Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A multitude of rapid prototyping (RP) systems and technologies have come up since the introduction of additive process. Owing to the enlarging number of these systems with distinctive efficacy, the problem of selecting an appropriate system for a particular requirement is a cumbersome task. Henceforth, this work comes up with a strategy based on multi-attribute decision making to select a most suitable RP system. The presence of subjectivity in decision making as well as the existence of imprecision from various sources emphasize the methods which must consider uncertainty and vagueness. A decision advisor based on uncertainty theories, including fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and grey relational analysis (GRA) has been introduced. It provides a comprehensive database comprising thirty nine commercially available RP systems. The evaluation attributes consisting of machine cost, accuracy, layer thickness, machine speed, material cost, net build size volume, machine weight, surface roughness, and material strength were utilized to characterize the different machines. The FAHP based on trapezoidal fuzzy number was implemented to determine the priority weights of various attributes, while the GRA was employed to realize the best RP system and technology. The authors believe that this system has the potential to transform into a fully developed RP selection system.

Keywords

Rapid prototyping fuzzy analytical hierarchy process trapezoidal fuzzy number grey relational analysis additive manufacturing sustainability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chua

C.K.

and Leong

K.F.

, 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing: Principles and Applications, World Scientific Publishing Company Pte Limited, 2014.

Wohlers Associates, (n.d.). https://wohlersassociates.com/2018report.htm (accessed January 2, 2019).

3D Printing Market Worth 32.78 Billion USD by 2023, MarketWatch. (n.d.). https://www.marketwatch.com/pressrelease/3d-printing-market-worth-3278-billion-usd-by-2023-2017-07-05-11203317 (accessed January 2, 2019).

McCue

T.J.

, Wohlers Report 2018:3D Printer Industry Tops $7 Billion, Forbes. (n.d.). https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue//06/04/wohlers-report–3d-printer-industry-rises-21-percent-to-over-7-billion/ (accessed January 2, 2019).

Wang

J.-W.

, Cheng

C.-H.

and Kun-Cheng

, Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection, Applied Soft Computing 9 (2009), 377–386.

Roy

, Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (la methode ELECTRE), The Journal of Computer Science and Operational Research 2 (1968), 57–75.

Hwang

C.L.

and Yoon

, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, 1981.

Brans

J.P.

L’ingéniérie de la décision. Elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. Méthode PROMETHEE, In: Nadeau

, Landry

(Eds.), L’aide à la décision: Nature, instruments eterspectives d’avenir, Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 1982, pp. 183–214.

Charnes

, Cooper

W.W.

and Rhodes

, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research 2 (1978), 429–444.

10.

Opricovic

and Tzeng

G.-H.

, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research 156(2) (2004), 445–455.

11.

Pamučar

, Stević

and Sremac

, A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM), Symmetry 10 (2018), 393.

12.

Fazlollahtabar

, Smailbašić

and Stević

Ž.

, FUCOM method in group decision-making: Selection of forklift in a warehouse, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 2 (2019), 49–65. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.31181/dmame1901065f.

13.

Pamucar

and Cirovic

, The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC), Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015), 3016–3028.

14.

Vesković

, Stević

Ž.

, Stojić

, Vasiljević

and Milinković

, Evaluation of the railway management model by using a new integrated model DELPHI-SWARA-MABAC, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 1 (2018), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802034v.

15.

Noureddine

and Ristic

, Route planning for hazardous materials transportation: Multicriteria decision making approach, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2 (2019), 66–85. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.31181/dmame1901066n.

16.

Popovic

, Kuzmanović

and Savić

, A comparative empirical study of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint analysis: Literature review, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 1 (2018), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802160p.

17.

Kaklauskas

, Zavadskas

E.K.

, Raslanas

, Ginevicius

, Komka

and Malinauskas

, Selection of Low-e tribute in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: A Lithuanian case, Energy and Buildings 38 (2006), 454–462.

18.

Pamučar

, Božanić

, Lukovac

and Komazec

, Normalized weighted geometric Bonferroni mean operator of interval rough numbers - application in interval rough DEMATEL-COPRAS, Facta Universitatis, series: Mechanical Engineering 16 (2018), 171–191. doi:10.22190/FUME180503018P.

19.

Kumar

, Sah

, Singh

A.R.

, Deng

, He

, Kumar

and Bansal

R.C.

, A review of multi criteria decision making towards sustainable renewable energy development, Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69 (2017), 596–609.

20.

Olson

D.L.

, Mechitov

and Moshkovich

, Learning Aspects of Decision Aids, Köksalan

, Zionts

(eds) Multile Criteria Decision Making in the New Millennium. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 507, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001.

21.

Haddad

and Sanders

, Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty, Operations Research Perspectives 5 (2018), 357–370.

22.

Mota

, Campos

A.R.

and Neves-Silva

, First look at MCDM: Choosing a decision method, Advances in Smart Systems Research 3 (2013), 25–30.

23.

Kornyshova

and Salinesi

, MCDM techniques selection approaches: State of the art, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM 2007), 2007.

24.

Ulengin

, Topcu

and Sahin

, An artificial neural network approach to multicriteria method selection, Proceedings of the 15th Int Conf on MCDM’00, IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM 2007), 2007.

25.

Hornberger

L.E.

, Rapid Prototyping Program, Santa Clara University, 1993.

26.

Campbell

R.I.

and Bernie

M.R.N.

, Creating a database of rapid prototyping system capabilities, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 61 (1996), 163–167. doi:10.1016/0924-0136(96)02481-8.

27.

Bauer

, Klingenberg

and Müller

, Computer based rapid prototyping system selection and support, in: Proceedings of Time Compression Technologies Conference, The Heritage Motor Center, UK, 1996.

28.

Phillipson

D.K.

, Rapid Prototyping Machine Selection Program, PN, 1997.

29.

Bibb

, The development of a rapid prototyping selection system for small companies, in: Cardiff, UK, 1999.

30.

Masood

S.H.

and Soo

, A rule based expert system for rapid prototyping system selection, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 18 (2002), 267–274. doi:10.1016/S0736-5845(02)00017-0.

31.

Helsinki University, RP Selector, in: Helsinki University of Technology, 2002.

32.

IVF SWEDEN, RP Selector, in: SWEDEN, 2005. www.IVF.SE..

33.

Mahesh

, Wong

Y.S.

, Fuh

J.Y.H.

and Loh

H.T.

, A Six-sigma approach for benchmarking of RP&M processes, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31 (2006), 374–387. doi:10.1007/s00170-005-0201-z.

34.

Byun

H.S.

and Lee

K.H.

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

35.

ASERM, Spanish Rapid Manufacturing Association, in: 2006.

36.

Mahapatra

S.S.

and Panda

B.N.

, Benchmarking of rapid prototyping systems using grey relational analysis, International Journal of Services and Operations Management 16 (2013), 460–477. doi:10.1504/IJSOM.2013.057509.

37.

Shende

and Kulkarni

D.P.

, Decision support system for rapid prototyping process selection, 4 (2014), 6.

38.

Narayan

and Bhusan

, Integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for the Selection of a Rapid Prototyping Process under Multi-Criteria Perspective | Request PDF, ResearchGate. 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3_Integrated_AHP_and_fuzzy_TOPSIS_Approach_for_the_Selection_of_a_Rapid_Prototyping_Process_under_Multi-Criteria_Perspective (accessed January 3, 2019).

39.

Dixit

N.K.

, Srivastava

and Narain

, Comparison of two different rapid prototyping system based on dimensional performance using grey relational grade method, Procedia Technology 25 (2016), 908–915. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.08.178.

40.

Peko

and Nikola

, and Bozendko, Application of AHP,fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method in solving additive manufacturing process selection problem,, Tehnički Vjesnik 25 (2018), 453–61. doi:10.17559/TV-20170124092906.

41.

Zhang

and Guo

, Deriving priority weights from intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations under group decision-making settings, Journal of the Operational Research Society 68 (2017), 1582–1599. doi:10.1057/s41274-016-0171-6.

42.

Zhang

, Kou

, Yu

and Guo

, On priority weights and consistency for incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Knowledge-Based Systems 143 (2018), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.12.010.

43.

Zhang

, Kou

and Dong

, Additive consistency analysis and improvement for hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Expert Systems with Applications 98 (2018), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.01.016.

44.

Turskis

, Zavadskas

E.K.

, Antucheviciene

and Kosareva

, A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection, Journal of Computers Communications & Control 10 (2015), 113. doi:10.15837/ijccc.2015.6.2078.

45.

Scholten

, Schuwirth

, Reichert

and Lienert

, Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis–An application to water supply infrastructure planning, Eur J Operat Res 242 (2015), 243–260.

46.

Agnieszka

, Daniel

and Edyta

, Symmetry | free full-text | fuzzy AHP application for supporting contractors’ bidding decision, Symmetry 10 (2018). https://www.mdpi.com/-/10/11/642 (accessed January 22, 2019).

47.

Wohlers

and Gornet

, History of additive manufacturing, (2014), 34.

48.

What is PolyJet 3D Printing Technology? By Tom Rohrbeck | GSC Articles, GSC. (n.d.). https://www.gsc-3d.com/articles//11/what-polyjet-3d-printing-technology (accessed January 6, 2019).

49.

What is FDM?: Fused Deposition Modeling Technology for 3D Printing | Stratasys, (n.d.). https://www.stratasys.com/fdm-technology (accessed January 6, 2019).

50.

What is MJP (MultiJet Printing)? 3D Systems. (n.d.). /resources/information-guides/multi-jet-printing/mjp (accessed January 3, 2019).

51.

Surhone

L.M.

, Timpledon

M.T.

and Marseken

S.F.

, Selective Laser Sintering, VDM Publishing, 2010.

52.

Julie

, What is Three Dimensional Printing? (2000). http://www.mit.edu/ tdp/whatis3dp.html (accessed January 6, 2019).

53.

Torfi

, Farahani

R.Z.

and Rezapour

, Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives, Applied Soft Computing 10 (2010), 520–528. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.021.

54.

Saaty

T.L.

, The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, Scientific Research Publishing, New York, NY, 1980. https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=982 (accessed January 22, 2019).

55.

Amarasingha

R.P.N.U.

and Piantanakulchai

, Fuzzy Extension of the Analytic Network Process for travel mode-choice modeling, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 6 (2007), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.11175/eastpro.2007.0.127.0.

56.

Radionovs

and Užga-Rebrovs

, Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for ecological risk assessment, Information Technology and Management Science 19 (2016), 16–22. doi:10.1515/itms-2016-0005.

57.

Meixner

, Fuzzy AHP group decision analysis and its application for the evaluation of energy sources, The 10th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process, Multi-criteria Decision Making, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2009. http://www.isahp.org/2009Proceedings/index.htm.

58.

Zadeh

L.A.

, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965), 338–353. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.

59.

Ruoning

and Xiaoyan

, Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 52 (1992), 251–257. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(92)90236-W.

60.

Ayhan

M.B.

, A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: A case study in a gearmotor company, International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains 4 (2013), 11–23. doi:10.5121/ijmvsc.2013.4302.

61.

Petkovic

, Sevarac

, Jaksic

M.L.

and Marinkovic

, Application of fuzzy AHP method for choosing a technology within service company | Request PDF, Technics Technologies Education Management 7 (2012). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7_Application_of_fuzzy_AHP_method_for_choosing_a_technology_within_service_company (accessed January 22, 2019).

62.

Van Laarhoven

P.J.M.

and Pedrycz

, A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11 (1983), 229–241. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80082-7.

63.

Buckley

J.J.

, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17 (1985), 233–247. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9.

64.

Chang

D.-Y.

, Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 95 (1996), 649–655. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.

65.

Princy

and Dhenakaran

, Comparison of triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy membership function, IJRDO - Journal of Computer Science and Engineering 2 (2016).

66.

Savitha

and Mary

, New methods for ranking of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, advances in fuzzy mathematics, Advances in Fuzzy Mathematics 12 (2017), 1159–1170.

67.

Akbaş

and Dalkiliç

T.E.

, Multi-criteria supplier selection based on fuzzy pairwise comparison in AHP, (2018), 13.

68.

Naghadehi

M.Z.

, Mikaeil

and Ataei

, The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009), 8218–8226. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.006.

69.

Chen

Y.-H.

, Wang

T.-C.

and Wu

C.-Y.

, Multi-criteria decision making with fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Applied Mathematical Modelling 35 (2011), 1322–1330. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2010.09.009.

70.

Ju-Long

, Control problems of grey systems, Systems & Control Letters 1 (1982), 288–294. doi:10.1016/S0167-6911(82)80025-X.

71.

H.S.

, Chang

C.K.

, Hwang

N.C.

and Chung

C.T.

, Grey relational analysis coupled with principal component analysis for optimization design of the cutting parameters in high-speed end milling, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009), 3808–3817. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.08.030.

72.

Lee

W.-S.

and Lin

Y.-C.

, Evaluating and ranking energy performance of office buildings using Grey relational analysis, Energy 36 (2011), 2551–2556. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.049.

73.

Triantaphyllou

and Sanchez

A.A.

, Sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods, Decision Sciences 28 (1997), 151–194.

74.

Simanaviciene

and Ustinovichius

, Sensitivity analysis for multiple criteria decision making methods: TOPSIS and SAW, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010), 7743–7744.

75.

Mukhametzyanov

and Pamučar

, A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical approach, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 1 (2018), 51–80.

76.

Syamsuddin

, Multicriteria evaluation and sensitivity analysis on information security, International Journal of Computer Applications 63 (2013), 22–25.

77.

Pamucar

, Chatterjee

and Zavadskas

E.K.

, Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision making approach based on interval rough numbers, Computers & Industrial Engineering 127 (2019), 383–407.

78.

, Zhang

, Zhong

and Sun

, Extended TODIM for multi-criteria group decision making based on unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Computers & Industrial Engineering 114 (2017), 316–328.

79.

Zhang

, Guo

and Martínez

, Managing multigranular linguistic distribution assessments in large-scale multiattribute group decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 47 (2017), 3063–3076.

80.

Leoneti

A.B.

, Considerations regarding the choice of ranking multiple criteria decision making methods, Pesquisa Operacional 36 (2016), 259–277.

81.

Hajkowicz

and Higgins

, A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management, European Journal of Operational Research 184 (2008), 255–265.

82.

Athawale

V.M.

and Chakraborty

, A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi-criteria decision-making methods for industrial robot selection, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 2 (2011), 831–850.

Decision advisor based on uncertainty theories for the selection of rapid prototyping system

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References