Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study for environmental performances of traditional manufacturing and directed energy deposition processes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Additive manufacturing is considered more sustainable than traditional manufacturing due to its efficient energy and materials usage. However, previous literature indicates that this suggestion is applicable only for the polymer materials, and the environmental issues of additive manufacturing with metallic materials are still not clear. With the method of life cycle assessment, this paper analyzes and compares the energy consumptions and environmental impacts of direct energy deposition and traditional machining processes for a typical metal part. Further, the article attempts to identify the significant issues in the two manufacturing options that contribute most to the environmental impacts. Six environmental impacts were assessed in this study: global warming potential (GWP); acidification potential (AP); eutrophication potential; ozone depletion potential (ODP); photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP); and abiotic depletion potential (ADP). The results show that the gear laser fabrication process consumes more energy and releases more negative emissions compared with traditional gear manufacturing processes. The results of GWP, AP, ODP, ADP and POCP of the traditional gear manufacturing are only 30.33, 43.42, 17, 65.05 and 54.68% of the gear laser fabrication.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basket JS, Lacke CJ, Weizt KA, Warren JL (1995) Guidelines for assessing the quality of life cycle inventory analysis. EPA (NTIS)

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell TA, Williams CB, Ivanova O, Garrett B (2011) Could 3D printing change the world? Technologies, potential and implications of additive manufacturing, strategic foresight. Atlantic Council (www.acus.org)

  • Das S, Beama JJ, Wohlert M, Bourell DL (1998) Direct laser freeform fabrication of high performance metal components. Rapid Prototyp J 4(3):112–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong S, Yan S, Xu B, Wang Y, Ren W (2013) Laser cladding remanufacturing technology of cast iron cylinder head and its quality evaluation. J Acad Armored Force Eng 27(1):90–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. EPA 600/R-06/060. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasser A, Backes G, Kelbassa I, Weisheit A, Wissenbach K (2010) Laser additive manufacturing. Laser Technik J 7(2):58–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen EA, Heijungs R, Bokkers EA, de Boer IJ (2014) Sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector, pp 8–10

  • Gu DD, Meiners W, Wissenbach K, Poprawe R (2012) Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components: materials, processes and mechanisms. Int Mater Rev 57(3):133–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeantette FP, Keicher DM, Romero JA, Schanwald LP (2000) U.S. Patent, No. 6,046,426. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

  • Jiang Q, Li T, Liu Z, Zhang H, Ren K (2014) Life cycle assessment of an engine with input-output based hybrid analysis method. J Clean Prod 78:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kate D (2015) Can We 3D Print our Way to Sustainability? Earth island journal. Retrieved from http://www.earthisland.org

  • Kobryn PA, Semiatin SL (2001) The laser additive manufacture of Ti-6Al-4V. JOM 53(9):40–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurman M, Lipson H (2013) Is eco friendly 3D printing a myth? Triple Helix Innovation and Cornell University. http://www.livescience.com/38323-is-3dprinting-eco-friendly.html

  • Li T, Liu ZC, Zhang HC, Jiang QH (2013) Environmental emissions and energy consumptions assessment of a diesel engine from the life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 53:7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Li T, Jiang Q, Zhang H (2014) Life cycle assessment–based comparative evaluation of originally manufactured and remanufactured diesel engines. J Ind Ecol 18(4):567–576

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Ning F, Cong W, Jiang Q, Li T, Zhang H, Zhou Y (2016) Energy consumption and saving analysis for laser engineered net shaping of metal powders. Energies 9(10):763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudge RP, Wald NR (2007) Laser engineered net shaping advances additive manufacturing and repair. Weld J 86(1):44

    Google Scholar 

  • Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Ramirez DA, Martinez E, Hernandez J, Amato KN, Wicker RB (2012) Metal fabrication by additive manufacturing using laser and electron beam melting technologies. J Mater Sci Technol 28(1):1–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paris H, Mokhtarian H, Coatanéa E, Museau M, Ituarte IF (2016) Comparative environmental impacts of additive and subtractive manufacturing technologies. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 65:29–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei YT, De Hosson JTM (2000) Functionally graded materials produced by laser cladding. Acta Mater 48(10):2617–2624

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves P (2009) Additive manufacturing—a supply chain wide response to economic uncertainty and environmental sustainability. Econolyst Limited, the Silversmiths, Crown Yard, Wirksworth, Derbyshire, DE4 4ET, UK

  • Santos EC, Shiomi M, Osakada K, Laoui T (2006) Rapid manufacturing of metal components by laser forming. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(12):1459–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J, Gupta N, Weber C, Newsome S, Wohlers T, Caffrey T (2012) Additive manufacturing: status and opportunities. Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, pp 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Serres N, Tidu D, Sankare S, Hlawka F (2011) Environmental comparison of MESO-CLAD® process and conventional machining implementing life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 19(9):1117–1124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shi J, Li T, Liu Z, Zhang H, Peng S, Jiang Q, Yin J (2015) Life cycle environmental impact evaluation of newly manufactured diesel engine and remanufactured LNG engine. Procedia CIRP 29:402–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westkämper E (2000) Life cycle management and assessment: approaches and visions towards sustainable manufacturing (keynote paper). CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 49(2):501–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon HS, Lee JY, Kim HS, Kim MS, Kim ES, Shin YJ, Chu WS, Ahn SH (2014) A comparison of energy consumption in bulk forming, subtractive, and additive processes: review and case study. Int J Precis Eng Manuf Green Technol 1(3):261–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116023, China

    Zhichao Liu, Qiuhong Jiang, Tao Li & Hong-Chao Zhang

  2. Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, Systems and Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    Zhichao Liu, Qiuhong Jiang, Weilong Cong & Hong-Chao Zhang

Authors
  1. Zhichao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiuhong Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weilong Cong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tao Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hong-Chao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhichao Liu.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: Agnieszka Galuszka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Z., Jiang, Q., Cong, W. et al. Comparative study for environmental performances of traditional manufacturing and directed energy deposition processes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15, 2273–2282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1622-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1622-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation