Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A decision support system for the selection of an additive manufacturing process using a new hybrid MCDM technique

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13

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

  1. 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)

  2. ASTM Standard 2012 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies. ASTM Standard F2792-12a ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Senvol LLC 2015 Senvol database of additive manufacturing machines & materials. In: http://senvol.com/database/ (Accessed on 07/05/2019)

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. International Standards Organisation (ISO) 2014 International standards Additive manufacturing — General. 17296 – 3: 1–5.

  28. 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)

  29. Make3d 2019 3d printer user manual. In: https://www.make3d.in/printer-category-details/dlp-3d-printer-india (Accessed on 02/06/2019)

  30. 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)

  31. 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)

  32. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

  37. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Dr. B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, 144011, India

    Jairam Raigar, Shekhar Srivastava, Ramesh Chand & Jaivir Singh

  2. School of Mechanical, Industrial and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Vishal S Sharma

Authors
  1. Jairam Raigar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vishal S Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shekhar Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ramesh Chand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jaivir Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shekhar Srivastava.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-020-01338-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation