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

1
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

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

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 sub-
factors. Determining the right manufacturing process was
performed based on AHP concept through utilizing
Expert Choice software. The results indicated that the
injection moulding was the most appropriate
manufacturing process because it has the highest value
(22.8%) among the other manufacturing processes. The
sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of
the priority ranking and study the effect of different
factors on deciding the best decision option.
Keyword: Analytical hierarchy process (AHP),
manufacturing process selection, conceptual design
stage, automotive bumper beam, concurrent engineering
1. INTRODUCTION
Considering concurrent engineering in product
development is very important. One of the 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
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
50
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.
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 VARIOUS manufacturing of automotive bumper beam. Figure 3 is a
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES COMPOSITE picture of a bumper beam fabricated using composite
AUTOMOTIVE BUMPER BEAM material and under compression moulding process (Trantina
et al., 1993). There are five different types of manufacturing
There is a number of manufacturing processes for processes have been commonly employed in manufacturing
polymeric based composite fabrications are available in of composite automotive bumper beam for passenger cars as
the literature. These processing methods are dissimilar depicted in Table 1.
each others depending on various manufacturing
considerations. It is the task of manufacturing engineers However, the literatures discussed as mentioned above on
to determine the right processing technique that meet the composite bumper beam have been focused only the
design specification or product design specification. fabricating of bumper beam by employing various processes,
Several processing techniques and some successful but there is no studied on selection of a suitable
applications in manufacturing automotive bumper beam manufacturing process for automotive bumper beam. It is
have been reported in the literature. Mohan (1987) also indicated that many researchers studied in the field of
discussed the use of structural reaction injection materials selection for composite automotive bumper beam,
moulding (SRIM) composite in automotive bumper but the research on selection of an appropriate manufacturing
beam. One of the first commercial applications for SRIM process is less explored.
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 Töpker (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 Figure 3 Bumper beam fabricated by using compression
the driving for specifying SRIM into composite bumper moulding process (Tranina et al., 1993)
beams. Jula and Butterfield (1992) briefly discussed the
use of compression moulding and injection moulding in

Table 1 Bumper beam fabricated by various composite manufacturing processes

No Manufacturing process References

1 Resin transfer moulding (RTM)
2 Structural reaction injection moulding
(SRIM)
3 Reaction injection moulding (RIM)
4 Compression moulding of SMC
(CM)
5 Injection moulding (IM)
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.

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
(a)
Figure 4 The final conceptual design of bumper beam: (a) Wireframe 3D modelling and (b) Photo render 3D modelling
(Hambali et al., 2009a).
53
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:
(b)
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
54
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
developed by Forman et al. (2000) is a multicriteria less than 0.1. If it is found that the consistency ratio exceeds
decision support software based on the AHP the limit, the designers should review and revise the pairwise
methodology. It is easy to use and understand, as well as comparisons
providing visual representations of overall ranking on a Figure 8 shows the injection moulding (IM) with a weight of
computer screen. Figure 5 shows various factors that 0.228 (22.8%) as the most appropriate manufacturing process
influence in manufacturing process selection need to or as a first choice, the second choice is the structure
consider in determining the most optimum reinforced injection moulding (SRIM) with a weight of 0.220
manufacturing process for automotive bumper beam. (22.0%), and the last decision option is the resin transfer
The details of each factor have been described in moulding (RTM) with a weight of only 0.165 (16.5%).
section 4. There are five manufacturing processes
under considerations in this case study as depicted in If the results of the selection are not satisfied with some
Table 1. All processes as mentioned above have their reasons such as lack of information and inadequate model
own strengths, weaknesses and priority in selection. structure, manufacturing engineers or decision makers can
However, the most optimum manufacturing process perform selection process again in order to ensure the result
must be determined according to the design achieves can produce a good product with minimal cost.
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 author’s 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 Figure 5 Various selection factors in manufacturing process
consideration). The judgements for all levels are selection
acceptable due to the fact that consistency ratio (CR) is

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

56
 Table 3 Scale for pairwise comparisons (Saaty and Vargas, 2001)
Relative Definition
important
1 Equal value
3 Slightly more value
5 Essential or strong value
7 Very strong value
9 Extreme value
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between two
adjacent judgments
Reciprocals Reciprocals for inverse comparison
Figure 7 All priority vectors for main factors, sub-factors and alternatives
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The powerful of using AHP through utilizing Expert
Choice is a sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis is
carried out to study the effect of the different factors on
deciding the best decision option.
The final priorities of the design concepts are highly
dependent on the priority vectors attached to the main
factors. Figure 9 shows the dynamic sensitivity graph of
the main criteria with respect to the goal. It not only
57
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
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.
 Table 4 Perform judgement of pairwise comparison

GOAL PC GD CS MT EM AV

PC 1
GD 1 a=5
CS 1
MT 1/5 1
EM 1
AV 1

Figure 8 Results of selection

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

58
 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.
59
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 778–789.
Ashby, M.F. 1999. Material Selection in Mechanical
Design. 2nd Ed. Cambridge, Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Ashby, M.F., Brechet, Y.J.M., Cebon, D. and Salvo, L.
2004. Selection strategies for materials and
processes. Materials & Design , Volume 25, pp 51–
67.
Astrom, B.T. 2002. Manufacturing of Polymer
Composite. United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Barton, D.C. 2008. Postgraduate research at Leeds
University, Seminar presented at Faculty of
Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
pers.comm. 5 August 2008.
Cheng, S.C., Chen, M.Y., Chang, H.Y. and Chou, T.Z.
2007. Semantic-based facial expression recognition
using analytical hierarchy process. Expert Systems
with Application, Volume 33, pp 86–95.
Cheon, S.S., Choi, J.H. and Lee, D.G. 1995.
Development of the composite bumper beam for
passenger cars. Composite Structures, Volume 32,
pp 491-499.
Crand, E., Choumer, S. and Fromentin, B. 1997. High-
performance front bumper beams. SAE
technical paper 190043.
Drozda, T., Wick, C., Benedict, J.T. and Veilleux, R.F.
1983. Tooling and manufacturing Engineers
 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 555–564.
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 1982–2000. 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 211-
228.
Hollaway, L. 1994. Handbook of Polymer Composites
for Engineers. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing
limited.
Hollins, W. and Pugh, S. 1990. Successful Product
Design: What to do and When, London:
Butterworths.
Hosseinzadeh, R., Shokrieh, M.M. and Lessard, L.B.
2005. Parametric study of automotive composite
bumper beams subjected to low-velocity impacts.
Composite Structures, Volume 68, pp 419–427.
Jula, J. and Butterfield, L. 1992. Blow molded vehicle
bumper beams. (Blow Molding) Plastics
Engineering, Volume 48, pp 21-24.
60
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.
57–62.
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 198–202.
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 55–161.
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.
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 208–214.
Saaty, L.T. and Vargas, L.G., 2001. Models, Methods,
Concepts & Applications of the Analytical
Hierarchy Process. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Sapuan, S.M., Abdullah, S. and Abbas, K.A. 2005. A
computer aided manufacturing process selection
for polymer composite automotive components.
Journal of Applied Technology, Volume 3, pp 140-
146.
Scallan, P. 2003. Process Planning: The
Design/manufacture Interface. New York:
Butterworth-Heinemann
Schmachtenberg, E. and Töpker, 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.
61
Vinson, J.R. and Sierakowaki, R.L. 2002. The Behavior
of Structures of Composite Materials. New York:
Springer.
Wacker, M and Hörmann, 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
169–173.
Yu, J.C., Krizan, S. and Ishii, K. 1993a. Computer-aided
design for manufacturing process selection. Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing, Volume 4, pp 199-
208.
Yu, J.C., Lotfi, S. and Ishii, K. 1993b. Process selection
for the design of aluminium components. Advances
in Engineering Software, Volume 18, pp 177-186.