Table 2 Summary of multimaterial 2D, 3D,... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Summary of multimaterial 2D, 3D, and gradient structures reported in the literature

Techniques	Current pairs	Benefits and limitations
Layer-on-layer	316-In718 (Duval-Chaneac et al., 2021) 316-HX (Rankouhi et al., 2022) 316-SS 15-5PH (Liang et al., 2023) 316-HuvadorK220 (Tey, Yeong and Chen, 2016) 316-NiTi (Ekoi et al., 2022) Ti6Al4V-AlSi10Mg (Müller and Woizeschke, 2021) SS 17-4PH-CoCrMo (Steponavičiūtė et al., 2022) SS420-MS300 (Tan et al., 2020) SS304-MS300 (Tan et al., 2021) CS45-MS300 (Tan et al., 2021)	Benefits: Possibility of powder recyclability, using single-material equipment Limitations: Very time-energy consuming, not efficient, only 2D multimaterial, contaminated interfaces, interface layers debonding
Alternating powder deposition	316L – Bronze (Schanz et al., 2022)	Benefits: Small system, simple, economic, ideal for micro multimaterial LPBF Limitations: 2D multimaterial, limitations in configuration and size, powder contamination, and mixing
Suction technique	316L – C18400 (Liu et al., 2014) TS1.2709-C2.1293 (Anstaett, 2017; Bareth et al., 2022) TS1.2709 –CW106C (Schneck et al., 2021) SS420 – Pure Cu (Cunha et al., 2022) 316L – In718 (Wits and Amsterdam, 2021) In718 – pure Cu (Marques et al., 2022, p. 718) Ti6Al4V – Ti (Borisov et al., 2021) CoCrMo – Ti6Al4V (Bartolomeu et al., 2023)	Benefits: Powder reusability, 3D multimaterial Limitations: Relatively a slow process, time-energy consuming, prone to powder bed contamination during removal steps
Patterning drums (aerosint technique)	MS300 – CuCrZr (Li, Sukhomlinov and Que, 2024)	Benefits: 3D multimaterial of up to three alloys, fine feature/resolution (300 μm), module-based (enabling integration into different single-material AM machines), possible to have low mixed powder waste, easy to be industrialized, relatively quicker than other 3D multimaterial LPBF techniques Limitations: Challenging for FGMs, challenging with mixed powder recyclability, high dependency on skilled technicians
Hopper feeding	316L – Fe35Mn (Demir et al., 2022a) 316L – Cu10Sn (Chen et al., 2022) In718 – GRCop42 (Walker et al., 2022) Pure Fe – AlSi12 (Demir and Previtali, 2017) Pure Ti – Pure Ta (Lesko et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2022) 316L – MS1 (Nadimpalli et al., 2019) CoCrMo – In718 (Wen et al., 2021)	Benefits: Ideal for FGMs, 3D multimaterial, printing up to six alloys within a part Limitations: Prone to powder contamination
Vibrating nozzle	316L – Cu10Sn (Wei et al., 2018, 2019) 316L – In718 (Wei et al.,2018) Invar36 – Cu10Sn (Wei et al., 2021) Ti6Al4V – Cu10Sn (Wei et al., 2022)	Benefits: Enabling FGMs, enables 3D multimaterial printing with up to six alloys within a single part Limitations: Challenging fluidization of the powders (ultrasonic assistance is necessary for controlling the potential and kinetic energy), resolution dependence on nozzle head diameter

Techniques	Current pairs	Benefits and limitations
Layer-on-layer	316-In718 (Duval-Chaneac et al., 2021) 316-HX (Rankouhi et al., 2022) 316-SS 15-5PH (Liang et al., 2023) 316-HuvadorK220 (Tey, Yeong and Chen, 2016) 316-NiTi (Ekoi et al., 2022) Ti6Al4V-AlSi10Mg (Müller and Woizeschke, 2021) SS 17-4PH-CoCrMo (Steponavičiūtė et al., 2022) SS420-MS300 (Tan et al., 2020) SS304-MS300 (Tan et al., 2021) CS45-MS300 (Tan et al., 2021)	Benefits: Possibility of powder recyclability, using single-material equipment Limitations: Very time-energy consuming, not efficient, only 2D multimaterial, contaminated interfaces, interface layers debonding
Alternating powder deposition	316L – Bronze (Schanz et al., 2022)	Benefits: Small system, simple, economic, ideal for micro multimaterial LPBF Limitations: 2D multimaterial, limitations in configuration and size, powder contamination, and mixing
Suction technique	316L – C18400 (Liu et al., 2014) TS1.2709-C2.1293 (Anstaett, 2017; Bareth et al., 2022) TS1.2709 –CW106C (Schneck et al., 2021) SS420 – Pure Cu (Cunha et al., 2022) 316L – In718 (Wits and Amsterdam, 2021) In718 – pure Cu (Marques et al., 2022, p. 718) Ti6Al4V – Ti (Borisov et al., 2021) CoCrMo – Ti6Al4V (Bartolomeu et al., 2023)	Benefits: Powder reusability, 3D multimaterial Limitations: Relatively a slow process, time-energy consuming, prone to powder bed contamination during removal steps
Patterning drums (aerosint technique)	MS300 – CuCrZr (Li, Sukhomlinov and Que, 2024)	Benefits: 3D multimaterial of up to three alloys, fine feature/resolution (300 μm), module-based (enabling integration into different single-material AM machines), possible to have low mixed powder waste, easy to be industrialized, relatively quicker than other 3D multimaterial LPBF techniques Limitations: Challenging for FGMs, challenging with mixed powder recyclability, high dependency on skilled technicians
Hopper feeding	316L – Fe35Mn (Demir et al., 2022a) 316L – Cu10Sn (Chen et al., 2022) In718 – GRCop42 (Walker et al., 2022) Pure Fe – AlSi12 (Demir and Previtali, 2017) Pure Ti – Pure Ta (Lesko et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2022) 316L – MS1 (Nadimpalli et al., 2019) CoCrMo – In718 (Wen et al., 2021)	Benefits: Ideal for FGMs, 3D multimaterial, printing up to six alloys within a part Limitations: Prone to powder contamination
Vibrating nozzle	316L – Cu10Sn (Wei et al., 2018, 2019) 316L – In718 (Wei et al.,2018) Invar36 – Cu10Sn (Wei et al., 2021) Ti6Al4V – Cu10Sn (Wei et al., 2022)	Benefits: Enabling FGMs, enables 3D multimaterial printing with up to six alloys within a single part Limitations: Challenging fluidization of the powders (ultrasonic assistance is necessary for controlling the potential and kinetic energy), resolution dependence on nozzle head diameter

Source(s): Table by authors