Skip to main content

Life cycle assessment of integrated additive–subtractive concrete 3D printing

Abstract

A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted on an innovative concrete 3D printing system, offering the following main advantages: (1) additive and subtractive capabilities, allowing for the automated post-processing of printed parts, including operations such as surface polishing, grooving and drilling and (2) the use of a cable robot, which is less expensive, lighter, more transportable, more energy-efficient and more easily reconfigurable than alternatives such as gantry-type systems. The production of a 4-m height structural pillar was assessed, comparing it to production with traditional methods, namely, using a mould. The study included the entire supply chain of the 3D printing equipment, operation and end-of-life, based on real data from the design and operation of a demonstration plant installed in Spain. Data for traditional construction was based on literature and expert judgement. The 3D production process included printing the pillar perimeter in four pieces with 3D printing concrete, transporting to the construction site and reinforcing and casting with conventional concrete. Traditional production involved reinforcing and casting with the mould on-site. The results show that when only one pillar needs to be produced, 3D printing has a lower environmental impact in all the environmental indicators assessed when compared to using a mould that is discarded after a single use. As an example, GHG emissions are lower by 38%. It was also found that the contribution of 3D printing to the environmental impact of producing a pillar is almost negligible, representing less than 1% of the pillar’s total GHG emissions. However, when the same pillar needs to be produced in higher numbers, the results show that 3D printing and conventional production have a similar environmental impact, given that the mould used in conventional production can be reused, becoming a comparatively efficient option.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Data Availability

Supplementary material includes the complete inventory analysis description, impact assessment results and sensitivity analysis results.

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.hindcon3d.com/

References

  1. 1.

    Achillas C, Aidonis D, Iakovou E, Thymianidis M, Tzetzis D (2015) A methodological framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the production portfolio of a focused factory. J Manuf Syst 37(1):328–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Agustí-Juan I, Habert G (2017) Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication. J Clean Prod 142:2780–2791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Agustí-Juan I, Müller F, Hack N, Wangler T, Habert G (2017) Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: environmental assessment of a robotically fabricated concrete wall. J Clean Prod 154:330–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    ASTM (2009) Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies. The American Society for Material and Testing. West Consholhocken, United States, ASTM International. F2792 - 12a

  5. 5.

    Barnett E, Gosselin C (2015) Large-scale 3D printing with a cable-suspended robot. Addit Manuf 7:27–44

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Buswell R (2007) Freeform construction: mega-scale rapid manufacturing for construction. Autom Constr 16(2):224231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Civil Engineering Portal (2018) Concrete mix design M-60. https://www.engineeringcivil.com/concrete-mix-design-m-60.html (accessed 02/03/2020).

  8. 8.

    CYPE (2019) Unidad de obra EHS011: Pilar circular de hormigón armado. http://www.generadordeprecios.info/obra_nueva/Estructuras/Hormigon_armado/Pilares/Pilar_circular_de_hormigon_armado.html (accessed 03/03/2020)

  9. 9.

    Esposito Corcione C, Palumbo E, Masciullo A, Montagna F, Torricelli MC (2018) Fused deposition modeling (FDM): an innovative technique aimed at reusing Lecce stone waste for industrial design and building applications. Constr Build Mater 158:276–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Faludi J (2017) 3D printing and its environmental implications. In: OECD (2017), The next production revolution: implications for governments and business, OECD Publishing, Paris, Chapter 5

  11. 11.

    Finnveden, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Huysegoms L, Rousseau S, Cappuyns V (2018) Friends or foes? Monetized life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of the site remediation of a former gas plant. Sci Total Environ 619–620:258–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    ISO (2006a) Environmental management - life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Standard Organization (ISO), Geneve

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    ISO (2006b) Environmental management - life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organization (ISO), Geneve

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kellens K, Baumers M, Gutowski TG, Flanagan W, Lifset R, Duflou JR (2017) Environmental dimensions of additive manufacturing: mapping application domains and their environmental implications. J Ind Ecol 21:S49–S68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Khoshnevis B (2003) Toward total automation of on-site construction an integrated approach based on contour crafting. Proceedings of the 20th ISARC, Eindhoven, Holland

  17. 17.

    Labonnote N, Rønnquist A, Manum B, Rüther P (2016) Additive construction: state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. Autom Constr 72(Part 3):347–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lcmolds (2019) Square type roman cement column molds. https://www.lcmolds.com/square-type-roman-cement-column-molds/ (accessed 03/03/2020)

  19. 19.

    Lim S (2012) Developments in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes. Autom Constr 21:262–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Merciai S, Schmidt J (2017) Methodology for the construction of global multi-regional hybrid supply and use tables for the EXIOBASE v3 database. J Ind Ecol 22(3):516–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Muñoz I, Rosiek S, Portillo F, Batlles FJ, Martínez-Del-Río J, Acasuso I, Piergrossi V, De Sanctis M, Chimienti S, Di Iaconi C (2019) Prospective environmental and economic assessment of solar-assisted thermal energy recovery from wastewater through a sequencing batch biofilter granular reactor. J Clean Prod 212(1):1300–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Papacharalampopoulos A, Bikas H, Foteinopoulos P, Stavropoulos P (2020) A path planning optimization framework for concrete based additive manufacturing processes, 30th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM2020) 15-18 June 2020, Athens, Greece

  23. 23.

    Pegna J (1997) Exploratory investigation of solid freeform construction. Autom Constr 5(5):427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Perkins I, Skitmore M (2015) Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: a review. Int J Constr Manag 15(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pott A (2018) Cable-driven parallel robots: theory and application. Springer

  26. 26.

    Pott A, Mütherich H, Kraus W, Schmidt V, Miermeister P, Verl A (2013) IPAnema: A family of cable-driven parallel robots for industrial applications. In: Bruckmann T, Pott A (eds) Cable-driven parallel robots. Mechanisms and machine science, vol 12. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    PRé (2016) SimaPro. https://simapro.com/. Accessed 10 Apr 2017

  28. 28.

    Saade MRM, Yahia A, Amor B (2020) How has LCA been applied to 3D printing? A systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies. J Clean Prod 244:118803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Soler, Durá (2014) Es el momento de comprar terreno industrial y construir su nave. http://www.solerdura.com/es-el-momento-de-comprar-terreno-y-construir-su-nave-industrial/ (accessed 4/09/2019)

  30. 30.

    Stadler K, Wood R, Bulavskaya T, Södersten CJ, Simas M, Schmidt S, Usubiaga A, Acosta-Fernández J, Kuenen J, Bruckner M, Giljum S, Lutter S, Merciai S, Schmidt J, Theurl MC, Plutzar C, Kastner T, Eisenmenger N, Erb KH, de Koning A, Tukker A (2018) EXIOBASE 3: Developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables. J Ind Ecol 22(3):502–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68(6):1591–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Weidema BP, Wesnæs M (2008) Environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. Joint research Centre, Insitute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain

  33. 33.

    Weidema BP, Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O (2007) Preparing characterisation methods for endpoint impact assessment. In: BP Weidema, M Wesnæs, J Hermansen, T Kristensen, N Halberg, P Eder, L Delgado. Environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2008. (EUR 23491 EN). Annex II

  34. 34.

    Yao Y, Hu M, Di Maio F, Cucurachi S (2020) Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo-polymer concrete - an ex-ante study. J Ind Ecol 24:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 723611.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Muñoz.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study complies with the ethical standards set out by Springer.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOC 500 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muñoz, I., Alonso-Madrid, J., Menéndez-Muñiz, M. et al. Life cycle assessment of integrated additive–subtractive concrete 3D printing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 112, 2149–2159 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06487-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Additive manufacturing
  • LCA
  • Cable robot
  • Construction
  • 3D printing
  • Concrete