Case Study

Caster wheel
Caster wheel:

The figure given below shows a model for caster wheel.

Figure: Model for steel caster wheel

The associated dimensions are shown in table

Table: Dimensions for caster wheel

Based on the definition of curved, inclined, and orthogonal features the following table shows the type of
features.

Serial # Name of the feature Type of the feature

1 Core O.D. Curved
2 Core I.D. Inclined
3 Bore O.D. Inclined
4 Bore I.D. Curved
5 Hub length Orthogonal
6 Core O.W. Orthogonal
7 Core I.W. Orthogonal
Using equation 1
m n o
C F =w c ∑ C FO ( i ,m ) +w d ∑ C FI ( j ,n )+ we ∑ C FC ( k ,o ) (1 )
i=1 j=1 k=1

i∈ [ 1, m ] ; j∈ [ 1 , n ] ; k ∈[1 , o]

Where the associated values

Feature type Number of Value Max. Value Equation

features
Orthogonal No of orthogonal Si Smax Si
C FO=
features features Smax
None 0

Angular/Inclined Singular 1 2 Ni
C FI =
Features 2
Multiple 2

None 0

Curved features Singular 1 2 Nc

C FC =
2
Multiple 2

Giving equal weightages to C FO , C FI and C FC and limiting Smax ≤ 5

C FO ranges from 0 to 3

C FI ranges from 0 to 1.5

C FC ranges from 0 to 1.5

By limiting the range of these values, we limit the value of C F which is necessary so that we can break up
the value of C F . Now the value of C F ranges from 0 to 6. We make subsets of the value such as from 0 to
2 it represents a part with low complexity. From 2 to 4 it represents a part with medium complexity and
from 4 to 6 it represents a part with high complexity.
Now if we look at our example, we get a total of 5 which represents that the part is of high complexity.
Similarly, we need to break down the manufacturing system complexity as there is no measure
specifically designed for AM technology, we simply use the AM technology parameters such as
dimensional accuracy, build volume, scan speed, surface roughness etc. this list can be expanded on and
on to make the complexity value more authentic. We do the same for this complexity we break down the
range of these values into high, medium, and low so that we can compare it to the value of product
complexity.
Here in our Case study, we use dimensional accuracy, build volume and minimum layer thickness
If dimensional accuracy ≤ 0.03 mm it is considered as high
If 0.06 mm ≥ dimensional accuracy > 0.03mm it is considered medium
If dimensional accuracy > 0.06 mm it is considered low
If minimum layer thickness ≤ 25 microns, it is considered high
If 50 ≥ minimum layer thickness > 25 microns, it is considered medium
If minimum layer thickness > 50 it is considered low
Build volume (Low)≤500x500x500mm^3< Build volume (Medium)≤1000x1000x1000mm^3< Build volume (High)

Dimensional Minimum layer Build volume Overall

accuracy thickness Complexity
ProX DMP 300 Medium High Low Medium
M-Flex Medium Medium Low Medium
M280 High High Low High
EBAM300 Low Low High Low
LENS 850-R Low Low Medium Low

Now we incorporate the part complexity in the decision hierarchy. To get the hierarchy we use the
following preference scheme
Performance > Technology > Complexity > Economy for level 1
The input is given as

Which results in the following hierarchy

Then the hierarchies highlighted in red are set by given the importance using the following scale
AHP Scale: 1- Equal Importance, 3- Moderate importance, 5- Strong importance, 7- Very strong
importance, 9- Extreme importance (2,4,6,8 values in-between).
LEVEL 1:

Which are then submitted to get this

LEVEL 2:
Technology
Dimensional accuracy > Build volume > minimum layer thickness
Economy
Equipment cost > Material cost
Complexity
Part Complexity > Material complexity
Performance
Mechanical strength > heat resistance

After making all the comparisons we get the final hierarchy with the global priorities of the criteria for
LEVEL 2
Until now we have prepared the following matrix

criteria Global priorities ProX Mflex M280 Ebam300 Lens

Dimensional accuracy 19.7          
Surface roughness 3.7          
Build volume 7.0          
Material cost 2.1          
Equipment cost 4.3          
Part complexity 16.8          
Material Complexity 3.4          
Mechanical strength 35.9          
Heat resistance 7.2          

After this all the machines are compared to each other for the individual variables/ criteria

Dimensional accuracy:

Serial # Machine Name Value (mm)

1 ProX DMP 300 0.05
2 M-Flex 0.06
3 M280 0.035
4 EBAM300 0.1
5 LENS 850-R 0.25

ProX DMP
300 M-Flex M280 EBAM300 LENS 850-R
ProX DMP
300 1 1 1/3 6 2
M-Flex
1 1 1/2 6 5
M280
3 2 1 6 5
EBAM300
1/6 1/6 1/6 1 2
LENS 850-R
1/2 1/5 1/5 1/2 1
The resulting priorities are then multiplied by the global priorities to get the values
Priority table for dimensional accuracy

Machine Local Priority Global priority Overall priority Overall priority %

ProX DMP 300 0.205 0.197 0.04 4

M-Flex 0.253 0.197 0.05 5
M280 0.417 0.197 0.082 8.2
EBAM300 0.062 0.197 0.012 1.2
LENS 850-R 0.062 0.197 0.012 1.2

Decision matrix

criteria Global priorities ProX Mflex M280 Ebam300 Lens

Dimensional accuracy 19.7%  0.04  0.05  0.082 0.0122   0.012
Minimum layer 3.7          
thickness
Build volume 7.0          
Material cost 2.1          
Equipment cost 4.3          
Part complexity 16.8          
Material Complexity 3.4          
Mechanical strength 35.9          
Heat resistance 7.2          
Minimum layer thickness

Serial # Machine Name Value (micron)

1 ProX DMP 300 10
2 M-Flex 100
3 M280 20
4 EBAM300 60
5 LENS 850-R 500

ProX
DMP EBAM30 LENS
300 M-Flex M280 0 850-R
1 5 2 3 7
1/5 1 1/3 2 5
0.5 3 1 2 6
1/3 1/2 1/2 1 5
1/7 0.2 1/6 1/5 1
Priority table for minimum layer thickness

Machine Local Priority Global priority Overall priority Overall priority %

ProX DMP 300 0.436 0.037 0.01 1

M-Flex 0.142 0.037 0.005 0.5
M280 0.261 0.037 0.009 0.9
EBAM300 0.124 0.037 0.004 0.4
LENS 850-R 0.037 0.037 0.001 0.1

Decision matrix

Criteria Global priorities ProX Mflex M280 Ebam300 Lens

Dimensional accuracy 19.7  0.04  0.05  0.082 0.0122   0.012
Minimum layer 3.7 0.01 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001
thickness
Build volume 7.0          
Material cost 2.1          
Equipment cost 4.3          
Part complexity 16.8          
Material Complexity 3.4          
Mechanical strength 35.9          
Heat resistance 7.2          
Build volume

Serial # Machine Name Value (mm^3)

1 ProX DMP 300 250x250x330
2 M-Flex 400x250x250
3 M280 250x250x325
4 EBAM300 5791x1219x1219
5 LENS 850-R 900x1500x900

ProX
DMP EBAM30 LENS
300 M-Flex M280 0 850-R
1 1/2 1 1/6 1/3
2 1 2 1/6 1/3
1 1/2 1 1/6 1/3
6 6 6 1 4
3 3 3 1/4 1
Priority table for build volume

Machine Local Priority Global priority Overall priority Overall priority %

ProX DMP 300 0.068 0.07 0.004 0.4

M-Flex 0.105 0.07 0.007 0.7
M280 0.068 0.07 0.004 0.4
EBAM300 0.551 0.07 0.03 3
LENS 850-R 0.208 0.07 0.014 1.4

criteria Global priorities ProX Mflex M280 Ebam300 Lens

Dimensional accuracy 19.7  0.04  0.05  0.082 0.0122   0.012
Minimum layer 3.7 0.01 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001
thickness
Build volume 7.0 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.03 0.014
Material cost 2.1          
Equipment cost 4.3          
Part complexity 16.8          
Material Complexity 3.4          
Mechanical strength 35.9          
Heat resistance 7.2          
Equipment cost

Serial # Machine Name Value (USD)

1 ProX DMP 300 500000
2 M-Flex 450000
3 M280 700000
4 EBAM300 1500000
5 LENS 850-R 1200000

ProX
DMP EBAM30 LENS
300 M-Flex M280 0 850-R
1 1/2 5 7 6
2 1 3 7 6
1/5 1/3 1 4 3
1/7 1/7 1/4 1 1/2
1/6 1/6 1/6 2 1
Priority matrix for equipment cost

Machine Local Priority Global priority Overall priority Overall priority %

ProX DMP 300 0.356 0.043 0.015 1.5

M-Flex 0.413 0.043 0.017 1.7
M280 0.130 0.043 0.006 0.6
EBAM300 0.041 0.043 0.0017 0.17
LENS 850-R 0.06 0.043 0.002 0.2

criteria Global priorities ProX Mflex M280 Ebam300 Lens

Dimensional accuracy 19.7  0.04  0.05  0.082 0.0122   0.012
Minimum layer 3.7 0.01 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001
thickness
Build volume 7.0 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.03 0.014
Material cost 2.1          
Equipment cost 4.3 0.015 0.017 0.006 0.0017 0.002
Part complexity 16.8          
Material Complexity 3.4          
Mechanical strength 35.9          
Heat resistance 7.2          
Part complexity

Serial # Machine Name Value

1 ProX DMP 300 Medium
2 M-Flex Medium
3 M280 High
4 EBAM300 Low
5 LENS 850-R Low

ProX
DMP LENS
300 M-Flex M280 EBAM300 850-R
1 1 1/3 6 5
1 1 1/3 4 3
3 3 1 6 6
1/6 1/4 1/6 1 1
1/5 1/3 1/6 1 1
Priority matrix for part complexity

Machine Local Priority Global priority Overall priority Overall priority %

ProX DMP 300 0.232 0.168 0.038 3.8

M-Flex 0.188 0.168 0.031 3.1
M280 0.468 0.168 0.078 7.8
EBAM300 0.054 0.168 0.009 0.9
LENS 850-R 0.058 0.168 0.0097 0.97

criteria Global priorities ProX Mflex M280 Ebam300 Lens

Dimensional accuracy 19.7  0.04  0.05  0.082 0.0122   0.012
Minimum layer 3.7 0.01 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001
thickness
Build volume 7.0 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.03 0.014
Material cost 2.1          
Equipment cost 4.3 0.015 0.017 0.006 0.0017 0.002
Part complexity 16.8  0.038 0.031  0.078  0.009  0.0097 
Material Complexity 3.4          
Mechanical strength 35.9          
Heat resistance 7.2          
All the remaining value are given equal weightage to get the result
 criteria Global priorities ProX DMP M-Flex M280 EBAM300 LENS
300 850-R

Dimensional accuracy 19.7 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.012 0.012

Minimum layer 3.7 0.01 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001

thickness

Build volume 7.0 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.03 0.014

Material cost 2.1 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

Equipment cost 4.3 0.015 0.017 0.006 0.0017 0.002

Part complexity 16.8 0.038 0.031 0.077 0.008 0.008

Material Complexity 3.4 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068

Mechanical strength 35.9 0.0718 0.0718 0.0718 0.0718 0.089

Heat resistance 7.2 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014

Ranking value 20.36 20.66 27.26 15.23 15.08

%
Ranked AM machines

Rank Manufacturer Machine

3 3D Systems ProX DMP 300
2 ExOne M-Flex
1 EOS M 280
4 Sciaky EBAM 300
5 Optomec LENS 850-R