Application of decision making methods for

selection of Advance Manufacturing System

Under the guidance of
Dr. S.R Maity
Department of Mechanical Engineering
NIT Silchar
Presented by
Bablu Kumar Mandal
Scholar No. 15-22-305
Department of Mechanical Engineering
NIT Silchar
 Contents
Introduction to Advance Manufacturing System

Literature review

Objective of present work

Methodology used

Results and discussion

Future work

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 2
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Introduction
Advanced manufacturing system (AMS) is a modern method of
manufacturing which uses highly automated and sophisticated
computerised design and operational systems.

AMS can provide faster production rate with a very low inventory
level, ability to produce intrinsic parts with a high degree of accuracy,
and lowest amount of scrap and rework.

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 3
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Need for decision making in AMS
Decision making for AMS selection is considered complicated due
to availability of a wide range of feasible alternatives

Selection of advanced manufacturing systems (AMS) is a multi-

criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, based on assessing a
large number of conflicting quantitative and qualitative criteria

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 4
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Literature review
TITLE
Selection of computer-
integrated manufacturing
technologies using a
combined analytic
hierarchy process and goal
programming model
An integrated fuzzy
approach for the selection of
manufacturing technologies
Applying decision methods
to select rapid
prototyping technologies
5/15/17
AUTHOR Remarks
Yurdakul Integrated analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with goal
programming for solving AMS selection problems
while considering multiple conflicting goals along
with resource restrictions and dependencies among
the alternatives
Chan et al., Developed an integrated decision support system based on
fuzzy technique to assist the decision makers for selecting
the optimal solution from the alternative manufacturing
options in an uncertain environment
Karsak Presented a DEA model for FMS selection considering
imprecise and exact data related to economic and strategic
aspects of a manufacturing organisation
Department of Mechanical
4
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 TITLE
Optimal solution of
technology selection model:
a computational efficient
form
Industrial robot selection
using a novel decision
making method
considering objective and
subjective preferences
Analytical hierarchy
process for the selection of
advanced manufacturing
technologies in an aircraft
industry
5/15/17
AUTHOR Remarks
Amin Presented a computationally efficient method
which could eliminate the requirement of solving
complex linear programming problems as
frequently encountered in many technology
selection problems
Rao and Parnichkun Adopted an MCDM approach for robot selection
using integrated weights of the selection
attributes by combining subjective and objective
weights of importance
Taha et al., Proposed an AHP-based approach for selection of
AMS in an aircraft
industry based on tangible and intangible criteria
Department of Mechanical
6
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 TITLE AUTHOR Remarks

Machine tool selection using AHP Ilangkumaran et. al., Developed an evaluation model based
and VIKOR methodologies under on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy (VIKOR) for
fuzzy environment selecting the best machine tool among
various alternatives

Evaluating machine tool Ayag and Ozdemir applied modified TOPSIS and analytic
alternatives through modified network process (ANP) methods to solve
TOPSIS and alpha-cut based a machine tool selection problem
fuzzy ANP

Application of improved complex M.A. Makhesana Demonstrated the methodology of a

proportional assessment decision-making method for selection of
(COPRAS) method for rapid rapid prototyping process and compared
prototyping system selection it with previously developed methods.
The methodology of improved complex
proportional assessment (COPRAS)
method was used.

Department of Mechanical
29 November 2016 7
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Summary of literature review
COPRAS and VIKOR methods are more efficient in dealing with
tangible attributes but they cannot perform very well if the criteria
values are expressed qualitatively

In AHP it is difficult to keep the consistency of the pair-wise

comparison matrices, when it is used with a large number of attributes

ELECTRE and PROMETHEE methods require to determine values of

some preference parameters, like indifference threshold, veto threshold
and concordant coalition parameter, etc

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 8
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Objective
To select Four decision-making problems of Advanced Manufacturing
system comprising of Flexible manufacturing system(FMS), Green
supplier selection, Material handling equipment(MHE) and Rapid
prototyping process(RP)

To fulfil the above mention objective and the applicability of

(Measuring Attractiveness by Categorically Based Evaluation
Technique (MACBETH), Grey Technique of Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (GTOPSIS) and Grey Additive Ratio
Assessment (G-ARAS) is studied and also to compare their ranking
performance.

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 9
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Flow chart of proposed model

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 10
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Material Handling Equipment selection using
MACBETH method
Table1: Initial decision matrix for Material Handling
Equipment selection
Alternative Criteria
Traveling
Cost ($) Floor space Limitation Load capacity Life period
distance

Opt direction min min min max max max

V1 450 High High Very high Low Medium

V2 79.5 Low Medium Very low Low High

V3 520 Low Very high Low Medium Medium

V4 377 Low Medium Medium Low Medium

V5 502 Medium Low High Medium Medium

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 11
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Figure 1: MACBETH value tree for MHE selection
problem

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 12
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Figure 2: MACBETH weighing references for MHE selection problem

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 13
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Providing judgements of preference

Figure 3: MACBETH weighting judgements for MHE selection

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 14
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Evaluation of MACBETH score

Figure 4: Macbeth table of score for MHE selection

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 15
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Sensitivity analysis on weight

Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis with respect to Load capacity(LC) criterion

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 16
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Material Handling Equipment(MHE)
selection using Grey TOPSIS
Table 2: Grey decision matrix for MHE Selection

ALTERNATI CRITERIA
VE
Load Traveling
Cost ($) Floor space Limitation Life period
capacity distance
weight 0.328 0.126 0.128 0.339 0.058 0.021

V1 360 540 6 9 6 9 9 10 1 3 4 5

V2 63.6 95.4 1 3 4 5 0 1 1 3 6 9

V3 416 624 1 3 9 10 1 3 4 5 4 5

V4 301.6 452.4 1 3 4 5 4 5 1 3 4 5

V5 401.6 602.4 4 5 1 3 6 9 4 5 4 5

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 17
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Table 3: Normalized values of alternatives and positive/negative ideal values for
MHE Selection

Criteria weight V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 A+ A-

C 0.328 0.423 0.135 0.898 0.847 0.333 0.000 0.517 0.275 0.356 0.035 0.898 0.000

FS 0.126 0.333 0.000 0.889 0.667 0.889 0.667 0.889 0.667 0.556 0.444 0.889 0.000

L 0.128 0.4 0.1 0.600 0.500 0.100 0.000 0.600 0.500 0.900 0.700 0.900 0.000

LC 0.339 0.900 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.900 1.000 0.000

TD 0.058 0.200 0.600 0.200 0.600 0.800 1.000 0.200 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.000 0.200

LP 0.021 0.444 0.556 0.667 1.000 0.444 0.556 0.444 0.556 0.444 0.556 1.000 0.444

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 18
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Table 4: Separation measures and the relative closeness of each alternative for
MHE Selection

Alternative d+ d- C+ Rank

V1 0.5922 0.6139 0.5090 3

V2 0.4771 0.6030 0.5582 1

V3 0.7122 0.3778 0.3466 5

V4 0.4884 0.4973 0.5045 4

V5 0.5376 0.6015 0.5281 2

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 19
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 MHE selection using Grey ARAS method
Table 5: Weighted normalized decision matrix for MHE selection

ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA

Cost ($) Floor Limitatio Load Traveling Life

space n capacity distance period
A0 0.1215 0.1538 0.0285 0.0545 0.0461 0.0658 0.1130 0.0892 0.0276 0.0200 0.0066 0.0054

V1 0.0215 0.0181 0.0048 0.0061 0.0077 0.0073 0.1017 0.0892 0.0028 0.0060 0.0026 0.0027

V2 0.1215 0.1025 0.0285 0.0182 0.0115 0.0132 0.0000 0.0089 0.0028 0.0060 0.0039 0.0048

V3 0.0186 0.0157 0.0285 0.0182 0.0051 0.0066 0.0113 0.0268 0.0110 0.0100 0.0026 0.0027

V4 0.0256 0.0216 0.0285 0.0182 0.0115 0.0132 0.0452 0.0446 0.0028 0.0060 0.0026 0.0027

V5 0.0192 0.0162 0.0071 0.0109 0.0461 0.0219 0.0678 0.0803 0.0110 0.0100 0.0026 0.0027

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 20
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Table 6: Si and Ui values in ARAS method for MHE selection

Alternatives Si Ui Rank

A0 0.3660 1.0000

V1 0.1352 0.3693 3

V2 0.1610 0.4397 1

V3 0.0785 0.2146 5

V4 0.1113 0.3040 4

V5 0.1480 0.4043 2

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 21
Engineering, NIT Silchar
Comparison table for Material Handling Equipment
selection
Alternative Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS Bairagi et al.

V1 4 3 3 4

V2 1 1 1 1

V3 5 5 5 5

V4 3 4 4 3

V5 2 2 2 2

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 22
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Table 8: Comparative study on the ranking performance for MHE selection

Method Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS

Bairagi et al. 1(1,2,3), 100 0.9(1,2,#), 40 0.9(1,2,#), 60

Macbeth 0.9(1,2,#), 60 0.9(1,2,#), 60

GTOPSIS 1(1,2,3), 100

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 23
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Flexible Manufacturing System Selection using
Macbeth method
Alternative Criteria
RLC RWP RSC IMR IQ CMC FSU
FMS1 30 23 5 Good Good 1500 5000
FMS2 18 13 15 Good Good 1300 6000
FMS3 15 12 10 Fair Fair 950 7000
FMS4 25 20 13 Good Good 1200 4000
FMS5 14 18 14 Weak Good 950 3500
FMS6 17 15 9 Good Fair 1250 5250
FMS7 23 18 20 Fair Good 1100 3000
FMS8 16 8 14 Weak Fair 1500 3000

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 24
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Figure 4.1: MACBETH value tree for FMS selection problem

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 25
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Comparison table for FMS selection
Rao and
Alternative Macbeth G-TOPSIS G-ARAS Parnichkun[6]
(2008)
4
FMS1 3 4 3
FMS2 5 4 5 4
FMS3 6 7 6 7
FMS4 2 2 2 2
FMS5 3 5 3 5
FMS6 7 6 7 6
FMS7 1 1 1 1
FMS8 8 8 8 8

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 26
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Comparative study on the ranking
performance for FMS selection

Method Macbeth G-TOPSIS G-ARAS

Rao and Parnichkun

0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5 1.000 (1,2,3),100 0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5
(2008)

Macbeth 0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5 1.000 (1,2,3),100

G-TOPSIS 0.9048(1,2,#), 37.5

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 27
Engineering, NIT Silchar
Green Supplier Selection using Macbeth
method
Table 6.1: Initial Decision matrix for Green supplier selection problem

Supplier QD P ENRC DS GD RRR PP

Optimization
max min min max max max max
direction
weight 0.132 0.135 0.138 0.162 0.090 0.223 0.120
S1 0.068 0.066 0.150 0.098 0.156 0.114 0.098
S2 0.078 0.076 0.108 0.136 0.082 0.171 0.105
S3 0.157 0.114 0.128 0.083 0.108 0.113 0.131
S4 0.106 0.139 0.058 0.074 0.132 0.084 0.120
S5 0.103 0.187 0.125 0.176 0.074 0.064 0.057
S6 0.105 0.083 0.150 0.051 0.134 0.094 0.113
S7 0.137 0.127 0.056 0.133 0.122 0.119 0.114
S8 0.100 0.082 0.086 0.060 0.062 0.109 0.093
S9 0.053 0.052 0.043 0.100 0.050 0.078 0.063
S10 0.094 0.074 0.097 0.087 0.080 0.054 0.106

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 28
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Figure MACBETH value tree for Green supplier selection problem

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 29
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Comparison table for Green supplier
selection
Yazdani et al.
Alternative Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS
(2017)
S1 5 5 4 5
S2 2 2 2 2
S3 3 3 3 4
S4 4 4 5 6
S5 10 10 9 10
S6 8 8 8 8
S7 1 1 1 1
S8 7 7 7 7
S9 6 6 6 3
S10 9 9 10 9

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 30
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Comparative study on ranking performance
for Green supplier selection problem
method Macbeth G-TOPSIS G-ARAS

0.9152 (1,2,#), 60
Yazdani et al. (2017) 0.9152 (1,2,#), 60 0.9152 (1,2,#), 40

Macbeth 1 (1,2,3), 100 0.9758 (1,2,3), 60

G-TOPSIS 0.9758 (1,2,3), 60

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 31
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Rapid prototyping Process Selection
using MACBETH method
Table: Initial decision matrix for Rapid prototyping process selection

Location of
Surface
Part availability Cost
Part Variety Flexibility Roughness Env.
Alternative Reliability of (C)
(PV) (F) (S) Hazard(D)
(PR) technology( in $
in m
L)
SLA Moderate Very high Very less Less 2.5 42 Hazardous
Less
SLS High Moderate Less High 9 34
hazardous
Less
FDM High Moderate Moderate High 9.5 60
hazardous
LOM Less Less High Moderate 35 6 Hazardous
Less
3DP Very Less High Very high Very high 65 2
hazardous
SGC Very high Very less Very less Very less 37 62 Hazardous

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 32
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Figure 7.1: MACBETH value tree for RP process selection

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 33
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Comparison table for Rapid
prototyping process selection

Alternative Macbeth GTOPSIS GARAS

SLA 4 4 4

SLS 3 3 3

FDM 1 1 1

LOM 5 6 5

3DP 2 2 2

SGC 6 5 6

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 34
Engineering, NIT Silchar
Comparative study on ranking performance
for RP process selection

Methods G-TOPSIS G-ARAS

MACBETH 0.9429(1,2,3), 66.67 1(1,2,3), 100

G-TOPSIS 0.9429(1,2,3), 66.67

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 35
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Conclusion
Four Advance Manufacturing System problems were solved using three
MCDM method (MACBETH, GTOPSIS, GARAS)

Four performance tests were also conducted for the ranking performance
comparison and for the degree of agreement between the rankings derived.

In all the cases, it was observed that the top-ranked alternatives exactly
matches with those derived by the past researchers

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 36
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Reference
[1] C. A. Bana e Costa, J. M. De Corte, J. C. Vansnick, "On the Mathematical Foundations of MACBETH, in Figueira, S.
Greco and M. Ehrgott (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer, New York,
2005, pp. 409-442.

[2] C. A. Bana e Costa., M. P. Chagas, "A career choice problem: an example of how to use MACBETH to build a
quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments", European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 153,
issue 2, 2004, pp. 323-331.

[3] M. Yazdani, P. Chatterjee, E.K. Zavadskas, S.H Zolfani, (2017) Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier
selection, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 142 pp. 3728-3740.

[4] R.V Rao, and K.K Padmanabhan, Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory and matrix approach,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 194, 2007, pp. 81-88.

[5] H.S Byun and K.H Lee , Determination of the optimal build direction for different rapid prototyping processes using
multi-criterion decision making, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 22 No. 1, 2006, pp. 69-80.

[6] P. Karande, S. Chakraborty,A Facility Layout Selection Model using MACBETH Method, International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bali, Indonesia, January 7 9, 2014.

[7] M. A. Makhesana, "Application of improved complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) method for rapid prototyping
system selection," Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 21, Issue 6, 2015, pp. 671 674.

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 37
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Reference Contd.
[8] V. Shende, P. Kulkarni, Decision Support System for Rapid Prototyping Process Selection,
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014.

[9] B. N. Panda, B. B. Biswal, B. B. L. V. Deepak, Integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for
the Selection of a Rapid Prototyping Process under Multi-Criteria Perspective, 5th International &
26th All India Manufacturing Technology, Design and Research Conference (AIMTDR 2014)
December 12th14th, 2014, IIT Guwahati, Assam, India.

[10] K. Lokesh and P. K. Jain, SELECTION OF RAPID PROTOTYPING TECHNOLOGY, APEM journal,
vol.5, Issue2, 2010, pp.75-84.

[11] M. Shahrabi, M. Javadi, Selection of Rapid Prototyping Process Using Combined AHP and
TOPSIS Methodology, International Journal of Information Science and System, vol.3 Issue 1, 2014,
pp.15-22.

[12] KEK. Vimal, S. Vinodh, P Brajesh, R Muralidharan, Rapid prototyping process selection using
multi criteria decision making considering environmental criteria and its decision support system,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 22 Issue 2, 2016, pp. 225-250.

[13] M. Braglia and A. Petroni, A Management-Support Technique for the Selection of Rapid
Prototyping Technologies, Journal of Industrial Technology, vol. 15, number 4, 1991.

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 38
Engineering, NIT Silchar
 Thank You.......

Department of Mechanical
5/15/17 39
Engineering, NIT Silchar