Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/225931531
CITATIONS READS
124 6,107
4 authors:
Hambali A S. M. Sapuan
Technical University of Malaysia Malacca Universiti Putra Malaysia
50 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS 1,166 PUBLICATIONS 38,323 CITATIONS
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
7th Postgraduate Seminar on Natural Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites 2020 View project
All content following this page was uploaded by S. M. Sapuan on 16 May 2014.
Abstract: Selection of materials, as an area of design research, has been under considerable interest over the years. Materials
selection is one of the most important activities in the product development process. Inappropriate decision of materials can cause the
product to be reproduced or remanufactured. To avoid this circumstance, one of the useful tools that can be employed in determining
the most appropriate material is analytical hierarchy process (AHP). To illustrate the application of AHP, six different types of
composite materials were considered. The most appropriate one for suitability of use in manufacturing automotive bumper beam was
determined by considering eight main selection factors and 12 sub-factors. The AHP analysis reveals that the glass fibre epoxy is the
most appropriate material because it has the highest value (25.7%, mass fraction) compared with other materials. The final material is
obtained by performing six different scenarios of the sensitivity analysis. It is proved that glass fibre epoxy is the most optimum
decision.
Key words: composite; polymer matrix; bumper beam; analytical hierarchy process
Fig.5 Hierarchical structure of decision problem in selecting the best material for polymeric composite automotive bumper beam
Table 5 Data used for determining the most appropriate material for polymeric based automotive bumper beam
ITH/ FS/ FM/ RMC/ DS/
Material CR WA/% SH RY DP AM AI
(J·cm−1) MPa GPa (USD·kg−1) (kg·m−3)
M−1 21.20 483.0 20.7 4 1 400 Excellent 0.10 High No High Available Available
M−2 10.60 656.0 34.5 6 1 600 Excellent 0.10 High No High Available Available
M−3 3.20 75.8 13.8 5 1 110 Excellent 0.01 High Possible High Available Available
M−4 7.52 294.0 11.4 1 1 560 Excellent 0.07 High Possible High Available Available
M−5 8.54 179.0 11.0 2 1 850 Excellent 0.25 High Possible High Available Available
M−6 12.80 427.0 17.9 3 1 900 Excellent 0.05 High No High Available Available
Note: Cost of raw materials is estimated in range between high cost (6) and low cost (1).
J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. (2010) 17: 244−256 251
5 Conclusions
Fig.11 Sensitivity graph of main criteria with respect to goal when cost (CS) is increased by 25% (from 12.2% to 37.2%)
Fig.12 Sensitivity graph of main criteria with respect to goal when priority vector of EA is increased (a) and reduced (b) by 20%
254 J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. (2010) 17: 244−256
Fig.13 Sensitivity graph of main criteria with respect to goal when priority vector of PR is increased (a) and reduced (b) by 20%
Fig.14 Sensitivity graph of main criteria with respect to goal when priority vector of WE is increased by 25%
Fig.15 Sensitivity graph of main criteria with respect to goal when priority vector of CS is increased by 25%
J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. (2010) 17: 244−256 255
Table 6 Rank of priorities obtained by simulating six scenarios of sensitivity analysis
EA PR WE CS
Rank
Reduced Increased Reduced Increased Reduced Increased
by 20% by 20% by 20% by 20% by 25% by 25%
1 M−1(31.1%) M−1(20.3%) M−1(25.7%) M−1(25.8%) M−1(25.6%) M−4(22.4%)
2 M−6 (20.2%) M−2(19.5%) M−2(24.8%) M−6(18.7%) M−3(21.0%) M−1(20.9%)
3 M−2 (17.3%) M−4(17.3%) M−6(17.1%) M−4 (16.1%) M−2(15.6%) M−6(19.2%)
4 M−4 (11.5%) M−6(15.5%) M−4 (12.6%) M−3(14.5%) M−4(14.5%) M−2(14.0%)
5 M−5 (10.5%) M−3(15.4%) M−3(10.4%) M−5(13.0%) M−6(13.7%) M−5(13.1%)
6 M−3 (9.5%) M−5(12.0%) M−5 (9.5%) M−2(11.9%) M−5(9.5%) M−3(10.3%)