Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 2039–2067 | Cite as

Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative

  • Syed Hammad MianEmail author
  • Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari
Article
  • 265 Downloads

Abstract

Manufacturing industry plays a very significant role in the economic functioning of any country. In recent times, reverse engineering (RE) has become an integral part of manufacturing set-up owing to its numerous applications. The quality of RE product primarily depends on the quality of digitization i.e., part measurement. There is a diverse range of digitization devices which can be employed in RE. These machines have variability in terms of cost, accuracy, ease of use, accessibility, scanning time, etc. Therefore, the decision regarding the selection of a suitable device becomes important in a particular RE application. The decisions taken in the planning stage for RE can have a long lasting impact on the functionality, quality and the economics of components to be used by manufacturing industries. To accomplish the selection procedure, a comparative study of three digitization techniques has been carried out. The determination of an appropriate digitization system is basically a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. MCDM techniques are yet to be applied in the selection of digitization systems for RE. MCDM is one of the most widely used decision methodologies in business and engineering spheres. The aim of this work is to describe various MCDM methods in the selection of digitization systems for RE. This paper intends to employ combinations between different MCDM methods such as group eigenvalue method (GEM), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), entropy method, elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and simple additive weighing (SAW) method. In this work, GEM, AHP, Entropy methods has been used to elicit weights of various selection criteria, while TOPSIS, ELECTRE and SAW have been applied to rank the alternatives. A comparative analysis has also been performed to determine the efficacies of different approaches. The conclusion of the paper reveals the best digitization system as well as the characteristics of different MCDM methods and their suitability in RE application.

Keywords

Reverse engineering Scanning touch probe Laser line scanning probe Portable arm CMM Group eigenvalue TOPSIS AHP ELECTRE Entropy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University for funding through Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chairs.

References

  1. Abedi, T., & Ghamgosar, M. (2013). Formulating forest management strategies using ELECTRE method. World Applied Programming, 3, 522–528.Google Scholar
  2. Adriyendi, A. (2015). Multi-attribute decision making using simple additive weighting and weighted product in food choice. International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 6, 8–14.Google Scholar
  3. Afshari, A., Mojahed, M., & Yusuff, R. M. (2010). Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1, 511–515.Google Scholar
  4. Ali, F., Chowdary, B. V., & Imbert, C. A. C. (2008). Part design and evaluation through reverse engineering approach. In Proceedings of the IAJC-IJME international conference, Nashville, TN, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Najjar, B., & Alsyouf, I. (2003). Selecting the most efficient maintenance approach using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making. International Journal of Production Economics, 84, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angiz, L. M. Z., Mustafa, A., Ghani, N. A., & Kamil, A. A. (2012). Group decision via usage of analytic hierarchy process and preference aggregation method. Sains Malaysiana, 41, 361–366.Google Scholar
  7. Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T. M., & Venkatesan, V. P. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1, 31–43.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J., et al. (2001). Guidebook to decision-making methods. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Balaji, C. M., Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2009). Selection of a machine tool for FMS using ELECTRE III—A case study. In Proceedings of conference on automation science and engineering, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
  10. Banwet, D. K., & Majumdar, A. (2014). Comparative analysis of AHP–TOPSIS and GA–TOPSIS methods for selection of raw materials in textile industries. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management, Bali, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  11. Barbero, B. R., & Ureta, E. S. (2011). Comparative study of different digitization techniques and their accuracy. Computer-Aided Design, 43(2), 188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barisic, B., Rucki, M., & Car, Z. (2008). Analysis of digitizing and traditional measuring system at surface measurement of lids. Key Engineering Materials, 381–382, 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Benayoun, R., Roy, B., & Sussman, N. (1966). Manual de reference du programme electre, Note de Synthese et Formation. Direction Scientifique SEMA, Paris, Franch.Google Scholar
  14. Bentes, A., Carneiro, J., Silva, J., & Kimura, H. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1790–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Çimren, E., Çatay, B., & Budak, E. (2007). Development of a machine tool selection system using AHP. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35, 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, M., & Kress, A. (1990). A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Management Science, 36, 1302–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Chiffre, L., Hansen, H. N., & Morace, R. E. (2005). Comparison of coordinate measuring machines using an optomechanical hole plate. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 54(1), 479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fazlollahtabar, H., & Yousefpoor, N. (2008). Selection of optimum maintenance strategies in a virtual learning environment based on analytic hierarchy process. In Proceedings of international conference on virtual learning, Constanţa, Romania.Google Scholar
  19. Feng, H. Y., Liu, Y., & Xi, F. (2001). Analysis of digitizing errors of a laser scanning system. Journal of the International Societies for Precision Engineering and Nanotechnology, 25, 185–191.Google Scholar
  20. Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal Of Operational Research, 108, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fulop, J. (2005). Introduction to decision making methods. Budapest: Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems, Computer and Automation Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. Gapinski, B., Zachwiej, I., & Kołodziej, A. (2014). Comparison of different method of measurement geometry using CMM. Procedia Engineering, 69, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gestel, N. V., Cuypers, S., Bleys, P., & Kruth, J. P. (2009). A performance evaluation test for laser line scanners on CMMs. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 47, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grandzol, J. R. (2005). Improving the faculty selection process in higher education: A case for the analytic hierarchy process. IR Applications - Using Advanced Tools, Techniques, and Methodologies, 6, 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES), 3, 8–13.Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, H. N., & De Chiffre, L. (1999). An industrial comparison of coordinate measuring machines in Scandinavia with focus on uncertainty statements. Precision Engineering, 23, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvie, A. (1986). Factors affecting component measurement on coordinate measuring machines. Precision Engineering, 8, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ilangkumaran, M., & Kumanan, S. (2009). Selection of maintenance policy for textile industry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20, 1009–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jafari, A., Jafarian, M., Zareei, A., & Zaerpour, F. (2008). Using fuzzy Delphi method in maintenance strategy selection problem. Journal of Uncertain Systems, 2, 289–298.Google Scholar
  32. Krohlinga, R. A., & Pacheco, A. G. C. (2015). A-TOPSIS—An approach based on TOPSIS for ranking evolutionary algorithms. Procedia Computer Science, 15, 308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li, X., Wang, K., Liu, L., Xin, J., Yang, H., & Gao, C. (2011). Application of the entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Engineering, 26, 2085–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lotfi, F. H., & Fallahnejad, R. (2010). Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy, 12, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). Decision-making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach. Memorandum RM-4823-ARPA, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.Google Scholar
  36. Martínez, S., Cuesta, E., Barreiro, J., & Álvarez, B. (2010). Methodology for comparison of laser digitizing versus contact systems in dimensional control. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 48, 1238–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mavromihales, M., Mason, J., & Weston, W. (2003). A case of reverse engineering for the manufacture of wide chord fan blades (WCFB) used in Rolls Royce aero engines. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 134, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michalos, G., Fysikopoulos, A., Makris, S., Mourtzis, D., & Chryssolouris, G. (2015). Multi criteria assembly line design and configuration—An automotive case study. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 9, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milani, A. S., Shanian, A., & EL-Lahham, C. (2006). Using different ELECTRE methods in strategic planning in the presence of human behavioral resistance. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences. Article ID 10936, 1–19.Google Scholar
  40. Mojahed, M., Marjani, M. E., Afshari, A., & Marjani, S. (2013). Using ELECTRE-AHP as a mixed method for personnel selection. In Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process for multicriteria decision making, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  41. Motavalli, S. (1998). Review of reverse engineering approaches. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 35, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mousavi, S. S., Nezami, F. G., Heydar, M., & Aryanejad, M. B. (2011). A hybrid fuzzy group decision making and factor analysis for selecting maintenance strategy. In Proceeding of international conference on computers & industrial engineering, Troyes, France.Google Scholar
  43. Osman, M. S. A., Abd El_Hakim, G. E. A., & Khalifa, H. A. (2016). On a hybrid approach for treating multi-criteria decision making problems. International Journal of Computer Applications, 145, 49–57.Google Scholar
  44. Ossadnik, W., Schinke, S., & Kaspar, R. H. (2016). Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: A comparative analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25, 421–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ozcan, T., & Celebi, N. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 9773–9779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pang, J., Zhang, G., & Chen, G. (2011). ELECTRE I decision model of reliability design scheme for computer numerical control machine. Journal of Software, 6, 894–900.Google Scholar
  47. Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., Michalos, G., Makris, S., & Chryssolouris, G. (2012). An agent-based methodology for manufacturing decision making: A textile case study. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pourjavad, E., & Shirouyehzad, H. (2011). A MCDM approach for prioritizing production lines: A case study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6, 221–229.Google Scholar
  49. Qiu, W. H. (1997). Group eigenvalue method. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 18, 1027–1031.Google Scholar
  50. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  51. Sadeghzadeh, K., & Salehi, M. B. (2011). Mathematical analysis of fuel cell strategic technologies development solutions in the automotive industry by the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision making method. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36, 13272–13280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salomon, V. A. P., & Montevechi, J. A. B. (2001). Compilation of comparisons on the Analytic Hierarchy Process and others multiple criteria decision making methods: Some cases developed in Brazil. Berne: ISAHP.Google Scholar
  53. Sansoni, G., Trebeschi, M., & Docchio, F. (2009). State-of-the-art and applications of 3D imaging sensors in industry, cultural heritage, medicine, and criminal investigation. Sensors, 9, 568–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Savio, S. (2006). Uncertainty in testing the metrological performances of coordinate measuring machines. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 55, 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Savio, E., De Chiffre, L., & Schmitt, R. (2007). Metrology of freeform shaped parts. Annals of the CIRP, 56, 810–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sokovic, M., & Kopac, J. (2006). RE (reverse engineering) as necessary phase by rapid product development. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 175, 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Son, S., Park, H., & Lee, K. H. (2002). Automated laser scanning system for reverse engineering and inspection. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 42, 889–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stefano, T., & Enrico, V. (2005). Feasibility study of a reverse engineering system benchmarking. In Proceedings of ADM-Inge-graf, Siviglia Spagna.Google Scholar
  60. Thor, J., Ding, S.-H., & Kamaruddin, S. (2013). Comparison of multi criteria decision making methods from the maintenance alternative selection perspective. The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES), 2, 27–34.Google Scholar
  61. Tscheikner-Gratl, F., Patrick Egger, P., Wolfgang Rauch, W., & Kleidorfer, M. (2017). Comparison of multi-criteria decision support methods for integrated rehabilitation prioritization. Water, 9, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Várady, T., Martin, R. R., & Cox, J. (1997). Reverse engineering of geometric models—An introduction. Computer-Aided Design, 29, 255–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10, 56–66.Google Scholar
  64. Vezzetti, E. (2007). Reverse engineering: A selective sampling acquisition approach. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology, 33, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vrhovec, M., & Munih, M. (2007). Improvement of coordinate measuring arm accuracy. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, San Diego.Google Scholar
  66. Wu, M.-C., & Chen, T.-Y. (2009). The ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy-IEEE, Korea.Google Scholar
  67. Wu, Y., Liu, S., & Zhang, G. (2004). Improvement of coordinate measuring machine probing accessibility. Precision Engineering, 28, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yang, T., Xu, S., & Xiong, N. N. (2016). A novel machine selection method combining group eigenvalue method with TOPSIS method. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, 9, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ye, X., Liu, H., Chen, L., Chen, Z., Pan, X., & Zhang, S. (2008). Reverse innovative design—An integrated product design methodology. Computer-Aided Design, 40, 812–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yuan, X., Zhenrong, X., & Haibin, W. (2001). Research on integrated reverse engineering technology for forming sheet metal with a freeform surface. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 112, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yue, Z. (2011). A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, 1926–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhang, Y. (2003). Research into the engineering application of reverse engineering technology. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 139, 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Princess Fatima Alnijiris’s Research Chair for Advanced Manufacturing Technology (FARCAMT Chair), Advanced Manufacturing InstituteKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering Department, College of EngineeringKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations