Selection of Additive Manufacturing Machine Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

Abstract

3D printing or additive manufacturing (AM) is considered to be the most important technology among the emerging technologies. 3D printing technology is considered as an alternative to the conventional manufacturer machine traditionally used in the manufacturing sector. 3D printing technology is generally classified into seven types. Each type of 3D printing technology has its separate own uniqueness (i.e., operation, material usage, and no wastage). The price of a manufactured item includes all its costs. The most important of these is to take into account the price of the machine being manufactured and the features of the machine. Moreover, the price of the product produced in AM will depend on all the costs required to produce it. Then, it is possible to reduce the cost of the product by choosing the AMM that has significant features and the right price. Therefore, this paper aims to solve a decision-making problem from the AMM selection by using one of the multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) tools, i.e., analytical hierarchy process (AHP). This paper outcome is meant to meet the expectation of end-users. As an initial step, the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) company gets quotations from some AM companies to choose a type of AM machine known FDM for its structure product and doll product. The first step is to select the most appropriate machines based on cost, size/volume, extruder type, and weight of the machine. Criteria for AHP are derived from decision-makers. Also, in AHP, the pair-wise matrix is obtained from the decision-makers by answering the standard Saaty’s scale criteria questions. In this paper, such a selection method is explored. The outcome of this paper may vary depending on the expectations of the decision-makers. The end of this paper helps to choose the AMM with the right price and features to suit the decision-makers.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 59 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.