Proceedings of the 2007 Industrial Engineering Research Conference

G. Bayraksan, W. Lin, Y. Son, and R. Wysk, eds.

Concurrent Material and Process Selection in a Flexible Design for

Manufacture Paradigm

Salil Desai
Industrial & Systems Engineering
NC A&T State University
Greensboro, NC 27411, USA

Christopher Dean
General Electric Company
Salisbury, NC 28146, USA

Abstract
This paper presents a concurrent material and process selection methodology within a flexible design for
manufacture (DFM) paradigm. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) based Material & Process Selection Engine
(MPSE) developed herein generates weights based on combinatorial order ranking of the designer preferences.
Further, a Material-Process Index (MPI) is developed that integrates the MPSE generated weights and couples
material-process compatibility. The above developed methodology is applied to a case study to signify the
applicability of the new approach. The material-process combination with the highest Material-Process Index (MPI)
is chosen as the optimal solution for a product design.

Keywords
Analytical Hierarchy Process; Concurrent Engineering; Design for Manufacture; Multi-criteria decision making;
Product Design.

1. Introduction
In today’s concurrent design paradigms, designers are responsible for both material and process selection during the
initial design phase. The globalization of the marketplace, the accessibility of markets, and improvements in
transportation systems has forced manufacturers to operate in the context of global standards [1]. In order to achieve
these goals, designers are expected to use the most effective materials and processes for product manufacture.
Approximately 75% of product costs are typically established in the initial design phase [2]. Given, the enormous
selection of material and process [3] a designer can become myopic when it comes to their unbiased selection.

Reviewing the literature, a significant body of work presently exists in the Design for Manufacture (DFM) field.
Boothroyd et al., in defining the DFMA concept have made important contributions to the manufacturing and
assembly issues in design. The use of knowledge based systems have been suggested for design and manufacturing
integration [2]. Studies have been carried out to combine design, manufacturing and assembly by Geddam [4]. Ong
et al. [5] formulated a fuzzy-set based manufacturability evaluation algorithm using a computer-aided DFM system
for rotational parts. The problem with DFM/A expert systems is that it necessitates the systematic application of
large amounts of knowledge, which is normally acquired over long periods of time. The solutions to the problems of
knowledge elicitation and acquisition have yet to be formalized into a generic approach and are usually separated
from the knowledge-modeling problem. Many of the currently available DFM/A techniques are spreadsheets,
requiring the designer to answer questions relating to the product and its components, their form and functionality,
and how they interact [6] Examples of these are the Lucas DFA technique developed by Corbett et al., 1991 [7], the
Hitachi Assemblability Evaluation Method by Miyakawa and Ohashi, 1986 [8], and the Boothroyd-Dewhurst
methodology.
 Desai and Dean
The solution approach is to utilize a multi-criteria decision-making strategy, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
that aids designers in material and process selection [9]. A Material-Process Index (MPI) is developed which aids in
concurrent selection of the optimal material and process. Material-process compatibility is taken into account while
generating the MPI. Using the methodology developed herein, designers can make an unbiased selection of the most
appropriate material and process for a particular design.

2. Analytical Hierarchy Process

The analytical hierarchy process is a multi-criteria decision-making tool that gives the best available solution under
conflicting criteria. Pair-wise comparisons are made within the different levels of the structure and are assigned
ratio values to distinguish the importance rating within the different levels of the hierarchy structure. The ratio
values are referred to as weights and are numerical quantitative values that are assigned to the different levels in the
hierarchy. These values are used in determining the best decision for the goal stated in the hierarchy.

GOAL

(Material Selection for

(Deciding Product
on mfg. isDesi
suesgn)
to optimize)

CRITERIA
Magnetic Tensile Thermal
availabielitsy customer costcost weigmfg.
ht functivitoyn
properti Strength process Conducti

ALTERNATIVES
Stainless
safety
Steel Aluminumy
assembl Cast Ironmfg. ...........
...........

Figure 1. AHP Structure for Material Selection

In our case, the decision is to rank the alternatives with respect to the goal, which is material or process selection.
Figure 1 shows an AHP structure for material selection. The alternatives are pairwise compared with respect to the
criteria. The criteria are in turn compared pairwise with respect to the goal. The result is a ranking of the alternatives
by ratio scales. The alternatives with the higher ratio scale are shown to have the most effect on the goal, and the
best alternative is selected. AHP tests the consistency of judgments; too great a departure from the perfectly
consistent value indicates a need to improve the judgments or to restructure the hierarchy. That is, it is undesirable
that there should be too much inconsistency. For a consistent matrix, max = n, where max is the largest eigenvalue of
λmax - n
a reciprocal matrix of order n, Saaty [10] developed the consistency index, C.I.  , and has developed
n-1
the random index (R.I.) for different n. The ratio of the C.I. to the R.I. for the same order matrix is called the
consistency ratio (C.R.). A C.R. of 0.10 or less is considered acceptable. A perfectly consistent ratio is zero, and if
C.R. is sufficiently small, the decision maker’s comparisons are probably consistent enough to give useful estimates
of the weights for his or her objective function. If C.R.>0.1, serious inconsistencies may exist, and the AHP may not
yield meaningful results [11].

3. Material and Process Selection

The functional design of a product dictates the configuration and specifications to be used for material and process
selection. The functional design also demands certain set of properties, which the product should satisfy. Based on
the application domain these properties could pertain to strength requirements (e.g. high toughness material for
cyclic loading), magnetic properties (e.g. motor windings), thermal properties (e.g. heat exchanger design), etc.
Thus material and process selection is a multicriteria decision making process. The material should satisfy certain
set of properties governed by the functional design and also aid in manufacturability.

3.1 Justification for the application of AHP

Designers may be restricted to only a set of materials and processes with which they are most familiar and may, as a
consequence, exclude from consideration materials and processes proved to be better and more economic [2].
Opportunities for major manufacturing improvements may be lost through a limited selection of manufacturing
processes and associated materials in the early stages of product design. AHP aids multicriteria decision-making
 Desai and Dean
when individual parameters have relationship with other parameters. For example, machinability of different grades
of steel is inversely proportional to the hardness of the material. Thus low carbon steel having a hardness of 175
BHN can be turned at a faster machining rate of 100(in 2/min) as compared to stainless steel, and ferritic (annealed)
which can be turned at 48(in2/min) [2]. Thus, various criteria that are combinatorial and have complex interactions
are captured by AHP. Also, the use of AHP makes the selection criteria very flexible to include the designer’s intent
for other parameters that depend on the product design. For example, in selecting a material for higher strength the
designer will use cost, yield strength and machinability, while in the case of material for a heat exchanger, the
designer will use cost, fatigue strength, coefficient of thermal expansion and machinabilty.

3.2 Material Selection

The designer obtains candidate materials from materials handbooks, online databases, machinability data, etc. After
obtaining the candidate materials the designer evaluates and ranks each using the AHP technique described earlier.
This stage involves evaluating each alternative for the criterion set by designer such as machinability, cost,
availability, thermal properties, etc. For example a sheetmetal part will be evaluated from cost of basic material, cost
of bending process, formability, and rigidity. While a pump casing material will be evaluated from castability, raw
material cost, surface finish, machinability, etc. The material selection engine comes up with the highest preferred
material and ranks alternatives.

3.3 Process Selection

Similar to material selection, candidate processes are short-listed that satisfy the specifications of the functional
design. The designer determines the criteria for evaluating the candidate processes for AHP. The decision criteria
may vary depending on the product domain. For example, in the automotive industry the criteria are typically
quantity of parts to be produced, surface finish, machinability, tolerance imparted by process, cost, etc. The
information about competing processes is amassed from various sources such as machine tool handbooks, machine
tool manufacturers, machinists, and experts in production processes. The advantage of this type of process selection
mechanism is its flexibility of selecting criteria unique to each product. The AHP based process selection engine
comes up with the most preferred process and also ranks alternatives.

4. Material and Process Index (MPI)

Using the material and process selection engine developed earlier the designer can come up with the best individual
material and process. However, it is important to note that the best material chosen for a given set of criteria may not
be compatible with the best process chosen. The material and process index (MPI) developed herein couples
material-process compatibility for selecting the optimal material and process combination. The steps to generate the
MPI include:
 Identify candidate materials and generate AHP based material weights for MPI.
 Identify candidate processes and generate AHP based process weights for MPI.
 Generate material-process compatibility
 Use above information to generate MPI

The MPI shown in Equation 1, integrates both material and process selection with their compatibility,
MPI = α [Sum (ai,jmi) + Sum (bk,lpi)] (1)
Where α = compatibility index ranges from {0 to 9}. The values i, j, k and l = {1 to n}
aij = material alternative coefficient
bij = process alternative coefficient
mi = material criteria weight
pi = process criteria weight
i = material criteria number
j = material alternative number
k = process criteria number
l = process alternative number

The material and process alternative coefficients contain values (i and k) that range from 1 to n and are
determined based upon the number of choices the designer has selected for a particular application. The material
and process criteria weights, (mi and pi) are also selected based upon the designer’s decision and can range from 1 to
n. The compatibility index α ranges from 0 to 9, 0 represents incompatible and 9 represents highly compatible
 Desai and Dean
material process combination. MPI’s are generated for different material and process combinations. The highest MPI
represents the optimal choice.
5. Application of the Model
The Material Process Index (MPI) equation presented in this paper was used to find the optimal material and process
for an adaptor plate used in an interchangeable cutout system for a major power technology company. The
interchangeable cutout is designed for use on an overhead distribution system (see Figure 2) in stabilizing power
lines. The system is equipped with a fuse link that is encompassed within a fiberglass tube. The maximum current
carrying capacity of this cutout system is 100 amps (A). If more than 100A pass through the fuse link, it
disintegrates creating combustion gases that build up inside the fiberglass tube. The pressure increase inside the
fiberglass tube forces it to erupt. The adaptor plate is mounted on top of the fiberglass tube. The adaptor plate needs
to sustain the eruption force exerted by the fiberglass tube without major deflection or breaking.

Adaptor Plate

Fiber glass tube

Figure 2: Interchangeable Cutout

5.1 Functional Design Requirements

The specifications for the adaptor plate that satisfy the safe operating conditions include:
 Strength (Bending and Shear): The part has to be able to sustain a force of 400 lbs. The yield strength
requirements for this part should range above 40,000 psi.
 Dimensional Constraints: This part has critical dimensions, such as the length, diameter of holes, and distance
between each hole that have to precisely manufactured within tolerances for interchangeability with other units.
 Cost: The cost is critical for both material and process. The ideal cost for this application should be minimal.
 High Volume: The number of parts on average per year is 200,000.
 Corrosion Resistance: The part has to be able to endure severe atmospheric conditions.
 Minimum Life Requirement (20 years or more): The ideal life for this part must be a minimum of 20 years.

5.2 Material Selection

The following candidate materials were selected that could satisfy the functional requirements for design:
 Aluminum Bronze C95400
 Aluminum Bronze C61400
 Low-Carbon Steel AISI 1018
 Mid-Carbon Steel AISI 1040
The criteria for material selection (as shown in Figure 3) were used to come up with the weights for each hierarchy.
These material selection weights will be further used in the Material-Process Index.

5.3 Process Selection

The three candidate processes that were chosen were:
1. Casting
2. Forging
3. Stamping
 Desai and Dean
Candidate process alternatives were evaluated based upon the criteria outlined below.
1. Variable volume: Large quantity of parts with variations in quantities/batches range as high as
200,000 per year.
2. Cost of process: Process cost should be as low as possible for the cutout system.
3. Strength imparted by process: Material may need extra strength in order to meet functional
requirements.
Similar to material selection an AHP structure (as shown in Figure 3) was used to come up with the weights for each
hierarchy. These process selection weights will be further used in the Material-Process Index.

Figure 3: AHP based Material (left) and Process (right) hierarchy

5.4 Material-Process Index

After generating the material and process selection weights a material-process compatibility index (α) was
generated. Weights for combinations of different materials and processes were substituted in the MPI Equation (Eq.
1) in addition to their compatibility index (α). The material process index (MPI) developed herein integrates both
material and process weight values and accommodates for material-process compatibility. Table 1. shows the MPI’s
generated for combination of two different materials with the forging process. Similar tables were generated for
combination of different materials with the other two process candidates (Casting and Stamping).

Table 1. MPI’s for combination of two different materials and forging process

FORGING
C95400 C61400
a1,1= 0.094 m1= 0.462 a1,2 = 0.061 m1 = 0.462
Material

a2,1= 0.107 m2= 0.302 a2,2 = 0.045 m2 = 0.302

a3,1= 0.429 m3= 0.236 a3,2 = 0.381 m3 = 0.236
b1,1= 0.136 p1= 0.114 b1,1 = 0.136 p1 = 0.114
Process

b2,1= 0.25 p2= 0.481 b2,1 = 0.25 p2 = 0.481

b3,1= 0.715 p3= 0.405 b3,1 = 0.715 p3 = 0.405
MPI = 0.602315 α=1 MPI = 4.456136 α=8

Table 2. shows the MPI values for the combination of applicable materials and processes. As seen from the table, the
highest MPI value stands for the combination of material (AISI 1018) and process (Forging), which is MPI = 7.303.
The next best choice is the combination of material (AISI 1040) and process (Forging) within an MPI of 5.84. As
indicated in the table, C95400 and C61400 are compatible with all three processes. However, Steel AISI 1018 is not
compatible with the casting process due to material properties associated with the metal. Similarly, steel AISI 1040
is not compatible with the stamping process due to material properties associated with the metal. Thus, in both these
 Desai and Dean
cases the compatibility index (α) is 0 and thus we do not calculate a MPI value. The compatibility index (α) values
for the combination of different materials and processes were obtained from process experts in the field.

Table 2. MPI values for combination of applicable materials and processes

MATERIAL PROCESS MPI 6.

Forging 0.602315
Casting 4.823848
C95400
Stamping 0.325548
Forging 4.456136
Casting 0.557683
C61400
Stamping 2.242
Forging 7.303599
AISI 1018 Stamping 4.277952
Forging 5.840088
AISI 1040 Casting 5.114739
Conclusion
A multicriteria decision making technique, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is utilized to assist the designer
in the preliminary screening of individual materials & processes for a product design. This approach enables
designers to allocate preferences to the respective materials and process alternatives based on designer chosen
criteria. Further, a Material-Process Index (MPI) is developed that integrates the AHP generated weights and couples
material-process compatibility. This methodology deters designers from making design decisions based on local
optima for material and process selections. Using the methodology developed herein, designers can make an
unbiased selection of the most appropriate material and process for a particular design. Moreover, it provides
flexibility to include designer creativity and customer involvement in making product design decisions.

References
1. Tomiyama, D. T., The Technical Concept of Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS), Tokyo: University of
Tokyo, Japan, 1992.
2. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and Knight, W., Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, (New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1997), pp. 1-3.
3. Ashby, Michael F., Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, Great Britain, 1999.
4. Geddam, A., “Process-Driven Engineering - A Key Element in Integrating Design and Manufacture",
Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Dept. of Manufacturing Engineering, 1993.
5. Ong, S.K., Sun, M.J., and Nee, A.Y.C. A Fuzzy set AHP-based DFM tool for rotational parts, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 138 (2003) pp. 223-230.
6. Molloy, O., Tilley, S., and Warman E.A., Design for Manufacturing and Assembly: Concepts, Architectures and
Implementation, London: Chapman & Hall, 1998, pp. 1-100.
7. Corbett, J., Dooner, M., Meleka, J., and Pym, C., Design For Manufacture: Strategies Principles and
Techniques, Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley Series in Manufacturing Systems, 1991.
8. Miyakawa, S., and Ohashi, T., "The Hitachi Assemblability Evaluation Method", First International
Conference in Product Design for Assembly, 1986, pp. 1-13.
9. Desai S., Bidanda B., Lovell M., Nnaji B., “Design for Manufacture Using a Flexible Decision Tool”,
International Conference for Production Research (ICPR), Blacksburg, Virginia, 2003.
10. Saaty, T. L., and Alexander, J. M., Conflict resolution: The analytic hierarchy approach, New York: Praeger,
1989, pp. 20-21.
11. Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. G., Decision making in economic, political, social and technological environments,
Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 1994, pp 1-15.