literature review

help me answer the literature review questions in the file I attached. the direction and the article are attached too.

Literature reviews

For each assignment, pick an article you are interested in that is

· Peer reviewed.

· Published since 2015.

· Available online through BU libraries

· Address an aspect of additive and can include technology, applications, and/ or materials research.

The lit report should include:

·

Article citation – CORRECTLY DONE using a standard citation format.

· Background on the authors (are they publishing a lot on the subject, considered experts, associated with well-known labs) (<50 100 words). Don't give me the complete bio of the authors. The readers just need to know can they believe the results and how credible are the results.

· List of keywords.

· Rate the article (0-5 stars).

· Write a Short summary of the article (<200 words)

· what the main findings in your words and why the findings are relevant.

· why the article is worth reading (or not)

· DO NOT CUT AND COPY TEXT FROM THE ARTICLE. IF I FIND THAT YOU HAVE DONE THIS YOU WILL GET A ZERO FOR ALL OF THE LITERATURE ASSIGNMENTS

· Summarize for someone familiar with Additive but not all terminology for the article. Some people are over explaining and others are going into a lot of unnecessary detail.

· Be *CRITICAL* of the article. Ask the questions: what doesn’t it cover, where are the weaknesses, what assumptions did they make that are questionable?

Check your summary for readability. There are some automatic checkers like Grammarly that can catch the worst errors.

Submit through gradescope.

Here is and example of a good author background summary::

Jaehyung Ju does not study AM directly so much as the physics of complex geometric structures. Most of his research seems to be concerned with the structural properties of complex lattices and the optimization of these designs for various structural purposes. The nature of manufacturing these structures, however, means that most of his work is important to AM and the new world of design that is emerging from it. The volume of research associated with him is impressive and his papers are frequently cited in the realm of AM.

Here is an example of a part of a good article summary and analysis

However, the article’s intended audience (and the authors’ backgrounds) is clearly those in the construction/architectural industry rather than those familiar with additive manufacturing or engineering as many of the construction AM processes are described in construction terms. Related to this, the authors fail to really mention the challenge anisotropic properties of 3D-printed materials pose to their use in this industry. They do list several other challenges whose development cycles will be important in shaping how construction uses additive. Overall, this is a good article for general information about what attempts construction is making with additive manufacturing.

Q1 Article citation

Put the article citation here

Q2 Author assessment

Give a <100 word assessment of the author's background

Q3 How many stars?

Rate the article on a scale of 1 – 5

Q4 Summary

Provide a short summary < 200 words

Q5 Keywords

Give 5 keywords (do not include additive mfg. or 3D printing)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Additive manufacturing process selection based
on parts’ selection criteria

Cauê G. Mançanares1 & Eduardo de S. Zancul1 &
Juliana Cavalcante da Silva1 & Paulo A. Cauchick Miguel2

Received: 22 September 2014 /Accepted: 25 March 2015 /Published online: 12 April 2015
# Springer-Verlag London 2015

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) has been used to
produce complex parts usually in small batch sizes.
Recently, AM has been gaining importance with the develop-
ment of new production technologies encompassing a wider
range of materials. These new technologies allow broader AM
application in the industry, beyond traditional usage in rapid
prototyping. As a result, the number of parts being produced
by AM technologies has been increasing. The differences
among AM production technologies and the specific capabil-
ities and restrictions of each available manufacturing machine
result in complex manufacturing process definition.
Moreover, process technology knowledge in the area is still
limited to few professionals. In order to support process
manufacturing to evaluate which AM technology would be
best suited to produce a particular part, this paper presents a
method for selecting the AM process based on the technical
specifications of a part. The method relies on Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank the most appropriate tech-
nologies and machines. Relevant parameters of the main ma-
chines available in the market were raised. These parameters
are considered in the selection of machines able to produce a
particular part considering its specifications. Practical applica-
tions of the method resulted in adequate responses to support
manufacturing process definition.

Keywords Additive manufacturing . 3D printing .

Manufacturingprocessplanning .Analytichierarchyprocess .

Rapid prototyping

1 Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM) is the process of building solid
tridimensional objects by laying down layers, being opposed
to subtractive manufacturing [1]. Over the past 20 years, these
technologies have been used to make parts for the aerospace
[2–4], automotive [5], biomedical [6, 7] industries, and other
areas (e.g., design and architecture).

Recently, companies have been growing their interest
in adopting AM technology in their product development
processes [8]. Adopting such technologies is one way to
optimize this process for a shorter development cycle,
thus cutting down the time to market [9]. It is noticeable
in this scenario that, in spite of this new technology hav-
ing aroused considerable interest in companies, there is
little research on which manufacturing processes are the
most suitable to produce a specific item (for an example,
see Wang et al. [10]), nor is there a recent market survey
to identify the technology options available. In an attempt
to contribute to fill this gap in research, this paper focuses
on demonstrating a method to select AM process based on
a part’s requirements.

This article is structured in six sections. Section 2 presents a
literature review on AM technologies. Section 3 details the
research method and the solution developed. Section 4 focus-
es on data gathering and analysis for the proposed solution.
Section 5 demonstrates the application of the proposed meth-
od. Finally, section 6 presents the conclusions and suggestions
for further research.

* Eduardo de S. Zancul
ezancul@usp.br

1 Department of Production Engineering, Polytechnic School,
University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, trav. 2, n. 128,
Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-070, Brazil

2 Department of Production and Systems Engineering, Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014
DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-7092-4

2 Additive manufacturing technologies

This section presents a review of seven AM technologies con-
sidered for the purpose of this research: stereolithography
(SLA), 3D printing (3DP), selective laser sintering (SLS),
fused deposition modeling (FDM), direct metal laser sintering
(DMLS), ColorJet printing (CJP), and MultiJet printing
(MJP). These technologies were selected as they are employed
by the three major AM machine manufacturer players: 3D
Systems, Stratasys, and EOS [11].

2.1 Stereolithography

This process builds 3D models from light-sensitive polymers
that solidify upon exposure to UV radiation [12]. When hit by
a laser beam, the resin solidifies, one layer at a time, until all
layers in the model are shaped, then the solid model is re-
moved, washed, and put in an oven for complete curing.
The use of this technology is limited to light-sensitive poly-
mers [13]. In addition to filling in regions not connected to the
part, which causes material waste and post-processing to re-
move these fillings, there is a need for post-cure to improve
the parts’ finish.

2.2 3D printing

This process builds 3D models by setting powder on a base,
this powder being selectively bonded by injecting an
agglutinant [14]. The cycle is then repeated, until the entire
3D model has been built. Its advantages are the wider variety
of materials [15], the quick production of parts, and the low
cost [16]. Disadvantages of this process are the low surface
quality and the low strength of the parts made, which signif-
icantly limit its possible applications.

2.3 Selective laser sintering

The SLS technique uses a laser beam to melt and solidify, one
layer at a time, powder-like materials, like elastomers and
metals [17]. In this process, the laser beam scans the powdered
material layer to be shaped [8]. SLS widens the array of pos-
sible materials for building prototypes, being able to produce
metal parts directly, without any later machining being re-
quired [18].

2.4 Fused deposition modeling

The FDM process builds objects by extruding polymers like
ABS and polyamide in a system having at least one head
moving on the X-Y plane and a platform moving vertically
along the Z-axis [17]. Low cost of the material and easy to
operate machines made led this technology to make quick
prototype building by addition [12]. However, these

technologies feature low precision and low model-building
speed [19].

2.5 Direct metal laser sintering

DMLS is an additive metal fabrication technology. Process
begins by applying a layer of the powder material to the build-
ing platform. Considering computer-generated data of the part
geometry, a laser beam fuses the powder at defined points.
This sequence is followed layer by layer in a net-shape pro-
cess, which produces metal parts with high accuracy and de-
tail resolution, good surface quality, as well as mechanical
properties [20, 21].

2.6 ColorJet printing

In the CJP process, material is spread in layers over the build
platform with a roller. After each layer is spread, a color binder
is jetted—based on part geometry—from heads over each
layer, causing the core to solidify [22].

2.7 MultiJet printing

The MJP process technology employs UV bulbs and photo-
polymer materials. Each layer of fine UV-curable acrylic plas-
tics is cured, including support material, that can be separated
from the part by a melting and washing process [23].

3 Methods adopted

This paper is conceptual by nature, aiming to recommend a
method for selecting 3D printing machines for AM of parts.

The work was developed in four stages. The first stage is a
survey of AM process technologies and machines available in
the market, focusing on the machines manufactured by the
major players in the AM industry [11]. This survey was done
by gathering secondary, public domain information. The sec-
ond stage comprised developing a rationale for selecting ade-
quate AM machinery for manufacturing a specific part, based
on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The results of this sec-
ond stage are documented under section 3 herein. The third
stage involves building a database with the technical features
of the AM machines available in the market. The database was
built based on a review of product literature from AM machin-
ery vendors (section 4). Finally, in the fourth stage, the solu-
tion developed is applied to specific parts (section 5).

3.1 AHP principles

This section introduces the AHP method and its use in
selecting machinery for AM. Using AHP starts by breaking
down the problem into a hierarchy of criteria easier to analyze

1008 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014

and compare than when taking each criterion alone. From the
moment this logical hierarchy has been built, decision-makers
systematically analyze the options through comparing, two at
a time, against each of the criteria [24]. This comparison be-
tween criteria is usually done with Saaty’s relative scale values
[24], as shown in Table 1.

Saaty’s [24] relative importance scale (Table 1) is used to
determine the importance (weight) of the criteria used. After
the weights have been defined, it is necessary to compare
criteria, two at a time, and the outcome of this comparison is
a scale of criterion importance, used to compare options and
rank them in terms of adequacy.

3.2 Solution development

This section introduces the development of the method for
AM process selection from parts’ selection criteria. Firstly,
the rationale behind the solution developed is explained,
breaking down the workflow in selecting the production

process. Next, the elements of the solution rationale are pre-
sented, vis-à-vis the constraining factors and the multiple-
criteria selection.

3.2.1 Solution rationale

The solution is AHP based and comprises two steps:
constraining factors, which rule out machines unsuitable for
this production, and multiple-criteria selection, which sorts
machines in growing order, being the first ranked the most
suitable for manufacturing a specific part. Figure 1 shows
the rationale used in the selection of the AM process via parts’
selection criteria.

As shown in Fig. 1, the AM process selection encompasses
defining constraining factors for manufacturing and the
multiple-criteria selection, based on criterion weights. The
part’s constraining factors should be compared with existing
machines, and only machines that pass this evaluation should
move on to the ensuing multiple-criteria selection.

The weights attributed to the parts’ selection criteria are
used in the multiple-criteria selection to sort the machines
following the AHP structure, the best ranked one being the
most suitable to produce a specific part.

The specified constraining factors and the criteria consid-
ered in the multiple-criteria selection are discussed in the fol-
lowing sections.

3.2.2 Constraining factors

Factors constraining production are those that render model
building impossible as requested. For the AM selection meth-
od developed, the constraining factors adopted were the max-
imum production span of each machine, and the material used.
This means that for each part being produced, the options

Table 1 Relative scale of criterion importance

Scale Numeric assessment Reciprocal

Extremely preferred 9 1/9

Very, very strong 8 1/8

Very strong 7 1/7

Strong plus 6 1/6

Strongly preferred 5 1/5

Moderate plus 4 ¼

Moderately preferred 3 1/3

Weak plus 2 ½

Equally preferred 1 1

Adapted from Saaty [24]

Fig. 1 Rationale used in
selecting the additive
manufacturing process. Source:
developed by the authors

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014 1009

(machines) to be considered in the multiple-criteria selection
would be those that could fit in the part dimensions and the
requested material.

3.2.3 Multiple-criteria selection

To carry out the multiple-criteria selection, it is necessary to
define a list of the criteria to be employed. The criteria con-
sidered in the selection method developed are the criteria for
the parts to be made. For this purpose, the parts’ selection

criteria suggested by Raulino [25] were used: material variety,
surface quality, post-finishing, precision, resistance to impact,
flexural strength, prototype cost, and post cure.

For each criterion, it is necessary to assess how each option
(process technology and machine) performs regarding them.
This step was conducted during machine database construc-
tion (see section 4). Once the machine’s comparative perfor-
mance for each criterion has been established, it is necessary
to build a matrix comparing the importance levels of the
criteria. The relative importance of each of these criteria varies

Table 2 Technical
characteristics, measurement unit,
and description of 3D printing
machines

Technical
characteristics

Unit Description

Technology – Type of technology used in the machine’s additive manufacturing

Printing materials – Materials supported by the machine

Printing size mm×mm×mm Maximum dimensions of the part

Multicolored parts Boolean Prints or not multicolor parts

Resolution DPI Maximum printing resolution

Layer thickness mm Minimum printing layer thickness

Accuracy mm Minimum distance between 1 layer and another

Printing speed mm/h Maximum material addition speed

Power specs V, A, W Required operating voltage, current, and power

Size mm×mm×mm Machine dimensions

Weight Kg Machine weight

Price US$ Machine cost

Developed by the authors

Table 3 3D printing machines
surveyed Personal Professional Industrial

3DTouch™ 3D printer (1 head) Zprinter 150 Víper Pro

3DTouch™ 3D printer (2 head) Zprinter 250 Sinterstation HIQ

3DTouch™ 3D printer (3 head) Zprinter 350 ProX™ 950

RapMan 3.2 (1 head) Zprinter 450 sPro™ 230

RapMan 3.2 (2 head) Zprinter 650 ProX 300

CubePro® Zprinter 850 Fortus 250mc

ProJet™ 1000 ProJet™ CP 3500 Fortus 360mc (configuration 1)

ProJet™ 1200 ProJet™ CPX 3500 Fortus 360mc (configuration 2)

ProJet™ 1500 ProJet™ CPX 3500 Plus Fortus 400mc (configuration 1)

Mojo 3D printer ProJet™ SD 3500 Fortus 400mc (configuration 2)

uPrint SE ProJet™ HD 3500 Fortus 900mc

uPrint SE Plus ProJet™ HD Plus 3500 Objet1000

ProJet™ DP 3500 EOS M 400

ProJet™ MP 3500

ProJet™ 5000

ProJet® 860Pro

ProJet® 7000

Dimension Elite 3D

Dimension SST/BST

EOSINT P 800

Developed by the authors

1010 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014

from one specific production case to another, according to the
user’s needs for the part to be manufactured on that specific
situation.

The final evaluation of the priority of each alternative is the
sum of the product between the weights of the criteria and the
weights of the alternative in the corresponding criteria.

4 Survey of machine data and parts’ selection criteria

This section presents the development of the machine data-
base, resulting from the survey of the machines studied in this
research, in order to allow selection and ranking among them
by means of constraining factors and multiple-criteria
evaluation.

4.1 Machine database

The machine database comprises technical features of 45 dif-
ferent AM machines which were surveyed and analyzed. The
technical features considered for each machine are listed in
Table 2, including their description and the measurement unit.

Machines analyzed were selected from the current portfolio
of the three major players in AM industry [11]. Table 3 lists
the 45 machines analyzed, segmented by application type in
personal, professional, and industrial applications.

4.2 Assessment of manufacturing processes and machines
according to established criteria

Based on the machine criteria (discussed in 3.2.3), each of the
45 machines in the database was evaluated. The resulting cri-
terion assessment for each process technology is presented in
Table 4.

This evaluation made it possible to sort the machines on
each of these criteria, so they could be compared one by one
relative to the part’s requirements, and then be ranked, as
prescribed by the AHP method.

5 Method application

This section demonstrates the application of the proposed
method in three different applications: a final engineering part,
a machine element prototype, and an architectural model.
Application scenarios are based on real existing parts
(Fig. 2). On each presented application, based on specific part
requirements, constraining factors and multiple criteria are
used to perform comparisons among machines listed on the
machine database. As a result, machines are ranked and the
most suitable ones to make the specific part are indicated.

The selection process is performed in two steps. First, for
each part, constraining factors (size and material) are analyzed

Table 4 Machine assessment
factors SLA TDP SLS FDM DMLS CJP MJP

Variety of materials Small Medium Large Medium Medium Small Small

Surface quality Average Good Good Average Excellent Good Good

Post-finish Average Good Good Average Excellent Good Good

Accuracy Excellent Average Good Average Excellent Average Average

Resistance to impact Average Low Good Good Excellent Low Low

Flexural strength Low Low Excellent Excellent Excellent Low Low

Prototype cost High Medium High Low High Medium Medium

Post cure Yes No Yes No No No No

Developed by the authors

Turbine blade
Bearing holder

prototype of a pipe�or
machine

Architecture house
model

Constraining
factors
Dimension 135 x 25.63 x 15 mm Diameter – 32.3mm

High – 14.1mm
393.3 x 326.0 x 79.0mm

Materials High-strength, corrosion-
resistant nickel chromium

polymer polymer, wax or ceramic

Fig. 2 Application scenarios.
Source: courtesy of Caue
Mançanares (turbine blade), Otto
Heringer (bearing holder), and
Lucas Corato and Aline Corato
(House)

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014 1011

and only machines that fit the constraining factors are selected.
Second, machines are compared in pairs, by their individual
performance—represented by their technology performance
and specific machine parameters—in each criterion, according
to Table 5.

The weight of the criteria will be analyzed, at each appli-
cation, according to the relative scale of AHP criterion impor-
tance, presented in Table 1.

5.1 Turbine blade

The first application considered is a turbine blade to be
employed in real operation to substitute a dandified part of
the original equipment. The part works under high pressure
and high temperature, which leads to the material as a
constraining factor, as detailed bellow:

& Constraining factors

– Dimensions: 135×25.63×15 mm
– Material: high-strength, corrosion-resistant nickel chro-

mium material

In order to resist to the erosion caused by the impact of the
high pressure and temperature, the major criteria to be consid-
ered are the resistance to impact and the surface quality. The
expectations on the importance scale defined in this scenario
for comparing additive manufacturing machine criterion can
be proposed as shown in Table 6.

Applying this scale of importance upon comparing the 45
machines surveyed leads to the result that the most adequate
technology to make the proposed engineering part would be
DMLS and the prioritized machine was EOS M 400, from
EOS.

5.2 Machine element prototype for a pipettor

In the engineering field, the most common application of
AM is still for making prototypes. The application sce-
nario considers a bearing holder prototype of a pipettor
machine, intended for evaluation of mostly the product’s
final shape and specially the functionality. Durability
tests were not supposed to be performed with this
prototype.

& Constraining factors

– Dimensions:

Diameter—32.3 mm
Height—14.1 mm

– Material: polymer

As a prototype, there is no need to obey all the mechanical
properties of the part. The priority must be given then to an
average accuracy and surface quality, what can be found in
most of the personal machines. The results of this criterion
importance analysis are presented in Table 7.

Comparing the selected printing machines, the best op-
tion for this prototyping project is the FDM technology
CubePro®.

5.3 Architecture

The most common application of AM in architecture is
building scale models. Such pieces should be visually
attractive and might not necessarily demand high dimen-
sional precision.

Table 5 Machine grading matrix

Low Average Good Excellent

Low 1 1/3 1/6 1/9

Average 3 1 1/3 1/6

Good 6 3 1 1/3

Excellent 9 6 3 1

Developed by the authors

Table 6 Importance scale for a
real engineering part Multicolored part Accuracy Surface

quality
Resistance to
impact

Flexural
strength

Criterion
weight

Multicolored part 1 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 0.03

Accuracy 9 1 1/6 1/6 3 0.13

Surface quality 9 6 1 1/3 6 0.29

Resistance to impact 9 6 3 1 6 0.46

Flexural strength 9 1/3 1/6 1/6 1 0.09

Sum 37.00 13.44 4.44 1.78 16.11 1.00

Developed by the authors

1012 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014

& Constraining factors

– Dimensions: 393.3×326.0×79.0 mm
– Material: polymer, wax or ceramic

Priority criteria defined were the surface quality and
the capacity to make the model applying different colors,
such as capacity to create the necessary details (e.g., win-
dows) dependent on support material. Therefore, the ex-
pectations on the importance scale used for comparing
machines to make this architectural model are shown in
Table 8.

Applying the constrain factors and the criterion scale of
importance upon comparing the 45 machines surveyed indi-
cates the use of CJP ProJet® 860Pro on this specific
application.

6 Conclusions

This paper introduces the development of a method for
selecting an AM process from parts’ selection criteria and
the ranking of the most suitable machines from those sur-
veyed, for three specific applications.

The selection rationale in the method presented has
been drawn from AHP, proposing the choice of an option
(in the case of AM machine) from the comparison against
defined criteria. The criteria are defined in two kinds:

technologies available in the market, which determine
constraining factors in machine selection, and the parts’
selection criteria, which are used to rank the most suitable
machine for production. The constraining factors adopted
by the method so developed are the part’s size and mate-
rial, which should be compared with the maximum pro-
duction span and the material for the existing technolo-
gies, respectively. The method queries the database com-
prised 45 machines to allow selecting the most suitable
machine for each application, based on part’s
requirements.

From the method developed, the most suitable machines
were identified for making parts intended for three specific
application scenarios: turbine blade, bearing holder prototype
of a pipettor machine, and architectural model.

It should be noted that the material as a constraining factor
plays an overwhelming role in the selection of the AM tech-
nology, since the technologies as a whole are related to spe-
cific materials.

One limitation of the proposed method is still not
being able to circumvent the part size constraining factor
by making more than one part for later assembly to
compose the final part—whenever this is acceptable for
the part. Such improvement should be considered in fu-
ture works. For the future, it is also suggested that the
development of a decision-making support system be
based on the rationale and on the machine database de-
veloped herein.

Table 7 Importance scale for
engineering parts Multicolored part Accuracy Surface

quality
Resistance to
impact
Flexural
strength
Criterion
weight
Multicolored part 1 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 0.03

Accuracy 9 1 1 3 3 0.33

Surface quality 9 1 1 3 3 0.33

Resistance to impact 9 1/3 1/3 1 3 0.18

Flexural strength 9 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 0.13

Sum 37.00 2.78 2.78 7.44 10.11 1.00

Developed by the authors

Table 8 Importance scale for
house model Multicolored part Accuracy Surface

quality
Resistance to
impact
Flexural
strength
Criterion
weight

Multicolored part 1 3 6 6 6 0.46

Accuracy 1/3 1 3 6 9 0.26

Surface quality 1/5 1/3 1 6 9 0.18

Resistance to impact 1/5 1/6 1/6 1 3 0.06

Flexural strength 1/5 1/9 1/9 1/3 1 0.04

Sum 1.93 4.61 10.28 19.33 28.00 1.00

Developed by the authors

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014 1013

Acknowledgments The authors thank the Coordination for the Im-
provement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), the Brazilian Na-
tional Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq),
and the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for supporting
related projects. The authors also thank Caue Mançanares, Otto Heringer,
and Lucas Corato and Aline Corato for providing real case applications.

References

1. ASTM Standard F2792-10 (2012) Standard terminology for addi-
tive manufacturing technologies. ASTM International

2. Thomas CL, Gaffney TM, Kaza S, Lee CH (1996) Rapid
prototyping of large scale aerospace structures. Proceedings of
IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference. Aspen, CO, pp 219–
230

3. Martina F, Mehnenb J, Williams SW, Colegrovea P, Wang F (2012)
Investigation of the benefits of plasma deposition for the additive
layer. J Mater Process Technol 1377–1386

4. Metzger P, Muscatello A, Mueller R, Mantovani J (2013)
Affordable, rapid bootstrapping of the space industry and solar
system civilization. J Aerosp Eng 26:18–29

5. Song Y, Yan Y, Zhang R, Xu D, Wang F (2002) Manufacturing of
the die of an automobile deck part based on rapid prototyping and
rapid tooling technology. J Mater Process Technol 237–242

6. Sachlos E, Czernuszka JT (2003) Making tissue engineering scaf-
folds work. Review: the application of solid freeform fabrication
technology to the production of tissue engineering scaffolds. Eur
Cells Mater 5:29–39

7. Giannatsis J, Dedoussis V (2009) Additive fabrication technologies
applied to medicine and health care: a review. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 40:116–127

8. Martins JR(2005) Manufatura Rápida—Avaliação das tecnologias
de impressão 3D e FDM na fabricação de moldes rápidos.
Dissertation. University of São Paulo

9. Brown T (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms
organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Collins

10. Wang G, Cao W, Chen G, Niu G, Zhang D (2012) Application of
rapid prototyping technology in equipment parts rapid manufactur-
ing. 3rd International Conference on System Science, Engineering
Design and Manufacturing Informatization. Shi Jiazhuang, China

11. Bechthold L, Fischer V, Hainzlmaier A, Hugenroth D, Ivanova L,
Kroth K, Römer B, Sikorska E, Sitzmann V (2015) 3D printing—a
qualitative assessment of applications, recent trends and the
technology’s future potential. Studien zum deutschen innovations
system. EFI, Berlin

12. Gorni AA (2001) Introdução à Prototipagem Rápida e Seus
Processos. Plástico Ind 31:230–239

13. Kruth JP, Leu MC, Nakagawa T (1998) Progress in additive
manufacturing and rapid prototyping. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol
47:525–540

14. Grimm T (2005) Choosing the right RP system: a study of seven RP
systems

15. Lino FJ, Neto RJ (2000) A Prototipagem na Indústria
Nacional.Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto
(FEUP). http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~falves/Prototipagem .
Accessed 2 May 2013

16. Huang S, Liu P, Mokasdar A (2013) Additive manufacturing and its
societal impact. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67:1191–1203

17. Artis (2012) Tecnologias de prototipagem: Estereolitografia (SLA).
Clínica de Odontologia Integrada Artis. http://www.artis.com.br.
Accessed 30 Aug 2012

18. Kimble LL (1992) The materials advantage of the SLS selective
laser sintering process DTM Corporation

19. Volpato N (2007) Prototipagem rápida—tecnologias e aplicações.
Edgar Blücher, São Paulo

20. Dobránsky J, Baron P, Simkulet V, Kočiško M, Ružbarský J,
Vojnová E (2015) Examination of material manufactured by direct
metal laser sintering. Mettalurgy 54(3):477–480

21. Grünberger T, Domröse R (2015) Direct metal laser sintering: iden-
tification of process phenomena by optical in-process monitoring.
Laser Tech J 12:45–48

22. Quick parts—rapid prototypes. ColorJet Printing—CJP. http://
www.quickparts.com/LowVolumePrototypes/ZPrint.aspx.
Accessed 10 Mar 2015

23. Quick parts—rapid prototypes. MultiJet Printing—MJP. http://
www.quickparts.com/LowVolumePrototypes/ProJet.aspx.
Accessed 10 Mar 2015

24. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy pro-
cess. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98

25. Raulino BR (2011) Manufatura aditiva: desenvolvimento de uma
máquina de prototipagem rápida baseada na tecnologia FDM.
Disserttion. University of Brasília, UnB

1014 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 80:1007–1014

http://paginas.fe.up.pt/%7Efalves/Prototipagem

http://www.artis.com.br/

http://www.quickparts.com/LowVolumePrototypes/ZPrint.aspx

http://www.quickparts.com/LowVolumePrototypes/ZPrint.aspx

http://www.quickparts.com/LowVolumePrototypes/ProJet.aspx

http://www.quickparts.com/LowVolumePrototypes/ProJet.aspx

• Additive manufacturing process selection based on parts’ selection criteria

Abstract
Introduction
Additive manufacturing technologies
Stereolithography
3D printing
Selective laser sintering
Fused deposition modeling
Direct metal laser sintering
ColorJet printing
MultiJet printing
Methods adopted
AHP principles
Solution development
Solution rationale
Constraining factors
Multiple-criteria selection

Survey of machine data and parts’ selection criteria
Machine database
Assessment of manufacturing processes and machines according to established criteria
Method application
Turbine blade
Machine element prototype for a pipettor
Architecture
Conclusions
References