Scientific Research and Essay Vol. 4 (4) pp. 198-211, April, 2009 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE ISSN 1992-2248 © 2009 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Application of analytical hierarchy process in the design concept selection of automotive composite bumper beam during the conceptual design stage A. Hambali1, S. M. Sapuan1*, N. Ismail1 and Y. Nukman2
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University Putra, Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. 2 Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Accepted 13 March, 2009
Selection of design concepts is an area of design research that has been under considerable interest over the years. The level of success of product designs achieved depends significantly on the initial concept at the conceptual design stage. Inappropriate decision making during design concepts selection at the conceptual design stage can cause the product to be redesigned or remanufactured. To overcome such problem, this paper proposed a concept selection model called concurrent design concept selection and materials selection (CDCSMS) to assist designers in selecting the most appropriate design concepts and materials for automotive composite components at the conceptual design stage using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). To illustrate the proposed model, 8 design concepts of automotive composite bumper beam are considered and the most appropriate one is determined by using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The final decision was carried out by performing the sensitivity analysis in order to study the effect of the different factors on deciding the best decision option. Key words: Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), design concept selection, conceptual design stage, automotive bumper beam. INTRODUCTION Design concepts selection (DCS) is an area of design research that has been under considerable interest over the years (Salonen and Perttula, 2005). Design concept selection or selection of design concepts is one of the important activities for a product development process. DCS is the decision making phase of concept design, where designers evaluate concepts with respect to customer needs and the designers’ intention (Xiao et al., 2007). The determination of the best design concepts at the conceptual design stage is a crucial decision. The selection of the most appropriate design concepts is important because a poor design concept can never be compensated for by a good detailed design and will incur great expense of redesign cost (Hsu and Woon, 1998) and (Zhang et al., 2006). A poor product concept could lead to high redesign costs and a delay in product realization as well as jeopardizing the chances of successful commercialization (Fung et al., 2007). Thus, the level of success of product design achieved depends significantly on the initial concept at the early stage of product development process. DCS is also considered as a multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problem due to many factors affecting the selection process that has to be considered. Therefore, selecting the best design concepts is not the easy task and the most critical stage in product design development due to many factors influencing the selection need to be considered. The right decision at the early stage of product development is very important. One of the early stages of pro-
*Corresponding author. E-mail: email@example.com. Tel.: 603 8946 6336. Fax: 603-86567122.
Hambali et al.
duct development process is called conceptual design stage (Pugh, 1991) and (Pahl et al., 2007). Conceptual design is an early stage of the product development process which involves the generation of solution concepts to satisfy the functional or design requirements of a design problem. The conceptual design stage plays a critical part in the overall success of the product as once the conceptual...
References: Adhikari I, Kim SY, Lee YD (2006). Selection of appropriate schedule delay analysis method: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). In Proceedings on PICMET. Istanbul, Turkey. Anderson J, Senior RB, Fillipek GL (1998). D-Section bumper. US Patent: US 5725266. Ashaab A, Rodriguez K, Molina A, Cardenas M, Aca J, Saeed M, Abdalla H (2003). Internet-Based Collaborative Design for an Injection-moulding Syst. Concurr. Eng. 4: 289-299 Avery M, Weekes AM (2006). The development of a new low-speed impact test to improve bumper performance and compatibility. Crashworthiness 11: 573-581. Ayag Z (2005). An integrated approach to evaluating conceptual
Hambali et al.
design alternatives in a new product development environment. Prod. Res. 43: 687-713. Ayag Z, Özdemir RG (2009). A hybrid approach to concept t selection Through fuzzy analytic network process, Computers & Industrial Engineering. 56: 3133-3146. Baccouche R, Mahmood H, Madasamy C, Wagner D (2007). Lightweight bumper for automobiles. US Patent: US 7210717 B1. Basavaraju DH (2005). Design and analysis of composite beam for side impact protection of a sedan, Master Thesis, University of Mysore, India. Bernert W, Bulych S, Cran J, Egle D, Henseleit K, Hersberger T, Kantner C, Koch M, Kudelko C, Mihelich M, Mohan R, Stokfisz S, Tang M, Vikstrom T, Welte E, Zabik B (2006). American Iron and Steel Institute: Steel Bumper Systems for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Revision number three, June 30, 2006. http://www.bumper.autosteel.org. Cai Z, Yu JZ, Ko FK (1994). Experimental study on formability of textile performs for composite processing. Proceeding of the American Society For composite. September, 20-22, 1994. University of Delaware, Newark. Delaware. pp. 126-132. Calantone RJ, Benedetto AD, Schmidt J (1999). Using the analytic hierarchy process in new product screening. Prod. Innov. Manage. 16: 65-76. Cheng SC, Chen MY, Chang HY, Chou TZ (2007). Semantic-based facial expression recognition using analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Expert Systems with Applications 33: 86-95. Cheon SS, Lee DG, Jeong KS (1997). Composite side door impact beam for passenger cars. Composite Structures. 38: 229-239. Clark K, Wheelwright S (1993). Managing New Product and Process Development, New York. The free Press Forman EH, Saaty TL, Selly MA, Waldron R (2000). Expert Choice 1982–2000 McLean, VA, Decision Support Software Inc., Pittsburgh, USA. Forman EH, Saaty TL, Selly MA,Waldron R (2000) Expert Choice 1982–2000 McLean, VA, Decision Support Software Inc., Pittsburgh, USA. Fung RYK, Chen Y, Tang J (2007). A quality-engineering-based approach for conceptual product design. Advanced Manufacturing Technol. 32: 1064-1073. Hambali A, Sapuan SM, Ismail N (2007). Evaluation of design concepts at conceptual Design stage using Analytical Hierarchy Process, Product & Design 2007 Conference on Design, Simulation, Product Development and Optimization. Penang, Malaysia. Haque E, Bassett W, Lewis TF (2001). -section automotive bumper formal from mineral-filled gas mat thermoplastic (GMT). US Patent: US 6286879 B1. Hosseinzadeh R, Shokrieh MM, Lessard LB (2005). Parametric study of automotive composite bumper beams subjected to low-velocity impacts. Composite Structures. 68: 419-427. Hsiao SW (1998). Fuzzy logic based decision model for product design. Industrial Ergonomics 21: 103-116. Hsu W, Woon IMY (1998). Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products. Computer-Aided Design. 30: 377-389. Huthwaite B (1989). Manufacturing competitiveness and quality by design. In: Proceeding of the 4th International Conference Product Design for Manufacture and assembly. 5-6 June, Stockholm, Sweden. Jacob GC, Fellers JF, Simunovic S, Stabuck JM (2002). Energy absorption in polymer composites for automotive crashworthiness. Composite Materials. 36: 813-850. Katsutoshi T, Mitsutoshi K (2007). Vehicle bumper beam and process of manufacturing the bumper beam.http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1749702.html. Kelman J, Nelson GV (1998). Composite motor vehicle bumper beam. United States Patent: Patent No. 5804511. Kota S, Lee CL (1993). General framework for configuration design: Part 1– methodology. Engineering Design 4: 277-294. Lee KH, Bang KI (2006). R o b u s t d e s i g n o f a n a u t o m o b i l e front bumper using design of experiments, Proc. IMechE Part D. Automobile Engineering. 220: 11991207.
Lin YJ, Huang CW, Tseng JC, Shiau JY (2004). Issue resolution for conceptual design using AHP. In Proceedings of SPIE-Volume 5605,Intelligent Systems in Design and Manufacturing. 25-26 October 2004. Philadelphia, USA. Ozer M (2005). Factors which influence decision making in new product evaluation. European J. Operational Res. 63: 784–801. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Berlin: Springer. Pugh S (1991). Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, England: Addison Wesley Limited. Rehman F, Yan XT (2003). Product Design Elements as Means to Realise Functions in Mechanical Conceptual Design. In Proceeding of International Conference on Engineering Design ICED 03. 19-21 August, 2003. Stockholm, Swedan. Rush KC (1990). An overview of Automotive Plastic bumpers, In Automotive Bumper system and exterior Panels. SAE Technical Paper 900420. Saaty LT, Vargas LG (2001). Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytical hierarchy process. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Saaty TL (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill. Salonen M, Perttula M (2005). Utilization of concept selection methods – a survey of Finnish industry. In Proceeding of Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. 24-28 September, 2005. Long Beach, California, USA. Sapuan SM (2005). Concurrent design and manufacturing process of automotive composite components. Assembly Automation 25: 146152. Sapuan SM, Suddin N, Maleque MA (2002). A critical review of polymer-based composite automotive bumper system. Polymers and Polymer Composite. 10: 627-636. Sharpe N, Vendrig R, Houtzager K (2001). Improved Design for Frontal Protection. www.madymo.co.kr/data/improved_design_for_frontal_protection.pdf. Steward RL, Osterman AJ, Jalbert DW (1992). Vehicle and bumper beam combination. US Patent: US 5080412. Steward RL, Osterman AJ, Jalbert DW, Nulty JD (1994). Vehicle and bumper beam combination. US Patent: US 5340178. Suddin MN, Din AT, Abdullah MF, Shamsudin SA (2007). C o n c e p t u a l d e s i g n o f a u t o m o t i ve b u m p e r b e a m . P ro c e e d i n g s o f t h e Conference on design, simulation, product development and optimization, 10-11 December, Penang, Malaysia. Sullivan AR (2006). Automotive Carbon Fiber: Opportunities and Challenges. (Overview), 2006 November. pp. 77-79. Ullman DG (1992). The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ullman DG (2002). The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Xiao A, Park SS, Freiheit T (2007). A comparison of concept selection in concept scoring and axiomatic design methods. http://cden2007.eng .umanitoba.ca/resources/papers/69.pdf. Accessed on 22 Mac 2008. Xu L, Li Z, Shancang L, Fengming T (2007). A decision support system for product design in concurrent engineering. Decision Support Systems. 42: 2029- 2042. Yang CQ, Lin TS (1997). Developing an Integrated Framework for Feature-Based Early Manufacturing Cost Estimation. Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 13: 618-629. Yim HJ, Kim MS, Park J, Heo SJ (2005). Shape Optimization of Bumper Beam Cross Section for Low Speed Crash, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. SAE Technical paper 2005-01-0880. Zavbi R, Duhovnik J (1996). The analytic hierarchy process and functional appropriateness of components of technical systems. Engineering Design 7: 313-327. Zhang C, Jiang Z, Lu D, Ren T (2006). 3D MEMS design method via Solidworks. In Procedding of the 1st IEEE international conference on Nano/Mirco engineered and molecular systems. Zhuhai, China. pp. 18-21.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document