A Decision-Making Carbon Reinforced Material Selection Model for Composite Polymers in Pipeline Applications

Mustafa, Mohammed Ahmed; Raja, S.; Asadi, Layth Abdulrasool A. L.; Jamadon, Nashrah Hani; Rajeswari, N.; Kumar, Avvaru Praveen

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6344193

Advances in Polymer Technology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Literature Review Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Bio-Polymer Composites for High-Performance Applications

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 6344193 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6344193

A Decision-Making Carbon Reinforced Material Selection Model for Composite Polymers in Pipeline Applications

Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa,¹S. Raja,²Layth Abdulrasool A. L. Asadi,³Nashrah Hani Jamadon,⁴N. Rajeswari,⁵and Avvaru Praveen Kumar⁶

Academic Editor: Indran Suyambulingam

Received20 Dec 2022

Revised01 Feb 2023

Accepted22 Mar 2023

Published11 Apr 2023

Abstract

Pipes are manufactured primarily through the extrusion process. One of the material extrusion processes in recent digital manufacturing is additive manufacturing’s fusion deposition modeling. Pipes are made from various materials such as metal and plastic/polymers, and the main challenge has been in selecting the pipe material for the customized application. For the creation of water-passing tubes, this research has chosen appropriate carbon-reinforced polymers that can be used with filament made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG). For this goal, the analytical hierarchy process, also known as the AHP, is used to choose the best material based on factors such as cost, temperature resistance, printing speed, and mechanical properties of the material. The results revealed that PEEK-CF is a better material for the customized impeller application than PETG-CF. The PEEK-CF obtains the higher priority value of 0.6363, and the PETG-CF obtains 0.2791. This decision-making technique can be used to select other comparable customized applications.

1. Introduction

Researchers are still interested in carbon-fiber reinforced polymers (CFRPs), which are well-known for having high specific mechanical characteristics. However, due to the high degree of skill and substantial equipment expenditures needed, producing these composite materials is expensive. Cheaper manufacturing techniques are a crucial enabler technology for higher commercial acceptance of composites and quicker product development cycles since these decrease the growth of composite materials [1–3]. In recent decades, additive manufacturing methods have emerged, which use 3D printers to manufacture components layer by layer. Net-shaped parts can now be directly manufactured with more design freedom. The most common layer-by-layer technique is fused filament fabrication (FFF), also known as fused deposition modeling (FDM). Using this method, an object is constructed by depositing thermoplastic polymer material through a nozzle, a process also known as 3D printing. A relatively recent field of research [4–8] is the use of fiber-reinforced filament to produce composite parts using a completely automated method.

A hollow plastic cylinder or portion is known as a plastic pipe. It has a circular cross-section and is mostly used to move fluids, such as liquids and gases, slurries, powders, and masses of tiny materials. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a combination of plastic and vinyl, is the most commonly used material for polymer pipes. There is also CPVC (chlorinated polyvinyl chloride) piping, PERT (polyethylene-raised temperature) piping, and other options available [9–12].

Previous researchers explored different polymers for water-passing pipes/tube-based various applications instead of metals.

Supian et al. [13] wrote a review on the polymer composite materials in the energy absorption tube application. Based on this review, authors revealed that polymer replaces the metal application. Zhao et al. [14] investigated the 1D polymer material for the pipeline application and revealed that aerogels replace the liquid solvents with air to replace the solid interlaminar.

An amorphous thermoplastic polymer called ABS has been used to fabricate the pumps, rotor blades for drones, and rotary parts for the microorganic Rankine cycle (mORC) [15]. A semicrystalline thermoplastic polymer called PLA is made from sustainable resources like sugarcane or maize starch. One or more of the characteristics of this polymer is that it is biodegradable and compassable. When compared to other polymers, this polymer has a reasonable price, environmentally favorable biocompatibility, and acceptable physicomechanical properties. Impellers for pumps, compressors, and maritime applications have been made using PLA [16].

In order to examine the mechanical impact behavior of short carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composites and unfilled PEEK, Garcia-Gonzalez et al. [17] looked into the energy absorbed. In transverse, longitudinal, and unfilled fiber PEEK conditions, the tensile elastic modulus was 12.6, 24, and 3.6 GPa, respectively.

According to Alam et al.’s [18] investigation of carbon-reinforced PEEK for biomedical structural applications, the material recovers a sizable portion of the mechanical losses in strength and modulus brought on by sulfonation, in one instance increasing superior than (nonsulfonated) printed PEEK in terms of yield and final strengths (graphene nanoplatelets reinforcement).

Siddikali et al. [19] investigated carbon-reinforced PETG for coating with an electroless metal layer application, and their findings show better mechanical properties. In a Pump-Jet Module application, the PETG impeller was studied by Odetti et al. [20]. Tests with a PETG impeller at 1200 rpm and 14 N of thrust revealed that it has the right characteristics for this application. A more advanced quasithermoplastic polymer is PEEK. This polymer exhibits exceptional thermal, mechanical, and chemical resistance qualities. Many academics are interested in the PEEK impeller found in centrifugal pumps because of its improved strength and dependability [21, 22]. Pumps have used PETG impellers. This polymer’s good water resistance and biodegradability are reasons for using it in the manufacture of pump blades [23, 24]. The various types of polymers and applications are classified in Figure 1.

The manufacture of rotating components has been done using a variety of thermoplastic polymers, including ABS, PLA, polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), PEEK, and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) [26–29].

From this, previous literature has not done customized application material selection-based studies on carbon-reinforced polymer for water pipe making. Carbon-reinforced PEEK and PETG filaments are investigated in this study for use in the fabrication of customized water pipes. For obtaining this research objective, the detailed literature review has been carried out with MCDM methodology, particularly AHP procedures in the material selection problems as the first phase, and detailed materials and methods (how to apply) are discussed. The rest of the part elaborates on the result and discussion, and also, the conclusion shows research objective obtain or not.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Multicriteria Decision-Making

The act of choosing the best or appropriate option from a variety of options is known as decision-making. The primary goal of MCDM is to select the best alternative for a given situation including several criteria. The MCDM method makes use of criteria, options, and decision-makers’ perspectives to determine the optimum course of action [30]. MCDM is a vital technique in operation research and can assist decision-makers when presented with a variety of options and requirements [31]. The MCDM contains a number of tools for making decisions, including AHP, FAHP, TOPSIS, and COPRAS, among others [32]. The FAHP, TOPSIS, and DEMATEL algorithms are frequently employed in the AM sector [33]. SCM [34], management science system engineering [35], sustainability [36], planning and product development assessment [37], and strategic management [38] all benefit from the application of MCDM. FTOPSIS and FMEA risk assessment have both been enhanced by MCDM [39].

2.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

In this study, the AHP technique is covered first. The three primary techniques that make up the AHP approach’s foundation are the hierarchy structure, priority examination, and consistency confirmation. This methodology was created to help with complex decision-making. The rational hierarchy is designed to enable a decision-maker or group of decision-makers to pairwise compare criteria and the related alternatives, resulting in global weight syncing, and then use the results to decide on alternative priority. Additionally, one of the main contributions of AHP and what sets it apart from other MCDA methodologies is that it permits the evaluation of judgement consistency [40].

The top level of the AHP hierarchy structure may be the aim or objective, with criteria and/or subcriteria appearing at the intermediate level. Then, the possibilities that correlate can be pursued at the most basic level. To create numerical weights, all pairwise comparison matrices will be collected, assessed, and then normalized. However, given the existence of uncertain situations in the decision-making process, this work suggests the integrative AHP and fuzzy logic (i.e., FAHP), which can be further researched [41].

3. Methodology

The research flow of the manuscript is shown in Figure 2. The research objective is to select a suitable carbon-reinforced material for pipe application. For this, the physical properties of material analysis such as price, mechanical property, printing time, and temperature withstand. Then, the third criteria of time have been calculated during the printing.

Then, the printed samples were involved in the tensile test, and based on all the criteria results, the pairwise matrix formed. In this paper’s research, the AHP is used for finding suitable materials from the selected carbon-reinforced materials. The AHP processes have the Saaty scale as shown in Table 1. The Saaty scale is used to evaluate the criteria and alternatives. Figure 3 expresses the methodology of the manuscript. The objective of the research is the selection of suitable materials based on criteria such as price, temperature, printing time, and mechanical property.

4. Fabrication and Testing

4.1. Physical Properties of Material Analysis

The physical properties of PEEK and PETG are analyzed using criteria such as price and temperature. As a consequence, the cost and temperature of both materials are as follows.

PEEK is a liquid crystalline thermoplastic with high-temperature chemical and mechanical resistance properties. PEEK CF is one of the most advanced thermoplastics ever created. It is employed in some of the most demanding applications in industries such as automobiles, aerospace, defense, semiconductors, and oil and gas. PEEK is used by engineers in applications where failure is not an option. With tensile strengths between 90 and 100 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 3.6 GPa, PEEK is both stiff and powerful. Polyether ether ketone is also referred to as PEEK. It is a colorless organic thermoplastic polymer that produces some of the best results of any thermoplastic on the market. It belongs to the polyether ether ketone (PEEK) family of compounds. PEEK filament has a variety of distinct properties. PETG filament is a quasi-industrial strength material with excellent UV and impact resistance and a slightly softer surface. It is simple to postprocess to achieve the desired surface finish [42–45].

Their main distinctions are their properties, applications, and material costs. PETG is more durable and stronger than PLA. PLA, on the other hand, is commonly used as an FDM/FFF filament due to its superior melt and cooling properties. However, comparable materials, PETG and PEEK, have superior materials compared to PLA. PETG is more expensive than PLA in terms of cost. PETG CF is a material designed for users that need to create structural elements that are subjected to significant mechanical pressures. As a result, many disciplines of engineering, including medicine, utilize this material to create prototypes and final items.

PETG is mainly remembered for its strength and durability, and the plastic is resistant to high temperatures, UV rays, water, chemical solvents, and other environmental factors. All of this makes PETG an excellent filament material choice for printing parts that will be exposed to harsh environments or will be subjected to a high level of physical stress [46–49].

The price of PETG carbon fiber filament starts onwards (Indian rupee) INR.1150 and PEEK carbon fiber filament price INR 4800 onwards, as shown in Figure 4. PETG has a significant melting point of 210°C and a fairly low temperature for glass transition of about 85°C. This means that, while the printing process necessitates hotter temperatures, PETG components are not well-known for their thermal properties. PEEK has a roughly 143°C (289°F) transition temperature and a roughly 250°C (662°F) melting temperature, and the comparison between the two selected polymers is shown in Figure 5 [44, 50, 51].

4.2. Printing the Samples

FDM has risen in popularity among additive manufacturing techniques because of its accessibility and material adaptability. This technique has been used over the years to generate a variety of materials for application in the aerospace [52], medical [53], and automotive industries, including plastics, powder, ceramics, and composites [54]. This procedure involves layering a partially built object with semisolid filament material that has been extruded through a heated nozzle. The process uses a build platform, print bed, liquefier head, and build material spool, as shown in Figure 6. The geometry development program is used to create the STL (standard triangular language) file format for the manufactured part model. It is then entered into the software and split into thin, two-dimensional layers.

This two-dimensional contour information is used to produce the tool path motion. The movement of the liquefier head is controlled by a 3-axis mechanism. It moves in the - plane in accordance with the tool path of the software and deposits the first layer while doing so. The recently added layer and the recently deposited layer are joined. Until the entire section is finished, the material will be deposited in successive layers.

After completion, the structure can be manually or chemically removed from the print platform by destroying the support structure [25, 55–57]. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) or material extrusion additive manufacturing are other names for this process that are permissible in ASTM F42 (additive manufacturing technologies) (AM). The FDM components and operation are shown in Figure 1.

4.3. Printing Time Calculation

Based on the printing time, carbon-reinforced PETG had 15 minutes, and PEEK took 19 minutes. Table 2 expresses the time recorded for printing the tensile samples.

Each tensile sample of PETG carbon fiber takes a minimum of 9 minutes and a maximum of 10 min for printing the ASTM D638. Similarly, the PEEK carbon fiber samples take a minimum of 15 minutes and a maximum of 16 minutes. The average time of PETG carbon fiber is better than that of PEEK carbon fiber.

4.4. Tensile Test

The tensile test has been prepared from 3 out of 6 samples for PETG-CF and the rest of 3 out of 6 samples for PEEK-CF. The polymer tensile specimen standard ASTMD638 type V has been used for the experiment, and its geometrical size is shown in Figure 7.

The stress-strain curves of carbon-reinforced PEEK polymer are depicted in Figure 8, and PETG polymer is depicted in Figure 9.

Table 3 expresses the ultimate tensile strength values of carbon-reinforced PETG and PEEK. From the result, the PEEK carbon-reinforced polymer has a much superior tensile mechanical property.

Based on the tensile strength, the carbon-reinforced PETG has 35.7 MPa, and PEEK has 81.83 MPa. The tensile test was carried out by Instron machine, and the maximum load of 10000 N is applied to the specimen at the strain rate of 1 mm/min.

5. Result and Discussion

According to time, PETG-CF takes 9.33 minutes, and PEEK-CF takes 15.33 minutes. PETGCF compare to PEEK-CF takes less time. Based on tensile test results, PETG-CF has less strength compared to PEEK-CF. The other parameter comparison is discussed in detail in section 4.0. The pairwise matrix shown below has been created based on the discussion of the criteria and the Saaty scale. The pairwise matrixes formed in the first row indicated that price is considered equally important for both alternatives. Then, column 3 compares the price versus printing time; it takes 3 which means moderate importance. Column 4, in the first row, compares the price versus temperature withstands of material; it takes 4 which means intermediate of moderate and strong importance. Finally, column 5 compares the price versus mechanical property; it takes 6 which means intermediate between strong and very strong importance. Table 4 shows the pairwise matrix for the selected criteria.

Consistency index,

where:ʎmax = (Sum of ratio of weight sum value and criteria weight)/(number of criteria) and is the number of criteria.

Based on the consistency ratio verification,

As a result, the criteria are acceptable, and the consistency ratio is reasonable. If the consistency is less than one, it means that the created pairwise matrix is acceptable.

Table 5 shows the four criteria with priority values to form the decision matrix. Table 6 expresses that the PEEK-CF has been the most suitable material for the pipe-making customized application. The PEEK-CF material has the highest priority value of 0.6363, and the PETG-CF materials have the lowest priority value of 0.2791.

6. Conclusion

The purpose of this research is to select suitable materials from two different carbon-reinforced materials for manufacturing customized pipes. For this, a technique called AHP has been used in the mathematical programming technique of multicriteria decision-making. In this, both materials are evaluated based on the common criteria of time, temperature resistance, printing time, and tensile strength which are mechanical properties. In terms of price, PETG carbon fiber is slightly less when compared to PEEK-CF. And in terms of temperature, PEEK-CF is considered superior to PETG carbon fiber. Then, in terms of time, it is found that PETG carbon fiber can produce products in slightly less time when compared to PEEK-CF. Finally, PEEK carbon fiber is known to be stronger than PETG carbon fiber in terms of mechanical properties. Based on these four criteria, the pairwise matrix is generated with the help of Saaty scale. And through it, the consistency index is found, and the criteria are evaluated. Accordingly, this research indicates that PEEK carbon fiber is more suitable for pipe application than PETG carbon fiber. This research will be useful for future researchers to choose customized materials and equipment problems.

Data Availability

The article contains all the data required to back up the investigation’s conclusions. The author in question can provide more details upon request if necessary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

R. Guo, C. Li, Y. Niu, and G. Xian, “The fatigue performances of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites - a review,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 21, pp. 4773–4789, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. N. Hani, M. A. Ahmad, H. N. M. Fuad, and S. Adzila, “Mechanical properties of injection-molded poly-lactic acid (PLA) reinforced with magnesium hydroxide for biomedical application,” in Advances in Material Science and Engineering, S. S. Emamian, M. Awang, J. A. Razak, and P. J. Masset, Eds., Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 363–370, Springer, Singapore, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Liu, E. Zhang, J. Liu et al., “Self-healing, reprocessable, degradable, thermadapt shape memory multifunctional polymers based on dynamic imine bonds and their application in nondestructively recyclable carbon fiber composites,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 454, article 139992, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Raja, A. J. Rajan, V. P. Kumar et al., “Selection of additive manufacturing machine using analytical hierarchy process,” Scientific Programming, vol. 2022, Article ID 1596590, 20 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. I. Ismail, T. C. Yap, and R. Ahmed, “3D-printed fiber-reinforced polymer composites by fused deposition modelling (FDM): fiber length and fiber implementation techniques,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 4659, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Karthick, M. Meikandan, S. Kaliappan et al., “Experimental investigation on mechanical properties of glass fiber hybridized natural fiber reinforced penta-layered hybrid polymer composite,” International Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 1864446, 9 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. R. Madhu, H. Erfani, S. Jadoun, M. Amir, Y. Thiagarajan, and N. P. S. Chauhan, “Fused deposition modelling approach using 3D printing and recycled industrial materials for a sustainable environment: a review,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 122, no. 5-6, pp. 2125–2138, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Raja, A. P. Agrawal, P. P. Patil et al., “Optimization of 3D printing process parameters of polylactic acid filament based on the mechanical test,” International Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 5830869, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Montes, D. Cadoux, J. Creus, S. Touzain, E. Gaudichet-Maurin, and O. Correc, “Ageing of polyethylene at raised temperature in contact with chlorinated sanitary hot water. Part I–Chemical aspects,” Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 149–157, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
N. B. Samarth and P. A. Mahanwar, “Degradation of polymer & elastomer exposed to chlorinated water—a review,” Open Journal of Organic Polymer Materials, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–50, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ravichandran, R. Duraiswamy, and F. S. Arockiasamy, “Tool and formability multi-response optimization for ultimate strength and ductility of AA8011 during axial compression,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 14, no. 10, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kumar, “Recent developments of biobased plasticizers and their effect on mechanical and thermal properties of poly (vinyl chloride): a review,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 58, no. 27, pp. 11659–11672, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. M. Supian, S. M. Sapuan, M. Y. M. Zuhri, E. S. Zainudin, and H. H. Ya, “Hybrid reinforced thermoset polymer composite in energy absorption tube application: a review,” Defence Technology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 291–305, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Zhao, L. Shi, G. Yang, X. Zhuang, and B. Cheng, “3D fibrous aerogels from 1D polymer nanofibers for energy and environmental applications,” Journal of Materials Chemistry A, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 512–547, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Hernandez-Carrillo, C. J. Wood, and H. Liu, “Advanced materials for the impeller in an ORC radial microturbine,” Energy Procedia, vol. 129, pp. 1047–1054, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Zirak, M. Shirinbayan, S. Farzaneh, and A. Tcharkhtchi, “Effect of Molecular Weight on Crystallization Behavior of Poly Lactic Acid (PLA) under Isotherm and Non-Isotherm Conditions,” Polymers for Advanced Technologies, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1307–1316, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Garcia-Gonzalez, M. Rodriguez-Millan, A. Rusinek, and A. Arias, “Investigation of mechanical impact behavior of short carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK composites,” Composite Structures, vol. 133, pp. 1116–1126, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Alam, K. M. Varadarajan, J. H. Koo, B. L. Wardle, and S. Kumar, “Additively manufactured polyetheretherketone (PEEK) with carbon nanostructure reinforcement for biomedical structural applications,” Advanced Engineering Materials, vol. 22, no. 10, article 2000483, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Siddikali and P. R. Sreekanth, “Performance evaluation of CNT reinforcement on electroless plating on solid free-form-fabricated PETG specimens for prosthetic limb application,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 16, p. 3366, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Odetti, M. Altosole, G. Bruzzone, M. Caccia, and M. Viviani, “Design and construction of a modular pump-jet thruster for autonomous surface vehicle operations in extremely shallow water,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 7, no. 7, p. 222, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Velmurugan, V. S. Shankar, S. Kaliappan et al., “Effect of aluminium tetrahydrate nanofiller addition on the mechanical and thermal behaviour of luffa fibre-based polyester composites under cryogenic environment,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2022, Article ID 5970534, 10 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Pedersen, A. F. Bengtsson, J. S. Edlund, and L. C. Eriksson, “Sulphate-controlled diversity of subterranean microbial communities over depth in deep groundwater with opposing gradients of sulphate and methane,” Geomicrobiology Journal, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 617–631, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Sekhar, R. Surakasi, P. Roy et al., “Mechanical behavior of aluminum and graphene nanopowder-based composites,” International Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 2224482, 13 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Garcia-Gonzalez, A. Rusinek, T. Jankowiak, and A. Arias, “Mechanical impact behavior of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK),” Composite Structures, vol. 124, pp. 88–99, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ramazani and A. Kami, “Metal FDM, a new extrusion-based additive manufacturing technology for manufacturing of metallic parts: a review,” Progress in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 609–626, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Machalski, J. Skrzypacz, P. Szulc, and D. Błoński, “Experimental and numerical research on influence of winglets arrangement on vortex pump performance,” Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 1741, no. 1, article 012019, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. G. Olaiya, C. Maraveas, M. A. Salem et al., “Viscoelastic and properties of amphiphilic chitin in plasticised polylactic acid/starch biocomposite,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 2268, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Yu, M. Lei, Y. Ou, and G. Yang, “Toughening of polyethylene terephthalate/amorphous copolyester blends with a maleated thermoplastic elastomer,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 797–805, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kumar, B. Sah, A. R. Singh et al., “A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 69, pp. 596–609, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. E. Boran, S. Genç, M. Kurt, and D. Akay, “A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 11363–11368, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Raja and A. J. Rajan, “A decision-making model for selection of the suitable FDM machine using fuzzy TOPSIS,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 7653292, 15 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Zoghi, G. Rostami, A. Khoshand, and F. Motalleb, “Material selection in design for deconstruction using Kano model, fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology,” Waste Management & Research, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 410–419, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Subramani, S. Kaliappan, P. V. Arul et al., “A recent trend on additive manufacturing sustainability with supply chain management concept, multicriteria decision making techniques,” Multicriteria Decision Making Techniques, vol. 2022, article 9151839, 12 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Mannan, V. Sivaprakash, S. Raja, P. P. Patil, S. Kaliappan, and S. Socrates, “Materials Today : Proceedings Effect of Roselle and Biochar Reinforced Natural Fiber Composites for Construction Applications in Cryogenic Environment,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 69, pp. 1361–1368, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Raja, J. Logeshwaran, S. Venkatasubramanian et al., “OCHSA : designing energy-efficient lifetime-aware leisure degree adaptive routing protocol with optimal cluster head selection for 5G communication network disaster management,” Scientific Programming, vol. 2022, Article ID 5424356, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Mannan, V. Sivaprakash, S. Raja, M. Kulandasamy, P. P. Patil, and S. Kaliappan, “Materials today : proceedings significance of Si 3 N 4/lime powder addition on the mechanical properties of natural calotropis gigantea composites,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 69, pp. 1355–1360, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. J. Wang, “A note on “a group decision making model based on a generalized ordered weighted geometric average operator with interval preference matrices”,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 341, pp. 145–153, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Leal, “AHP-express: A simplified version of the analytical hierarchy process method,” Methods X, vol. 7, article 100748, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. Firdaus, S. Madelan, and A. B. Saluy, “Supplier/partnership selection system analysis based on analytic hierarchy method process in oil and gas drilling project (case study: PT KMI),” International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 403–411, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Ferretti, G. M. Santi, C. Leon-Cardenas, E. Fusari, M. Cristofori, and A. Liverani, “Production readiness assessment of low cost, multi-material, polymeric 3D printed moulds,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 10, article e11136, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Musa, N. K. Kumar, S. Z. Abd Rahim et al., “A review on the potential of polylactic acid based thermoplastic elastomer as filament material for fused deposition modelling,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 20, pp. 2841–2858, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Natrayan, S. Kaliappan, S. B. Sethupathy et al., “Investigation on interlaminar shear strength and moisture absorption properties of soybean oil reinforced with aluminium trihydrate-filled polyester-based nanocomposites,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2022, Article ID 7588699, 8 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. C. Ogle, J. Lee, and U. K. Vaidya, “Improved specimen design for interlayer adhesion parameter optimization of material extrusion,” 2022, Available at SSRN 4239104.
View at: Google Scholar
N. H. Jamadon, A. W. Tan, F. Z. Yusof, T. Ariga, Y. Miyashita, and M. Hamdi, “Utilization of a porous cu interlayer for the enhancement of Pb-free Sn-3.0ag-0.5Cu solder joint,” Metals, vol. 6, no. 9, p. 220, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Subramani, S. Kaliappan, S. Sekar et al., “Polymer filament process parameter optimization with mechanical test and morphology analysis,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 8259804, 8 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Basir, A. B. Sulong, N. H. Jamadon, N. Muhamad, and U. B. Emeka, “Process parameters used in macro/micro powder injection molding: an overview,” Metals and Materials International, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 2023–2045, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Harden, R. Kral, B. Schädel, R. Adelung, and O. Jacobs, “Precise non-assembly mechanisms by multi-material fused layer modeling and subsequent heat treatment,” 2022, Available at SSRN 4245482.
View at: Google Scholar
M. R. Mazlan, N. H. Jamadon, A. Rajabi et al., “Necking mechanism under various sintering process parameters – a review,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 23, pp. 2189–2201, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Venkatasubramanian, S. Raja, V. Sumanth et al., “Fault diagnosis using data fusion with ensemble deep learning technique in IIoT,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 1682874, 8 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kechagias, D. Chaidas, N. Vidakis, K. Salonitis, and N. M. Vaxevanidis, “A multi-parametric process evaluation of the mechanical response of PLA in FFF 3D printing,” Materials and Manufacturing Processes, pp. 1–13, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhang, D. R. Chen, and S. C. Chen, “A review of emission characteristics and control strategies for particles emitted from 3D fused deposition modeling (FDM) printing,” Building and Environment, vol. 221, p. 109348, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Sandanamsamy, W. S. W. Harun, I. Ishak et al., “A comprehensive review on fused deposition modelling of polylactic acid,” Progress in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1–25, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Patel, C. Desai, S. Kushwah, and M. H. Mangrola, “A Review Article on FDM Process Parameters in 3D Printing for Composite Materials,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 60, pp. 2162–2166, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wazeer, A. Das, A. Sinha, K. Inaba, S. Ziyi, and A. Karmakar, “Additive manufacturing in biomedical field: a critical review on fabrication method, materials used, applications, challenges, and future prospects,” Progress in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 7, pp. 1–33, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Hatwalne and S. B. Thakare, “Evaluating torsional properties of FDM components for various Layer Heights,” in Recent Advances in Manufacturing Processes and Systems, pp. 437–443, Springer, Singapore, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Manzo, N. Downey, P. Cheetham, and S. Pamidi, “Fabrication and characterization of additively manufactured electrical insulation system components using SLA and FDM printers,” in 2022 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC), pp. 69–72, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Zirak, M. Shirinbayan, M. Deligant, and A. Tcharkhtchi, “Toward polymeric and polymer composites impeller fabrication,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 97, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

536

Downloads

333

Citations