Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision methods application to compare conventional manufacturing process with metal additive manufacturing process in the aerospace industry

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the aerospace industry, decision-making between conventional and innovative processes, such as selective laser melting (SLM), is somewhat challenging, not only because of the different technology readiness level [7] between them, but also because of the thorough comparison between the attributes of each alternative against evaluation criteria. In this scenario, the simulation among different decision methods under relevant criteria for aerospace industry can clarify the weight of the attributes of each technology and their influence in a trade study of metal parts. The main purpose of this paper is to compare additive manufacturing with machining process of a typical titanium part used in the aerospace industry by different decision-making approaches but bringing the focus onto the input data (characteristics) of alternative processes against requirements. Three decision approaches (AHP, SPA and VDI) are applied to compare three alternatives, that is, SLM, topology optimization and selective laser melting (TO and SLM), and machining process regarding three attributes (saving, weight and time). It was found that TO and SLM is a strong candidate for making titanium parts for aerospace application, mainly because of criteria, such as weight reduction and raw material saving. In addition, most methods got the same ranking of alternatives for a given scenario, even for different sub-criteria. This shows a good robustness level of those methods and a strong influence of the characteristics of each alternative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ASTM F2792–10 (2010) Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  2. Borille AV (2010) Applying decision methods to select rapid prototyping technologies. Rapid Prototyp J 16(1):50–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bourell DL, Leu MC, Rosen DW (2009) Roadmap for additive manufacturing identifying the future of freeform processing. The University of Texas at Austin Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication Advanced Manufacturing Center, USA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Byun HS, Lee KH (2005) A decision support system for the selection of rapid prototyping process using the modified TOPSIS method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26:1338–1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gomes JO, Vallejos RV (2007) Applying a benchmarking method to organize the product lifecycle management for aeronautic suppliers. In: 4th International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, Stezzano, vol 1, PLM07 anais, pp 3–10, 2007

  6. Klingbeil NW, Bontha S, Brown CJ, Gaddam (2004) Effects of process variables and size scale on solidification microstructure in laser-based solid freeform fabrication of Ti-6Al-4V. Additive Manufacturing Laboratory, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mankins JC (1995) Technology readiness levels. Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA, A White Paper, April 6, 1995. Available at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2015

  8. Mumtaz KA, Hopkinson N (2010) Selective laser melting of thin wall parts using pulse shaping. J Mater Process Technol 210:279–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2006) Konstruktionslehre Grundlagen, 7th edn. Springer, New York, p 799

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rao RV, Padmanabhan KK (2007) Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory and matrix approach. J Mater Process Technol 194(1–3):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, vol 6, 1st edn. RWS Publications Pittsburgh, USA, p 249

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saaty TL (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res 145:85–91

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Shende V, Kulkarni P (2014) Decision support system for rapid prototyping process selection. Int J Sci Res Publ 4(1). ISSN 2250-3153

  14. VDI 2225 (1998) Konstruktionsmethodik: Technisch-witschaftliches Konstruiren, tech nischwitschaftliche Bewertung. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure

  15. Venkata RR (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing, Springer London Limited, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Wohlers T (2008) Wohlers report: state of the industry: annual worldwide progress report. Wohlers Associates, Fort Collins

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Embraer S.A., São José dos Campos, Brazil

    Marcio Fernando Cruz

  2. Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica-ITA, São José dos Campos, Brazil

    Marcio Fernando Cruz

  3. Centro de Competência em Manufatura-CCM, Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica-ITA, São José dos Campos, Brazil

    Anderson Vicente Borille

Authors
  1. Marcio Fernando Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anderson Vicente Borille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcio Fernando Cruz.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Alexandre Mendes Abrao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cruz, M.F., Borille, A.V. Decision methods application to compare conventional manufacturing process with metal additive manufacturing process in the aerospace industry. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 39, 177–193 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0532-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0532-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation