{"title":"Does Material Choice Drive Sustainability of 3D Printing?","authors":"Jeremy Faludi, Zhongyin Hu, Shahd Alrashed, Christopher Braunholz, Suneesh Kaul, Leulekal Kassaye","volume":98,"journal":"International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering","pagesStart":216,"pagesEnd":224,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/10000327","abstract":"
Environmental impacts of six 3D printers using
\r\nvarious materials were compared to determine if material choice
\r\ndrove sustainability, or if other factors such as machine type, machine
\r\nsize, or machine utilization dominate. Cradle-to-grave life-cycle
\r\nassessments were performed, comparing a commercial-scale FDM
\r\nmachine printing in ABS plastic, a desktop FDM machine printing in
\r\nABS, a desktop FDM machine printing in PET and PLA plastics, a
\r\npolyjet machine printing in its proprietary polymer, an SLA machine
\r\nprinting in its polymer, and an inkjet machine hacked to print in salt
\r\nand dextrose. All scenarios were scored using ReCiPe Endpoint H
\r\nmethodology to combine multiple impact categories, comparing
\r\nenvironmental impacts per part made for several scenarios per
\r\nmachine. Results showed that most printers’ ecological impacts were
\r\ndominated by electricity use, not materials, and the changes in
\r\nelectricity use due to different plastics was not significant compared
\r\nto variation from one machine to another. Variation in machine idle
\r\ntime determined impacts per part most strongly. However, material
\r\nimpacts were quite important for the inkjet printer hacked to print in
\r\nsalt: In its optimal scenario, it had up to 1\/38th the impacts coreper
\r\npart as the worst-performing machine in the same scenario. If salt
\r\nparts were infused with epoxy to make them more physically robust,
\r\nthen much of this advantage disappeared, and material impacts
\r\nactually dominated or equaled electricity use. Future studies should
\r\nalso measure DMLS and SLS processes \/ materials.<\/p>\r\n","references":"[1] 3D Hubs. \u201cTrend Report June,\u201d Accessed 13 Jun 2014 from\r\nhttp:\/\/www.3dhub s.com\/trends\/2014-june.\r\n[2] D. Freedman, \"Layer by layer,\" Technology Review 115.1, pp. 50-53,\r\n2012.\r\n[3] C. Reynders, \u201c3D printers create a blueprint for future of sustainable\r\ndesign and production,\u201d The Guardian, Friday 21 March 2014. Accessed\r\nSep 15 2014 from http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/sustainable-business\/3dprinting-\r\nblueprint-future-sustainable-design-production .\r\n[4] M. Huijbregts et al., \u201cEcological footprint accounting in the life cycle\r\nassessment of products,\u201d Ecological Economics 64.4, pp. 798-807, 2008.\r\n[5] R. Armstrong, \u201cIs There Something Beyond \u2018Outside of the Box\u2019?\u201d\r\nArchitectural Design 81.6, pp. 130-133, 2011.\r\n[6] J. Faludi, C. Bayley, M. Iribane, S. Bhogal, \u201cComparing Environmental\r\nImpacts of Additive Manufacturing vs. Traditional Machining via Life-\r\nCycle Assessment,\u201d Journal of Rapid Prototyping.to be published 2015.\r\n[7] J. Faludi, R. Ganeriwala, B. Kelly, T. Rygg, T. Yang, \u201cSustainability of\r\n3D Printing vs. Machining: Do Machine Type & Size Matter?\u201d\r\nAccepted for publication in Proceedings of EcoBalance Conference,\r\nJapan 2014.\r\n[8] D. Southerland, P. Walters, and D. Huson, \u201cEdible 3D printing,\u201d NIP &\r\nDigital Fabrication Conference, Vol. 2011 No. 2, Society for Imaging\r\nScience and Technology, 2011.\r\n[9] T. Anderson and J. Bredt, \u201cMethod of three dimensional printing,\u201d U.S.\r\nPatent No. 5,902,441, 11 May 1999. [10] H. Lipson and M. Kurman, Fabricated: The new world of 3D printing,\r\nJohn Wiley & Sons, 2013.\r\n[11] P. Mognol et al., \u201cRapid prototyping: energy and environment in the\r\nspotlight,\u201d Rapid Prototyping Journal 12.1, pp. 26-34, 2006.\r\n[12] M. Baumers et al. \u201cSustainability of additive manufacturing: measuring\r\nthe energy consumption of the laser sintering process,\u201d Proceedings of\r\nthe Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering\r\nManufacture 225.12, pp. 2228-2239, 2011.\r\n[13] C. Telenko and C. Seepersad, \u201cA comparison of the energy efficiency of\r\nselective laser sintering and injection molding of nylon parts,\u201d Rapid\r\nPrototyping Journal 18.6, pp. 472-481, 2012.\r\n[14] A. Drizo, and J. Pegna, \u201cEnvironmental impacts of rapid prototyping: an\r\noverview of research to date,\u201d Rapid Prototyping Journal 12.2, pp. 64-\r\n71, 2006.\r\n[15] B. Stephens et al., \u201cUltrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D\r\nprinters,\u201d Atmospheric Environment 79, pp. 334-339, 2013.\r\n[16] Y. Luo et al. \u201cEnvironmental performance analysis of solid freedom\r\nfabrication processes,\u201d Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International\r\nSymposium on Electronics and the Environment, pp. 1-6, 1999.\r\n[17] M. Goedkoop et al. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method\r\nwhich comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the\r\nendpoint level, Pr\u00e9 Consultants, 2009.\r\n[18] M. Tabone et al., \u201cSustainability metrics: life cycle assessment and\r\ngreen design in polymers,\u201d Environmental Science & Technology 44.21,\r\npp. 8264-8269, 2010.\r\n[19] M. Rossi et al., \u201cDesign for the Next Generation: Incorporating Cradleto-\r\nCradle Design into Herman Miller Products,\u201d Journal of Industrial\r\nEcology 10.4, pp. 193-210, 2006.\r\n[20] B. Evans, Practical 3D Printers, Apress, 2012.\r\n[21] RepRap community, \u201cPowder Printer Recipes,\u201d RepRap Wiki. Accessed\r\nAug 24 2014 from http:\/\/reprap.org\/wiki\/Powder_Printer Recipes.\r\n[22] O. Jolliet et al., \u201cIMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment\r\nmethodology,\u201d International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8.6, pp.\r\n324-330, 2003.","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 98, 2015"}