manufac part 1

8/3/2019 Manufac Part 1

1/13

International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (IJMME), Vol. 4 (2009), No. 1, 49 -61.

COMPOSITE MANUFACTURING PROCESS SELECTION USING ANALYTICAL

HIERARCHY PROCESS

A. Hambali1, S.M. Sapuan

1, N. Ismail

1and Y. Nukman

2

1Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.

2Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture,

Faculty of Engineering, University Malaya,

50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper describes an approach, based on the analytical

hierarchy process (AHP) that assists decision makers or

manufacturing engineers determining the most

appropriate manufacturing process to be employd inmanufacturing of composite automotive bumper beam at

the early stage of product development process. There are

5 types of processes under consideration namely

injection moulding (IM), resin transfer moulding (RTM),

structural reaction injection moulding (SRIM), reaction

injection moulding (RIM) and compression moulding

(CM). The analysis ranks the 5 types of processes for

suitability of use in manufacturing automotive bumper

beam based on 6 main selection factors and 12 sub-

factors. Determining the right manufacturing process was

performed based on AHP concept through utilizing

Expert Choice software. The results indicated that the

injection moulding was the most appropriate

manufacturing process because it has the highest value

(22.8%) among the other manufacturing processes. The

sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of

the priority ranking and study the effect of different

factors on deciding the best decision option.

Keyword: Analytical hierarchy process (AHP),

manufacturing process selection, conceptual design

stage, automotive bumper beam, concurrent engineering

1. INTRODUCTION

Considering concurrent engineering in product

development is very important. One of the concurrentengineering concepts is early decision making (Prasad,

1996). According to Giachetti (1998), an important

aspect of concurrent engineering is the early

consideration of manufacturing process in the product

development process to achieve a reduction in product

development time, production costs, and quality defects.

Many researchers (Giachetti, 1998; Sapuan et al., 2005;

Yu et al., 1993a) have addressed the importance of

employing concurrent engineering concept in considering

the most appropriate manufacturing process for a given

product in the literature. One of the early stages of product

development process is called conceptual design stage. The

conceptual design stage is an initial stage of the product

development process which has been identified as the most

crucial for the successful introduction of new products

(Hollins and Pugh, 1990; Riedal et al., 1997). Traditionally,manufacturing process selection is performed at the detail

design stage. It means that critical issues related to

manufacturing processes is frequently not identified until this

stage. It is clear that the detail design stage is too late a point

in the product development cycle to identify the constraints

imposed by manufacturing processes and to go back and

redesign the product (Krishnakumar, 2003). Thus, the

consideration of manufacturing process during conceptual

design stage is most important in improving the efficiency of

manufacture of products. Manufacturing process selection is

a process of determining the most appropriate process for a

given product. The importance of manufacturing process

selection in product development process has been well

recognized. The importance of selection of an appropriate

manufacturing process at the early stage of product

development process has been addressed by many

researchers in the literature. Lovatt and Shecliff (1998) and

Ashby (1999) pointed out the importance of considering the

right manufacturing process for a product at the early stage of

product development process. It is very importance to

determine the most suitable process to be employed at the

early stage of product development process in order to avoid

the cost-penalty of making changes become large (Ashby,

1999). However, determining the most appropriate

manufacturing process at the early stage of product

development process is difficult task and crucial decision. It

is due to selection of a suitable manufacturing processfrequently involves considering various factors. Typically,

the decision to choose an appropriate manufacturing process

is given to an expert who uses a complex reasoning process

based on empirical knowledge and past experience. This

selection method may result in inconsistent or inappropriate

choices if the decision is handled by a beginner who fails to

map correctly the product characteristics with the

manufacturing efficacy of various manufacturing processes

(Raviwongse et al., 2000). Thus, it is required to employ an

appropriate selection method to assist manufacturing

49


2/13

engineers determining the most suitable manufacturing

process. There are many methods have been developed

by researchers to assist manufacturing engineers to

determine and select the most appropriate manufacturing

process for a product at the early stage of product

development process in the literature review. Yu et al.

(1993a) described an expert system that helps designers

select a manufacturing process in the early stage of

product development process. Agard and Kusiak (2005)

discussed applications of data mining in manufacturing

process selection. A methodology for selection of

manufacturing processes is proposed and illustrated with

an industrial scenario. The proposed methodology uses

the data generated from manufacturing processes to

improve efficiency in the manufacturing processes

selected for a new part. Raviwongse et al. (2000)

developed an intelligent self-organising map

(SOM)/fuzzy-based model to aid designers in the

selection of an appropriate plastic manufacturing process.

Yu et al. (1993b) developed a program that combines

preliminary screening of processes with normalized costanalysis. Yang et al. (2003) proposed system called

genetically optimized neural network system (GONNS)

which uses as a human-like decision-making tool for the

selection of optimum composite material and operating

conditions. Perzyk and Meftah (1997) described a

computer aid for the selection of a manufacturing process

in design of a single mechanical part. The developed

module called Evaluation System for Manufacturing

Processes utilizes existing general data on process

capabilities, design-for-manufacturability rules and

materials processing. Sapuan et al. (2005) developed a

prototype computer aided manufacturing process

selection by using two computer aided manufacturingsoftware package called Visual Basic application and

Microsoft Access application to determine the most

appropriate manufacturing process for automotive

components. Ashby (1999) and Ashby et al. (2004)

developed a useful systematic approach which consists of

four main steps namely translating, screening, ranking

and supporting information for determining a suitable

manufacturing process for a product. A recent study

published by Ahmari (2008) employed combination

analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical

hierarchy process (AHP and FAHP) to select the best

manufacturing technology that achieves most of the

company requirements. Manufacturing process selectionproblem has also been treated as a multicriteria decision

making due to various factors affecting the selection

process must be considered. One of the concurrent

engineering tools that can be implemented to assist

manufacturing engineers determining the most optimum

manufacturing process is analytical hierarchy process

(AHP). However, the application of AHP in the field of

manufacturing process selection is less addressed in the

literature. Currently there is no paper in the literature that

discusses the use of AHP process in determining the

most suitable manufacturing process for composite

automotive components. Ho (2008) reviewed international

journals related to application of AHP from 1997 to 2006

found that AHP can be employed to a wide variety of fields.

However, there is no studied the application of AHP related

to manufacturing process selection in product development

process. Thus, the main focus of this paper is to explore the

potential use of AHP in assisting manufacturing engineers to

evaluate and determine the most appropriate manufacturing

process for producing composite automotive bumper beam at

the early stage of product development process.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY USED IN THIS

RESEARCH

The framework of the proposed methodology for the

selection of an appropriate manufacturing process for

composite automotive bumper beam is depicted in Figure 1.

There are two main design activities (two phases) involved

namely product design specification (PDS) and conceptual

design stage. The goal of this proposed selection process is toassist the manufacturing engineers choose the most

appropriate process that best suit the design requirements.

The details regarding these two design activities are

explained below:-

Product design specification

The first phase of this proposed selection system is a product

design specification (PDS). PDS is a document prepared

early in the product development process that controls the

design and manufacture of a product (Pugh, 1991). The PDS

is very important to the success of the product development

process because it so influential in describing the requirementof the final component (Wright, 1998). In considering the

right manufacturing process for the automotive bumper

beam, only 12 elements of the PDS were considered in

designing automotive bumper beam as depicted in Figure 2.

The details of PDS are not discussed in this paper

Selection process at the conceptual design stage

The second phase of this proposed selection system is called

conceptual design stage. According to Pugh (1991) and Pahl

et al. (2007), conceptual design of product development

process is a preliminary stage of design activities becausevarious decision making problems are addressed at this stage,

for example materials selection, design concept selection and

manufacturing process election. Therefore, considering the

right decision at this stage is very important and critical. It is

because the overall success of the product as once the

conceptual design process has been completed, the majority

of product cost and quality has been fixed by selecting

particular concepts (Rehman and Yan, 2003). At this stage,

various selection process activities have been applied in order

to determine the most suitable manufacturing process for a

given design as illustrated in Figure 1.

50


3/13

Figure 1 Manufacturing process selection at the conceptual design stage in a concurrent engineering environment.

Figure 2 Elements of PDS for development of composite automotive bumper beam

PDS

51


4/13

3. INVESTIGATION OF VARIOUS

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES COMPOSITE

AUTOMOTIVE BUMPER BEAM

There is a number of manufacturing processes for

polymeric based composite fabrications are available in

the literature. These processing methods are dissimilar

each others depending on various manufacturing

considerations. It is the task of manufacturing engineers

to determine the right processing technique that meet the

design specification or product design specification.

Several processing techniques and some successful

applications in manufacturing automotive bumper beam

have been reported in the literature. Mohan (1987)

discussed the use of structural reaction injection

moulding (SRIM) composite in automotive bumper

beam. One of the first commercial applications for SRIM

was a bumper beam for the 1989 Chevrolet Corvette

(Miracle and Donaldson, 2001). Mazumdar (2002)

described in his book that several compositemanufacturing processes can be employed in producing

bumper beam such as compression moulding of GMT

and structural reaction injection moulding (SRIM). Lee and

Suh (2006) cited that reinforced plastic bumper beam made

by compression moulding with sheet moulding compound

(SMC), resin transfer moulding (RTM), and reaction

injection moulding (RIM) have been successfully employed.

Schmachtenberg and Tpker (2004) developed

composite bumper beam under resin transfer moulding

process. Crand et al. (1997) presented the methods and

results of a study of bumper beams undertaken by

Hutchinson and Peugeot. The purpose of the study was to

minimize the differences in cantilever between Europeanand American. A bumper beam manufactured using

SRIM technology. Fielder and Norman (1992) discussed

the driving for specifying SRIM into composite bumper

beams. Jula and Butterfield (1992) briefly discussed the

use of compression moulding and injection moulding in

manufacturing of automotive bumper beam. Figure 3 is a

picture of a bumper beam fabricated using composite

material and under compression moulding process (Trantina

et al., 1993). There are five different types of manufacturing

processes have been commonly employed in manufacturing

of composite automotive bumper beam for passenger cars as

depicted in Table 1.

However, the literatures discussed as mentioned above on

composite bumper beam have been focused only the

fabricating of bumper beam by employing various processes,

but there is no studied on selection of a suitable

manufacturing process for automotive bumper beam. It is

also indicated that many researchers studied in the field of

materials selection for composite automotive bumper beam,

but the research on selection of an appropriate manufacturing

process is less explored.

Figure 3 Bumper beam fabricated by using compression

moulding process (Tranina et al., 1993)

Table 1 Bumper beam fabricated by various composite manufacturing processes

No Manufacturing process References

1 Resin transfer moulding (RTM) Lee and Suh, 2006; Schmachtenberg and Topker, 2004

and Cheon et al., 1995.

2 Structural reaction injection moulding(SRIM) Mohan, 1987; Miracle and Donaldson, 2001; Mazumdar,2002; Crand et al., 1997; Fielder and Norman, 1992; and

Kelman and Nelson, 1998.

3 Reaction injection moulding (RIM) Lee and Suh, 2006 and Cheon et al., 1995.

4 Compression moulding of SMC

(CM)

Mazumdar, 2002; Lee and Suh, 2006; Jula and

Butterfield, 1992; Trantina et al., 1993; Cheon et al.,

1995; Gilliard et al., 1999 and Murphy, 1998.

5 Injection moulding (IM) Jula and Butterfield, 1992; Trantina et al., 1993 and

Murphy, 1998.

52


5/13

4. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION

OF A MANUFACTURING PROCESS

The selection of the best manufacturing process for the

polymeric composite automotive bumper beam depends

upon the variety of factors and most of these factors are

interrelated. Determining the right manufacturing process

is a complex activity. Thus, the methodology of

determining the right manufacturing process is required

to help make the approach to process selection more

systematic. Various factors have been identified which

include as follows:

4.1 Geometry of the design (GD)

The selection of a suitable manufacturing process for the

automotive bumper beam design can be determined by

geometry of the design. Figure 4 shows the best design

concept of automotive bumper beam has been

determined during design concept selection process at the

early stage of product development process. This design

influences in determining the right manufacturingprocess in selection process. Various selection factors

related to the geometry of the design need to consider as

follows:

a. Shape of the design (SH)

Shape of the product is the most important factor that

must be considered in determining the most suitable

manufacturing process of automotive bumper beam.

As the shape of the automotive bumper beam becomes

more complex such as curvature shape, selection of a

suitable process becomes important.

b. Complexity of the design (CD)Complexity is defined as the presence of design features

such as non-uniform wall thickness, non-uniform cross

section, ribbing pattern, holes, etc. These design features

need to consider in order to avoid the additional process

and increasing production time during manufacturing

process. It is also to avoid designers to modify the geometry

of the design in order to match up for the chosen

manufacturing process.

c. Size (SZ)

The size of the design (the maximum dimension of design) is

a factor that needs to consider. The maximum size (length,

width, height) that can be handled by a process is limited.

The size of design in this case study was determined in

product design specification stage.

d. Wall Thickness (WT)

The wall thickness of the design is also required to consider

which influences the selection of a suitable manufacturing

process.

e. Weight (WG)

The weight of the design is also factors that influence the

selection of a suitable manufacturing process. The weight of

the design is also limited the selection of the process.

f. Tolerance and surface finish (TS)

Tolerance factor consider in this case study is tolerance

related to the flatness of surface. The surface finish of a part

indicates the measured roughness or smoothness of the

surface. To fabricate the product which has a good tolerance

and surface finish is very important. Considering tolerance

and surface finish factor in determining the most appropriate

manufacturing process can make the product to be

manufactured in a higher quality.

4.2 Production characteristics (PC)

Production characteristic is very essential factor in

determining the most suitable manufacturing process.Production characteristics are not related to the functionality

of design or not relevant to the ability of a process to produce

the product. There are 3 production characteristics influence

the selection of manufacturing process as follows:

Figure 4 The final conceptual design of bumper beam: (a) Wireframe 3D modelling and (b) Photo render 3D modelling

(Hambali et al., 2009a).

(a) (b)

53


6/13

a. Production quantity

Production quantity is an important factor that plays an

important role in manufacturing process selection. The

production volume affects process selection to a

considerable extent. The cost of a process has break-even

points over the economic production quantities (Ludema

et al., 1987).

b. Rate of production (RP)

The right selection of manufacturing process is also

based on rate of production (Mazumdar, 2002). Each

process has its own possible production rate or an

economical range of production rates although individual

rates will differ depending on the machine capability.

c. Processing times (PT)

Shorter processing is an important consideration because

automotive components are manufactured at a rate of one

component per minute (Lee and Suh, 2006).

4.3 Material (MT)Selection of manufacturing process for producing

automotive bumper beam is greatly influenced by the

material selected. In this case study, the best material has

been determined during material selection stage at the

early stage of product development process. The material

used was glass fibre epoxy. For this case study, the glass

fibre epoxy used is assumed as an isotropic manner

(Hambali et al., 2009b). This assumption was made

because the material used for fabricating automotive

bumper beam was random chopped short fibre reinforced

polymer (Barton, 2008; Hosseinzadeh et al., 2005 and

Wacker and Hormann, 2004). The materials properties

require in fabricating product have been identified duringmaterial selection process. The foremost factor

considering in the material selection is the ability of the

material to absorb enough energy during impact or crash.

The material is primarily dependent on the physical and

mechanical properties required. In actual practice, the

following properties are considered such as strength,

corrosion resistance, stiffness, density, etc. These material

properties directly influence the production methods by

which the material is worked (Yu et al., 1993a).

4.4 Cost considerations (CS)

It is well known that costs are an important factor, as almost

any production parameter can be related to cost. Generally,

cost considerations are difficult to quantify (Esawi and

Ashby, 2004). To achieve the final aim of minimising cost,

several factors influencing cost must be considered as

follows:

a. Tooling cost (TC)

In manufacturing polymeric based composite, considering the

cost of tooling is very important. Tooling cost refers to the

cost of the mould and its accessories (Raviwongse et al.,

2000). The tooling cost depends on the type of processes,

design complexity and the production quantity. Lower

tooling cost need to consider in determining the bestmanufacturing process.

b. Equipment cost (EC)

Lower equipment or machine cost is also important factor

need to consider in determining the right most manufacturing

process.

c. Labour cost (LC)

Labour cost is also plays a deciding factor in the selection of

a manufacturing process.

4.5 Easy of maintenance (EM)

The right choice of a manufacturing process is alsoconsidered based on the ability the machine/equipment to be

easily repaired. Sometime, products failed due to the machine

problems. Considering how easy the machines to be repaired

also factor need to consider.

4.6 Availability of the equipments and labour (AV)

The selection of the most appropriate manufacturing

process is also determined by availability of the

equipments and labour. The availability of the equipment

and labour means that an existence of the equipments and

labour in the place of manufacturing. The availability of

the equipments and labour are also important

consideration due to unavailability of them can cause ofdelaying the product to be quickly produced.

5. SELECTION OF MANUFACTURING PROCESS

WITH AN ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

(AHP) APPROACH

This work presents the use of analytical hierarchy

process (AHP) in assisting manufacturing engineers to

determine the most appropriate manufacturing process

from a wide range of different alternatives to be used in

producing automotive composite bumper beam. AHP is a

multicriteria decision making method developed by Saaty

(1980) that provides a problem-solving framework and a

systematic method for determining the right decision of any

problems. In general, AHP consists of three basic steps

namely decomposition, comparative judgement and the

synthesis (Ho, 2008; Saaty and Vargas, 2001 and Cheng et

al., 2007). These steps can be elaborated by structuring them

in a more encompassing nine steps process (Hambali et al.,2007). Some advantages of AHP are its simplicity, applicableto the problem of group decision-making and consistency

verification to ensure the judgements are consistent (Ho,

2008).

The methodology of manufacturing process selection

In order to determine the most appropriate manufacturing

process at the conceptual design stage, AHP through

utilizing Expert Choice 11.5 software is used. The software

54


7/13

developed by Forman et al. (2000) is a multicriteria

decision support software based on the AHP

methodology. It is easy to use and understand, as well as

providing visual representations of overall ranking on a

computer screen. Figure 5 shows various factors that

influence in manufacturing process selection need to

consider in determining the most optimum

manufacturing process for automotive bumper beam.

The details of each factor have been described in

section 4. There are five manufacturing processes

under considerations in this case study as depicted in

Table 1. All processes as mentioned above have their

own strengths, weaknesses and priority in selection.

However, the most optimum manufacturing process

must be determined according to the design

requirements and factors influencing in the selection

process. Selection of a suitable manufacturing process

for automotive bumper beam is performed by using AHP

steps through utilizing Expert Choice software. The main

goal of considering the right process at the early stage of

product development process or during conceptual designstage is to select the most appropriate manufacturing

process in order to produce a good quality product. The

goal, factors that influence the selection process and

process under consideration are then translated to the

hierarchy structure as shown in Figure 6.

Pairwise comparisons are fundamental to the AHP

methodology (Forman et al., 2000). Pairwise comparison

begins with comparing the relative importance of two

selected items. The manufacturing engineers need to

perform pairwise comparison for all factors and

alternatives which under considerations in the selection

process. In this case study, the qualitative data (Table 2)used to perform pairwise comparison are taken from

various sources (Astrom, 2002; Drozda et al., 1983;

Scallan, 2003; Vinson and Sierakowaki, 2002; Hollaway,

1994; Murray, 1997; Mazumdar, 2002; Richardson, 1987

and Miracle and Donaldson, 2001). The judgements are

decided based on the authors experience and knowledge

by using the relative scale pairwise comparison as shown

in Table 3. able 4 shows an example pairwise

comparison, if geometry of the design (GD) is strongly

more important over material (MT), then a=5.

Reciprocals are automatically assigned to each pairwise

comparison.

The selection results

Based on the AHP steps, Expert Choice software was

used to determine the most optimum manufacturing

process for the automotive bumper beam. The results

shown in Figure 7 represent the relative weights for main

factors, sub-factors, and alternatives (process under

consideration). The judgements for all levels are

acceptable due to the fact that consistency ratio (CR) is

less than 0.1. If it is found that the consistency ratio exceeds

the limit, the designers should review and revise the pairwise

comparisons

Figure 8 shows the injection moulding (IM) with a weight of

0.228 (22.8%) as the most appropriate manufacturing process

or as a first choice, the second choice is the structure

reinforced injection moulding (SRIM) with a weight of 0.220

(22.0%), and the last decision option is the resin transfer

moulding (RTM) with a weight of only 0.165 (16.5%).

If the results of the selection are not satisfied with some

reasons such as lack of information and inadequate model

structure, manufacturing engineers or decision makers can

perform selection process again in order to ensure the result

achieves can produce a good product with minimal cost.

Figure 5 Various selection factors in manufacturing process

selection

55


8/13

Figure 6 The hierarchy structure (4 levels) represents the goal, main factors, sub-factors and process under consideration

(decision options)

Table 2 Data used to perform pairwise comparison

Process

Criteria RTM SRIM RIM CM IMSH Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

CD Simple-complex Simple-complex Simple-complex Simple-complexSimple

Very complex

SZ Small-large Small-large Small-large Small-large Small-medium

WT Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

WG Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

TS Good Good-Excellent Good-Excellent Good-Excellent Excellent

PQ Medium Medium-High High High, Very High

RP Medium High High High Very High

PTMedium

(6-30min)

Fast

(30sec-15min)

Fast

1-2min

Fast

(20sec-10min)

Fast

(3sec-15min)

MT

Reinforcement:

random,continuous, etc

Resin:polyester,

epoxy etc

Reinforcement:

random, etcResin:

Polyester, etc

Reinforcement:

random, continuous,etc

Resin:

polyester, epoxy,

polypropylene,etc

Reinforcement:

random,continuous, etc

Resin:

polyester, epoxy,

vinylester,

Reinforcement:

random, short, etc.Resin: polyester,

epoxy,

polypropylene,etc

TC Low-High Low Low-High Medium-High High

EC Medium High Medium-High High High

LC Medium Medium Low Low Low

EM Easy Easy Easy Easy Medium

AV Available Available Available Available Available

56


9/13

Table 3 Scale for pairwise comparisons (Saaty and Vargas, 2001)

Relative

important

Definition Explanation

1 Equal value Two requirements are of equal value

3 Slightly more value Experience slightly favours one requirement over

another5 Essential or strong value Experience strongly favours one requirement over

another

7 Very strong value A requirement is strongly favoured and its dominance is

demonstrated in practice

9 Extreme value The evidence favouring one over another is of the

highest possible order of affirmation.

2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between two

adjacent judgments

When compromise is needed

Reciprocals Reciprocals for inverse comparison

Figure 7 All priority vectors for main factors, sub-factors and alternatives

6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The powerful of using AHP through utilizing Expert

Choice is a sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis is

carried out to study the effect of the different factors on

deciding the best decision option.

The final priorities of the design concepts are highly

dependent on the priority vectors attached to the main

factors. Figure 9 shows the dynamic sensitivity graph of

the main criteria with respect to the goal. It not only

demonstrates that the injection moulding is the mostsuitable process, but also shows how sensitive the

decision is. For example, if the priority vector of cost

consideration is increased by 10% (from 13.5% to

23.5%), consequently, the ranking of the priorities will

change which the structure reinforced injection moulding

with a weight of 0.241 (24.1%) as a first choice, the

second choice is the injection moulding with a weight of

0.217 (21.7%), and the last choice is resin transfer

moulding with a weight of only 0.159 (15.9%) as shown

in Figure 10.

57


10/13

Table 4 Perform judgement of pairwise comparison

GOAL PC GD CS MT EM AV

PC 1

GD 1 a=5

CS 1

MT 1/5 1

EM 1

AV 1

Figure 8 Results of selection

Figure 9 The dynamic sensitivity graph of the main factors with respect to the goal

58


11/13

Figure 10 The dynamic sensitivity graph of the main factors with respect to the goal when score of cost consideration is

increased by 10% (from 13.5% to 23.5%)

7. CONCLUSIONS

Selection of a suitable manufacturing process for

automotive composite bumper beam in a concurrent

engineering environment was explored in this paper. The

proposed framework of methodology in selection of an

appropriate manufacturing process for composite

automotive bumper beam provide a systematic approach

to manufacturing engineers to consider and select the

most optimum process at the conceptual design stage.

The use of concurrent engineering tool called analytical

hierarchical process (AHP) in solving decision making

problem at early stage of product development process

was explored in this paper. The paper also described themethodology for determining the most appropriate

manufacturing process for automotive bumper beam.

AHP concept can assist manufacturing engineers to

evaluate and select the best manufacturing process based

on the various factors and sub-factors of a decision. The

analysis reveals that the injection moulding is a most

suitable process for manufacturing automotive bumper

beam as it has the highest value (23.1%) among the other

manufacturing processes. A sensitivity analysis was

carried out to study the effect of the different factors on

deciding the best manufacturing process. It is proved that

the AHP through utilizing Expert Choice software is

useful method in solving the manufacturing processselection problem for the automotive composite

components during conceptual design stage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Universiti Putra Malaysia

(UPM) for the financial support through Research

University Grant Scheme 2007 (RUG 2007) vote number

91045.

REFERENCES

Agard, B. and Kusiak, A. 2005. Data Mining for

Selection of Manufacturing Processes. Data Mining

and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, Ed.

Maimon, O and Rokach, L. pp 1159-1166. New

York: Springer.

Ahmari, A.M.A. 2008. A methodology for selection and

evaluation of advanced manufacturing

technologies. International Journal of Computer

Integrated Manufacturing, Volume 21, pp 778789.

Ashby, M.F. 1999. Material Selection in Mechanical

Design. 2nd Ed. Cambridge, Butterworth-

Heinemann.Ashby, M.F., Brechet, Y.J.M., Cebon, D. and Salvo, L.

2004. Selection strategies for materials and

processes. Materials & Design , Volume 25, pp 51

67.

Astrom, B.T. 2002. Manufacturing of Polymer

Composite. United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Barton, D.C. 2008. Postgraduate research at Leeds

University, Seminar presented at Faculty of

Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

pers.comm. 5 August 2008.

Cheng, S.C., Chen, M.Y., Chang, H.Y. and Chou, T.Z.

2007. Semantic-based facial expression recognition

using analytical hierarchy process. Expert Systemswith Application, Volume 33, pp 8695.

Cheon, S.S., Choi, J.H. and Lee, D.G. 1995.

Development of the composite bumper beam for

passenger cars. Composite Structures, Volume 32,

pp 491-499.

Crand, E., Choumer, S. and Fromentin, B. 1997. High-

performance front bumper beams. SAE

technical paper 190043.

Drozda, T., Wick, C., Benedict, J.T. and Veilleux, R.F.

1983. Tooling and manufacturing Engineers

Increased by 10%

59


12/13

Handbook. 4th Ed. New York: Society of

Manufacturing Engineers (SME).

Esawi, A.M.K. and Ashby, M.F. 2004. Computer-based

selection of joining processes Methods, software

and case studies. Materials and Design , Volume

25, pp 555564.

Fielder, J.K. and Norman, M.K. 1992. Structural rim for

production of automotive bumper beams. SAE

technical paper 920524

Forman, E.H., Saaty, T.L., Selly, M.A. and Waldron, R.

2000. Expert Choice 19822000. McLean, VA,

Decision Support Software Inc., Pittsburgh, USA.

Giachetti, R.E. 1998. A decision support system for

material and manufacturing process selection.

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Volume 9, pp

265-276.

Gilliard, B., Bassett, W., Haque, E., Lewis, T.,

Featherman, D., and Johnson, C. 1999. I-section

bumper with improved impact performance from

new mineral-filled glass mat thermoplastic (GMT)

composite. SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-1014.Hambali, A., Sapuan, .S.M. and Ismail, N. 2007.

Evaluation of design concepts at conceptual design

stage using analytical hierarchy process (AHP).

Proceedings of the Conference on Design,

Simulation, Product Development and

Optimization, pp 37-42.

Hambali, A., Sapuan, S.M., Ismail, Nand Nukman, Y.

2009a. Application of analytical hierarchy process

in the design concept selection of automotive

composite bumper beam during the conceptual

design stage. Scientific Research and Essays ,

Volume 4, pp 198-211.

Hambali, A., Sapuan, S.M., Ismail, N

and Nukman, Y.2009b. Material selection of the polymeric

composite automotive bumper beam using

analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Central

South University of Technology-Accepted.

Ho, W. 2008. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and

its applications- a literature review. European

journal of operation research, Volume 186, pp 211-

228.

Hollaway, L. 1994. Handbook of Polymer Composites

for Engineers. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing

limited.

Hollins, W. and Pugh, S. 1990. Successful Product

Design: What to do and When, London:

Butterworths.

Hosseinzadeh, R., Shokrieh, M.M. and Lessard, L.B.

2005. Parametric study of automotive composite

bumper beams subjected to low-velocity impacts.

Composite Structures, Volume 68, pp 419427.

Jula, J. and Butterfield, L. 1992. Blow molded vehicle

bumper beams. (Blow Molding) Plastics

Engineering, Volume 48, pp 21-24.

Kelman, J and Nelson, G.V. 1998. Composite motor

vehicle bumper beam. United States Patent: Patent

No. 5804511.

Krishnakumar, K. 2003. Material and Processes

Selection in Conceptual Design. Master Thesis.

Texas A & M University, United States.

Lee, D.G. and Suh, N.P. 2006. Axiomatic Design and

Fabrication of Composite Structures: Applications

in Robots, Machine Tools, and Automobiles. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Lovatt, A.M. and ShercliffU, H.R. 1998. Manufacturing

process selection in engineering design. Part 2: a

methodology for creating task-based process

selection procedures. Materials and Design,

Volume 19, pp 217-230.

Ludema, K.C., Caddel, R.M., and Atkins, A.G. 1987.

Manufacturing Engineering; Economics and

Processes. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Mazumdar, S.K. 2002. Composites Manufacturing:

Materials, Products, and Process Engineering. New

York: CRC Press.Miracle, D.B. and Donaldson, S.L. 2001. ASM

Handbook: Composites. Ohio: ASM International

Mohan, R. 1987. SRIM composites for automotive

structural applications. Proceedings of the 3rd

Annual Conference on Advanced Composites, pp.

5762.

Murphy, J. 1998. The Reinforced Plastics Handbook.

New York: Elsevier.

Murray, G.T., 1997. Handbook of Materials Selection for

Engineering Applications. New York: CRC Press.

Pahl, G., Beitz, W. Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.H., 2007.

Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach.

Berlin: Springer.Perzyk, M. and Meftah, O.K. 1997. Selection of

manufacturing process in mechanical design.

Journal of Materials Processing Technology,

Volume 76, pp 198202.

Prasad, B. 1996. Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals:

Integrated Product and Process organization.

Michigan: Prentice Hall.

Pugh, S. 1991. Total Design: Integrated Methods for

Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham:

Addison Wesley Limited.

Raviwongse, R., Allada, V. and Sandidge, T. 2000.

Plastic manufacturing process selection

methodology using self-organising map(SOM)/Fuzzy analysis. International Journal of

Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Volume 6,

pp 55161.

Rehman, F and Yan, X.T. 2003. Product design elements

as means to realise functions in mechanical

conceptual design. Proceedings of the International

Conference on Engineering Design ICED 03, pp.

1-10.

Richardson, T. 1987. Composites: A Design Guide. New

York: Industrial Press Inc.

60


13/13

Riedal, J.C.K.H. and Pawar, K.S. 1997. The

consideration of production aspects during product

design stages. Integrated Manufacturing Systems,

Volume 8, pp 208214.

Saaty, L.T. and Vargas, L.G., 2001. Models, Methods,

Concepts & Applications of the Analytical

Hierarchy Process. Boston: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Sapuan, S.M., Abdullah, S. and Abbas, K.A. 2005. A

computer aided manufacturing process selection

for polymer composite automotive components.

Journal of Applied Technology, Volume 3, pp 140-

146.

Scallan, P. 2003. Process Planning: The

Design/manufacture Interface. New York:

Butterworth-Heinemann

Schmachtenberg, E. and Tpker, J. 2004. Resin transfer

moulding for railway industry: Development and

processing of a composite front end bumper.Journal of Polymer Engineering, Volume 24, pp

243-258.

Trantina, G., Nimmer, R. and Malnati, P. 1993.

Structural Analysis of Thermoplastic Components.

New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Vinson, J.R. and Sierakowaki, R.L. 2002. The Behavior

of Structures of Composite Materials. New York:

Springer.

Wacker, M and Hrmann, M. 2004. Simulation of the

crash performance of crash boxes based on

advanced thermoplastic composite. Proceedings of

the 22nd CAD-FEM Users Meeting 2004

International Congress on FEM Technology with

ANSYS CFX & ICEM CFD Conference, pp. 1-15.

Wright, I. 1998. Design Methods in Engineering and

Production Design. London: McGraw-Hill.

Yang, S.Y., Tansel, I.N. and Hughes, C.V.L. 2003.

Selection of optimal material and operating

conditions in composite manufacturing. Part I:

Computational tool. International Journal of

Machine Tools & Manufacture, Volume 43, pp

169173.

Yu, J.C., Krizan, S. and Ishii, K. 1993a. Computer-aided

design for manufacturing process selection. Journal

of Intelligent Manufacturing, Volume 4, pp 199-

208.Yu, J.C., Lotfi, S. and Ishii, K. 1993b. Process selection

for the design of aluminium components. Advances

in Engineering Software, Volume 18, pp 177-186.

61

manufac part 1

Documents