Advertisement

Carbon Footprint Assessment of Additive Manufacturing: Flat and Curved Layer-by-Layer Approaches

  • Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu
  • Savalani Monica Mahesh
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes book series (EFEPP)

Abstract:

This chapter describes and discusses the carbon footprint assessment of two additive manufacturing (AM) processes. The first process is the fused deposition modeling (FDM) process. The second process is the curved FDM process which is a process that has been adopted from the FDM process itself to overcome the stairstepping effects of the traditional layer-by-layer processes. The focus of this study is to explore the carbon footprint of both the technologies and its implications.

Keywords

Flat layer-by-layer Curved layer-by-layer Carbon footprint GHG emissions Waste Material consumption Electricity Nozzle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for supporting this project under the code G-YM77.

References

  1. 1.
    Wohler’s Report (2010) An in-depth global study on the advances in additive manufacturing technologies and applications. ISBN:0-9754429-6-1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wen PZ, Huang WM, Wu C-K (2008) Modified fast algorithm for STL file slicing. J Comput Appl 28:1766–1768Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gao W, et al (2015) The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput Aided Des 69:65–89Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wuyi ZBWSC (2004) Algorithm for rapid slicing STL model. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut 4:011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown AC, De Beer D (2013) Development of a stereolithography (STL) slicing and G-code generation algorithm for an entry level 3-D printer. In: Africon, 2013. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi SH, Kwok FKT (1999) A memory efficient slicing algorithm for large STL files. In: Proceedings of solid freeform fabrication symposiumGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tata K, et al (1998) Efficient slicing for layered manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp J 4(4):151–167Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakraborty D, Reddy BA, Choudhury AR (2008) Extruder path generation for curved layer fused deposition modeling. Comput Aided Des 40(2):235–243Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klosterman DA, et al (1999) Development of a curved layer LOM process for monolithic ceramics and ceramic matrix composites. Rapid Prototyp J 5(2):61–71Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singamneni S, et al (2012) Modeling and evaluation of curved layer fused deposition. J Mater Process Technol 212(1):27–35Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guan HW, et al (2015) Influence of fill gap on flexural strength of parts fabricated by curved layer fused deposition modeling. Procedia Technol 20:243–248Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) (2013) ISO/TS 14067:2013 greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communicationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Interational Organisation for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14040: 2006 environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu
    • 1
  • Savalani Monica Mahesh
    • 2
  1. 1.SGS (HK) LimitedHong KongChina
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Systems and EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations