Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study

This thesis basically discusses on the application of design for assembly (DFA) method and multi criteria decision making (MCDM) tool namely analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The main objective of this study is to apply both DFA and AHP in conceptual design stage to evaluate the environmental perfor...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Hasan, Muhammad Syahid
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English English
Published:	2015
Subjects:	G Geography (General) GE Environmental Sciences
Online Access:	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/1/Application%20DFA%20And%20AHP%20In%20Design%20Evaluation%20Process%20For%20Environmental%20Performance%20In%20The%20Conceptual%20Design%20Stage%20%20A%20Case%20Study.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/2/Application%20DFA%20and%20AHP%20in%20design%20evaluation%20process%20for%20environmental%20performance%20in%20the%20conceptual%20design%20stage%20a%20case%20study.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utem-ep.15862
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
collection	UTeM Repository
language	English English
topic	G Geography (General) GE Environmental Sciences
spellingShingle	G Geography (General) GE Environmental Sciences Hasan, Muhammad Syahid Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study
description	This thesis basically discusses on the application of design for assembly (DFA) method and multi criteria decision making (MCDM) tool namely analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The main objective of this study is to apply both DFA and AHP in conceptual design stage to evaluate the environmental performance of a product. Conceptual design stage is a stage where no final decision has yet been made, therefore giving more flexibility to designer to focus on environmental aspect in their design. This study was conducted by using mechanical pencil design as case study. 5 conceptual designs were developed and 3 type analysis based on Lucas DFA method were done to evaluate the design functional efficiency, feeding ratio, and fitting ratio. 10 selection criteria for AHP were considered based on literature studies which are recyclable material, renewable material, number of parts, durability, modularity, ease of maintenance, ease of disassembly, functional efficiency, feeding ratio, and fitting ratio. Through the literature study, judgements through pairwise comparison were done to the selection criteria with respect to the goal. This is to select the optimum design that has the highest environmental performance. Functional efficiency has the highest priority vector as much as 33.4% while the least important criteria is shared by feeding ratio and fitting ratio with priority vector of 1.97%. At the final stage of AHP, each alternative were sorted based on their priority vector. Conceptual design 5 was ranked 1st with priority vector of 30.41%, followed by conceptual design 2 with priority vector of 21.2%. Conceptual design 4 and conceptual design 1 followed on 3rd and 4th in ranking with priority vector of 19.49% and 15% respectively. The least preferred alternative is conceptual design 3 with priority vector of 14.02%. Then, several sets of sensitivity analysis were carried out by using Expert Choice software to study whether any changes on the selection criteria’s priority vector will affect the conceptual design ranking that were obtained on previous AHP analysis.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Hasan, Muhammad Syahid
author_facet	Hasan, Muhammad Syahid
author_sort	Hasan, Muhammad Syahid
title	Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study
title_short	Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study
title_full	Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study
title_fullStr	Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study
title_full_unstemmed	Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study
title_sort	application dfa and ahp in design evaluation process for environmental performance in the conceptual design stage a case study
granting_institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
granting_department	Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering
publishDate	2015
url	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/1/Application%20DFA%20And%20AHP%20In%20Design%20Evaluation%20Process%20For%20Environmental%20Performance%20In%20The%20Conceptual%20Design%20Stage%20%20A%20Case%20Study.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/2/Application%20DFA%20and%20AHP%20in%20design%20evaluation%20process%20for%20environmental%20performance%20in%20the%20conceptual%20design%20stage%20a%20case%20study.pdf
_version_	1747833877041250304
spelling	my-utem-ep.158622022-04-20T10:37:19Z Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study 2015 Hasan, Muhammad Syahid G Geography (General) GE Environmental Sciences This thesis basically discusses on the application of design for assembly (DFA) method and multi criteria decision making (MCDM) tool namely analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The main objective of this study is to apply both DFA and AHP in conceptual design stage to evaluate the environmental performance of a product. Conceptual design stage is a stage where no final decision has yet been made, therefore giving more flexibility to designer to focus on environmental aspect in their design. This study was conducted by using mechanical pencil design as case study. 5 conceptual designs were developed and 3 type analysis based on Lucas DFA method were done to evaluate the design functional efficiency, feeding ratio, and fitting ratio. 10 selection criteria for AHP were considered based on literature studies which are recyclable material, renewable material, number of parts, durability, modularity, ease of maintenance, ease of disassembly, functional efficiency, feeding ratio, and fitting ratio. Through the literature study, judgements through pairwise comparison were done to the selection criteria with respect to the goal. This is to select the optimum design that has the highest environmental performance. Functional efficiency has the highest priority vector as much as 33.4% while the least important criteria is shared by feeding ratio and fitting ratio with priority vector of 1.97%. At the final stage of AHP, each alternative were sorted based on their priority vector. Conceptual design 5 was ranked 1st with priority vector of 30.41%, followed by conceptual design 2 with priority vector of 21.2%. Conceptual design 4 and conceptual design 1 followed on 3rd and 4th in ranking with priority vector of 19.49% and 15% respectively. The least preferred alternative is conceptual design 3 with priority vector of 14.02%. Then, several sets of sensitivity analysis were carried out by using Expert Choice software to study whether any changes on the selection criteria’s priority vector will affect the conceptual design ranking that were obtained on previous AHP analysis. 2015 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/1/Application%20DFA%20And%20AHP%20In%20Design%20Evaluation%20Process%20For%20Environmental%20Performance%20In%20The%20Conceptual%20Design%20Stage%20%20A%20Case%20Study.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15862/2/Application%20DFA%20and%20AHP%20in%20design%20evaluation%20process%20for%20environmental%20performance%20in%20the%20conceptual%20design%20stage%20a%20case%20study.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=95847 mphil masters Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering 1. Adachi, T. et al., 1985. Bridging the Gap between a Product Design Sector and a Production Sector: Conceptualization and a Support Tool. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Production Research and 5th Working Conference of the Fraunhofer-Institute for Industrial Engineering (FHG-IAO) at University of Stuttgart, August 20 – 22, 1985. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2. Akgunduz, A. et al., 2002. Evaluation of sub-component alternatives in product design processes. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 18(1), pp.69–81. 3. Anonymous, 2015. DFA Analysis Overview. , pp.1–6. Available at: http://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/discover/mapp/sandpit/dfa/dfa_analysis.aspx [Accessed June 6, 2015]. 4. Barnes, C.J. et al., 1997. Assembly sequence structures in design for assembly. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning (ISATP’97) - Towards Flexible and Agile Assembly and Manufacturing -, pp.164–169. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=615402. 5. Bertolini, M. & Bevilacqua, M., 2006. A combined goal programming-AHP approach to maintenance selection problem. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(7), pp.839–848. 6. Bhamra, T.A. et al., 1999. Integrating environmental decisions into the product development process. I. The early stages. Proceedings First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. 7. Bhattacharya, A., Sarkar, B. & Mukherjee, S.K., 2005. Integrating AHP with QFD for robot selection under requirement perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 43(17), pp.3671–3685. 8. Boothroyd, G. & Alting, L., 1992. Design for Assembly and Disassembly. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 41(1), pp.625–636. 9. Braglia, M., Gabbrielli, R. & Miconi, D., 2001. Material handling device selection in cellular manufacturing. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10(6), pp.303–315. 10. Bras, B., 1997. Incorporating Environmental Issues in Product Design and Realization. Industry and Environment, 20(1), pp.1–19. Available at: http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d30345d/courses/engs171/Bras-1997.pdf. 11. Chan, V. & Salustri, F. a., 2003. DFA: The Lucas Method. , pp.1–6. Available at: http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/t/dfmlucas.html. 12. Chang, P.T. & Lo, Y.T., 2001. No TitleModelling of job-shop scheduling with multiple quantitative and qualitative objectives and a GA/TS mixture approach. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 14(4), pp.367–384. 13. Ertay, T., Ruan, D. & Tuzkaya, U.R., 2006. Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Information Sciences, 176(3), pp.237–262. 14. Expert Choice, I., 2004. Expert Choice Part I: Quick Start Guide. Available at: http://www.bockytech.com.tw/PDF-File/Quick Start Guide.pdf [Accessed July 10, 2015]. 15. Forman, E.H. & Gass, S., 2001. The analytic process - An exposition. Operation Research, 49(4), pp.469–486. 16. Giudice, F., La Rosa, G. & Risitano, A., 2006. Product Design for the Environment: A Life Cycle Approach, Taylor & Francis. 17. Hambali, A. et al., 2010. Material selection of polymeric composite automotive bumper beam using analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Central South University of Technology, 17, pp.244–256. 18. Hanumaiah, N., Ravi, B. & Mukherjee, N.P., 2006. Rapid hard tooling process selection using QFD-AHP methodology. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(3), pp.332–350. 19. Ho, W., 2008. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186, pp.211–228. 20. Ho, W., Dey, P.K. & Higson, H.E., 2006. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, pp.319–337. 21. Hsiao, S.W., 2002. Concurrent design method for developing a new product. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29(1), pp.41–55. 22. Hsu, W. & Woon, I.M.Y.Y., 1998. Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products. Computer-Aided Design, 30(5), pp.377–389. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010448597001012\nhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261306905002633\nhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010448597001012. 23. Keoleian, G.A. & Menery, D., 1993. Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual: Environmental Requirements and The Product System. Epa/600/R-92/226, p.181. Available at: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS93-02.pdf. 24. Kwong, C.K. & Bai, H., 2002. A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13(5), pp.367–377. 25. Kwong, C.K. & Bai, H., 2003. Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transactions, 35(7), pp.619–626. 26. Leaney, P.G. & Wittenberg, G., 1992. Design for Assembling. Assembly Automation, 12, pp.8–17. 27. Madu, C.N., Kuei, C. & Madu, I.E., 2002. A hierarchic metric approach for integration of green issues in manufacturing: A paper recycling application. Journal of Environmental Management, 64(3), pp.261–272. 28. Myint, S., 2003. A framework of an intelligent quality function deployment (IQFD) for discrete assembly environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 45(2), pp.269–283. 29. Nayyar, P., 1958. Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, Volume 2, Navajivan Publishing House. 30. Nikander, J.B., Liikkanen, L. a. & Laakso, M., 2014. The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Design Studies, 35(5), pp.473–499. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006. 31. Partovi, F.Y., 1999. A quality function deployment approach to strategic capital budgeting. The Engineering Economist, 44(3), pp.239–260. 32. Pugh, S., 1991. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 33. Qiu, S.L. et al., 2002. Conceptual Design Using Evolution Strategy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 20, pp.683–691. 34. Saaty, R.W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3), pp.161–176. 35. Sapuan, S.M. et al., 2011. Materials selection for natural fiber reinforced polymer composites using analytical hierarchy process. Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, 18(August), pp.255–267. Available at: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/12892. 36. Shinno, H. et al., 2006. Quantitative SWOT analysis on global competitiveness of machine tool industry. Journal of Engineering Design, 17(3), pp.251–258. 37. Todić, V. et al., 2012. Manufacturability of product design regarding suitability for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA). Journal of Production Engineering, 16(1), pp.47–50. 38. Vaidya, O.S. & Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169, pp.1–29. 39. Wang, H., Xie, M. & Goh, T.N., 1998. A comparative study of the prioritization matrix method and the analytic hierarchy process technique in quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 9(6), pp.421–430. 40. Yang, T. & Kuo, C., 2003. A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), pp.128–136. 41. Yurdakul, M., 2004. Selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies using a combined analytic hierarchy process and goal programming model. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 20(4), pp.329–340. 42. Zakarian, A. & Kusiak, A., 1999. Forming teams: An analytic approach. IIE Transactions, 31(1), pp.85–97.

Application DFA And AHP In Design Evaluation Process For Environmental Performance In The Conceptual Design Stage A Case Study

Similar Items