAM

Study on surface material removal uniformity in double side grinding based on grain trajectories

Multi-scale method for recognizing damage in high-efficiency milling cutter

Additive manufacturing of metal-bonded grinding tools

Bioactivity measurement of commercially pure titanium processed by micro-electric discharge drilling

Bending process for producing uniform angle distribution from ultra-high strength steel sheets having thickness distribution

Premium Partners