International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

A decision support system for selection of net-

shape primary manufacturing processes

Mustafa Yurdakul, Emre Arslan, Yusuf Tansel İç & O. Selim Türkbaş

To cite this article: Mustafa Yurdakul, Emre Arslan, Yusuf Tansel İç & O. Selim Türkbaş
(2014) A decision support system for selection of net-shape primary manufacturing
processes, International Journal of Production Research, 52:5, 1528-1541, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2013.848489

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.848489

Published online: 31 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 210

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20

Download by: [Gazi Universitesi] Date: 24 June 2016, At: 04:44

 International Journal of Production Research, 2014
Vol. 52, No. 5, 1528–1541, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.848489

A decision support system for selection of net-shape primary manufacturing processes

Mustafa Yurdakula, Emre Arslanb, Yusuf Tansel İçc* and O. Selim Türkbaşa
a
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey; bMAN Truck & Bus Turkey A.S.,
Ankara, Turkey; cFaculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey
(Received 21 May 2013; accepted 10 September 2013)

Developments in the capabilities of the manufacturing processes increased the number of processes that can produce a
part within the requirements determined by its design and market research. The increased number of processes and unfa-
miliarity of manufacturing engineers to many new manufacturing processes forces the researchers to develop systematic
process selection tools instead of depending on the accumulated human expertise only. In this paper, a net-shape primary
manufacturing process selection decision support system (DSS), which is named PROSEL (PROcess SELection), is
developed. The developed selection programme eliminates the unsuitable processes step by step by checking a part’s
material, annual production quantity, specified shape, thickness and presents the most economical process as the most
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

appropriate net-shape primary process after a final cost analysis. The developed DSS is written in Visual Studio and
tested with a great deal of real-life examples. It can be concluded from the tests that the programme provides the same
or better primary manufacturing process selection decisions than the practical usage, and it is a very useful support tool
for net-shape primary process selections.
Keywords: decision support system; design for manufacture; net-shape primary manufacturing processes; process selection

1. Introduction
Manufacturing processes fall into three main categories: primary, secondary and tertiary (Smith 1999). Primary pro-
cesses alter the geometry of the starting work material and generate main shapes of the final products (Esawi and
Ashby 2003; Groover 2007; Mital et al. 2011). They are selected to produce the whole shape attributes of the part
or as many as possible and include processes such as casting, forging, moulding, rolling and extrusion (Mital et al.
2011). On the other hand, secondary processes form and refine features of the part and include all the material
removal processes such as machining, grinding and broaching (Mital et al. 2011). The tertiary processes do not
affect the geometry or shape of the component and consist of processes such as surface treatments and heat treat-
ments (Mital et al. 2011).
Main purpose of manufacturing processes is to convert a material into its desired shape. Since primary and secondary
manufacturing processes produce the shape attributes and there are alternative ways to form the shape, process selection
decisions cover primary and secondary processes. Mital et al. (2011) describe the processing of a part as it can be ‘a sim-
ple, one-step operation’ (a net-shape primary manufacturing process) ‘or a combination of various processes’. It is warned
in the literature that ‘attempting to consider all possible combination of various processes (process chains) introduces
considerable complexity to the selection problem’ and noted that making the selection among single net-shape primary
processes instead of process chains would reduce the complexity (Lovatt and Shercliff 1998). This paper follows the
recommendation of Lovatt and Shercliff (1998) by constraining itself to the identifying the best net-shape primary
manufacturing process that is sufficient to meet all of the design requirements of a part (Smith 1999).
The need for development of a net-shape primary manufacturing process selection system rises from the unfamiliar-
ity of design and manufacturing engineers with many manufacturing processes and the continual increase in the number
of processes used in manufacturing industries. There is a need to collect all the relevant information about primary
manufacturing processes, categorise them and somehow develop a selection procedure. The goal in this study is to
satisfy this need by developing a net-shape primary manufacturing process selection support system and make it
available to Turkish manufacturing firms.
The selection of the most suitable net-shape primary shaping process to manufacture a part is not straightforward (Zha
and Du 2003). Many factors such as size, shape, thickness, tolerances, material, cost, and production quantities need to be

*Corresponding author. Email: ytansel@baskent.edu.tr

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Production Research 1529

considered in the selection decisions (Degarmo, Black, and Ronald 2007). In the literature, some primary manufacturing
process selection tools such as Computer-aided Material and Process Selection (Bock 1991), Design Advisor (Kunchithap-
atham 1996), Material and Manufacturing Process Selection (Giachetti and Jurrens 1997; Giachetti 1998), Cambridge Pro-
cess Selector (Esawi and Ashby 1998; Ashby 1999), a web-based advisory system for process and material selection in
concurrent product design (Zha 2005), web-based process and material selection (Smith 1999), AHP-based nearest neigh-
bour algorithm for variant process planning of casting process (Chougule and Ravi 2005) and Manufacturing Advisory
System (Brown and Wright 1998; Smith 1999) are available. In another study, Giachetti (1998) proposed a material and
manufacturing process selection system that integrated a multi-attribute decision-making model with a relational database.
The primary manufacturing process selection tools available in the literature generally require the user to define the part
through an input screen and search the databases that contain process characteristics. In the search, selection tools match
the requirements of the part and the capabilities of the processes and eliminate those which do not satisfy certain con-
straints and output a list of viable processes (Djassemi 2008, 2009). The list can be ranked or unranked depending on
whether a decision-making module or an optimisation module exists in the selection tool.
This study contributes to primary manufacturing process selection literature by developing an easy to use and
practical decision support system (DSS), namely PROcess SELection (PROSEL), to perform net-shape primary process
selection decisions for manufacturing companies. In making the selection decisions, PROSEL will require the part’s
design specifications as inputs and then match each primary manufacturing process’ capabilities against part require-
ments and determine the candidate (feasible) processes. Finally, it will perform an economical comparison of all the
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

candidate processes and select the candidate with the lowest manufacturing cost per unit.

2. Development of PROSEL
As a first step in the development of PROSEL, the ‘selection flowcharts’ are formed using a three-stage approach. The
first two stages are aimed to obtain the candidate processes that can produce a given product satisfactorily, and the last
stage compares the manufacturing costs of the candidate processes and offers the lowest-cost primary manufacturing
process as its outcome (Figure 1).
A first elimination is performed using the PRIMA (PRocess Information MAps) matrix (Table 1) in the first stage.
The only information needed in the usage of PRIMA matrix is the part’s material and annual production quantity. The
other information such as weight, shape, minimum and maximum cross-section thickness and surface finish, which are
determined by the engineering drawings of the product to be manufactured, is used in the second elimination stage to
determine a shortlist of candidate processes (Table 2). Figure 2 provides the shape classification that is needed in the
usage of Table 2. In Figure 2, the shape classification of the part is made first according to its geometry and then to its
level of complexity. The geometry of the part is divided into groups such as round, prismatic, with open, semi-open
cross-section, tube, flat, thin and spherical. Then, all the groups are classified from simple to complex. The complexity
classification is made according to uniform cross-section, change at end, change at centre, spatial curvature, closed one
end, closed both end, transverse element, irregular (complex).
At the last stage, the most economical primary manufacturing process is selected using the formula (Equation (1))
provided in Swift and Booker (2003). In Equation (1), cost per unit when the part is produced using primary manufac-
turing process, i and Mi, is determined by summing raw material cost per unit and processing cost per unit. Raw
material cost per unit, the first part of Equation (1), V
Cmt , is constant and is not relevant in process selection. On the
other hand, processing cost per unit, the second part of Equation (1), Pci
Rci , changes with each candidate process and
is obtained with the multiplication of basic processing cost (the gross cost of producing an ideal design with process i)
and design-dependent relative cost coefficient, which reflects a particular design’s processing difficulty level compared
to the ideal (base) design.
Mi ¼ V
Cmt þ Pci
Rci (1)
V: The volume of the material required for part production
Cmt: The buying cost of the unit volume of the raw material
Pci: Basic processing cost of an ideal design
Rci: Design-dependent relative cost coefficient assigned to a particular part design (taking account of material-
process suitability, part shape complexity, cross-section thickness, tolerances and surface quality)

The basic processing cost of an ideal design for a particular process, Pci, can be calculated with Equation (2). In
Equation (2), α is the cost of setting up and operating a specific process, including plant, labour, supervision and over-
heads, per second; and β is the process specific total tooling cost for an ideal design. On the other hand, T is the process
 1530 M. Yurdakul et al.

INPUT: Related Part Design Specifications

Annual Production Quantity

Material
Part Shape (Dimensions, thickness or dimensions)
Part Shape Cost

Select Candidate Primary Processes from the PRIMA Table

based on Annual Production Quantity and Material

List of Candidates

Consider Each Candidate Process Against Part Requirements

Shortlist of Candidates

Determine the Manufacturing Costs of the Processes in the

Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Shortlist

Determine the Process with the Lowest Manufacturing Cost

OUTPUT: SELECTED NET-SHAPE

PRIMARY MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Figure 1. PROSEL flowchart.

time in seconds for processing an ideal design of component by a specific process, and N is the total production
quantity per annum.
Pci ¼ a
T þ b=N (2)
In Equation (2), values for α and β for primary processes are not calculated directly but assigned by experts. Using
the assigned values of α and β, it is possible to produce comparative cost curves for any process using Equation (2)
(Swift and Booker 2003). Examples of Pc against annual production quantity, N, are illustrated in Figure 3 for some pri-
mary manufacturing process groups such as casting, moulding and forming.
The design-dependent relative cost coefficient assigned to a part design Rci in Equation (1) is calculated using Equa-
tion (3) and reflects how much more costly it will be to produce a part with more demanding features than the ‘ideal
design’.
Rci ¼ Cmp
Cc
Cs
Cf (3)
Cmp: The coefficient of material-process suitability
Cc: Coefficient of part shape complexity
Cs: Coefficient of cross-section thickness
Cf: Coefficient of surface quality

Once PRIMA matrix (Table 1), process capability limit table (Table 2) and cost formulation are ready, selection
flowcharts for each different metal and interval (1–100, 100–1000, 1000–10,000, 10,000–1,00,000 and over 1,00,000)
are developed. As an example, Figure 4 gives the selection flowchart required for the primary process selection for the
parts whose raw material is iron and the annual production amount is in the range of 1–100. Finally, the prepared selec-
tion flowcharts are turned into rules in Visual Studio to form the primary manufacturing process selection programme
(PROSEL).
 Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Table 1. PRIMA (PROCESS INFORMATION MAPS) Table: Manufacturing process selection matrix (Swift and Booker 2003).

Steel Steel Stainless Copper and Aluminium Magnesium Zinc and Tin and Lead and
Material quantity Irons (carbon) (tool-alloy) steel alloys and alloys and alloys alloys alloys alloys

Very low [1.5] [1.5] [5.1] [1.1] [5.1] [1.5] [5.1] [1.5] [5.1] [1.5] [5.5] [1.6] [5.1] [1.1] [5.1] [1.1] [5.1] [1.1]
1–100 [1.6] [1.7] [1.5] [5.5] [1.7] [5.3] [1.7] [1.7] [1.7] [5.5] [1.7] [5.5] [1.7] [5.5] [3.10]
[1.7] [3.10] [5.5] [1.7] [5.6] [3.7] [5.4] [3.10] [3.7] [3.10] [3.10] [3.10] [4.M]
[4.M] [4.M] [5.6] [3.10] [5.7] [3.10] [5.5] [4.M] [3.10] [4.M] [4.M] [4.M] [5.5]
[4.M] [4.M] [4.M]
Low [1.2] [5.3] [1.2] [5.1] [1.1] [5.1] [1.2] [5.1] [1.2] [4.M] [1.2] [4.M] [1.6] [4.M] [1.1] [4.M] [1.1] [4.M] [1.1] [5.1]
100–1000 [1.5] [5.4] [1.5] [5.3] [1.2] [5.3] [1.7] [5.3] [1.5] [5.1] [1.5] [5.3] [1.7] [5.5] [1.7] [5.1] [1.7] [5.1] [1.8] [5.5]
[1.6] [1.7] [5.4] [1.7] [5.4] [3.7] [5.4] [1.7] [5.3] [1.7] [5.4] [1.8] [1.8] [5.5] [1.8] [5.5] [3.10]
[1.7] [3.10] [5.5] [4.M] [5.5] [3.10] [5.5] [1.8] [5.4] [1.8] [5.5] [3.10] [3.10] [3.10] [4.M]
[4.M] [4.M] [5.6] [4.M] [3.5] [3.7]
[5.7] [3.10] [3.10]
Low to medium [1.2] [3.11] [1.9] [4.A] [1.2] [5.2] [1.2] [3.10] [1.2] [4.A] [1.2] [3.10] [1.3] [3.10] [1.3] [1.3] [1.3]
1000–10,000 [1.3] [4.A] [3.1] [5.2] [1.5] [5.3] [1.5] [3.11] [1.3] [5.2] [1.3] [3.11] [1.6] [4.A] [1.8] [1.8] [1.8]
[1.5] [5.2] [3.3] [5.5] [1.7] [5.4] [1.7] [4.A] [1.5] [5.3] [1.8] [4.A] [1.8] [5.5] [3.3] [3.3] [3.3]
[1.6] [3.4] [3.1] [5.5] [3.1] [5.2] [3.1] [5.4] [1.5] [5.3] [3.1] [3.10] [3.10] [3.10]
[1.7] [3.5] [3.4] [3.3] [5.3] [3.3] [3.1] [5.4] [3.3] [4.A]
[3.11] [3.11] [3.7] [5.4] [3.10] [3.3] [5.5] [3.4] [5.5]
[3.12] [4.A] [3.11] [3.7]
Medium to high [1.2] [1.9] [3.11] [3.1] [3.11] [1.9] [3.11] [1.2] [3.5] [1.2] [3.4] [1.3] [3.12] [1.3] [3.12] [1.4] [1.3] [3.12]
10,000–1,00,000 [1.3] [3.1] [3.12] [3.4] [3.12] [3.1] [3.12] [1.4] [3.11] [1.3] [3.5] [1.4] [4.A] [1.4] [4.A] [3.3] [1.4] [4.A]
[3.11] [3.3] [4.A] [3.5] [4.A] [3.3] [4.A] [1.9] [3.12] [1.4] [3.11] [3.1] [3.3] [3.4] [3.3]
[4A] [3.4] [5.2] [5.2] [3.4] [3.1] [4.A] [1.9] [3.12] [3.3] [3.4] [4.A] [3.4]
[3.5] [5.5] [3.5] [3.3] [3.1] [4.A] [3.4] [3.5] [3.5]
[3.4] [3.3] [5.5] [3.5]
High [1.2] [1.9] [3.12] [4.A] [1.9] [1.2] [3.5] [1.2] [3.3] [1.3] [3.12] [1.4] [1.4] [1.4]
International Journal of Production Research

1,00,000+ [1.3] [3.1] [4.A] [3.2] [1.9] [3,7] [1.3] [3.4] [1.4] [4.A] [3.2] [3.3] [3.2]
[3.11] [3.2] [3.3] [3.1] [3.8] [1.4] [3.5] [3.1] [3.3] [3.4] [3.3]
[4A] [3.3] [4.A] [3.2] [3.11] [1.9] [3.8] [3.3] [3.4] [4.A] [3.4]
[3.4] [3.3] [3.12] [3.1] [3.12] [3.4] [3.5] [4.A]
[3.5] [3.4] [4.A] [3.2] [4.A] [3.8] [4.A]
All quantities [1.1] [1.1] [3.8] [1.6] [1.1] [3.8] [1.1] [3.8] [1.1] [3.8] [1.1] [3.8] [3.6] [1.1] [3.8]
[1.6] [3.9] [3.6] [1.6] [3.9] [1.6] [3.9] [1.6] [3.9] [3.6] [3.9] [3.8] [1.6] [3.9]
[3.6] [3.6] [3.6] [5.5] [3.6] [3.9] [3.6]

Notes: [1.1] sand casting; [1.2] shell moulding; [1.3] gravity die casting; [1.4] pressure die casting; [1.5] centrifugal casting; [1.6] investment casting; [1.7] ceramic mould casting;
[1.8] plaster mould casting; [1.9] squeeze casting.
[3.1] Closed die casting; [3.10] spinning; [3.11] powder metallurgy; [3.12] continuous extrusion (metals); [3.2] rolling; [3.3] drawing; [3.4] cold forming; [3.5] cold heading; [3.6]
swaging; [3.7] supper plastic forming; [3.8] sheet-metal shearing; [3.9] sheet-metal forming; [4.a] automatic machining; [4.m] manual machining.
[5.1] Electrical discharge machining (Edm); [5.2] electrochemical machining; [5.3] electron beam machining; [5.4] laser beam machining; [5.5] chemical machining; [5.6] ultra-
sonic machining; [5.7] abrasive jet machining.
1531
 1532 M. Yurdakul et al.

Table 2. The capability limits of some primary processes (Scallon 2003; Swift and Booker 2003).

Section thickness
* (mm)
Process Weight (kg) Shape
Min. Max. Surface finish (μm)

Sand casting (SC) 0.025–No limit All 6 No limit 3.2–25

Shell moulding (SM) 0.01–20 All 1.5 50 0.8–6.3
Gravity die casting (GDC) 0.05–5 All but T3/5, F5 2 50 0.8–6.3
Centrifugal casting (CC) 1–5000 T0/1/2/7 25 125 1.6–12.5
Investment casting (IC) 0.0005–5 All 1 75 0.4–3.2
Ceramic mould casting (CMC) 0.1–50 All 0.6 75 0.8–6.3
Squeeze casting (SC) 0.025–4.5 All 6 200 1.6–12.5
Closed die forging (CDF) 0.01–100 R,P,S-SS, T1/4, Sp 0.1 No limit 1.6–25
Hot rolling (HR) 10–1000 R0/P0/T0 1.6 1000 6.3–50
Cold rolling (CR) 10–1000 R0/P0/T0 0.0025 200 0.2–6.3
Shape drawing (SD) 10–1000 R0/P0/S0/T0 0.1 25 0.2–0.8
Cold forming (CF) – R,P,S-SS, T1/4, Sp 0.09 No limit 0.1–1.6
Swaging (S) – R0/P0/S0/T0 2.5 50 0.8–6.3
Powder metallurgy (PM) 0.01–15 All 1.5 6 0.2–3.2
Cold continuous extrusion (CCE) 1–5000 R,P,S-SS, T1/4, Sp 3 No limit 0.4–3.2
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Hot continuous extrusion (HCE) 1–5000 R,P,S-SS, T1/4, Sp 3 No limit 1.0–25

*
Taken from Figure 2.

Increasing spacial complexitiy

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Uniform Change at Change at Spatial Closed one Closed both Transverse Irregular
cross section end centre Curvature End Ends element (Complex)

(R) ound

(B) ar

(S) ection
open
(SS) emi
closed

(T) ube

(F) lat

(Sp) herical

Figure 2. Part shape classifications (Scallon 2003).

 International Journal of Production Research 1533
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Figure 3. Basic processing cost (Pc) against annual production quantity (N) for casting and moulding processes (CMC: ceramic
mould casting; IC: investment casting; SC: sand casting; SM: shell moulding; CPM: compression moulding; GDC: gravity die cast-
ing; IM/PDC: injection moulding/pressure die casting).

Material: Iron; Annual Production Quantitiy: 1 to 100

PW: 0.0005-0.025 kg PW: 0.1-1 kg

PW: 0.025-0.1 kg
No
IC Yes 0.6<ST<1 6<ST<
mm 75 mm
CMC SC*
No Yes
Yes 1<ST<
6mm
1<ST< No
Yes
IC 6mm SF<0.4
No µm
Yes
Part shape complexity
No Yes classification:
6<ST< SF<0.4 µm Yes
A1/A2/A3/A4/B2/B4 Yes
75 mm 0.4<SF< 0.8
CMC+ No µm
SC No
Yes Part shape complexity MM*
SC+ IC *
classification: No
MM*
Yes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/B2/B 0.4<SF<0.8 Yes Yes
No SF<0.4 3/B4/B5 µm 0.8<SF<3.2
µm CMC+ IC* µm
No
IC+ MM* No
MM* Yes IC+ No
Part shape complexity
MM* Yes classification:
0.8<SF<3.2
µm No A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/B2/B3/B4/ 0.8<SF<3.2
No 0.4<SF< B5
3.2µm µm
CMC* IC*
No
SC Yes
Yes
No Yes CMC*
Part shape complexity SC*
IC * IC* CMC *
classification: A1/A2/A3/A4/
B1/B2/B3/B4/B5

Figure 4. The primary manufacturing process selection flowchart for iron at the annual production interval of 1–100. (*) Cost Analy-
sis, PW: part weight, ST: section thickness, SF: surface finish, IC: investment casting, SC: sand casting, CMC: ceramic mould casting,
MM: manual machining.
 1534 M. Yurdakul et al.

3. The operation of PROSEL

In the operation of PROSEL, the window, in which the values obtained from the product design and market
research for the product are entered, comes to the screen. On the window, there are toolbars to enter the values for
material, annual production amount, part weight, section thickness, part shape, surface finish and cost of shape.
Material toolbar includes iron, carbon steel, alloy steel and stainless steel. The values related to the part are directly
entered in the parts of the window namely annual production amount, part weight and surface finish (Figure 5).
Section thickness, part shape and cost of shape are not active and when the buttons on the right of the boxes are
pressed, explanation windows appear on the screen. As an example, the explanation window for the section thick-
ness is given in Figure 6.
After entering the section thickness value in the newly opened window, the CLOSE window is pressed and the
entry window returns for other inputs. In order to make selections for part shape and cost of shape, the buttons
next to them should be pressed. When part shape button is pressed, the window which presents part shape classifi-
cations (Figure 2) comes to the screen. The user makes selection by pressing the button of the classification to
which the part belongs in the part shape classification window. When the button is pressed, part shape classification
window closes automatically, and the programme turns back to the entry window. The last button named as ‘cost
of shape’ opens the part shape complexity window (Figure 7) which is needed to calculate the part’s shape com-
plexity coefficient (Arslan 2008).
After entering all required information in PROSEL, SELECTION button is pressed, and the feasible manufacturing
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

processes along with their processing costs come to the screen. The feasible processes are listed with respect to their

Figure 5. PROSEL entry window.

 International Journal of Production Research 1535
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Figure 6. PROSEL section thickness input window.

Figure 7. Part shape complexity classification window required for cost calculations.

processing costs. The first manufacturing process is recommended as the most suitable primary manufacturing process
by PROSEL. PROSEL also provides additional information of the feasible primary manufacturing processes, which are
compiled from Swift and Booker (2003).
 1536 M. Yurdakul et al.

4. Case studies
PROSEL DSS is successfully tested on many parts currently being manufactured. Five of these case studies are
presented below and in appendices for illustration purposes.
The first case in the usage of PROSEL is for a special part used in pelvis prosthesis in health sector (Appendix 1).
The inputs required for the primary manufacturing process selection for the part are given in Appendix 1. When exam-
ined in more detail, there are three candidate processes capable of producing the part used in pelvis prosthesis. These
manufacturing processes are sand casting, ceramic mould casting and investment casting (Figure 8(a)). PROSEL
recommended investment casting process in this case (Figure 8(b)). The manufacturing company is currently producing
this product with investment casting as determined by PROSEL. PROSEL selected investment casting on the grounds
that it is by far the most economical production process because of the material and surface finish value requirements as
seen in Table 3.
The second case to illustrate the usage of PROSEL is for a CNC bending machine part (Appendix 2). The annual
production quantity, part weight, section thickness and surface finish values of the part produced from iron are listed in
Appendix 2. P1 (Bar – Change at end) and B1 are selected as part shape and cost of shape. After the required inputs
are entered to PROSEL, Shell Moulding (SM), sand casting and Automatic Machining processes are selected as the
appropriate processes for this case study (Figure 9(a)). PROSEL recommended Shell Mould Casting process after
comparison with sand casting and Automatic Machining processes based upon cost analysis (Figure 9(b)).
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Figure 8. (a) Candidate processes satisfying part requirements for the first case study. (b) Output window for the first case study.
 International Journal of Production Research 1537

Table 3. Cost comparison of the three candidate processes for the first case study.

Processes Pc Cmp (Stainless steel) Cs (25 mm) Cf (1.6 μm) Cc (A4) Cost of processing

SC 30 1.5 1.1 2.9 1.8 258.4

CMC 40 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.8 108.0
IC 37 1.0 1.29 1.0 1.7 81.1

Notes: SC: sand casting, CMC: ceramic mould casting, IC: investment casting.
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Figure 9. (a) Candidate process against part requirements for the second case study. (b) Output window for the second case study.

In practice, the CNC bending machine part is produced with sand casting process after which the part is
automatically machined on the CNC machine tool for high-quality surface finish. PROSEL selected Shell Mould Casting
process after comparison with investment casting and sand casting together with Automatic Machining processes based
upon cost analysis (Table 4). Production with Shell Mould Casting process proves to be one-third cheaper than sand
casting together with Automatic Machining process. Similarly, investment casting process is also eliminated in the cost
analysis of PROSEL because of its higher cost caused by its higher gross cost of process (Pc), coefficient of part shape
complexity (CC) and coefficient of cross-section thickness (CS). The details of other three cases are provided in
Appendices 3–5.
 1538 M. Yurdakul et al.

Table 4. Cost comparison of IC, SM and SC + AM for the second case study.

Processes Pc Cmp (Iron) Cs (10 mm) Cf (1.6 μm) Cc (B1) Cost of processing

IC 25 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.15 35.9

SC 16.8 1.0 1.2 1 1.1 22.2
AM 32.8 1.2 1 1 1 39.3
SC + AM 61.5
SM 18 1.0 1.2 1 1 21.6

Notes: IC: investment casting; SC: sand casting, AM: automatic machining; SM: shell mould casting.

The results of case studies illustrate the advantages of PROSEL and usefulness of incorporation of a cost analysis
into PROSEL. On the other hand, the applications also showed that the users must be extremely careful in applications
of PROSEL for the extremely precise parts and parts with high tolerance variations. PROSEL may not provide the best
answers for both part types. Extremely tight tolerances may require additional processing steps after a primary process.
In such a case, PROSEL may eliminate the net-shape primary processes that cannot provide tight tolerances by them-
selves. However, these eliminated primary processes may be more economical when they are combined with additional
secondary processes than the single primary processes recommended by PROSEL. The same conclusion can be reached
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

for the parts with high tolerance variations. In this study, only sand casting is combined with automated machining as
an alternative to the net-shape primary manufacturing processes. As a further study, more primary processes can be
combined with secondary processes, and the combinations can be added to PROSEL to increase the available primary
process range for the applications.

5. Conclusions
The net-shape primary process selection problem requires extensive knowledge and experience with many different
processes. It may be difficult to accumulate all the necessary information for a process selector. This article proposes a
net-shape primary manufacturing process selection programme (PROSEL). PROSEL identifies the feasible primary
processes and selects the one with the lowest cost per unit. It is easy to use, and the user enters the input on a single
window page. The applications provided the same or a more cost-effective process than the currently used process in
practice. It can be considered that PROSEL is useful particularly for the small- and medium-scale manufacturing compa-
nies with limited technical knowledge and it will help them to take right decisions in net-shape primary process
selection and to lower their manufacturing costs.
PROSEL is designed to make extensions easily. For example, new primary manufacturing process selection
flowcharts can be developed and incorporated into PROSEL. Similarly, PROSEL can be modified by adding other mate-
rial types that are not considered in the study but used in manufacturing industries. In another extension of this study, a
separate module for selection of sheet-metal primary manufacturing processes can be developed within PROSEL.

References

Arslan, E. 2008. “Development of a Decision Support System to Use in Selection of Manufacturing Processes.” Master of Science
Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Science and Technology, Turkey.
Ashby, M. F. 1999. Material Selection in Mechanical Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Bock, L. 1991. “Material Process Selection Methodology: Design for Manufacturing and Cost Using Logic Programming.” Cost Engi-
neering 33: 9–14.
Brown, S. M., and P. K. Wright. 1998. “A Progress Report on the Manufacturing Analysis Service, An Internet-based Reference
Tool.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 17 (5): 389–398.
Chougule, R. G., and B. Ravi. 2005. “Variant Process Planning of Castings Using AHP-based Nearest Neighbour Algorithm for Case
Retrieval.” International Journal of Production Research 43 (6): 1255–1273.
DeGarmo, E. P., J. T. Black, and A. K. Ronald. 2007. DeGarmo’s Materials and Process in Manufacturing. 10th ed. New York:
Wiley.
Djassemi, M. 2008. “A Computer-based Economic Analysis for Manufacturing Process Selection.” 2008 IAJC-IJME International
Conference on Engineering & Technology: Globalization of Technology-Imagine the Possibilities, Nashville, TN, November
17–19.
 International Journal of Production Research 1539

Djassemi, M. 2009. “A Computer-Based Approach to Material and Process Selection Using Sustainability and Ecological Criteria.”
Conference of the Portland-International-Center-for-Management-of-Engineering-and-Technology, Portland, OR, August 02–06.
Esawi, A. M., and M. F. Ashby. 1998. “The Development and Use the Early Stages of Design.” Proceedings of 3rd Biennial World
Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, Berlin, July 1–2.
Esawi, A. M., and M. F. Ashby. 2003. “Cost Estimates to Guide Pre-selection of Processes.” Materials and Design 24: 605–616.
Giachetti, R. E. 1998. “A Decision Support System for Material and Manufacturing Process Selection.” Journal of Intelligent Manu-
facturing 9: 265–276.
Giachetti, R. E., and K. K. Jurrens. 1997. “Manufacturing Evaluation of Designs: A Knowledge-based Approach.” Proceedings 3rd
Joint Conference on Information Sciences (JCIS), Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1–5.
Groover, M. P. 2007. Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
Kunchithapatham, A. 1996. “A Manufacturing Process and Materials Design Advisor.” Master of Science Thesis, University of
California, Berkeley, USA.
Lovatt, A. M., and H. R. Shercliff. 1998. “Manufacturing Process Selection in Engineering Design. Part 1: The Role of Process
Selection.” Materials and Design 19: 205–215.
Mital, A., A. Desai, A. Subramanian, and A. Mital. 2011. Product Development: A Structured Approach to Design and Manufacture.
Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Scallon, P. 2003. Process Planning-the Design/Manufacture Interface. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Smith, C. S. 1999. “The Manufacturing Advisory Service: Web Based Process and Material Selection.” PhD diss., University of
California, Berkeley, USA.
Swift, K. G., and J. D. Booker. 2003. Process Selection-from Design to Manufacture. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Heinemann.
Zha, X. 2005. “A Web-based Advisory System for Process and Material Selection in Concurrent Product Design for a Manufacturing
Environment.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25: 233–243.
Zha, X., and H. Zha. 2003. “Manufacturing Process and Material Selection in Concurrent Collaborative Design of MEMS Devices.”
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 13: 509–522.

Appendix 1. Case A: Technical drawing and required inputs of pelvis prosthesis part
 1540 M. Yurdakul et al.

Appendix 2. Case B: Technical drawing and required inputs of CNC Bending Machine’s part
Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Appendix 3. Case C: Technical drawing and required inputs of screw

 International Journal of Production Research 1541

Appendix 4. Case D: Technical drawing and required inputs of transmission part

Downloaded by [Gazi Universitesi] at 04:44 24 June 2016

Appendix 5. Case E: Technical drawing and required inputs of crankshaft