Additive Manufacturing Process

Rapid Prototyping Journal
An integrated decision-making model for multi-attributes decision-making (MADM) problems in additive

manufacturing process planning
Yicha Zhang Alain Bernard
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yicha Zhang Alain Bernard , (2014),"An integrated decision-making model for multi-attributes decision-making (MADM)
problems in additive manufacturing process planning", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 377 - 389
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2013-0009
Downloaded on: 01 July 2015, At: 08:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 238 times since 2014*
Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Khershed P. Cooper, Ralph F. Wachter, (2014),"Cyber-enabled manufacturing systems for additive manufacturing", Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 355-359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2013-0001
Daniel Gnther, Bastian Heymel, Johannes Franz Gnther, Ingo Ederer, (2014),"Continuous 3D-printing for additive
manufacturing", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 320-327 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-08-2012-0068
Victor A. Lifton, Gregory Lifton, Steve Simon, (2014),"Options for additive rapid prototyping methods (3D printing) in MEMS
technology", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 403-412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-04-2013-0038
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
An integrated decision-making model for

multi-attributes decision-making (MADM)
problems in additive manufacturing process
planning
Yicha Zhang and Alain Bernard
IRCCyN, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, LUniversit Nantes Angers Le Mans, Nantes, France
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose an integrated decision-making model for multi-attributes decision-making (MADM) problems in
additive manufacturing (AM) process planning and for related MADM problems in other research areas.
Design/methodology/approach This research analyzed the drawbacks of former methods and then proposed two sub-decision-making models,
deviation model and similarity model. The former sub-model aimed to measure the deviation extent of each alternative to the aspired goal
based on analyzing Euclidean distance between them, whereas the latter sub-model applying grey incidence analysis was used to measure the
similarity between alternatives and the expected goal by investigating the curve shape of each alternative. Afterwards, an integrated model based
on the aggregation of the two sub-models was proposed and verified by a numerical example and simple case studies.
Findings The calculating results of the cited numerical example and the comparison to former related research showed that this proposed model
is more practical and reasonable than former methods applied in MADM problems of AM. In addition, the proposed model can be applied in other
fields where MADM problems exist.
Originality/value This proposed integrated model not only considered the deviation extent of alternatives to the aspired goal but also
investigated the similarity between alternatives and the expected goal. The similarity analysis compensates the drawbacks of traditional
distance-based models or methods that cannot distinguish alternatives which have the same distance-based index value.
Keywords Multi-attribute decision-making, Process planning, Additive manufacturing, Grey incidence analysis, Similarity measuring
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
fundamental and application studies should be carried out.

For example, process planning that acts as a preparation role
for production and was intensively investigated in traditional
processing technologies is one of the research branches for this
new group of technologies. But, until now, little research
activities appeared in the direction of process planning for AM
except some partial works, such as a number of studies on RP
system selection, RP material selection and process planning
for some special RP processes (Lan et al., 2005; Munguia
et al., 2011). Other related work focused on the technical level
or detail planning, for example, the strategies for orientation,
slicing, support structures generation and tool path planning
(Kulkarni et al., 2000; Pandey et al., 2003, 2007; Swaelens
et al., 1995; Allen et al., 1995; Rock and Wonzy, 1991; Yang
et al., 2002). There are only three research activities, which
can be found in published or released materials, related with
systematic process planning for AM. One is the job done to
define the process planning of AM (Kulkarni et al., 2000);
another is to develop an integrated software system for RP
process planning proposed at University of Michigan, but
without satisfied final results (Marsan et al., 1997); and the
third research is an ongoing European project named
KARMA, which aimed to provide expert process plans for
four typical AM processes (KARMA, 2010).
To throw out the proposal on developing systematic process
planning (that aims to guide the user to do the right and full
production preparation based on specific needs) strategies or
knowledge-based expert systems for AM and compensate
Additive manufacturing (AM), evolved from rapid

prototyping (RP), has now been adopted by many industrial
applications. It can directly construct three-dimensional (3D)
real models in a few hours, which has greatly reduced the
development time of products. It can also directly provide
end-use products for some special areas. The prospect of this
new processing technology is very bright and the potential of
it can bring a revolution to the traditional manufacturing
world due to its critical ability to build free-form models. The
commercial reports on AM industry show a continuous
growth of AM market, year by year (Wohlers, 2010), and
more and more attention has been placed at a high level to
boost its development. For example, recently, the USA
announced the establishment of a national research institute,
National AM Innovation Institute (NAMII, 2012), which will
award a great funding support. However, as a new processing
technology, AM has not become matured enough, and many
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2546.htm

20/5 (2014) 377389
Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1355-2546]
[DOI 10.1108/RPJ-01-2013-0009]
377
Integrated decision-making model
Volume 20 Number 5 2014 377389
some drawbacks of the ongoing project and make some

improvements, a fundamental and preliminary research on
systematic process planning for AM was started by us. The
work presented here is just one part of the research content.
Hence, this paper only focuses on the methods resolving some
typical multi-attributes decision-making (MADM) problems,
such as the selection of AM systems or processes, selection of
AM materials and determination of a set of AM parameters, in
process planning for AM. Section 2 will address the typical
MADM problems in detail and introduce some former typical
models or methods to solve those types of problems with some
discussion; Section 3 of this paper will introduce the proposed
integrated model; Section 4 deals with a numerical example to
illustrate the application of this new model as well as a simple
case study; Section 5 presents the discussion; and Section 6 is
the conclusion.
addition, some of the factors even conflict with each other, as

each AM process or system has its own advantages and
shortcomings. To solve those MADM or MODM problems
for users, many studies had been carried out to offer solutions
for decision-making support. This paper only discusses
MADM problems and only picks out some typical methods or
models that were proposed by former researchers to solve the
MADM problems in the general level with some comments.
By reviewing the former RP selection systems, models or
tools, it can be concluded that there are mainly three classes of
solutions in AM to tackle the MADM problem:
1 rule-based or case-based expert systems;
2 screening method and ranking method; and
3 a type of mathematical optimization methods.
For expert systems, expert knowledge is expressed by rules or
prepared case families to solve the MADM problems. The fact
is that the MADM problems were solved by experts based on
their descriptive analysis. The procedures are complex and
difficult to track. The drawbacks of this method are that it is
hard to capitalize and represent expert knowledge by rules or
any other logic forms, and it is also complicated to prepare
cases and carry out case-based reasoning. In addition, it is
difficult to consider as many factors as possible when using
such types of selection systems. The two representative
systems are developed by two groups of researchers (Bernard
and Deglin, 1999; Masood and Soo, 2002). Screening method
is the most widely used method. This method eliminates the
available alternatives step by step by judging whether the
attributes or abilities of alternatives satisfy the application
requirements. This method is easy to execute but also prone to
exclude some potential choices due to the lack of allowance.
When the design or requirements are adjustable, this type of
method is not suitable to put into practice. Many early
rule-based RP selection or advice systems were based on this
method. For example, one famous system was developed at
Helsinki University of technology (RP selector), 2002). The
system can select available alternatives based on a screen
method through the interface according to the answers made
by users. However, ranking methods seem more practical to
consider as many attributes as possible. Ranking methods
need users or experts to score each of the attributes in a
quantitative or qualitative way and provide related weights for
them, if needed, according to their application requirements.
Then different models or methods are applied to evaluate all
of the scored attributes, giving a comprehensive index value
for each alternative as for ranking. This type of method can
order alternatives from the best to the worst with users
preferences. Users can modify their requirements to adjust the
order, which is more useful in the practice because the rate of
success to choose the optimal alternative could be improved.
Therefore, many researchers paid attention to this type of
decision-making method. Early systems adopted simple utility
theories to select appropriate RP systems based on values of
utility functions (Herrmann and Allen, 1999). This method is
simple, but its assumption of preferential independence is
unrealistic, and has been criticized by several scholars (Vira
and Yacov, 1983). Byun and Lee (2005) proposed a special
decision-making support system for the selection of RP
processes using modified TOPSIS method (Byun and Lee,
2005). TOPSIS method only measures the pre-defined
2. MADM problems in AM and related solutions

AM technologies have been investigated and developed
for more than 30 years since 1980s. The name of RP no longer
suits the characteristics of these processes, as they not only
provide prototypes rapidly but also offer end-use products
directly in a short time. Hence, AM is widely adopted due to
the maturity and direct manufacturing ability. Many AM
processes have now matured and have played an important
role in creating prototypes as a support for the product
development or producing functional parts for real application
directly. Many vendors also appear and supply different AM
systems applying different AM processes to the market.
Therefore, for users, the selection of the right RP process or
systems for specific applications is becoming more difficult
due to the expending alternatives and their conflict properties,
which form a classical MADM problem, and AM/RP system/
process selection. This problem had been intensively
investigated, which resulted in many advice expert systems
and decision-making models or methods. Those systems were
reviewed and collected well in former studies (Lan et al., 2005;
Munguia et al., 2011). In fact, the problem above is seen only
in the general level which means that the solution of it can only
answer two types of questions posed by users, which is the
most suitable AM process for a specific application against
traditional machining methods and which is the best AM
system among a set of finite alternatives for a given design part
determined to be produced by AM methods. As the
application and development of AM was studied further,
many other MADM problems or even multi-objective
decision-making (MODM) problems in AM application
arose. For example, when the users use AM processes to
fabricate products, they would need to know how to select the
best combination of AM systems and materials for the
production task according to their specific application
requirements; they may want know how to determine the
optimal built orientation when locating the parts in the
building platform with several aspired objectives and others,
which are usually placed in the technical detail level. Those
problems are all complicated problems that are difficult to
answer by users, even those who have much experience, as
there is a need to consider many factors, such as cost, time,
part quality, batch quantity, energy and environmental
factors, together with other application requirements. In
378
distance from the aspired goal to the alternatives though it is a

so-called method of measuring similarity, and it already has
some other drawbacks (Shipley et al., 1991). Lan developed
another decision support system based on fuzzy synthetic
evaluation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method
(Lan et al., 2005). When applying this method, it is difficult to
construct reasonable fuzzy evaluation matrix and appropriate
ranking methods to rank fuzzy numbers, which would
introduce some uncertainty affecting the final ranking results.
In other words, this method lacks stability to some extent. Rao
and Padmanabhan used graph theory and matrix approach to
support RP process selection with an aim to make
improvement based on the work done by Byun and Lee
(2005) (Rao and Padmanabhan, 2007). However, graph
theory also has some disadvantages, such as the relative
weights are not easy to obtain without bias or subjective affect.
More recently, Mungia et al. (2011) published their work on a
KBE-RM selection system which used simple additive
weighting (SAW) method. This method requires that the
assumption of preferential independence should be met. But,
in AM, many attributes integrate with each other, and the
fuzzy relations among them are complex. Hence, when taking
more attributes into consideration, the use of this method and
the choosing of attributes should be conscious. As for
mathematical optimization methods, objective functions are
constructed to represent different factors or attributes along
with their interrelationships. Researchers aimed to find a set of
ideal optimal solutions (also called Pareto-optimal-solutions)
among the infinite solution space in theory while facing
MADM problems in AM. Pandy et al. (2004) investigated the
optimal part deposition orientation in fused deposition
modeling (FDM) by using a multi-criteria genetic algorithm.
In their research, time and cost were set as two objectives, and
a Pareto-Optimal-Front whose points represent the optimal
solutions was found. However, the problem of how to
choose an even better solution from the obtained
Pareto-Optimal-Front according to the application
requirements was not introduced in that work. Obviously, the
selection of the most suitable choice from the finite
alternatives obtained by optimization method still forms
another sort of MADM problems, which is also a hot topic in
the optimization design research field. The same idea of using
the optimization method to find better parameter setting
references for AM production was also proposed by other
researchers recently (Padhye and Deb, 2011). This work
furthered Pandys study of orientation and had found some
limitations of applying optimization methods in AM
production. This work compensated Pandys research by
giving three simple decision-making methods to select a better
choice from the Pareto optimal alternatives. However, they
had to confirm in their paper a possible route to approximately
arrive at the optimal orientations without actually carrying out
optimization, by analyzing the features of a solid object. That
means an exhaustive optimization study to discover most
appropriate build orientations for a new object is impractical
as for several routine purposes due to its low efficiency. Apart
from this drawback discussed above, the main difficulty within
optimization method is the construction of suitable objective
functions, because in AM production, attributes and their
interrelationships are extremely hard to be defined or
expressed by accurate mathematical models, especially for

discrete variables. In addition, there are many types of
decision support strategies for selecting a more optimal option
from the Pareto-front. Adopting different decision-making
techniques would induce different decision results even for the
same problem, which would probably cause another type of
problem, stability or robustness problem.
To avoid the disadvantages of those methods discussed
previously and make some improvements on the solutions of
MADM problems in AM, an integrated decision-making
model based on expert knowledge and production practice is
proposed in this paper. The following section will address the
new model in detail. Its effectiveness and application will be
illustrated by a numerical example related with an RP system
selection of a simple case study.
3. Integrated model: D-S model (DeviationSimilarity model)

As discussed above, utility theory has some limits on the
independence of preferences, while TOPSIS method only
measures the distance between the aspired goal and
alternatives, and other methods also have some disadvantages
or inconveniences. Therefore, an integrated decision-making
model is proposed in this paper with an aim to make some
improvements. The proposed model consists of two
sub-models:
1 deviation model; and
2 similarity model.
Deviation model based on distance can measure the deviation
of alternatives to the expected goal and the similarity model
based on shape applies grey system theory to measure the
grey relation or similarity between expected goal and
available alternatives. The aggregation of these two models
can give a better support for the decision-making as compared
with other methods because it not only measures the distance
deviation of alternatives to the aspired goal but also analyzes
the shape difference between alternatives and expected goal
in an n-dimensional space composed by n attributes
considered by decision-makers. The sections below will
introduce the construction procedure of the integrated model.
3.1 Deviation model
As inspired by Yangs model on representation of knowledge
(Xu and Bernard, 2011), we can use the form of knowledge
vector to represent alternatives and aspired goals, as the
alternatives can be looked as knowledge units and their
attributes are the elements of the knowledge vector. For
example, an AM process or system can be represented by a
vector with several attributes according to the needs of a user
or a decision-maker.
Example:
Name of AM system: SLA3500.
Attributes: A accuracy/um, R surface roughness/um,
E elongation/%, S tensile strength/MPa, C cost of
material/Dollars, B build time/hours.
Vector: VSLA A, R, S, E, C, B
120, 6.5, 65, 5, very high, very long
379
The elements values in the vector are given in cardinal

numbers or linguistic descriptions which can be transferred
into cardinal numbers after scoring and processing. Likewise,
the aspired goal can be also expressed by knowledge vector.
When making a decision, if there is any alternative whose
vector is the same as the expected goals vector, then that
alternative is the most wanted ideal choice and the decision
can be easily made. However, this situation is rare when facing
MADM problems. The most usual condition is that some
attributes are satisfied while others are not, where the
complexity of the MADM problems exists, especially when
facing a large number of alternatives. In other words, there is
usually some difference between the alternatives and aspired
goal. Logically, the alternative that has the least difference to
the goal would be the best choice. Further, to select an
alternative is to compare the difference of each one to the goal.
Hence, the Deviation model proposed here is used to
measure the difference of an alternative to the aspired goal
from a base of distance, which is similar with the TOPSIS
method. To construct this model, we can start from a simple
example. If there is a task that needs to move a box
horizontally for 20 m from a specified start line, then two
alternatives are available, moving by hand and moving by a
small car. The aspired goal can be set as that moving 20 m
only consumes 2 seconds. For simplicity, only one attribute,
consummation of time, is taken into consideration. The
velocities of the man and car can be assumed as 1 and 8 m/s,
respectively, while scoring. Therefore, the vectors can be built
as follows:
of [0, 1] and improve the resolution of distinguishing the

differences, Euler number base exponential function is
adopted. The index value can be described as:
Cd
Cd
D
i
/
i1
i Aai Agi / Agi 100% (4)
where i is the ith attributes weight, i W,

W 1, 2, 3 . . . n, Di is the ith attributes deviation
extent. Therefore, equation (4) is the proposed Deviation
model in this paper. This model can not only select the best
alternative from a set of finite alternatives by set the aspired
goal composing of maximum and minimum of the benefit and
cost attributes, but it can also choose the most appropriate one
that the user desired according to their specific requirements.
The TOPSIS method can only select the one that has the
shortest Euclidean distance from the ideal solution and the
longest distance from the most negative one (Chen and
Hwang, 1992). Obviously, this model can help users select the
one that suits the specific requirements best, as sometimes
the one that the users want is perhaps not the best one, but the
most suitable one. Hence, this model based on the measuring
of Euclidean distance can compensate the drawback of
TOPSIS model, except its simplicity.
However, deviation model would encounter some
dilemma when several alternatives have the same measured
distance as the distance-based models. Then, how to
differentiate between them and make a choice? To illustrate
this problem, an example can be described in the graph below.
In Figure 1, for simplicity, the attributes in n-dimensional
space are mapped into the two-dimensional plane, where
curve 0 denotes the aspired goal, curves 1 and 2 represent
the vectors of the two alternatives and X1, X2, X3, X4 and X5
are the attributes. When measuring the distance from the
alternatives to the goal in Euclidean space, the results would
sometimes be the same for the two alternatives. But,
obviously, curve 2 seems more like curve 0 from the shape,
And the scoring results based on the considered attribute:

Va timea/s 20m/1m/s 20s,
Vb timeb/s 20m/8m/s 2.5s.
Here, the deviation rate is used to represent the difference of
alternatives to the goal, and it can be obtained by calculating:
time
time time
100% 20 2 2 100% 900%
g
(1)
timetime time 100% 2.52 2 100% 25%

b
i1
Vector-b: Vb timeb/s.
Db
Vector-a: Va timea/s,
(3)
where Cd denotes deviation extent index value, D denotes the

deviation extent, Aa and Ag stand for the related attributes
values of the alternatives and aspired goal, respectively.
Logically, when more attributes are taken and their related
weights are assigned by users or other objectives into
consideration, the expression above can be rewritten as
Vector-goal: Vg time/s 2s ,
Da
a
g
g
1
1 / eA A / A 100%
eD
Figure 1 Alternatives with the same distance to the goal
(2)
where Da and Db denote the deviation extent of the two related

alternatives, and the metric of deviation extent is percentage.
Obviously, the decision can be made easily according to the
alternatives differences which are directly used as decision
index values. The alternative, by car, is the optimal one to
accomplish the specified task when just one attribute is taken
into consideration. To limit the index value within the interval
380
which means that their relation is tighter. Therefore, there is a

need to construct a model to investigate the similarity based
on curve shape. It is reasonable that similarity is an important
factor to investigate the relation between alternatives and
aspired goal. In other words, all of the alternatives images can
be transferred from the aspired goals image in the Euclidean
space after finite operations. When the extent of similarity is
higher, the extent of transformation of the aspired goal is
lower. This means the alternative is closer to the aspired goal
and their relation is tighter. Hence, when it is difficult to
distinguish a better one from the alternatives that have the
same distance to the goal, the similarity would be a useful
manner to evaluate the difference as compensation.
Therefore, as the distance-based model is incapable to
measure similarity, to compensate that drawback, a model
derived from grey system theory is proposed to measure the
similarity based on shape of curve. The following section will
introduce the similarity model.
special algorisms integrated with grey operators. The main

procedure of the calculating is addressed as below.
For example, if there are two data sequences or vectors:
Vi i1,i2,i3, . . . in
(5)
Vj j1,j2,j3,. . .jn
(6)
where i1,i2,i3, . . . in and j1,j2,j3, . . . j

n are the related values of the attributes of the two vectors
processed by a set of grey operators. The first step is to
annihilate the vectors by multiplying a grey operator and an
annihilating starting point operator, as:
OVi oi1,oi2,oi3, . . . oin
(7)
OVj oj1,oj2,oj3, . . . ojn
(8)
where oik ik i1ojkjk j, k 1, 2, 3 . . .

. . . n. Then,
3.2 Similarity model

3.2.1 Brief introduction of grey incidence analysis
In fact, the similarity model proposed in this paper is the
model named grey incidence decision model which derived
from grey system theory. Grey system theory, established by
Deng in 1982, focuses on the study involving small samples
and poor information. It deals with uncertain systems with
partially known information through generating, excavating
and extracting useful information from what is available. Grey
incidence analysis is a part of that theory and is devoted to
investigate the grey relations of data sequences representing
some information of grey systems. The basic idea of grey
incidence analysis is to use the degree of similarity of
geometric curves of available data sequences to determine
whether their connections are closer or not. The more similar
the curves are, the closer incidence exists between the
sequences and vice versa. Hence, grey incidence analysis is
very suitable to compensate the drawback of a
distance-based model by measuring the similarity of curves.
OVi i1i1,i2i1,i3i1, . . . ini

(9)
OVj j1j1,j2j1,j3j1, . . . jn-j1
(10)
After operating, the two processed vectors are marked as:
Voi oi 1,oi 2,oi 3, . . . oi n
(11)
Voj oj 1,oj 2,oj 3, . . . oj n
(12)
When the two vectors have been processed, the grey incidence
of the two vectors can be calculated by:
ij
3.2.2 Grey incidence decision model (Liu and lin, 2010)

The main idea of a grey incidence decision model is to
compare the grey incidence and to select the alternative which
has the biggest grey incidence value with an aspired goal. The
principles of the grey incidence analysis method can be
described as a set of steps:
Step 1: Ascertaining the available alternatives and setting

the aspired goal.
Step 2: Representing the alternatives and expected goal

with data sequences or vectors.
Step 3: Constructing and processing the attribute vectors

with grey operators.
Step 4: Calculating the grey incidences between

alternatives and the aspired goal.
Step 5: Ordering the alternatives according to their related

grey incidence values.
Step 6: Selecting the alternative which has the biggest grey

incidence value.
1 si sj
1 si sj si sj
(13)
where ij denotes the grey incidence between the two vectors:
n1
si
k2
n1
sj
k2
n1
si sj
k2
1
oi k oi n ,
2
(14)
1
oj k oj n and
2
(15)
1
oi koj k oi noj n , (16)
2
Therefore, equation (13) is the model which can measure the

similarity of two related vectors or data sequences to evaluate
the tightness of relationship under equal rights consideration.
When there is a need to assign weights for the attributes in
those vectors, the operation can be done by applying related
weights to the vectors processed by an annihilating starting
point operator. And the left procedures are the same. While
Therefore, the key point of this method is to calculate the grey

incidence. The grey incidence value can be calculated through
381
4. Numerical example and case study
for MADMs in AM, this model is very suitable to measure the

similarity between alternatives and an aspired goal by
calculating the grey incidence so as to determine which
alternative is closer to the aspired goal.
4.1 Numerical example

In AM production, selecting a suitable process or system is a
typical MADM problem. Many researchers had tried to solve
the problem through different methods or models, as
introduced previously. While in the process planning for AM,
AM process or AM system selection is also the foremost
problem as well as material selection and parameter setting
acted in traditional process planning in machining. Hence, a
numerical example about AM process selection is addressed in
this paper, at first, to verify the proposed decision-making
model, and then a simple AM part production analysis case
would be introduced also to illustrate the application of this
model in practice.
To compare with other former proposed methods, the data
for the selected numerical example are cited from the
previously published research done by Byun and Lee, (2005).
They provided a case study on evaluating and selecting six RP
systems for a designed benchmark part, which was also
investigated by Rao and Padmanabhan, (2007). The obtained
original values of the selected common attributes of the six
systems are summarized in Table I after scoring.
In the table above, two attributes, cost and build time, were
obtained from production experience; hence they were
depicted by qualitative linguistic terms. The linguistic terms
can be converted to corresponding fuzzy numbers through a
numerical approximation system proposed by Chen and
Hwang (1992). The processed data were also cited from
previous research as presented in Table II.
With those parameters in hand, the calculation can be
conducted step by step by following the instructions for the
integrated model presented above. The first step is to
construct knowledge vectors which contain all of the
considered attributes of the alternatives. The six vectors for
the alternatives are presented as below:
3.3 Aggregating the two sub-models

As proposed in this paper, the distance deviation and
similarity between alternatives and an expected goal should be
taken into consideration at the same time so as to provide a
better decision support to users. Therefore, a new definition
about the optimal choice is given:
Definition 1: The optimal choice among a finite set of

alternatives is the one that has the least distance deviation and
the largest similarity to the aspired goal.
To obtain the optimal choice while dealing with MADM
problems, there is a need to aggregate those two models
introduced previously together. Therefore, an integrated
model can be represented as:
C*i Cdi 1i'
(17)
where C*i denotes the general index value of the ith alternative,
Cdi and i represent normalized distance deviation and grey

incidence of the ith alternative, respectively, (i 1, 2, 3 . . .
. . . n), and (0 1) is an adjustable preference set by
users who can assign the weights for the distance deviation
value and similarity value through this coefficient. Generally,
distance deviation and similarity should be treated equally,
where can be set as 0.5. But also, can have other values
when the users have special application requirements. The
normalization can be done by:
Cdi
Cdi
, and
(18)
d
i
VSLA A, R, S, E, C, B 120, 6.5, 65, 5, 0.745, 0.5,
i1
i'
VSLS A, R, S, E, C, B 150, 12.5, 40, 8.5, 0.745, 0.5,
(19)
VFDM A, R, S, E, C, B 125, 21, 30, 10, 0.665, 0.745,
i1
d
i
d
i
VLOM A, R, S, E, C, B 185, 20, 25, 10, 0.59, 0.41,
where C and C denote the ith alternatives original and

normalized distance deviation to the aspired goal, i and i'
are the ith alternatives original and normalized grey incidence
to the aspired goal.
VQuadra A, R, S, E, C, B 95, 3.5, 30, 6, 0.745, 0.41,

VZ402 A, R, S, E, C, B 600, 15.5, 5, 1, 0.135, 0.255
Table I RP systems parameters

RP process
A (accuracy)
R (surface roughness)
S (tensile strength)
E (elongation)
C (cost/part)
B (built time)
SLA3500
SLS2500
FDM8000
LOM1015
Quadra
Z402
120
150
125
185
95
600
6.5
12.5
21
20
3.5
15.5
65
40
30
25
30
5
5
8.5
10
10
6
1
Very high
Very high
High
Slightly high
Very high
Very very low
Medium
Medium
Very high
Slightly low
Slightly low
Very low
Source: Rao and Padmanabhan (2007)
382
VS S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 65, 40, 30, 25, 30, 5
Table II Quantified RP systems parameters

RP process
SLA3500
SLS2500
FDM8000
LOM1015
Quadra
Z402
120
150
125
185
95
600
6.5
12.5
21
20
3.5
15.5
65
40
30
25
30
5
5
8.5
10
10
6
1
0.745
0.745
0.665
0.59
0.745
0.135
0.5
0.5
0.745
0.41
0.41
0.225
VE E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 5, 8.5, 10, 10, 6, 1

VC C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 0.745, 0.745, 0.665, 0.59, 0.745, 0.135
VB B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 0.5, 0.5, 0.745, 0.41, 0.41, 0.255
By applying the mean operator on those vectors above, mean

images of those attribute vectors can be obtained. The
procedure is presented as below:
The second step is to use the deviation model to carry out

the deviation index calculation. To use this model, a goal
vector should be set. In this example, the user did not present
an exact goal expressed in a quantified manner but implied an
indirect goal to select the best suitable system with better
performance in all of the selected attributes according to two
sets of assigned weights for related attributes. Therefore, the
goal can be interpret by all of the best performances on each
attribute from the alternatives. The maximum or minimum
values of all of the benefit and cost attributes are selected and
set as the expected goal. The goal vector could be set as:
DVA dA1, dA2, dA3, dA4, dA5, dA6

DVR dR1, dR2, dR3, dR4, dR5, dR6
and
DVB dB1, dB2, dB3, dB4, dB5, dB6
where D is a mean operator, and for attribute A, the process is
like that:
Vgoal A5, R5, S1, E3, C6, B6

95, 3.5, 65, 10, 0.135, 0.255
dAi
where, i 1, 2 . . . . . . 6; j1, 2. In this example, two sets of

weights used for the original data in the former research [19]
are also adopted:
Ai
Ai
6
Ae
1
A
6 i1 i
(20)
where A(e) is the mean value of vector VAs elements. The

process is the same when processing other vectors left.
Therefore, the operated attribute vectors are marked as
W1 11, 12, 13 . . . . . . 16
0.1113, 0.1113, 0.0634, 0.0634,0.3253,0.3253
DVA dA1, dA2, dA3, dA4, dA5, dA6

0.5647, 0.7059, 0.5882, 0.8706, 0.4471, 2.8253
W2 21, 22, 23 . . . . . . 26
0.319,0.319,0.129,0.129,0.052,0.052
DVR dR1, dR2, dR3, dR4, dR5, dR6

0.4937, 0.9493, 1.5949, 1.5189, 0.2658, 1.1772,
where ji (i 1, 2, 3. . .6j 1, 2 ) is the weight assigned to the

related attributes of the alternative vectors. Then, by applying
the deviation model with two sets of assigned weights for
related attributes, two sets of deviation index value could be
obtained in the third step, as presented in Table III.
The fourth step is to construct attribute vectors and process
them to apply a similarity model. There are also six attribute
vectors, such as:
......
and
DVB dB1, dB2, dB3, dB4, dB5, dB6
1.0638, 1.0638, 1.5851, 0.8723, 0.8723, 0.5426
The fifth step is to reconstruct the alternative vectors using the
elements of processed attribute vectors, and the results are
VA A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 120, 150, 125, 185, 95, 600
VSLA dA1', dR1', dS1', dE1, dC1', dB1'

0.5647, 0.4937, 2, 0.7407, 1.233, 1.0638
VR R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 6.5, 12.5, 21, 20, 3.5, 15.5
Table III Ranking results of the RP processes
Cd
RP process
C /
C /
1/
2/
C /
SLA3500
SLS2500
FDM8000
LOM1015
Quadra
Z402
0.1439
0.1145
0.0789
0.1404
0.1778
0.3366
0.5062
0.2569
0.1263
0.1234
0.6287
0.0486
0.8368
0.8492
0.7985
0.9113
0.8566
0.6397
0.9120
0.8649
0.8815
0.8229
0.8953
0.5708
0.1581
0.1445
0.1214
0.1639
0.1772
0.2350
d
1
d
2
383
*
1
C* (0.5)
Rank
C*2/2
4
5
6
3
2
1
0.2419
0.1634
0.1265
0.1197
0.2765
0.0721
Rank
2
3
4
5
1
6
Table V The RPSI values for different RP systems with two set of
weights
VSLS dA2', dR2', dS2, dE2', dC2', dB2'

0.7059, 0.9493, 1.2308, 1.2593, 1.233, 1.0638
VZ402 dA6', dR6', dS6', dE6', dC6', dB6'
2.8253, 1.1772, 0.1538, 0.1481, 0.2234, 0.5426
The sixth step is to ascertain and represent the aspired goal
also by the vector. In this step, the goal vector is different from
the one set in the second step, as the goal consists of six
attributes with assigned weights from weighted reconstructed
alternative vectors. The weighted reconstructed alternative
vectors and the goal vector are:
Table 5RP
systems
RPSI A and R
are more
important
SLA3500
SLS2500
FDM8000
LOM1015
Quadra
Z402
9.4606
8.0812
7.5736
7.6081
10.7085
6.6198
Rank
RPSI C and B
are more
important
Rank
2
3
5
4
1
6
9.4849
8.1792
7.6659
7.7134
10.5126
6.5914
2
3
5
4
1
6
wVSLA' 1dA1', 2dR1', 3dS1', 4dE1', 5dC1', 6dB1'

using the TOPSIS method except for a minor difference for the first
set of weights. The difference mainly comes from the similarity
model which focuses on the measuring of shape. When facing
more complex MADM problems with more attributes, the
difference would be larger or more obvious, as the similarity is also
important in the decision-making. Logically, the integrated model
proposed in this paper is also confidential and better than the
TOPSIS method. Because the TOPSIS method is widely accepted
and verified in many application cases, the results of the original
research in this numerical example are confidential enough with
verification, though they were questioned by Venkata Rao et al., who
used a graph method to investigate the same problem. However, the
graph method proposed by Venkata Rao et al. may have some
problems, which need to be verified further, as Z402 should be the
first choice when cost and built time are the main considerations
with heavier weights according to the production experience. In fact,
the graph method is more like the SAW method that has some
restraints as introduced in the beginning of this paper. Therefore,
the results would be unsatisfied under some consideration,
especially when the preferential independence cannot be met.
Generally, the results of this new method proposed in this paper
seem more reasonable and practicable.
wVSLS' 1dA2', 2dR2', 3dS2', 4dE2', 5dC2', 6dB2'
......
wVZ402' 1dA6', 2dR6', 3dS6', 4dE6', 5dC6', 6dB6'
where iw, i 1, 2, 3. . .6 ,w 1, 2, 36 is the
assigned set of weights for the related attributes. Likewise, the
goal vector can be interpreted by all of the best values of each
attribute from the reconstructed alternatives, as
Vgoal jidA5', jidR5', jidS1', jidE3', jidC6', jidB6'
where, i 1, 2 . . . . . . 6; j 1, 2.
The following step is calculating each alternatives grey
incidence values by using the recovered alternative vectors and
goal vectors through the similarity model, and the final step is
to aggregate the two sets of sub-index values from the results of
the two sub-models into one set of general index values by
applying the integrated model. When using the models to
calculate, the coefficient of the integrated model can be set as
0.5 in this case. The obtained results are presented in Table III
according to the two sets of assigned weights. The ranking of the
RP process is based on the general index values, which means
that the one who has the largest index value would be the most
recommended alternative among the finite choices.
To set a comparison against the methods of former studies
based on the same numerical example, two sets of former
research results are also cited and given in Tables IV and V.
Obviously, the results presented in this paper are consistent with the
results of the original former research conducted by Byun and Lee
4.2 Case study

To illustrate the application of this model in real practice, a
simple AM part production analysis case is presented with
Figure 2 Frame structure, part 1
Table IV The rank of RP systems according to the closeness coefficient
RP process
C*i
Rank
C*i
Rank
SLA3500
SLS2500
FDM8000
LOM1015
Quadra
Z402
0.4516
0.4250
0.3009
0.5686
0.5039
0.6640
4
5
6
2
3
1
0.8353
0.7060
0.5799
0.5552
0.8427
0.1721
2
3
4
5
1
6
Source: Byun and Lee (2005)
384
Figure 3 Aerostatic ratchet, part 2
detail in the following. As showed in Figures 2 and 3, two parts

designed primarily are about to be manufactured by AM
technologies (two original models are downloaded from
https://grabcad.com). The part in Figure 2 is a support
structure which would host several sensors and be applied in
aviation, while the other one in Figure 3 is a customized
special ratchet also used in aviation.
However, the designers may lack enough experience in
AM, so they are usually unable to offer enough information
of production for the part except 3D models and general
application requirements. Hence, the production planning
department may have to analyze the 3D model and the
general application requirements to give manufacturing
scenarios which contain processing technologies, materials,
related parameters and so on. Further, when several
alternatives are generated based on present manufacturing
resources and manufacturing constraints, some trade-off
should be made, as there would be some conflict factors or
attributes of AM alternatives which prevent them from
making a decision on selecting a suitable manufacturing
scenario with ease. In this case study, the two parts were
sent to a developing process planning platform, KARMA,
where a base of expert knowledge and production practice
exists KARMA (2013). The database can provide many
manufacturing scenarios for the two parts even without
specifying any preference as well as predicted part cost,
surface roughness and build time. One of the available
scenarios for the ratchet part is described below:
Figure 4 Orientation in KARMA platform
385
Table VI Build parameters

Auto drain
Draw speed border

Draw speed hatch
Nominal laser power
Fill speed
Scale factors x/y/z
Number of sweeps
Sweep velocity
Resin temp (during fabrication)
Layer thickness
Border speed
Hatch speed
Z wait
two parts, and those scenarios are outlined in Tables VIII and
IX. To make comparison, a group of the same six scenarios are
chosen for the two parts. During consulting the database, no
preference or specification was provided to KARMA to
enlarge the number of available alternatives. For simplicity
sake, only five key attributes, part cost, surface roughness,
build time, tensile or yield strength and part density, are
selected to represent those proposed scenarios as indicated in
the two tables. The values in the table are the average
prediction quantities based on AM expert databases
evaluation and prediction by applying several empirical
algorithms or models. Therefore, to select an optimal choice
from the available alternatives means to analyze these
multi-attributes and make a trade-off among them based on
specific preferences and application requirements.
In this case, only the general application requirements are
offered. For the frame structure part (part 1), surface
roughness is the foremost important factor, and cost and build
time follow in the second place. Requirements for the
mechanical properties of the part are medium because this
part would not bear large loads but has a high requirement for
assembly. While for the ratchet part (part 2), mechanical
properties are the most important, as well as the surface
roughness and density. Build time and cost are not so
important in consideration due to the direct production and
customized design. Hence, related weights should be assigned
to each of the selected attributes to express the application
requirements while executing decision-making. In this case,
1
50 in/s
150 in/s
103 mW
65.5 in/s
1.0028/1.0030/1
1
0.9843 in/s
29.3 C
0.1 mm
22.1 in/s
144.3 in/s
5
Scenarios name: Protogen 18,420 Standard

Build orientation: Horizontal
Machine: 3D system viper
Material: Protogen 18,420 (Figure 4) (Table VI and VII)
Main predictions
Cost: 231.34
Build time: 20.48 hours
Roughness: 6.44 m
According to the proposals of the KARMA database, there are

several available alternative manufacturing scenarios for the
Table VII Resulting part properties (based on numerous experiments)
Properties
Density [g/cm3] (EN ISO 1183-1)
Tensile Strength [MPa] (EN ISO 527-2)
Tensile Modulus [MPa] (EN ISO 527-2)
Elongation at break [per cent] (EN ISO 527-2)
Flexural Strength [MPa] (EN ISO 178)
Flexural Modulus [MPa] (EN ISO 178)
Izod Impact [KJ/m2] (EN ISO 180)
Hardness (EN ISO 868)
Water Absorption [%] (EN ISO 62)
HDT @1.80 MPA [C] (EN ISO 75-2)
HDT @0.45 MPA [C] (EN ISO 75-2)
Nominal surface roughness, Ra [m]
Average
Minimum
Maximum
1.2
61.38
2128
10.9
92.9
2560
30
80.6 [Shore D]
0.69
50.9
58.45
0.04 [Inclination: 0]
1.2
59.9
2080
8.2
91.6
2480
14
80 [Shore D]
0.6
50.9
58.3
1.21
62.8
2200
15
94.1
2600
56
82 [Shore D]
0.79
50.9
58.6
Table VIII AM manufacturing scenarios for the frame structure part

AM scenarios
3D Systems Viper Protogen 18420 (SLA)
3D Systems Viper Somos Next (SLA)
M3 Linear CL 20-316L (SLM)
EOSCINT PA 2200 (SLS)
EOSCINT PA 3200 GF (SLS)
APCAMA2 Ti6A/4v ELI (EBM)
Cost/()
Roughness/(m)
Build
time/h
Tensile or yield
strength/(MPa)
Density/(g/cm3)
47.7
35.08
211.42
146.14
146.14
481.78
3.49
7.8
3.12
19.03
19.81
24.96
5.4
2.32
6.66
3.4
3.4
9.02
61.38
55.10
475
47.22
37.92
936.6
1.2
1.17
7.8
1.05
1.32
4.42
386
Table IX AM manufacturing scenarios for the aerostatic ratchet part

AM scenarios
Cost/()
Roughness/(m)
Build
time/hours
Tensile or yield
strength/(MPa)
Density/(g/cm3)

231.34
157.47
1006.84
413.75
404.09
1217.47
6.44
10.62
4.25
21.13
21.26
26.53
20.48
13.64
37.52
7.76
7.33
23.79
61.38
50.84
475
47.22
39.24
936.6
1.2
1.17
7.8
1.05
1.32
4.42
two sets of weights assigned to the related attributes for the

two parts, respectively, can be given as in Table X.
With the information above in hand, it is not difficult for
designers or production planners to make a decision by
applying the proposed integrated decision-making model
introduced in Section 3. The main procedures of calculating
each alternatives general index value are very similar to those
steps introduced in the numerical example discussed above.
Because no specific application parameter was offered or
specified, the decision goal vector of these two parts consists of
every attributes best values but with different weights due
to their different application requirements. For the two
parts, cost, build time and density would be the smaller the
better, while surface roughness and tensile or yield strength
are prone to be the higher the better. Therefore, the
decision goal vectors for the two parts can be set as:
When the goal vectors are set, the following calculation steps
are the same with those procedures introduced in the former
sections of this paper. After calculating through the integrated
model, the general index values of these scenarios can be
obtained and outlined in Table XI. The coefficient, of the
integrated model used in this case can also be set as 0.5.
By referring to the index values, the best scenario for Parts
1 and 2 is the same scenario, 3D system Viper Protogen
18420. According to AM production experience, the results
presented here are reasonable. And obviously, the ranking
results of the two sub-models are different according to their
different index values, as one is a distance-based model and
the other investigates the similarities between alternatives and
aspired goals. Hence, as proposed in this paper, integrating the
two sub-models together is more reasonable and can give
more available decision support.
Vgoal1 C2, R3, B2, T6, D4 35.08, 3.12, 2.32, 936.6, 1.17 and
5. Discussion
Vgoal2 C2, R3, B5, T6, D4 157.47, 4.25, 7.33, 936.6, 1.17)
As proposed in this paper, this new integrated model has an

advantage against other distance-based methods or models
when facing MADM problems, as it not only measures the
distance deviation of alternatives to the aspired goal but also
evaluates the similarity between alternatives and the expected
goal to determine the grey relationship that is also important
for distinguishing in decision-making when several alternatives
have the same distance deviation to the expected goal.
Besides, this model can avoid the inconvenience, the
assumption of preferential independence which should be met
by traditional SAW methods or utility methods, and it can
directly adopt structured expert knowledge or practice
experience without depending on accurate mathematical
models as optimization techniques did. In addition, the
proposed model can help users choose the most appropriate
alternative or similar one but not the best one under their
specific application requirements. For example, when a user
wants to choose a medium alternative from a set of finite
where C, R, B, T and D are the abbreviations of attributes of

cost, build time, surface roughness and so on, for the deviation
sub-model. Similarly, goal vectors for the similarity sub-model
can also be obtained by selecting the best values of each
attribute after processing original data by Grey Operators as
introduced in the numerical example.
Table X Weights assigned to the two parts
Attributes
Weight set for
part 1
Weight set for
part 2
Cost
Build
time
Surface
roughness
Tensile/yield
strength
Density
0.15
0.15
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.6
0.15
Table XI Ranking results of the AM scenarios

AM scenarios
Cd1
0.6570
0.4251
0.1779
0.0412
0.0354
0.0021
Part 1 (frame structure)

1
C*1
0.8667
0.9233
0.7676
0.9919
0.9918
0.8845
0.6505
0.4877
0.2744
0.2136
0.2092
0.1646
387
Rank
Cd2
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.4618
0.4264
0.1763
0.2865
0.2747
0.1797
Part 2 (ratchet)
2
C*2
0.6362
0.6403
0.8045
0.6401
0.6387
0.9940
0.4019
0.3833
0.2825
0.3057
0.2989
0.3278
Rank
1
2
6
4
5
3
choices, the best one may not be the one he or she wants.
Then, the user can choose what he or she needs by setting a
special aspired goal which chooses medium attribute values
but not always the best or the limits. And the application of
this model is simple and easy without the need of importing
complicated parameters with uncertainty, such as relative
importance which is usually difficult to obtain without the
subjective and bias effect. Furthermore, it has great potential
to be used as reasoning engines for knowledge-based expert
systems which use knowledge vectors as data format due to its
convenience, and to be adopted in other application areas
where MADM problems exist.
KARMA (2013), available at: http://karma.aimme.es/

(accessed March 2013).
Kulkarni, P., Marsan, A. and Dutta, D. (2000), A review of
process planning techniques in layered manufacturing,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Lan, H.B., Ding, Y. and Hong, J. (2005), Decision support
system for rapid prototyping process selection through
integration of fuzzy synthetic evaluation and expert system,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 169-194.
Liu, S.F. and Lin, Y. (2010), Grey Systems: Theory and
Applications, Springer, New York, NY.
Marsan, A.L., Allen, S., Kulkarni, P. and Dutta, D. (1997),
An integrated software system for process planning for
layered manufacturing, Proceedings of the Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas, Austin,
pp. 661-668.
Masood, S.H. and Soo, A. (2002), A rule based expert
system for rapid prototyping system selection, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 18 Nos 3/4,
pp. 267-274.
Munguia, J., Bernard, A. and Erdal, M. (2011), Proposal
and evaluation of a KBE-RM selection system, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 236-246.
National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (2012),
available at: http://namii.org (accessed 10 December 2012).
Padhye, N. and Deb, K. (2011), Multi-objective
optimisation and multi-criteria decision making in SLS
using evolutionary approaches, Rapid Prototyping Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 458-478.
Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V. and Dhande, S.G. (2003),
Slicing procedures in layered manufacturing: a review,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 274-288.
Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V. and Dhande, S.G. (2007), Part
deposition orientation studies in layered manufacturing,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 185 Nos 1/3,
pp. 125-131.
Pandy, P.M., Thrimurthulub, K. and Venkata Reddy, N.
(2004), Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by
using a multicriteria genetic algorithm, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 19,
pp. 4069-4089.
Rock, S.J. and Wozny, M.J. (1991), Utilizing topological
information to increase scan vector generation efficiency,
in Marcus, H.L. (Ed.), Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, University of Texas, Austin, TX, pp. 28-36.
Shipley, M.F., Korvin, D.A. and Obid, R. (1991), A decision
making model for multi-attribute problems incorporating
uncertainty and bias measures, Computer and Operation
Researches, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 335-342.
Swaelens, B., Pauwels, J. and Vancraen, W. (1995), Support
generation for rapid prototyping, in Chartoff, R.P. and
Lightman, A.J. (Eds), Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Rapid Prototyping, University of Dayton,
Dayton, Ohio, pp. 115-121.
Rao, R.V. and Padmanabhan, K.K. (2007), Rapid
prototyping process selection using graph theory and matrix
approach, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
Vol. 194 Nos 1/3, pp. 81-88.
6. Conclusion
To tackle the MADM problems in process planning for
AM, a new integrated decision-making model is proposed
in this paper. This model compensates the drawbacks of
some former distance-based models or methods by
measuring the similarity between alternatives and the
aspired goal. And the best choice among a set of finite
alternatives has been redefined as that the optimal choice
among a finite set of alternatives is the one that has the least
distance deviation and the largest similarity to the aspired
goal. Hence, it is more useful to help users make better
decisions while encountering MADM problems. This
model has great potential to be applied as a reasoning
engine in a generic AM process planning expert system that
would be investigated further. Further research would
explore how this model can be used or integrated in the
decision-making while setting detailed parameters for
knowledge-based process planning in AM.
References
Allen, S. and Dutta, D. (1995), Determination and
evaluation of support structures in layered manufacturing,
Journal of Design and Manufacturing, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 153-162.
Bernard, A. and Deglin, A. (1999), Knowledge-based system
for the choice of rapid prototyping process, Proceedings of
the 10th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX,
pp. 39-45.
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, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 26 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1338-1347.
Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992), Fuzzy Multiple Attributes
Decision Making Methods and Application, Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg, New York, NY.
Helsinki University of Technology (2002), RP selector,
available at: http://ltk.hut.fi/RP-Selector (accessed 12
December 2012).
Herrmann, A. and Allen, J.K. (1999), Selection of rapid
tooling materials and processes in a distributed design
environment, ASME Design for Manufacturing Conference,
Las Vegas, pp. 12-15.
KARMA (2010), available at: www.femeval.es/proyectos/
karma/Paginas/InicioKarmaNoLogo.aspx (accessed 16
January 2013).
388
Vira, C. and Yacov, Y.H (1983), Multiobjective decision

making: theory and methodology, Noth-Holland Series in
System Science and Engineering, pp. 62-109.
Wohlers, T. (2010), Wohlers Report 2010, Wohlers
Association, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Xu, Y. and Bernard, A. (2011), Quantifying the value of
knowledge within the context of product development,
Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 166-175.
Yang, Y., Loh, H.T., Fuh, F.Y.H. and Wang, Y.G. (2002),
Equidistant path generation for improving scanning
efficiency in layered manufacturing, Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Corresponding author
Yicha Zhang can be contacted at: zhych6998@gmail.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
389

Additive Manufacturing Process

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Additive Manufacturing Process

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rapid Prototyping Journal

An integrated decision-making model for multi-attributes decision-making (MADM) problems in additive

Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

An integrated decision-making model for

Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)

fundamental and application studies should be carried out.

Additive manufacturing (AM), evolved from rapid

Rapid Prototyping Journal

Integrated decision-making model

Rapid Prototyping Journal

Yicha Zhang and Alain Bernard

Volume 20 Number 5 2014 377389

some drawbacks of the ongoing project and make some

addition, some of the factors even conflict with each other, as

Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)

2. MADM problems in AM and related solutions

Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)

Integrated decision-making model

Rapid Prototyping Journal

Yicha Zhang and Alain Bernard

Volume 20 Number 5 2014 377389

distance from the aspired goal to the alternatives though it is a

expressed by accurate mathematical models, especially for

3. Integrated model: D-S model (DeviationSimilarity model)

Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)

Integrated decision-making model

Rapid Prototyping Journal

Yicha Zhang and Alain Bernard

Volume 20 Number 5 2014 377389

The elements values in the vector are given in cardinal

of [0, 1] and improve the resolution of distinguishing the

i Aai Agi / Agi 100% (4)

where i is the ith attributes weight, i W,

And the scoring results based on the considered attribute:

timetime time 100% 2.52 2 100% 25%

where Cd denotes deviation extent index value, D denotes the

Figure 1 Alternatives with the same distance to the goal

where Da and Db denote the deviation extent of the two related

Downloaded by 124.123.54.17 At 08:21 01 July 2015 (PT)

Integrated decision-making model

Rapid Prototyping Journal

Yicha Zhang and Alain Bernard

Volume 20 Number 5 2014 377389

which means that their relation is tighter. Therefore, there is a

special algorisms integrated with grey operators. The main

where i1,i2,i3, . . . in and j1,j2,j3, . . . j

OVj oj1,oj2,oj3, . . . ojn

where oik ik i1ojkjk j, k 1, 2, 3 . . .

3.2 Similarity model

OVi i1i1,i2i1,i3i1, . . . ini

Voj oj 1,oj 2,oj 3, . . . oj n

3.2.2 Grey incidence decision model (Liu and lin, 2010)

Step 1: Ascertaining the available alternatives and setting

Step 2: Representing the alternatives and expected goal

Step 3: Constructing and processing the attribute vectors

Step 4: Calculating the grey incidences between

Step 5: Ordering the alternatives according to their related

Step 6: Selecting the alternative which has the biggest grey

where ij denotes the grey incidence between the two vectors:

Therefore, equation (13) is the model which can measure the

Therefore, the key point of this method is to calculate the grey