See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316530844

Selection of additive manufacturing processes

Article  in  Rapid Prototyping Journal · March 2017

DOI: 10.1108/RPJ-09-2015-0123

CITATIONS READS

9 1,242

3 authors:

Yuanbin Wang Robert Blache

Zhejiang University Callaghan Innovation
9 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xun Xu
University of Auckland
386 PUBLICATIONS   6,858 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a hybrid cloud manufacturing environment for production of personalized products View project

GRK2198 IRTG Soft Tissue Robotics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuanbin Wang on 13 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Selection of Additive Manufacturing Processes

Yuanbin Wang, Robert Blache, Xun Xu1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New

Zealand

Abstract:
Purpose – Additive manufacturing (AM) has experienced a rapid development in recent years. New
technologies, machines and service bureaus are being brought into the market at an exciting rate.
While user’s choices are in abundance, finding the right choice can be a nontrivial task. This study
reviews the existing methods for AM process selection and evaluates their suitability for Design for
Additive Manufacturing (DfAM).
Design/methodology/approach – the AM process selection methods are reviewed based on Decision
Theory. We also examine how the user’s preferences and AM process performances are considered
and approximated into mathematical models. The pros and cons, and the limitations of these methods
are discussed and a new approach has been proposed to support the iterating process of DfAM.
Findings – all current studies follow a sequential decision process and focus on an ‘a priori’
articulation of preferences approach. This kind of method has limitations for the user in the early
design stage to implement DfAM process. An ‘a posteriori’ articulation of preferences approach is
proposed to support DfAM and an iterative design process.
Originality/value – this paper reviews AM process selection methods in a new perspective. The users
need to be aware of the underlying assumptions in these methods. The limitations of these methods
for DfAM are discussed and a new approach for AM process selection is proposed.

Keywords: Additive manufacturing, Decision theory, Decision support systems, Design for additive
manufacturing, Multi-criteria decision making

Article Classification: Literature review

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, creates physical objects from a geometrical
representation by successive addition of material (ISO/PRF 17296-1 2015). This fabrication process,
firstly developed in the 1980s, has experienced a phenomenal expansion in recent years. The
expansion is driven by the unique capabilities of this process such as complex geometry production,
integrated assemblies and elimination of many conventional manufacturing constraints (Gibson,
Rosen & Stucker 2010). AM has been found in various applications in engineering industry as well as
other domains such as medicine, education, architecture, cartography, toys and entertainment.

A variety of AM technologies have been developed. According to ASTM Standard F2792 (ASTM
F2792-12a 2012), these technologies can be catalogued into seven groups: binder jetting, directed
energy deposition, material extrusion, material jetting, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination and vat
photo-polymerization. More than 350 industrial AM machines and 450 materials have been identified
in the market (Senvol LLC 2015). The debate about which machine or technology fares better than
others has little value as each of them has its targeted applications. AM technologies are no longer
limited to prototyping usage, but are increasingly also being used for making end products (Rosen
2007). Therefore, ‘Design for Additive Manufacture’ (DfAM) becomes increasingly significant for
avoiding potential manufacturing pitfalls and maximizing utilization of AM capability (Rosen 2007,
Adam, Zimmer 2014). To achieve that, the designer needs to be able to select a proper AM process in
the early design stage. Therefore, a comprehensive and robust selection system becomes paramount
for users to select a machine/technology that is fit for purpose (Moylan et al. 2012).

Unlike conventional manufacturing process selection, AM process selection is still a nontrivial task.
For each of the various conventional manufacturing processes, a wealth of knowledge has been
accumulated over the years. Much of it has become engineering “common sense”, and different
systems have evolved over the years to suit their preferred and perceived applications. The same
however cannot be said about AM processes. AM processes are free from many conventional
manufacturing constraints in that they can produce nearly any geometric feature with little auxiliary
tools. While the different AM processes show considerable overlap in terms of possible applications,
there are also significant differences between the various AM technologies and processes in terms of
suitable materials and quality of printed parts. Because it is a relatively new technology, most users do
not have enough knowledge and experience to make good judgments. Various knowledge based
decision support systems (kb-DSS) to help users make sensible decisions have been published. This
paper reviews a number of these kb-DSS solutions for AM process selection and examines their
ability to guide the user in a DfAM approach which aims at maximising the benefits derived from AM.
We propose a framework that uses concepts from decision theory and the notion of performance and
preference functions.

Decision support systems can generally be described by the normative decision theory, which
addresses the problem of how decisions should be made in order to maximise the value of outcomes
for the user. In order to do that, the theory assumes a fully informed and rational user who is able to
compute exactly. Obviously, a kb-DSS is particularly suited to improve the level of information
available to the user (stored in the knowledge base) and the ability to compute exactly. The commonly
used decision process can be described by a six stage sequential decision making model as proposed
by Brim et al. (1962):

• Identification of the problem

• Obtaining necessary information
• Production of possible solutions
• Evaluation of such solutions
• Selection of a strategy for performance
• Implementation and subsequent learning and reformulation

Inclusion of a kb-DSS alters this process considerably, in particular stages 2 and 3. Without a kb-DSS,
in stage 2 the user would obtain information about potential solutions and then assemble that
information into possible solutions (stage 3). In contrast, the kb-DSS holds this information about
possible solutions within its knowledge base and requests the user’s problem description as ‘necessary
information’ in stage 2. A common characteristic for both alternatives is the need of a complete
understanding of the problem by the user as a starting point. The ‘problem’ in this case can be
described as a set of user preferences, through which all relevant attributes (such as dimensional
accuracy and surface finish) as well as their desired/preferred target values are identified and ranked
against each other.

The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. In the next section, we will briefly explain how we
understand and analyse the decision making process using a kb-DSS. Section three looks at how the
various kb-DSSs deal with constructing the individual and overall preference functions. Section four
reviews the methods of performance evaluation. Section five discusses how preference function and
performance function are combined. Discussions about the research gap on this topic are given in
Section five. A newly conceived method is explained in the sixth section. Section seven concludes the
paper.

2. The basics
Figure 1 summarizes the typical procedure of selecting an AM process according to our framework.
There are two predominant issues – preference evaluation and performance evaluation. The outcomes
of two modules can be combined and generate the ratings for different alternatives.

Firstly, the user’s problem description can be captured by using the notion of a preference function. A

rational user’s preferences can be translated into preference function Pri ( x) for the ith attribute and

can be combined into an overall preference function Pr overall ( x) , where i indicates the ith attribute
( 0 < i ≤ n ) and x indicates the value of an attribute. For example, the preference for a certain build
envelope could be described by a preference function as shown in Figure 2: a build envelope smaller
than the size of the object the user wants to print has zero preference to the user. At the same time, the
user does not gain further benefit from larger build envelopes, suggesting the preference function in
this case would take a step-function shape (Figure 2). Based on the preference function for multiple
attributes, trade-offs between these individual attributes can be made.

Similarly, performance functions Pi , j ( x) can be built, where j indicates the jth alternative
(0 < j ≤ m) , describing a 3D printer’s performance with respect to the ith attribute. As shown in
Figure 2, the build envelope could be expressed by a Dirac delta function. For the decision support
system, the main tasks as described by our framework then can be formulated as: extracting the user’s
preference function from user inputs (stage 2 of the sequential decision making model), extracting
performance functions for each available option from the knowledge base (stage 3), evaluating the
performance functions against the user’s preference function by finding the overlap between the two
functions (stage 4) and presenting the result of the evaluation (stage 5). In this paper we assume

0 ≤ Pri ( x) ≤ 1 for demonstration purposes and expect the user to prefer higher values for all attributes.

Figure 1 Typical procedure of AM process selection

Preference
Attributes Preferences
function

User Preference evaluation

Judgement of Judgement of
feasibility suitability Results
Rating system

Performance
Data sources
function
Knowledge base
Performance evaluation
Figure 2 Overlap of Preference function and Performance function

3. Preference evaluation
As described in the previous section, the merit of a kb-DSS largely depends on the question whether
the users are rational with respect to their preferences. A rational user’s preferences have to fulfil two
essential requirements: completeness and transitivity (Hansson 2005). In practical terms,
completeness means the user has to be able to articulate a preference for every possible attribute value
compared to all other attribute values. Formally, this means: for any elements A and B of its
domain, either A ≥ B or B ≥ A has to hold. While the user in most cases will be able to articulate
these preferences, the main challenge will be for the kb-DSS to capture all of that information so that
the completeness still holds. The transitivity requirement means that for all elements A , B and C
of its domain, if A > B and B > C , then A > C . While this sounds completely logical in theory,
practical examples often show that preferences articulated by the user do in fact not satisfy the criteria
(Tversky 1969).

Implicitly or explicitly, all the methods for selecting AM processes formulate various preference
functions to describe users’ preferences. Usually more than one attributes need to be considered. To
exactly describe users’ preferences, a plurality of information is needed from users, e.g. the thresholds
(lowest and/or highest levels) they accept for each attribute, the shape (monotonicity and curvature) of
the preference curve for each attribute, the interdependency of the attributes and the trade-offs
between all attributes. The monotonicity of preference indicates whether the preference is consistently
increasing/decreasing (monotonic) or increasing/decreasing towards a goal (non-monotonic). Simple
examples are displayed in Figure 3(b) and (c), respectively. The curvature of the preference function
indicates the trend of preference changing such as linear, concave and convex as shown in Figure 3(b),
(d) and (e), respectively. In principle, with all this information available, the decision support system
can formulate comprehensive preference functions and generate results precisely matching users’
intention. However, getting all this information from a user needs a lot of learning and input efforts.
Fernandez et al. (2005) tried to build a precise mathematical model to describe users’ preferences
using the u-sDSP method but the system is very complex and users are required to answer a long list
of questions. Some users may be unable to answer all these questions correctly. Focusing on easy
usability, other systems require less input from users but in return ignore some aspects of the users’
preferences. Table 1 displays the required level of input in different systems. Currently, no kb-DSS is
able to fully capture the user’s preferences.

Figure 3 Preference functions for a single attribute

Depending on the level of the detail to which the user’s preferences have been captured, we divide
AM process selection methods into two groups: Judgement of Feasibility (JoF) and Judgement of
Suitability (JoS). The JoF approach only considers the lowest acceptable level for each attribute and
uses that to decide whether a given solution can fulfil users’ requirements. In contrast, the JoS
approach mainly considers the trade-offs between different attributes and recommends the best
marked solution for users while the threshold is usually not taken into account. Some systems
integrate two approaches together and use different approach for the different attribute (Lan, Ding &
Hong 2005, Munguia et al. 2010). U-sDSP method, as mentioned before, considers all kinds of users’
preferences except for interdependency. The PROMETHEE method also considers the thresholds for
each attribute as well as the shape of the preference function and trade-offs. It is worth noting that in
this case the users are asked to articulate their preferences in form of pairwise comparison between
solutions on each attribute, rather than the absolute value of each attribute (Rao, Patel 2010). The
classification is displayed in Table 2. In this section, we assume that the performance vector is,

x = [ x1 x2 ... xn ] (1)

3.1 JoF approach

The Judgement of Feasibility approach is utilized to rule out unfeasible solutions, i.e. solutions with a
performance below the threshold. This approach defines two indifference levels. Any performance
above the threshold is equally preferable for users, i.e. the preference function for each attribute takes
the form of a step function as shown in Figure 3(a). The function can be expressed as:

0 x < θ
Pri ( x) =  (2)
1 x ≥ θ

where θ is the threshold value, characterizing the user’s requirement and x is the performance value
for the corresponding attribute.

The overall preference function can then simply be expressed as the sum of individual attribute
preference functions:

n
Pr overall ( x ) = ∑ Pri ( xi )
i =1

(3)

This is an efficient approach to narrow down the option space. Some attributes are particularly
suitable for this kind of function, e.g. build envelope and minimum feature size. However, when all
of the user’s preferences are simplified into step functions, the approach becomes too rigid and does
not allow for trade-offs between attributes. In terms of a DfAM approach that intends to help the user
modify the design towards benefiting from the use of AM, the JoF approach therefore has limited
value.
 3.2 JoS approach
For the Judgement of Suitability approach, the preference function can have an arbitrary shape. It is
important to note that preference functions are not unique. Instead, different preference functions can

be extracted from the same preference structure. Pr1overall ( x) and Pr2overall ( x) are strategically

equivalent if Pr1overall ( x) and Pr2overall ( x) have the same indifference curves and induced preferential
ordering (Keeney, Raiffa 1976). If there is just one attribute, then the curvature of

Pr overall ( x) = Pr1 ( x) is not important because the indifference curve will not change as long as

Pr overall ( x) shows a certain monotony. When considering multiple attributes, however, the curvature

of Pri ( x) does matter since it may influence the monotony of

Pr overall ( x) = f ( Pr1 ( x), Pr2 ( x),..., Pri ( x)) , which causes the different indifference curves.

3.2.1 Preference function for a single attribute

For a single attribute, except for u-sDSP (Fernandez et al. 2005) and PROMETHEE (Rao, Patel 2010)
the user is not able to define their preference curve in detail. Most systems apply a simplified
monotonic function, while Knowledge Value Measuring (KVM) (Zhang, Xu & Bernard 2014), fuzzy
inference (Munguia et al. 2010) and fuzzy logic (Mahesh et al. 2005) are using non-monotonic
(target-matching) functions, as shown in Figure 3(c). In some cases, the target-matching approach
may inadvertently be too selective, though. For instance, when a user chooses a low level for the
accuracy attribute, the alternatives with low performance on accuracy will be given a high score while
the alternatives with high accuracy performance will be marked down. In practice, higher accuracy
performance probably does not bother the user as long as the values of other attributes are similar.

Looking at the curvature, there are three main types: linear, concave and convex as shown in Figure
3(b), (d) and (e). While the normalization algorithms may vary between the different systems, the
majority of systems simplify the preference curve by using linear preference functions. As an
exception, KVM adopted concave functions (Zhang, Xu & Bernard 2014).

More importantly, no matter what kind of function is used, most methods just have one type of
function and users cannot change it. A single type of function is unable to precisely describe users’
preferences in all situations. A user may prefer a monotonic function on one attribute and a non-
monotonic function on another attribute or even concave or convex functions on yet another attribute.
Accordingly, the u-sDSP method is the only system to give users a great level of freedom to define
the characteristics of the preference functions (Fernandez et al. 2005).
 3.2.2 Overall preference function

When calculating Pr overall ( x) = f ( Pr1 ( x), Pr2 ( x),..., Pri ( x)) , generally the independency
assumption is used to simplify the problem. It assumes that the attributes are preferentially
independent from each other, i.e. changing the value of one attribute will not influence the user’s
preferences to all other attributes (Keeney, Raiffa 1976). However, such independency rarely exists.
The DNP method deals with the problem of dependent attributes but this leads to a high calculation
burden (Liao et al. 2014). Utility theory is also able to deal with dependency issues but, again, a huge
commitment from the user is required (Fernandez et al. 2005).

For the JoS approach, two essential elements need to be defined in order to get to the overall
preference function: the relative importance of each attribute and the operation of the combination.

3.2.2.1 Relative importance

The relative importance (or weighting) of attributes, is usually defined by users articulating their
preferred trade-offs between the attributes (subjective method). An objective method has also been
adopted to weigh attributes automatically (Lan, Ding & Hong 2005). With subjective methods, users
can define the relative importance mainly through two ways: direct assignment or pairwise
comparison.

For the direct assignment, a user can directly evaluate the relative importance of one attribute over
others on a certain scale. For example, in the works of Jone (1997), Munguia (2010), Vinodh (2014),
Wang (2013), Ghazy (2012), 3-, 4-, 7-, 9-, 10-point scales are used, respectively. This technique is
simple and straightforward. Users who can precisely describe their preferences in this way will benefit
from its simple input. Otherwise, they may face difficulties to choose correct values especially in
early design stages.

The second technique asks users to compare a pair of attributes each time. It is based on the
assumption that a decision maker can more easily come up with a comparative rather than an absolute
value (Braglia, Petroni 1999). A typical method is Saaty’s 1–9 scale in an AHP approach, which
represents the comparison results as a pairwise comparison matrix and calculates the eigenvectors
(Saaty 1977). It has been widely used in many selection systems (Armillotta 2008, Braglia, Petroni
1999, Byun, Lee 2005, Lan, Ding & Hong 2005, Lokesh, Jain 2010, Wilson, Rosen 2005, Zhou, Chen
2010, Rao, Patel 2010). However, the relative importance matrix may show inconsistency in
judgments (Rao, Padmanabhan 2007). Besides, this approach is based on the hypothesis that the
attributes are independent. Any dependency present implies a heavier weight of these joint attributes
(Ishizaka, Nemery 2013). To avoid this problem, Liao introduced the DNP method combining
DEMAEL and ANP to calculate the weights of attributes for selecting 3DP service bureaus (Liao et al.
2014). In the GT&MA method, users are also required to input pairwise comparisons of relative
importance, but eigenvectors of the comparison matrix are not calculated (Rao, Padmanabhan 2007).

Overall, the ranking scores are very sensitive to the changes in the attribute weightings (Yurdakul, Ic
2009). Therefore, decision makers need to be very careful to set the weightings. Otherwise, the
methods may not be able to return meaningful advice. The stability of an MCDM methods should
always be analysed . Most of the methods are sensitive to user input, especially the methods relying
on relative importance.

3.2.2.2 Combination of all preference functions for single attribute

The most common practice for combining the preference function for each attribute is calculating a
weighted sum. The process can be expressed as follows,

n
Pr ( x) overall
= ∑ wi Pri ( xi ) (4)
i =1

where wi is the relative importance of the ith attribute.

Instead of simply adding single preference functions together, some more complicated calculation are
also used. For example, the GT&MA approach, uses the permanent 1 of the process selection attributes
matrix of each alternative as the overall preference (Rao, Padmanabhan 2007). Rao (2007) proved its
reliability by comparing its result with the results of some other MCDM methods. TOPSIS and
VIKOR utilize the distances of an alternative to the ideal and non-ideal solution to measure the
overall preference (Byun, Lee 2005, Vinodh, Nagaraj & Girubha 2014). Both methods are derived
from the same formula but adopt different orders (Opricovic, Tzeng 2004). Opricovic (2004) pointed
out that some problems may occur when using TOPSIS. In this paper we take the weighted sum as an
example to illustrate how the selection process works.

3.3 Discussions
A number of methods have been presented for evaluating the preference of AM processes. For JoF
methods, assorted rule repositories and capability databases have been built to host the capability
information. The information is of importance for users to make decisions, in particular for those
users who already have a completed design and specific requirements. However, the type of
preference function utilized in this approach, i.e. step function, is too rigid and prone to exclude some
potential choices due to the lack of tolerance over users’ misjudgement of their requirements (Zhang,
Xu & Bernard 2014). Furthermore, the conditional expressions such as IF, THEN, ELSE statements

1
The permanent function is similar to the determinant of a matrix but considering all the determinant terms as
positive terms
or CASE statements being used in these cases are difficult to help users make trade-offs and predict
the best option (Lan, Ding & Hong 2005, Munguia et al. 2010).

For JoS, a series of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and other methods have been proposed.
According to how the decision maker articulates their preferences or requirements, all the methods
reported here can be regarded as methods with an a priori articulation of preferences, which means
the user needs to indicate their preferences before running the algorithm (Marler, Arora 2004).
However, user preferences could be difficult to obtain without the subjective and bias effect (Zhang,
Bernard 2014). Another issue is that the independency of attributes needs to be checked before using
these methods in order to select the ones that can be utilized in a given situation. Otherwise, it may
lead to over-weighting e of some attributes.

More complex systems have also been published. Some studies combine Design of Experiment (DoE)
method with TOPSIS (Ic 2012) and GRA (Wang et al. 2013). They use a regression model to decrease
the calculation and response time of their methods. The accuracy of the calculated results will be
influenced as well. A slight difference has shown between the result of regression model and the
TOPSIS method (Ic 2012). Another limitation is that the attribute values of alternatives need to be
within their allowed value ranges. Other examples for the combination are integrating expert system
and fuzzy inference (Munguia et al. 2010) or FSE (Lan, Ding & Hong 2005), or Munguia’s later work
(2011), where an ANNs module is integrated in their system to evaluate build time and cost.

In general, the amount of user inputs decides how accurate the systems model the users’ preferences.
The simple preference functions and weighting processes require low input effort but are relatively
inaccurate. In contrast, the u-sDSP and PROMETHEE methods can reflect users’ intentions more
precisely but much more learning and input efforts are required. It will discourage users to use this
system if it becomes too complicated (Borille et al. 2010). Different users may have different
requirements on the level of accuracy and input effort for process selection. Current methods are
developed to only serve a specific group of users. There is a need to develop a method to fulfil the
requirements of diverse customers. Furthermore, customers’ requirements are vague and non-
parametric sometimes. A better way of dealing with this situation needs to be found. Therefore, a new
approach will be proposed in Section six to tackle this problem.

4 Performance evaluation
Another important issue in AM process selection is related to performance evaluation of AM
processes. Selection systems are only as good as the information that is utilized to make suggestions
(Rosen, Gibson 2002). Thus, collecting and collating capability information about AM processes is a
primary task. If the performance of AM processes can be properly described, the user can make a
more informed decision on process selection and gain more confidence on using AM technologies.
Besides, designers can adjust the design effectively to better utilize AM processes. However,
precisely describing the performance of AM processes is a challenge. The performance is influenced
by assorted factors including materials, process parameters, post-processing, the condition of the
machine, the ambience of the machine, etc. By varying these factors, a different performance can be
achieved. Thus, a single machine can achieve different levels of performance. For example, the same
machine can, through adjusting the parameters, achieve a high resolution at a low speed or a low
resolution with high speed. Understanding all these combinations and their corresponding
performance needs a big effort. Furthermore, the performance cannot be well controlled even under
the same combination. Some unpredictable factors, such as ambient temperature, nozzle jam in
material extrusion processes and particle size of powder materials, have impacts on the performance
as well. The heterogeneous properties of printed parts make it more difficult to precisely predict the
performance. Therefore, it is reasonable to simplify the situation appropriately, as current research has
done.

In this paper, we call each available option within a kb-DSS a ‘solution’. The solution can be defined
at different levels of granularity. A common way to define a solution is an AM machine itself (Byun,
Lee 2005). Lan (2005) defined an AM technology as a solution. Fernandez (2005) regarded an AM
machine together with a certain material as a solution. Some considered the printing service providers
and treat each service provider as one solution (Liao et al. 2014, Zhou, Chen 2010).

The performance of solutions can be measured using various attributes. Part 3 of the ISO 17296
standard lists numerous characteristics from the perspective of part requirement and catalogues them
into four types – surface requirements, geometric requirements, mechanical requirements and build
material requirements (ISO/PRF 17296-3 2014). These attributes, together with process related
aspects are commonly used to evaluate performance of 3D printer systems (Table 3). Various
knowledge bases have been built to host the performance information. Some databases or rule
repositories host the data of some common attributes, e.g. build envelope and material properties (Lan,
Ding & Hong 2005, Munguia et al. 2010, Ghazy 2012, Singh, Sewell 2012). A benchmark database
was used in (Mahesh et al. 2005). Campbell (1996) built a database carrying not only basic
specifications of machines, but also tolerance data with respect to a particular feature. However,
freeform or complex features that designers tend to use are not covered. Smith (2008) set up a
relational database which allows users to enter certain keywords to retrieve suitable solutions. In his
later work (2012), an AM capability database is built containing minimum achievable feature
dimensions and volume capacity.

Once the performance information is acquired, the performance function can be constructed. One way
to formulate the performance function is the use of probability distributions (Fernandez et al. 2005).
This kind of function displays the probability of achieving different performance under a specific
condition. In this paper, we adopted this perspective to review these researches.

4.1 Data sources

Various sources of performance data for 3D printers are available, of which four types are discussed
in more detail.

Vendor documents
Basic information, such as build envelope, layer thickness, resolution, accuracy, materials and so forth
is often given in datasheets by the equipment manufacturers. The information is limited and often
unclear as to under what conditions the data have been obtained and how they may be applied to what
the user is trying to achieve (Pham, Gault 1998, Chuk, Thomson 1998).

Expert and engineer experience

Using questionnaires to collect information from experts and engineers and capture their accumulated
process knowledge is a popular approach (Braglia, Petroni 1999, Lan, Ding & Hong 2005, Liao et al.
2014, Lokesh, Jain 2010, Masood, Soo 2002). However, most of the information derived from experts
and engineers is vague and incomputable and therefore there is a need to translate it into numerical
values. What is more, people’s opinions are often subjective. To overcome this problem, it is
necessary to involve more participants, which leads to heavy workload and an increased difficulty of
keeping the information up to date.

Benchmarking
Benchmarking plays an overarching role in AM process evaluation (Moylan et al. 2012). The
experimental results from tests are often more persuasive than those from other sources. For AM
process selection, Campbell (1996) decomposed components into manufacturing features and collated
the tolerance of each feature from benchmarking. Byun (2005) designed a test part and measured the
performance of six AM machines. Mahesh et al. (2005) adopted an existing benchmark part and
collected quality characteristics data such as geometric accuracy and surface finish. Roberson et al.
(2013) used further modified version of the Grimm test structure and tested five desktop printers. Data
from benchmarking could be more reliable and persuasive, but this approach may be time-consuming
and very expensive (Lan, Ding & Hong 2005, Masood, Soo 2002).

Mathematical models
Some attributes (e.g. build time and cost) are influenced by assorted factors and are contingent on
specific cases. Measuring them with static values is difficult. Linguistic values can be used to express
the comparative performance of each alternative, but they are often vague and less technical for a
decision maker. Therefore, mathematic models are used to tackle this issue. Yim (2012) proposed a
general and simplified model that is applicable to a wide range of AM processes for comparison in
terms of build time and cost. Munguia et al. (2011) also integrated a cost estimation module in their
RMADS system using ANNs for build time and cost estimation. Xu et al. (2000) proposed generic
models for surface finish, building time and building cost. Various empirical modelling approaches
for performance prediction have also been proposed (Garg, Tai & Savalani 2014). The models need
to be comprehensive and accurate enough to reflect the real situation.

4.2 Performance function construction

With the performance data collected from different sources, performance functions can be derived.
Table 4 displays the type of performance function in the existing studies. According to different
conditions, decision-making can be partitioned into three types: decision-making under certainty, risk
or uncertainty (Luce, Raiffa 1957). In many studies, researchers simply tackled AM process selection
under certainty, which means each solution leads to one specific performance. Its possibility
distribution (Figure 4(a)) can be expressed as follows,

1 if x = xi , j
Pi , j ( x) = 
0 if x ≠ xi , j
(5)

where xi , j is the performance value of the jth alternative on the ith attribute.

This kind of function provides no allowance for the fluctuation of machines’ performances. Fuzzy set
theory is introduced to describe vague information, but the settings of fuzzy membership functions are
often subjective. Fernandez (2005) considered this problem under risk, and uniform probability
distribution was used as an example (Figure 4(b)). Mahapatra (2013) adopted interval grey number to
express the uncertainty of performance. Potentially, this approach also assumes the performance
distribution to be uniform. This kind of function can be expressed as,

 1
 x ∈ [ a, b ]
Pi , j ( x) =  b − a (6)
 0
 x ∉ [ a, b ]

[ ]
where a, b is the interval that the performance value of the jth alternative on the ith attribute may

fall into.
Figure 4 Different probability distributions of AM process performance

4.3 Discussions
Performance information is important not only for AM process selection but for the whole DfAM
process. With a better understanding of the constraints, designers can adjust their design accordingly.
It can be collected in different ways, from single or multiple sources. In any case, the data need to be
reliable and comparable. The definition or granularity of a solution also plays a crucial role because it
decides how precisely the solutions can be described. A general concept of a solution (e.g. treating an
AM machine as a solution) cannot tell users the real capability of the machine since most of the AM
machines are able to achieve a wide range of performance by carefully adjusting the operation.
Current studies pay little attention to this problem. For some unstable attributes such as tensile
strength, it is reasonable to describe the performance in a range rather than a value based on historical
data or prediction software.

5 Rating process
The rating process combines the performance function with the preference function. The performance
vector of the jth solution can be denoted as,

x j =  P1, j ( x) P2, j ( x) ... Pn , j ( x)  (7)

For JoF, the rating of the jth alternative for the ith attribute can be calculated as,

0

Pri ( x) = 
∫ Pr ( x) P ( x)dx ≤ ω
i i, j
(8)
1 ∫ Pr ( x) P ( x)dx > ω
i i, j

where ω is the threshold as specified by the user.

Then, the feasible alternative needs to fulfil,

 n
Pr overall
= (xj ) ∑=
Pri ( x) n
i =1
(9)

where n is the number of attributes.

The systems return the list of feasible alternatives with further information.

For JoS, the rating for a single attribute can be regarded as,

Pri ( x) = ∫ Pri ( x) Pi , j ( x)dx (10)

By substituting equation (10) into (4), a ranking can be generated according to the value of

Pr overall ( x j ) and usually the alternative displaying the highest value is recommended.

In practice, different methods may engender different rankings. Borille (2010) compares several
MCDM methods for AM process selection and not all methods result in exactly the same RP ranking.
To some extent, this finding reveals the potential risk of adopting these methods. Different results
from different methods will confuse users who do not understand the rationales behind these methods
and this may negatively influence their confidence in the results.

The result is usually presented as a list of feasible solutions or various rankings and scores such as in
Table 2. There is very limited information in there for users to fully understand the differences in
performance between the different solutions. Those scores have different scalars and the analysis
takes place in a “black box”, i.e. the user is unable to understand the details and does not know how
the systems simplify or approximate the problem.

As mentioned in Section one, all current kb-DSSs adopt a sequential model of the decision process
that is linear and straightforward. The calculation and rating processes are done in a black box fashion
which is difficult for users to comprehend. The results are just a list of alternatives or rankings with
obscure scores. The users have little insights into the possibilities as to how AM processes might be
able to improve their design. The only way the user can gain these types of insights would be by
repeatedly inserting different values and then inspecting and comparing the updated results. Clearly,
this is not an ideal approach.

6 Research gaps and proposed approach

A large number of methods have been developed and used in kb-DSSs. The major focus of activities
has been in the area of MCDM, i.e. how to balance the different requirements. Mostly due to
practical limitations, capturing the details of both the user’s requirements and the technology
performance was treated rather simplistically. Therefore, we have identified a few outstanding issues:
 • The level of detail for evaluating AM machine performance needs to be improved. Most of
the printers have multiple modes and are able to achieve different results according to
different settings, materials or other factors. To better consider these factors, a better
understanding of AM processes is required.
• Stability or repeatability of an AM process needs to be provided to the user in order to give
them more confidence.
• A more effective approach is needed to capture user preferences. Translating users’ vague
preferences into quantitative values is difficult. Inadequate inputs often lead to incorrect
results.
• The result should contain more information so that the user can understand the difference
between different solutions. This can help them adjust their design and requirements to
explore better solutions.

From the DfAM point of view, the methods reported in the literature provide little opportunities for
users to modify their designs and learn about the kind of requirements for a given AM process. This is
because users are unable to intuitively understand the capability of an AM process. AM is mostly
treated as one technology yet, the principles and mechanisms of different AM process vary in great
deal. Consequently, the characteristics of printed parts vary, too. There is therefore a need for the user
to understand the decisions made for them. It is also necessary to inform and educate users through
the process of selecting an AM process.

Design is an iterative process. The sequential model of a decision process therefore is not a good fit
for DfAM. It is our belief that users can reap more benefits from a non-sequential model of a
decision-making process, which will allow them to develop new designs or modify existing ones to
suit an AM process (Mintzberg, Raisinghani & Theoret 1976). To support this process, we propose an
approach with a posteriori articulation of preferences (Figure 5), whereby decision makers and end
users can choose from a palette of solutions without articulating clear preference (Marler, Arora 2004).
Firstly, users can choose the attributes of their concerns – without specifying values or preferences. A
group of solutions are then generated from the option space and stored in a pareto set. Data
visualization technology is used to present the performance functions of the options in the pareto set
to the user in such a way that they can easily compare these options and make informed decisions.
The user can input constraints to brush out undesired alternatives. In this way, the user can skip the
process of preference function construction and directly impose requirements and preferences on the
choice they make. Such an approach makes users feel more in control of the selection process and the
final solution reflects the decision maker’s preferences more accurately. Furthermore, users can see all
the optimal options in the pareto set and directly compare one with another. In this process, users can
access the information about AM process capability and it is conducive to adjusting their design or
demands for a better solution. The challenge in this scenario will be to firstly capture sufficient
performance information and secondly to visualize it in a way that can be comprehended by the user.
While the latter will be specific to this approach, we would argue that the required level of
performance information per se is not greater than in an a priori approach, it just becomes more
visible to the end user rather than being hidden behind a black box MCDM algorithm. On the other
hand, the problem of capturing the user’s preferences is dramatically simplified, as the users make
decisions and trade-offs based on the performance data they can see.

Figure 5 A posteriori approach for AM process selection

Preferences Decision

User

Data analysis Data

Attributes system visualization
Selection system

Performance
Data sources
function
Knowledge base
Performance evaluation

7 Conclusions
The problem of AM process selection has been discussed for many years. During the process of
reviewing the methods of AM process selection, we analysed the user’s preferences, AM process
performance and how these may be matched.

• For performance evaluation, a simplified approach of using constant values is widely applied.
Uniform probability distribution has also been adopted. A real life case however tends to be
more dynamic and complex.
• For preference evaluation, two different types of preference function for a single attribute
have been identified: piecewise constant function for JoF methods and continuous function
for JoS methods. Again, this is considered as an over-simplification to the real situation.
• For the calculation of the overall preference value, a simple weighted sum is mainly utilized.
Other operations have also been adopted.
 • In most methods, the final result is represented as a list of techniques, ranked by a single
figure. Therefore, it does not convey much information to the user about how the results may
be improved.
• The methods simplified the problem to different extents. Simpler methods do not require high
input effort but in return lose some information. More complicated methods can generate
more precise results but need a lot of input and coding effort.

In summary, all of these methods follow a sequential model of decision making, which in our opinion
is not suitable for a DfAM process that should allow users to learn about the full potentials of AM
techniques. To better support this process, an a posteriori articulation of preferences approach has
been proposed to help users explore existing solutions and make their designs more suitable to an AM
process. In this way, the designer can not only make better decisions by seeing and comparing
potential solutions, but can gain more knowledge about which AM process is better under which kind
of demands. This approach can serve diverse customers since the user is not required to quantify their
preferences.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by the New Zealand Ministry of
Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) through the NZ Product Accelerator programme
(UOAX1309). The authors are also grateful to the help of the engineering librarians in the University
of Auckland.

References

Adam, G.A. and Zimmer, D. (2014), "Design for Additive Manufacturing—Element transitions and
aggregated structures", CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp. 20-28.

Armillotta, A. (2008), "Selection of layered manufacturing techniques by an adaptive AHP decision

model", Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 450-461.

ASTM F2792-12a (2012), "Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies", ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Borille, A., Gomes, J., Meyer, R. and Grote, K. (2010), "Applying decision methods to select rapid
prototyping technologies", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 50-62.

Braglia, M. and Petroni, A. (1999), "A management-support technique for the selection of rapid
prototyping technologies", Journal of Industrial Technology, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 2-6.

Brim, O.G. (1962), Personality and decision processes: Studies in the social psychology of thinking,
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Byun, H.S. and Lee, K.H. (2005), "A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping
process using the modified TOPSIS method", The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 26, No. 11-12, pp. 1338-1347.

Campbell, R.I. and Bernie, M.R.N. (1996), "Creating a database of rapid prototyping system
capabilities", Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 163-167.

Chuk, R.N. and Thomson, V.J. (1998), "A comparison of rapid prototyping techniques used for wind
tunnel model fabrication", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 185-196.

Fernandez, M.G., Seepersad, C.C., Rosen, D.W., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (2005), "Decision
support in concurrent engineering–the utility-based selection decision support problem",
Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 13-27.

Garg, A., Tai, K. and Savalani, M.M. (2014), "State-of-the-art in empirical modelling of rapid
prototyping processes", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 164-178.

Ghazy, M.M. (2012), Development of an additive manufacturing decision support system (AMDSS),
Newcastle University.

Gibson, I., Rosen, D. and Stucker, B. (2010), Additive manufacturing technologies: Rapid prototyping
to direct digital manufacturing, Springer, New York, USA.

Hansson, S.O. (2005), Decision theory: A brief introduction.

Ic, Y.T. (2012), "An experimental design approach using TOPSIS method for the selection of
computer-integrated manufacturing technologies", Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 245-256.

Ishizaka, A. and Nemery, P. (2013), Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software, John
Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, United Kingdom.

ISO/PRF 17296-1 (2015), "Additive manufacturing -- General principles -- Part 1: Terminology".

ISO/PRF 17296-3 (2014), "Additive manufacturing -- General principles -- Part 3: Main

characteristics and corresponding test methods".

Jones, K.G. and Campbell, R.I. (1997), "Rapid prototyping decision support system", Proceedings
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas at Austin, pp. 551.

Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-
offs, John Wiley & Son, New York, USA.

Lan, H., Ding, Y. and Hong, J. (2005), "Decision support system for rapid prototyping process
selection through integration of fuzzy synthetic evaluation and an expert system", International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 169-194.

Liao, S., Wu, M.J., Huang, C.Y., Kao, Y.S. and Lee, T.H. (2014), "Evaluating and enhancing three-
dimensional printing service providers for rapid prototyping using the DEMATEL based
network process and VIKOR", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2014, pp. 1-16.

Lokesh, K. and Jain, P.K. (2010), "Selection of rapid prototyping technology", Advances in
Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H. (1957), Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.

Mahapatra, S.S. and Panda, B.N. (2013), "Benchmarking of rapid prototyping systems using grey
relational analysis", International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 16, No.
4, pp. 460-477.

Mahesh, M., Fuh, J.Y., Wong, Y.S. and Loh, H.T. (2005), "Benchmarking for decision making in
rapid prototyping systems", Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Automation
Science and Engineering, IEEE, August 1&2, 2005, pp. 19.

Marler, R.T. and Arora, J.S. (2004), "Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for
engineering", Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 369-395.

Masood, S.H. and Soo, A. (2002), "A rule based expert system for rapid prototyping system selection",
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 267-274.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Theoret, A. (1976), "The structure of "unstructured" decision
processes", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 246-275.

Moylan, S., Slotwinski, J., Cooke, A., Jurrens, K. and Donmez, M.A. (2012), "Proposal for a
standardized test artifact for additive manufacturing machines and processes", Proceedings of the
23rd Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 6-8 August, pp. 902.

Munguia, J., Bernard, A. and Erdal, M. (2011), "Proposal and evaluation of a KBE-RM selection
system", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 236-246.

Munguia, J., Lloveras, J., Llorens, S. and Laoui, T. (2010), "Development of an AI-based Rapid
Manufacturing Advice System", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48, No. 8,
pp. 2261-2278.

Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004), "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156, No. 2,
pp. 445-455.

Pham, D.T. and Gault, R.S. (1998), "A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies", International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp. 1257-1287.

Rao, R.V. (2007), "Selection of Rapid Prototyping Process in Rapid Product Development", Decision
Making in the Manufacturing Environment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute
Decision Making Methods Springer, London, UK, pp. 197-207.

Rao, R.V. and Padmanabhan, K.K. (2007), "Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory
and matrix approach", Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 194, No. 1, pp. 81-88.

Rao, R.V. and Patel, B.K. (2010), "Decision making in the manufacturing environment using an
improved PROMETHEE method", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48, No.
16, pp. 4665-4682.

Roberson, D.A., Espalin, D. and Wicker, R.B. (2013), "3D printer selection: A decision-making
evaluation and ranking model", Virtual and Physical Prototyping, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 201-212.
Rosen, D.W. and Gibson, I. (2002), "Decision support and system selection for RP", Ian Gibson(Ed.),
Software Solutions for Rapid Prototyping, Professional Engineering Publishing Limited, Suffolk,
UK, pp. 95-127.

Rosen, D.W. (2007), "Computer-aided design for additive manufacturing of cellular structures",
Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 1-6, pp. 585-594.

Saaty, T.L. (1977), "A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures", Journal of
mathematical psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 234-281.

Senvol LLC (2015), Senvol database. Available: senvol.com.

Singh, B. and Sewell, N. (2012), "Knowledge based process planning and design for Additive
Manufacturing (KARMA)", Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Advanced Research
in Virtual and Physical Prototyping, pp. 619.

Smith, P.C., Lupeanu, M.E. and Rennie, A.E. (2012), "Additive manufacturing technology and
material selection for direct manufacture of products based on computer aided design geometric
feature analysis", International Journal of Materials and Structural Integrity, Vol. 6, No. 2-4, pp.
96-110.

Smith, P.C. and Rennie, A.E. (2008), "Development of an Additive Layer Manufacturing (ALM)
selection tool for direct manufacture of products", Proceedings of 19th Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas at Austin, pp. 507.

Tversky, A. (1969), "Intransitivity of preferences.", Psychological review, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 31.

Vinodh, S., Nagaraj, S. and Girubha, J. (2014), "Application of Fuzzy VIKOR for selection of rapid
prototyping technologies in an agile environment", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6,
pp. 523-532.

Wang, P., Meng, P., Zhai, J.Y. and Zhu, Z.Q. (2013), "A hybrid method using experiment design and
grey relational analysis for multiple criteria decision making problems", Knowledge-Based
Systems, Vol. 53, pp. 100-107.

Wilson, J.O. and Rosen, D. (2005), "Selection for rapid manufacturing under epistemic uncertainty",
Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference - DETC2005, pp. 451.

Xu, F., Wong, Y.S. and Loh, H.T. (2000), "Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and
process selection in rapid prototyping and manufacturing", Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 283-296.

Yim, S. and Rosen, D. (2012), "Build time and cost models for Additive Manufacturing process
selection", Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Design Engineering Technical Conference and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 375.

Yurdakul, M. and Ic, Y.T. (2009), "Application of correlation test to criteria selection for multi
criteria decision making (MCDM) models", The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 40, No. 3-4, pp. 403-412.
Zhang, Y. and Bernard, A. (2014), "An integrated decision-making model for multi-attributes
decision-making (MADM) problems in additive manufacturing process planning", Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 377-389.

Zhang, Y., Xu, Y. and Bernard, A. (2014), "A new decision support method for the selection of RP
process: knowledge value measuring", International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 747-758.

Zhou, B. and Chen, C. (2010), "Multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluations for rapid manufacturing
systems", Proceedings - 7th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge
Discovery (FSKD 2010), pp. 1315.
Table 1 Required input for AM process selection methods
Input
lowest and highest acceptable values,
monotonicity and curvature of the
preference curve for each attribute,
weighting values and goal values
Pairwise comparisons of weighting and
indifference thresholds, preference
curve shape and parameters
Pairwise comparisons of weighting and
interdependencies
Pairwise comparisons of weighting and
lottery
Pairwise comparisons of weighting or
lowest acceptable values
Weighting values and goal values or
lowest acceptable values
Weighting values or goal values or
lowest acceptable values
Lowest acceptable values
Effort Method/system
input
Very
U-sDSP (Fernandez et al., 2005)
HIGH
Improved PROMETHEE (Rao and Patel, 2010)
DNP & VIKOR (Liao et al., 2014)
Selection DSP & interval analysis (Wilson and
Rosen, 2005)
GT&MA (Rao and Padmanabhan, 2007)
AHP (Armillotta, 2008; Braglia and Petroni, 1999;
Lokesh and Jain, 2010)
FSE (Lan et al., 2005)
FCE (Zhou and Chen, 2010)
Modified TOPSIS (Byun and Lee, 2005)
DoE & TOPSIS (Ic, 2012)
Integrated decision-making model (Zhang and
Bernard, 2014)
Fuzzy inference (Munguia et al., 2010)
Weighted rating and similar (Chuk and Thomson
1998; Jones and Campbell, 1997; Junior et al., 2014;
Roberson et al., 2013; Ghazy, 2012; Singh and
Sewell, 2012)
MOORA (Chakraborty, 2011)
Fuzzy reasoning (Khrais et al., 2011)
Novel modified TOPSIS (Vahdani et al., 2011)
GRA (Mahapatra and Panda, 2013)
DoE & GRA (Wang et al., 2013)
Fuzzy VIKOR (Vinodh et al., 2014)
KVM (Zhang et al., 2014)
Fuzzy logic (Mahesh et al., 2005)
Expert systems and databases (Campbell and
Very Bernie, 1996; Bernard et al., 2003; Bibb et al., 1999;
Masood and Soo, 2002; Palmer, 2009; Pham and
LOW
Gault, 1998; Smith et al., 2012; Smith and Rennie,
2008)
Table 2 Preference evaluation methods

Preference function (single)

Author, year Category Method weightings Output
Goal Type
(Campbell and Bernie,
Database
1996)
(Pham and Gault, 1998) Question & answer List of
(Bibb et al., 1999) Expert system feasible
(Masood and Soo, systems
Judgement Expert system
2002) List of
of - Step -
(Bernard et al., 2003) Knowledge-based system feasible
feasibility
(Smith and Rennie, systems &
Database further
2008)
(Palmer, 2009) Expert system information
Feature traversal &
(Smith et al., 2012)
Database
(Jones and Campbell, Database & Weighted
1997) rating Direct
(Chuk and Thomson, Weighted criteria assignment
1998) evaluation
(Braglia and Petroni,
AHP
1999)
(Wilson and Rosen, Selection DSP & interval
2005) analysis
(Lan et al., 2005) Expert system & FSE
Pairwise
(Byun and Lee, 2005) Modified TOPSIS
comparison
(Rao and Padmanabhan,
GT&MA
2007)
(Armillotta, 2008) AHP
(Lokesh and Jain, 2010) AHP
(Zhou and Chen, 2010) FCE
(Khrais et al., 2011) Fuzzy reasoning
(Chakraborty, 2011) MOORA Linear
(Vahdani et al., 2011) Novel modified TOPSIS Monotonic
(Ghazy, 2012) Database & SMART
(Ic, 2012) DoE & TOPSIS
Ranking &
(Singh and Sewell, Judgement
Knowledge-based system scores &
2012) of Direct further
(Mahapatra and Panda, suitability assignment
GRA information
2013)
(Roberson et al., 2013) Proposed ranking system
(Wang et al., 2013) DoE & GRA
(Junior et al., 2014) Weighted average
(Zhang and Bernard, Integrated decision-
2014) making model
Pairwise
(Liao et al., 2014) DNP & VIKOR
comparison
Direct
(Vinodh et al., 2014) Fuzzy VIKOR
assignment
Pairwise
(Rao and Patel, 2010) Improved PROMETHEE Customized
comparison
(Mahesh et al., 2005) Fuzzy logic -
Expert system & fuzzy Linear Direct
(Munguia et al., 2011) Non-
inference assignment
monotonic
Knowledge value
(Zhang et al., 2014) Concave -
measuring
Monotonic
Direct
(Fernandez et al., 2005) U-sDSP or non- Linear/concave/convex
assignment
monotonic
Table 3 Attributes being considered in AM process selection

Geometric properties Functional properties production

Surface Resolution/ Dimensional Busines
Author, year Build Complexit Part Mechanical Thermal Material Cos Post-
finish Minimum accuracy Time Quantity Reliability s aspect
envelope y function property property type t processing
feature size Overall feature
(Campbell and
√ √ √ √ √
Bernie, 1996)
(Jones and
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Campbell, 1997)
(Pham and Gault,
√ √ √ √ √ √
1998)
(Chuk and Thomson,
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
1998)
(Bibb et al., 1999) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Braglia and Petroni,
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
1999)
(Masood and Soo,
√ √ √ √ √ √
2002)
(Bernard et al.,
√ √ √ √ √ √
2003)
(Wilson and Rosen,
√ √ √ √ √ √
2005)
(Fernandez et al.,
√ √ √
2005)
(Byun and Lee,
2005; Rao and
Padmanabhan, 2007;
Rao and Patel, 2010;
Vahdani et al., 2011; √ √ √ √ √
Chakraborty, 2011;
Ic, 2012; Wang et
al., 2013; Zhang et
al., 2014)
(Lan et al., 2005) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Mahesh et al., 2005) √ √ √ √
(Smith and Rennie,
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
2008)
(Armillotta, 2008) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Palmer, 2009) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Lokesh and Jain,
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
2010)
(Zhou and Chen,
√ √ √ √
2010)
(Khrais et al., 2011) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Munguia et al.,
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
2011)
(Smith et al., 2012) √ √
(Ghazy, 2012) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
 (Singh and Sewell,
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
2012)
(Roberson et al.,
√ √ √
2013)
(Mahapatra and
√ √ √ √
Panda, 2013)
(Junior et al., 2014) √ √ √ √ √ √
(Zhang and Bernard,
√ √ √ √
2014)
(Liao et al., 2014) √ √
(Vinodh et al., 2014) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
(Shende and
√ √ √ √ √ √
Kulkarni, 2014)
 Table 4 Data source and performance function type of different methods
Type of performance
function
Quantitative value
Qualitative value
Quantitative & qualitative
value
Uniform distribution
Uniform distribution (other
type of distribution is possible)
View publication stats
Data source Author, year
Benchmarking & Vendor
(Campbell and Bernie, 1996)
documents
Benchmarking & Vendor
(Jones and Campbell, 1997)
documents
Vendor documents (Chuk and Thomson, 1998)
- (Bibb et al., 1999)
Vendor documents & Expert and
(Masood and Soo, 2002)
engineer experience
- (Wilson and Rosen, 2005)
Benchmarking (Mahesh et al., 2005)
Vendor documents & expert and
engineer experience & (Munguia et al., 2011)
mathematical model
- (Smith et al., 2012)
Benchmarking (Singh and Sewell, 2012)
- (Ghazy, 2012)
Benchmarking (Roberson et al., 2013)
Expert and engineer experience (Braglia and Petroni, 1999)
- (Smith and Rennie, 2008)
Vendor documents &
benchmarking & expert and (Armillotta, 2008)
engineer experience
Expert and engineer experience (Zhou and Chen, 2010)
Expert and engineer experience (Lokesh and Jain, 2010)
Expert and engineer experience (Khrais et al., 2011)
- (Junior et al., 2014)
Expert and engineer experience (Liao et al., 2014)
Expert and engineer experience (Vinodh et al., 2014)
Vendor documents (Pham and Gault, 1998)
Vendor documents & expert and
(Lan et al., 2005)
engineer experience
(Byun and Lee, 2005; Rao and
Padmanabhan, 2007; Rao and Patel,
Benchmarking 2010; Chakraborty, 2011; Ic, 2012;
Wang et al., 2013; Zhang et al.,
2014)
Vendor documents & expert and
(Palmer, 2009)
engineer experience
Benchmarking & expert and
(Vahdani et al., 2011)
engineer experience
- (Zhang and Bernard, 2014)
Expert and engineer experience (Mahapatra and Panda, 2013)
- (Fernandez et al., 2005)