Consumer perception of surface finish quality in additive manufactured products
Source abstract
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to investigate consumer acceptance of the surface quality of customer products made using additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing. This study addresses a research gap in understanding how general consumers perceive the surface finish of AM products. Design/methodology/approach A pen, as an example of a consumer product, was designed, built and finished using a range of materials, AM technologies and post-processing methods. Forty participants were recruited for the study: 50% male and 50% female, from 5–64 years old and with 6–7 participants per ten-year age group. The participants were invited to hold and use the product before conducting a semi-structured interview. Findings The study indicated that 53% of participants would be prepared to use products made by AM, although there was a preference for the surface finish of injection-moulded parts. Post-processing methods such as tumbling and dyeing were found to improve participant preference in several cases. However, the findings also revealed a significant mismatch between the actual production costs of AM products and what consumers were willing to pay. Originality/value The study demonstrates that AM can meet some user preferences for surface finish, particularly when using multiple materials with the material jetting method. It also highlights how specific post-processing steps can enhance product acceptance, offering insights into design and pricing considerations for AM consumer products. We have revised the abstract to clearly state the research gap – specifically, the lack of studies exploring general public perception of surface quality in 3D printed consumer products. We also highlight our study’s contribution to this area, including implications for product design and commercialisation strategies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Nanomaterials and Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
University of Warwick School of Engineering, , Coventry,
Loughborough University School of Design and Creative Arts, , Loughborough,
References (65)
Show source-provided references
1. 3DDC (2022), “Metalise it…”, available at:Link to a PDF of the cited article. (accessed11 May 2022).
2. Akdeniz · 2022 · 49910.1007/978-3-030-89883-0_130 ↗
3. ASTM International. ( · 2022 · 14
4. Role of consumer traits and situational factors on impulse buying: does gender matter?10.1108/IJRDM-12-2016-0239 ↗
5. A phenomenology of consumer goods
6. Sample size for qualitative research10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053 ↗
7. Cameron, D. and Boucher, A. (2014), “Dyeing SLS parts”, Goldsmiths Research Online, pp. 1-24, available at:Link to a PDF of the cited article.
8. Comité Européen de Normalisation · 2014
9. Consumer educational behavior: their profile and the purchase decision process
10. Department for Education (2013a), “3D printers in schools: uses in the curriculum”, available at:Link to a PDF of the cited article. (accessed17 May 2022).
11. Department for Education · 2013
12. 3D printing technology and its applications in real-world scenario10.15680/IJIRSET.2022.1102036 ↗
13. Simple High-Performance Metal-Plating procedure for stereolithographically 3D-Printed waveguide components10.1109/LMWC.2017.2750090 ↗
14. Post-processing of 3D-printed polymers10.3390/TECHNOLOGIES9030061 ↗
15. Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002 ↗
16. Duann (2012), “Smooth vs standard nylon 3D printing”, available at:Link to the cited article. (accessed15 December 2020).
17. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 ↗
18. Invited review article: where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028 ↗
19. An experimental investigation of surface roughness in 3D-printed PLA items using design of experiments10.1177/13506501211059306 ↗
20. Gibson · 2021 · 36710.1007/978-3-030-56127-7_13 ↗
21. Integrating self-determined needs into the relationship among product design, willingness-to-pay a premium, and word-of-mouth: a cross-cultural gender-specific study10.2147/PRBM.S161269 ↗
22. Surface roughness of as-printed polymers: a comprehensive review10.1007/s00170-023-11566-z ↗
23. Gordon, V. (2017), “Post-processing tips: hand-dyeing strong & flexible plastics”, Shapeways, available at:Link to the cited article. (accessed12 December 2020).
24. The state of the art of material jetting—a critical review10.3390/polym13162829 ↗
25. Surface finish effects using coating method on 3D printing (FDM) parts10.1088/1757-899x/318/1/012065 ↗
26. Surface finish effects using coating method on 3D printing (FDM) parts10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012065 ↗
27. Surface roughness of 3D printed materials: comparing physical measurements and human perception10.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.01.008 ↗
28. Improving surface roughness of polylactic acid (PLA) products manufactured by 3D printing using a novel slurry impact technique10.1108/RPJ-09-2020-0227 ↗
29. Experimental investigation of mechanical properties of UV-curable 3D printing materials10.1016/j.polymer.2018.04.067 ↗
30. Fused deposition modeling process parameters optimization and effect on mechanical properties and part quality: review and reflection on present research10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.296 ↗
31. 3D printing: making an innovative technology widely accessible through makerspaces and outsourced services,” in10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.074 ↗
32. Effect of fabrication parameters on surface roughness of FDM parts10.1007/s12541-018-0016-0 ↗
33. Post processing methods used to improve surface finish of products which are manufactured by additive manufacturing technologies: a review
34. Innovative development of batch dyed 3D printed acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene objects10.3390/molecules26216637 ↗
35. Open-source, self-replicating 3-D printer factory for small-business manufacturing10.1007/s00170-015-7970-9 ↗
36. Influence of tumbling bodies on surface roughness and geometric deviations by additive SLS technology10.21062/mft.2020.050 ↗
37. A review on recent developments in binder jetting metal additive manufacturing: materials and process characteristics10.1080/00325899.2019.1669299 ↗
38. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: a review of qualitative interviews in is research10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667 ↗
39. Is creativity, hands-on modeling and cognitive learning gender-dependent?10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.001 ↗
40. Milligan, C. and Passey, D. (2011), “Ageing and the use of the internet: current engagement and future needs”, available at:Link to the website of nominettrust.
41. Factors affecting consumer buying behavior
42. Optimization of process parameters and evaluation of surface roughness for 3D printed nylon-aramid composite10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.609 ↗
43. A review of vat photopolymerization technology: materials, applications, challenges, and future trends of 3D printing10.3390/polym13040598 ↗
44. Rai, N. and Thapa, B. (2015), “A study on purposive sampling method in research”, Kathmandu School of Law, pp. 1-12, available at:Link to the cited article.
45. A study of different deposition strategies in direct energy deposition (DED) processes10.1016/j.promfg.2020.05.158 ↗
46. Product perceived quality and purchase intention with consumer satisfaction
47. Sánchez · 2019 · 35310.1007/978-3-030-02568-7_90 ↗
48. Purchasing decisions in terms of perceived quality and product knowledge10.2991/aebmr.k.200108.023 ↗
49. Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias10.1007/s11747-019-00666-6 ↗
50. Shapeways (2018), “Versatile plastic (nylon 12) selective laser sintering [SLS]”, available at:Link to the cited article.
51. Shapeways (2022), “Material selection”, available at:Link to the cited article. (accessed11 May 2022).
52. Shubina · 201910.20533/licej.2040.2589.2019.0405 ↗
53. 3D printing of polymer composites with material jetting: mechanical and fractographic analysis10.1016/j.addma.2020.101558 ↗
54. Personal 3D printer: self-design and manufacturing10.1007/978-981-10-3518-0_29 ↗
55. Current status and prospects of polymer powder 3D printing technologies10.3390/ma13102406 ↗
56. FDM-Based 3D printing of polymer and associated composite: a review on mechanical properties, defects and treatments10.3390/polym12071529 ↗
57. Wohlers · 2022
58. Review on processes and color quality evaluation of color 3D printing10.1108/RPJ-11-2016-0182 ↗
59. Effect of additives and print orientation on the properties of laser sintering-printed polyamide 12 components10.3390/polym14061172 ↗
60. Process–structure–properties in polymer additive manufacturing via material extrusion: a review10.1080/10408436.2018.1549977 ↗
61. Evaluation of geometrical benchmark artifacts containing multiple overhang lengths fabricated using material extrusion technique10.15282/jmes.14.3.2020.28.0573 ↗
62. Impact of process parameters on mechanical behaviour in multi-material jetting10.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.106 ↗
63. Stereolithography,” in 3D printing10.5772/intechopen.78147 ↗
64. Singh, P. and Dixit, N.K. (2020), “Impact of process parameters on part properties and materials used in FDM: a review”, Vol. 11 No. 11, available at: Link to the cited article.
65. Evaluating the quality surface performance of additive manufacturing systems: methodology and a material jetting case study10.3390/ma12060995 ↗