Cost and Environmental Impact Assessment of Stainless Steel Microreactor Plates using Binder Jetting and Metal Injection Molding Processes

Raoufi, Kamyar; Manoharan, Sriram; Etheridge, Tom; Paul, Brian K.; Haapala, Karl R.

doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.05.052

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 16 studies analyzed the environmental inventories or impacts of a part when it is produced using AM in comparison to when it is produced using traditional manufacturing methods. ,,,,,− Several of these studies (6 in total) excluded material extraction and/or end-of-life recycling or disposal in the study scope. Most of these studies compared production of the same part made with the same material for both the AM and traditional manufacturing case and accounted for differences in material scrap by using either total material used or the embodied energy and/or CO 2 emissions in total material inputs as an indicator.…”

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the studies take a lifecycle inventory approach focusing on energy consumption and/or CO 2 -eq emissions. Bekker and Verlinden and Faludi et al assess end-point environmental indicators, weighing across 10 impact categories following ReCiPe. , Paris et al and Raoufi et al use midpoint indicators following ReCiPe. , Of the 6 studies that assessed multiple environmental indicators, 5 found consistent results in terms of which manufacturing process had lower environmental inventories or impacts across all indicator categories. The one exception is Tang et al, which found that although BJ had lower energy consumption and CO 2 -eq emissions compared to milling, it had a higher effect on human toxicity (in terms of kg DCB-eq) because BJ uses large amounts of bronze, which has higher toxicity impacts during extraction .…”

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 12 studies analyzed the production costs of a part when it is produced using AM in comparison to when it is produced using traditional manufacturing methods. ,− ,,,− All include part material, labor, setup, and machine costs in their production cost models. Laureijs et al and Liu are the most comprehensive in terms of additionally accounting for support material, postprocessing steps, rejected parts, material waste, labor, maintenance, and overhead costs. , Out of the 12 studies, 7 do not include maintenance or overhead costs, which may modestly underestimate the relative costs of AM compared to traditional manufacturing due to the longer machine time required for AM.…”

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is Additive Manufacturing an Environmentally and Economically Preferred Alternative for Mass Production?

Jung

Kara

Nie

et al. 2023

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manufacturing sector accounts for a large percentage of global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and there is growing interest in the potential of additive manufacturing (AM) to reduce the sector’s environmental impacts. Across multiple industries, AM has been used to reduce material use in final parts by 35–80%, and recent publications have predicted that AM will enable the fabrication of customized products locally and on-demand, reducing shipping and material waste. In many contexts, however, AM is not a viable alternative to traditional manufacturing methods due to its high production costs. And in high-volume mass production, AM can lead to increased energy use and material waste, worsening environmental impacts compared to traditional production methods. Whether AM is an environmentally and economically preferred alternative to traditional manufacturing depends on several hidden aspects of AM that are not readily apparent when comparing final products, including energy-intensive and expensive material feedstocks, excessive material waste during production, high machine costs, and slow rates of production. We systematically review comparative studies of the environmental impacts and costs of AM in contrast with traditional manufacturing methods and identify the conditions under which AM is the environmentally and economically preferred alternative. We find that AM has lower production costs and environmental impacts when production volumes are relatively low (below ∼1,000 per year for environmental impacts and below 42–87,000 per year for costs, depending on the AM process and part geometry) or the parts are small and would have high material waste if traditionally manufactured. In cases when the geometric freedom of AM enables performance improvements that reduce environmental impacts and costs during a product’s use phase, these can counteract the higher production impacts of AM, making it the preferred alternative at larger production volumes. AM’s ability to be environmentally and economically beneficial for mass manufacturing in a wider variety of contexts is dependent on reducing the cost and energy intensity of material feedstock production, eliminating the need for support structures, raising production speeds, and reducing per unit machine costs. These challenges are not primarily caused by economies of scale, and therefore, they are not likely to be addressed by the increasing expansion of the AM sector. Instead, they will require fundamental advances in material science, AM production technologies, and computer-aided design software.

show abstract

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Does Am Reduce the Environmental Impacts And Costs Of Mass M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Additive Manufacturing an Environmentally and Economically Preferred Alternative for Mass Production?

Jung

Kara

Nie

et al. 2023

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A body of literature has investigated the energy consumption of various AM technology variants. Several studies have investigated the energy consumption of metal AM (Baumers et al., 2010, 2011; Giudice et al., 2021; Kellens et al., 2010; Mognol et al., 2006; Peng et al., 2021; Raoufi et al., 2020a, 2020b; Zakaria et al., 2022) and polymer‐based AM (Baumers et al., 2010; Faludi et al., 2015; Lopes et al., 2022; Luo et al, 1999; Sreenivasan and Bourell 2009, 2010; Wiese et al, 2021). Sun et al (2021) reported that the AM processes and printed products must be validated and qualified to satisfy the standards of critical parts in energy production (e.g., nuclear energy, oil and gas), conversion, and storage systems (e.g., battery and fuel cell).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of the risk of build failure on energy consumption in additive manufacturing

Wang

Baumers

Basak

et al. 2022

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is associated with significant promise in the manufacturing sector. However, it has been shown that the risk of build failure has a substantial impact on the costs of AM and that this results from a relatively high level of process instability. Importantly, for such a promising technology, the effects of the risk of build failure on energy consumption have not yet been studied, which creates a significant gap in the knowledge of the real environmental performance of AM. This research addresses this gap by investigating the energy consumption of AM subject to the possibility of build failure. This is done by constructing a novel expected energy consumption model, integrating process energy consumption, the energy embedded in the raw material, and the probability of build failure as a function of the number of layers deposited. Model parameters are obtained from a series of build experiments conducted on the AM technology variant polymeric laser sintering, also known as laser powder bed fusion of polymers. The energy consumption model shows that the risk of build failure accounts for a substantial share of overall expected energy consumption, amounting to up to approximately 31% at full capacity utilization. Additionally, this paper uncovers a complex relationship between the risk of build failure and efficiency gains in per unit energy consumption resulting from increasing levels of capacity utilization (Supporting Information S1).

show abstract

Current state and emerging trends in advanced manufacturing: smart systems

Raoufi,

Sutherland,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost and Environmental Impact Assessment of Stainless Steel Microreactor Plates using Binder Jetting and Metal Injection Molding Processes

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Is Additive Manufacturing an Environmentally and Economically Preferred Alternative for Mass Production?

Is Additive Manufacturing an Environmentally and Economically Preferred Alternative for Mass Production?

The impact of the risk of build failure on energy consumption in additive manufacturing

Current state and emerging trends in advanced manufacturing: smart systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About