Additive Manufacturing represents, by now, a viable alternative for metal-based components production. Therefore the designer, often, has to select among three options at process design stage: subtractive, mass conserving, and additive approaches. The selection of a given process, besides affecting the manufacturing step impact, influences significantly the impact related to the material production step. If the process enables a part weight reduction (as the Additive Manufacturing approaches do) even the use phase is affected by the manufacturing approach selection. The present research provides a comprehensive environmental manufacturing approaches comparison for components made of aluminum alloys. Additive manufacturing (Selective Laser Sintering), machining, and forming processes are analyzed and compared by means of Life Cycle Assessment techniques. The effect of weight reduction enabled by additive approach is considered. The paper aims at highlighting the strong link between manufacturing approach selection and material use. In this respect, a thorough environmental analysis of the pre-manufacturing step is developed. Moreover, the influence of eco-attributes aluminium variability on the comparative analysis results is studied. The paper, therefore, contributes to the development of a methodology for manufacturing approaches comparison, providing guidelines for green manufacturing approach selection. Results reveal that, for the analyzed case studies, the Additive Manufacturing is a sustainable solution for aluminium components only under a specific scenario: high complexity shapes, significant weight reduction, and application in transportation systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.