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. Sapuan1, N. Ismail1 and Y. Nukman2
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. 2 Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture, Faculty of Engineering, University Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia sapuan@eng.upm.edu.my
1

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 in manufacturing 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 subfactors. 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 concurrent engineering 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 process frequently 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

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 cost analysis. 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 manufacturing software 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 selection problem 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 to assist 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 requirement of 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 because various 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

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

PDS

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

51

3. INVESTIGATION OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AUTOMOTIVE BUMPER BEAM

VARIOUS COMPOSITE

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 composite manufacturing 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 European and 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 1 2 Manufacturing process Resin transfer moulding (RTM) Structural reaction injection moulding (SRIM) Reaction injection moulding (RIM) Compression moulding of SMC (CM) Injection moulding (IM) References Lee and Suh, 2006; Schmachtenberg and Topker, 2004 and Cheon et al., 1995. Mohan, 1987; Miracle and Donaldson, 2001; Mazumdar, 2002; Crand et al., 1997; Fielder and Norman, 1992; and Kelman and Nelson, 1998. Lee and Suh, 2006 and Cheon et al., 1995. 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. Jula and Butterfield, 1992; Trantina et al., 1993 and Murphy, 1998.

3 4

52

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 manufacturing process 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

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 during material 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 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 of delaying 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

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 best manufacturing 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 also considered 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. 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, applicable to 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

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 design stage 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

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 SH CD SZ WT WG TS PQ RP PT RTM Possible Simple-complex Small-large Possible Possible Good Medium Medium Medium (6-30min) Reinforcement: random, continuous, etc Resin:polyester, epoxy etc Low-High Medium Medium Easy Available SRIM Possible Simple-complex Small-large Possible Possible Good-Excellent Medium-High High Fast (30sec-15min) Reinforcement: random, etc Resin: Polyester, etc RIM Possible Simple-complex Small-large Possible Possible Good-Excellent High High Fast 1-2min Reinforcement: random, continuous, etc Resin: polyester, epoxy, polypropylene,etc Low-High Medium-High Low Easy Available CM Possible Simple-complex Small-large Possible Possible Good-Excellent High, High Fast (20sec-10min) Reinforcement: random, continuous, etc Resin: polyester, epoxy, vinylester, Medium-High High Low Easy Available IM Possible Simple Very complex Small-medium Possible Possible Excellent Very High Very High Fast (3sec-15min) Reinforcement: random, short, etc. Resin: polyester, epoxy, polypropylene,etc High High Low Medium Available

MT

TC EC LC EM AV

Low High Medium Easy Available

56

Table 3 Scale for pairwise comparisons (Saaty and Vargas, 2001) Relative important 1 3 5 7 9 2, 4, 6, 8 Reciprocals Definition Equal value Slightly more value Essential or strong value Very strong value Extreme value Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments Reciprocals for inverse comparison Explanation Two requirements are of equal value Experience slightly favours one requirement over another Experience strongly favours one requirement over another A requirement is strongly favoured and its dominance is demonstrated in practice The evidence favouring one over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation. When compromise is needed

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 most suitable 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

Table 4 Perform judgement of pairwise comparison GOAL PC GD CS MT EM AV PC 1 1 1 1/5 1 1 1 a=5 GD CS MT EM AV

Figure 8 Results of selection

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

58

Increased by 10%

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 the methodology 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 process selection 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, ButterworthHeinemann. 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 Systems with 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. Highperformance front bumper beams. SAE technical paper 190043. Drozda, T., Wick, C., Benedict, J.T. and Veilleux, R.F. 1983. Tooling and manufacturing Engineers

59

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, N and 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 211228. 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

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 140146. 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 199208. 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