Integrated Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution for Additive Manufacturing Printer Selection
Source abstract
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) has gained widespread in a number of applications based on the layer- fabrication technique. Regardless, planning for AM is a complex decision that involves a variety of build chambers, technology types, material specifications, and application requirements. Furthermore, existing process-planning studies also rarely use healthcare applications. Thus, we propose to evaluate the AM printer selection problem for healthcare applications using integrative decision analysis technique in this study. Initially, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is used to assess criteria deemed important for AM printer selection. That is, criteria related to product, printer, and material, are evaluated. Then, the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is employed to assess AM printer alternatives by evaluating preferences from both technical expert and user groups. Our results illustrate that the best alternative of AM printer depends not only on the types of healthcare application, but also criteria preferences from decision-makers.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Sustainable Supply Chain Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. T Wohlers 2018 Wohlers report 2018 Inc. T Wohlers Associates
2. ASTM, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012
3. M. Ancău and C. Caizar, The computation of Pareto-optimal set in multi-criteria optimization of rapid prototyping processes, Comput. Ind. Eng., 2010, 58, p 696–708.10.1016/j.cie.2010.01.015 ↗
4. J.Y. Han, A study on the prototype modeling method using 3D printing, J. Packag Culture Design Res., 2013, 34, p 97–109.
5. M. K. Thompson, G. Moroni, T. Vaneker, G. Fadel, R. I. Campbell, I. Gibson, A. Bernard, J. Schulz, P. Graf, B. Ahuja and F. Martina, Design for Additive Manufacturing: Trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 201610.1016/j.cirp.2016.05.004 ↗
6. S. Ha, K. Ransikarbum, H. Han, D. Kwon, H. Kim and N. Kim, A dimensional compensation algorithm for vertical bending deformation of 3D printed parts in selective laser sintering, Rapid Prototyp. J., 2018, 24(6), p 955–963.10.1108/RPJ-12-2016-0202 ↗
7. K. Ransikarbum, S. Ha, J. Ma and N. Kim, Multi-objective optimization analysis for part-to-Printer assignment in a network of 3D fused deposition modelling, J. Manuf. Syst., 2017, 43, p 35–46.10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.02.012 ↗
8. K. Ransikabum, C. Yingviwatanapong, R. Leksomboon, T. Wajanavisit N. Bijaphala, (2019) Additive Manufacturing-based Healthcare 3D Model for Education: Literature Review and A Feasibility Study, In 2019 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress (RI2C), IEEE, p 1-610.1109/RI2C48728.2019.8999943 ↗
9. K. Ransikarbum, R. Pitakaso and N. Kim, A decision-support model for additive manufacturing scheduling using an integrative analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective optimization, Appl. Sci., 2020, 10(15), p 5159.10.3390/app10155159 ↗
10. K. Nyembwe, D. de Beer, K. van der Walt, S. Bhero and K. Katuku, Comparison of additive manufacturing processes for rapid casting for tooling application using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), In Proceeding of Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2012, p 42
11. K. Ransikarbum and S.J. Mason, Multiple-objective analysis of integrated relief supply and network restoration in humanitarian logistics operations, Int. J. Prod. Res., 2016, 54, p 49–68.10.1080/00207543.2014.977458 ↗
12. K. Ransikarbum and S.J. Mason, Goal programming-based post-disaster decision making for integrated relief distribution and network restoration, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 2016, 182, p 324–341.10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.030 ↗
13. C. Puchongkawarin and K. Ransikarbum, An Integrative Decision Support System for Improving Tourism Logistics and Public Transportation in Thailand, Tourism Planning & Development, 2020, p 1-1610.1080/21568316.2020.1837229 ↗
14. K. Ransikarbum and N. Kim, Multi-criteria selection problem of part orientation in 3D fused deposition modeling based on analytic hierarchy process model: A case study, In Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), IEEE International Conference on IEEM, Singapore, 2017a, p 1455-145910.1109/IEEM.2017.8290134 ↗
15. K. Ransikarbum and N. Kim, Data envelopment analysis-based multi-criteria decision making for part orientation selection in fused deposition modeling, In Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA), 2017 4th International Conference on IEEM, Nagoya, Japan, IEEE, 2017b, p 81-8510.1109/IEA.2017.7939183 ↗
16. I. Gibson, D. Rosen and B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer, London, 2014.
17. J. Gardan, Additive manufacturing technologies: state of the art and trends, International Journal of Production Research, 2015, p 1–15
18. D.A. Roberson, D. Espalin and R.B. Wicker, 3D printer selection: a decision-making evaluation and ranking model, Virtual Phys. Prototyp., 2013, 8(3), p 201–212.10.1080/17452759.2013.830939 ↗
19. V. Shende and P. Kulkarni, Decision support system for rapid prototyping process selection, Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ., 2014, 4(1), p 1–6.
20. C. Çetinkaya, M. Kabak and E. Özceylan, 3D printer selection by using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE, Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 2017, 10(4), p 371–380.
21. P. Khamhong, C. Yingviwatanapong and K. Ransikarbum, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-based Criteria Analysis for 3D Printer Selection in Additive Manufacturing. In 2019 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress (RI2C), IEEE, p 1-510.1109/RI2C48728.2019.8999950 ↗
22. S.R. Prabhu and M. Ilangkumaran, Decision making methodology for the selection of 3D printer under fuzzy environment, Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol., 2019, 59(3), p 239–252.10.1504/IJMPT.2019.102935 ↗
23. T. Chen and H. C. Wu, Fuzzy collaborative intelligence fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for selecting suitable three-dimensional printers, Soft Computing, 2020, p 1-1410.1007/s00500-020-05436-z ↗
24. Q. Dong and O. Cooper, A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2016, 250(2), p 521–530.10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.016 ↗
25. F. Dweiri, S. Kumar, S.A. Khan and V. Jain, Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry, Expert Syst. Appl., 2016, 62, p 273–283.10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030 ↗
26. S. Thanki, K. Govindan and J. Thakkar, An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach, J. Clean. Prod., 2016, 135, p 284–298.10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.105 ↗
27. C. Chaiyaphan and K. Ransikarbum, Criteria Analysis of Food Safety using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-A Case study of Thailand’s Fresh Markets, In E3S Web of Conferences, 2020, 141, p 02001, EDP Sciences10.1051/e3sconf/202014102001 ↗
28. O.S. Vaidya and S. Kumar, Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2006, 169, p 1–29.10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028 ↗
29. J.S. Liu, L.Y. Lu, W.M. Lu and B.J. Lin, Data envelopment analysis 1978–2010: a citation-based literature survey, Omega, 2013, 41, p 3–15.10.1016/j.omega.2010.12.006 ↗
30. M. Velasquez and P.T. Hester, An analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods, Int. J. Operat. Res., 2013, 10, p 56–66.
31. A. Kokangül, U. Polat and C. Dağsuyu, A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and fine kinney methodologies, Saf. Sci., 2017, 91, p 24–32.10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.015 ↗
32. F. Sitorus, J.J. Cilliers and P.R. Brito-Parada, Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: applications and trends, Expert Syst. Appl., 2019, 121, p 393–417.10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001 ↗
33. N. Wattanasaeng and K. Ransikarbum, Cost Optimization Model for Plant Assignment in Industrial Estate Planning, In 2019 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress (RI2C), IEEE, 2019, p 1-610.1109/RI2C48728.2019.8999945 ↗
34. V. E. Kothawade and A. P. Vadnere, Experimental Investigation and Analysis for Selection of Rapid Prototyping Processes, Production Engineering Division Board, 2016, p 24
35. I. Peko, N. Gjeldum and B. Bilić, Application of AHP, fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method in solving additive manufacturing process selection problem, Tehnički vjesnik, 2018, 25(2), p 453–461.
36. S.R. Prabhu and M. Ilangkumaran, Selection of 3D printer based on FAHP integrated with GRA-TOPSIS, Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol., 2019, 58(2–3), p 155–177.10.1504/IJMPT.2019.097667 ↗
37. J. J. Netto, I. G. Ragoni, L. F. Santos and Z. C. Silveira, Selecting low-cost 3D printers using the AHP method: a case study, SN Applied Sciences, 2019, 1(4), p 33510.1007/s42452-019-0352-4 ↗
38. F. Torfi, R.Z. Farahani and S. Rezapour, Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives, Appl. Soft Comput., 2010, 10(2), p 520–528.10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.021 ↗
39. Embodi3d, 2019, Accessed March, 15, 2019, https://www.embodi3d.com/