Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental sustainability evaluation of additive manufacturing using the NIST test artifact

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To identify which elements of 3D printers influence the environment, this paper compares four 3D printers: Material-jetting (PJ), powder-bed-fusion of a large-bed-size (LSa), powder-bed-fusion of a small-bed-size (LSb) and material-extrusion (FDM), when printing the NIST test artifact. The elements consist of the input of the life cycle inventory. Our results show that the 3D printer with the lowest environmental impact is LSb, then LSa, and FDM, while PJ has the largest impact amongst the four. For PJ, LSa and LSb, the dominant elements are ‘power for printing’ while it is ‘additional material’ for FDM. However, during high-volume-production the dominant elements become ‘additional material’ for LSa and ‘object material’ for PJ, LSb, and FDM. The most influential element of each 3D printer also varies according to the part-orientation. Overall, it is found that LSb is the least harmful to the environment for low-volume-production, while LSa is the least harmful to the environment for the high-volume-production.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AM:

Additive manufacturing

FDM:

Material extrusion process

FDM1horizontal1:

One artifact, printed in horizontal orientation 1 by FDM

FDM200horizontal1:

The 200 artifacts placed in horizontal orientation 1 on the FDM

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LSa:

Powder bed fusion of a large bed size

LSa1horizontal1:

One artifact, printed in horizontal orientation 1 by LSa

LSb:

Powder bed fusion of a small bed size

LSb1horizontal1:

One artifact, printed in horizontal orientation 1 by LSb

LSb200horizontal1:

The 200 artifacts placed in horizontal orientation 1 on the LSb

PBF:

Powder bed fusion

PJ:

Material jetting process

PJ1horizontal1:

One artifact, printed in horizontal orientation 1 by PJ

PJ2001horizontal1:

The 200 artifacts placed in horizontal orientation 1 on the PJ

SEC:

Specific energy consumption in kWh/kg needed in both the part manufacturing and initial post-processing

References

  1. J. Kwon, H. Y. Park, Y. B. Park and N. Kim, Potentials of additive manufacturing with smart materials for chemical biomarkers in wearable applications, Int. J. Pr Eng. Man.-GT, 4 (3) (2017) 335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. A. Kreiger, M. L. Mulder, A. G. Glover and J. M. Pearce, Life cycle analysis of distributed recycling of post-consumer high density polyethylene for 3-D printing filament, J. Clean. Prod., 70 (2014) 90–96.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Y. Yang, L. Li, Y. Pan and Z. Sun, Energy consumption modeling of stereolithography-based additive manufacturing toward environmental sustainability, J. Ind. Ecol., 21 (S1) (2017) S168–S178.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Duro-Royo, L. Mogas-Soldevilla and N. Oxman, Flow based fabrication: An integrated computational workflow for design and digital additive manufacturing of multifunctional heteroge-neously structured objects, Comput. Aided. Design, 69 (2015) 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Ha, K. Ransikarbum, H. Han, D. Kwon, H. Kim and N. Kim, A dimensional compensation algorithm for vertical bending deformation of 3D printed parts in selective laser sintering, Rapid. Prototyping, J., 24 (6) (2018) 955–963.

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. Ransikarbum, S. Ha, J. Ma and N. Kim, Multi-objective optimization analysis for part-to-printer assignment in a network of 3D fused deposition modeling, J. Manuf. Syst, 43 (2017) 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Yang, Y. Tian and D. Zhang, Novel real function-based method to construct heterogeneous porous scaffolds and additive manufacturing for use in medical engineering, Med. Eng. Phys., 37 (11) (2015) 1037–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Burkhart and J. C. Aurich, Framework to predict the environmental impact of additive manufacturing in the life cycle of a commercial vehicle, Procedia CIRP, 29 (2015) 408–413.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Faludi, C. Bayley, S. Bhogal and M. Iribarne, Comparing environmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment, Rapid. Prototyping. J., 21 (1) (2015) 14–33.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Peng, T. Li, X. Wang, X. Dong, Z. Liu, J. Shi and H. Zhang, Toward a sustainable impeller production: Environmental impact comparison of different impeller manufacturing methods, J. Ind. Ecol., 21 (S1) (2017) S216–S229.

    Google Scholar 

  11. ISO14040, Environmental management-life cycle assess ment-principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. Ingrao, F. Scrucca, C. Tricase and F. Asdrubali, A comparative life cycle assessment of external wall compositions for cleaner construction solutions in buildings, J. Clean. Prod., 124 (2016) 283–298.

    Google Scholar 

  13. O. Ortiz, F. Castells and G. Sonnermann, Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA, Constr. Build. Mater, 23 (2009) 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Kellens, E. Yasa, R. Renaldi, W. Dewulf, J. P. Kruth and J. R. Duflou, Energy and resource efficiency of SLS/SLM processes, Proceedings of the 23rd Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (2011) 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Sreenivasan, A. Goel and D. Bourell, Sustainability issues in laser-based additive manufacturing, Physics Procedia, 5 (Part A) (2010) 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Sreenivasan and D. Bourell, Sustainability study in selective laser sintering - an energy perspective, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium Proceedings (2009) 257–265.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Faludi, Z. Hu, S. Alrashed, C. Braunholz, S. Kaul and L. Kassaye, Does material choice drive sustainability of 3D printing?, Int. J. Mech. Mechatron. Eng., 9 (2) (2015) 216–223.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. Faludi, M. Baumers, J. Maskery and R. Hague, Environmental impacts of selective laser melting: Do printer, powder, or power dominate?, J. Ind. Ecol., 21 (S1) (2016) S144–S156.

    Google Scholar 

  19. K. Kellens, R. Mertens, D. Paraskevas, W. Dewulf and J. R. Duflou, Environmental impact of additive manufacturing processes: Does AM contribute to a more sustainable way of part manufacturing?, 24thCIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 61 (2017) 582–587.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Kwon, N. Kim and J. Ma, Case study of different additive manufacturing processes from environmental impact assessment, J. Korean Soc. Precis. Eng., 36 (4) (2019) 431–439.

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. Diaz, M. Helu, S. Jayanathan, Y. Chen, A. Horvath and D. Dornfeld, Environmental Analysis of Milling Machine Tool Use in Various Manufacturing Environments, Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability, University of California, Berkeley (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  22. K. da Silva Barros and P. Zwolinski, Influence of the use/user profile in the LCA of 3D printed products, 26th CIRP Design Conference (2016) 318–323.

    Google Scholar 

  23. I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen and B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Second edition, Springer (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. P. Alexander, S. Allen and D. Dutta, Part orientation and build cost determination in layered manufacturing, Comput. Des., 30 (1998) 343–356.

    Google Scholar 

  25. S. C. Das, R. Ranganathan and N. Murugan, Effect of build orientation on the strength and cost of polyjet 3D printed parts, Rapid. Prototyping. J., 24 (5) (2018) 832–839.

    Google Scholar 

  26. O. A. Mohamed, S. H. Masood and J. L. Bhowmik, Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters: A review of current research and future prospects, Adv. Manuf. (2015) 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. Moylan, J. Slotwinski, A. A. Cooke, K. Jurrens and M. A. Donmez, An additive manufacturing test artifact, J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol., 119 (2012) 429–459.

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. Azimi, D. Zhao, C. Pouzet, N. E. Crain and B. Stephens, Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile organic comounds from commercially available desktop three-dimensional printers with multiple filaments, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50 (2016) 1260–1268.

    Google Scholar 

  29. H. S. Yoon, J. Y. Lee, H. S. Kim, M. S. Kim, E. S. Kim, Y. J. Shin, W. S. Chu and S. H. Ahn, A comparison of energy consumption in bulk forming, subtractive, and additive processes: Review and case study, Int. J. Pr. Eng. Man.-GT, 1 (3) (2014) 261–279.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Y. Luo, Z. Ji, M. C. Leu and R. Caudill, Environmental performance analysis of solid freeform fabrication processes, Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (1999) 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. O. Kerbrat, F. Le Bourhis, P. Mognol and J.-Y. Hascbet, Environmental impact assessment studies in additive manufacturing, Handbook of Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing, Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, Springer Science+business Media Singapore (2016) 31–63.

    Google Scholar 

  32. G. Medyna, E. Coatanea and D. Millet, Evaluation of parts of a boat cabin based on exergy: Focusing on environmental and economics assessments, ASME Proceedings Energy Systems Analysis, Thermodynamics and Sustainability (2011) 1083–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  33. P. Mognol, D. Lepicart and N. Perry, Rapid prototyping: Energy and environment in the spotlight, Rapid. Prototyping. J., 12 (1) (2006) 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  34. C. Telenko and C. C. Seepersad, A comparison of the energy efficiency of selective laser sintering and injection molding of nylon parts, Rapid. Prototyping. J., 18 (6) (2012) 472–481.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Schulz, Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: Styrene Acry-lonitrile (SAN) and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Plastics Europe AISBL (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. Toyo Engineering Corp., Mitsui bulk ABS process: Continuous bulk polymerization (2019) https://www.mitsuichem.com/enAechno/license/pdf/abs_process.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  37. I. Mersiowsky, Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: Polyamide 6 (PA6), Plastics Europe AISBL (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. L. Woern, J. R. McCaslin, A. M. Pringle and J. M. Pearce, RepRapable recyclebot: Open source 3-D printable extruder for converting plastic to 3-D printing filament, HardwarX, 4 (2018).

  39. Stratasys, FDM Best Practice: FDM Support Removal, https://ase.au.dk/fileadmin/www.ase.au.dk/Filer/Laboratorier_og_vaerksteder/MakerLab/BP_FDM_SupportRemoval.pdf (Accessed 23 April 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. M. Baumers, D. Tuck, R. Hague, I. Ashcroft and R. Wildman, A comparative study of metallic additive manufacturing power consumption, 2010 Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 9–11 August, Austin, TX, USA (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  41. W. R. Morrow, H. Qi, I. Kim, J. Mazumder and S. J. Skerlos, Environmental aspects of laser-based and conventional tool and die manufacturing, J. Clean. Prod., 15 (2007) 932–943.

    Google Scholar 

  42. M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. D. Schryver, J. Struijs and R. van Zelm, Recipe 2008. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonized Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  43. K. Kellens, R. Renaldi, W. Dewulf, J. P. Kruth and J. R. Duflou, Environmental impact modeling of selective laser sintering process, Rapid. Prototyping. J., 20 (6) (2014) 459–470.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology through the Development of 3D Printing-based Smart Manufacturing core Technology research Fund under Grant 1.190032.01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, 44919, Korea

    JuYoun Kwon & Namhun Kim

  2. Deparment of Defense Science, Korea National Defense University, Nonsan, 33021, Korea

    Jungmok Ma

Authors
  1. JuYoun Kwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Namhun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jungmok Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jungmok Ma.

Additional information

Recommended by Editor Hyung Wook Park

JuYoun Kwon is a research scientist of Center for 3D Advanced Additive Manufacturing, UNIST. She received her Ph.D. in Environmental Ergonomics from Loughborough University in the U.K. Her research interests include 3D printing application, clothing-wearer interaction, and international standards.

Namhun Kim earned his B.Sc. and M.Sc. from KAIST. After that, he worked as a Senior Researcher in Samsung Corning, Co., Ltd for five years. Then, he received his Ph.D. in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering from Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA in 2010. He is currently working as an Associate Professor in the Department of System Design and Control Engineering, acting as the Director of 3D Additive Manufacturing Center at UNIST, Korea. His research interest is in manufacturing technologies with emphasis on additive manufacturing (3D printing), manufacturing system modeling and agent-based simulation.

Jungmok Ma is an Associate Professor in the Department of Defense Science, Korea National Defense University. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interest is data analytics, optimal design, and sustainability.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwon, J., Kim, N. & Ma, J. Environmental sustainability evaluation of additive manufacturing using the NIST test artifact. J Mech Sci Technol 34, 1265–1274 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-020-0225-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-020-0225-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation