IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12299-d1215687.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Conventional versus Additive Manufacturing for Metals: Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Asma Mecheter

    (Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar)

  • Faris Tarlochan

    (Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar)

  • Murat Kucukvar

    (Department of Business Ethics and Legal Studies, Daniels College of Business, University of Denver, 2101 South University Blvd., Denver, CO 80208, USA)

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) is a recent emerging technology that is being adopted in various industry sectors and supply chains. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) are powerful methods that can be used for assessing the environmental and economic performance of emerging manufacturing technologies. This study aims to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts and cost of computerized numerical control-based (CNC) manufacturing and direct metal laser sintering technology (DMLS) through a cradle-to-gate life cycle analysis. This research has four main novel elements: (i) conducting a recent comprehensive review of metal AM and conventional manufacturing (CM) processes using a systematic method and meta-analysis (ii) comparing the conventional process “CNC machining” and the additive technology “direct metal laser sintering” from the environmental (LCA) and economic (LCC) perspectives, (iii) investigating the influence of geometry complexity and shape size factors on the environmental and cost performance of both manufacturing methods, and (iv) conducting a Monte Carlo simulation-based sensitivity analysis to tackle uncertainty in LCC input parameters. The midpoints and endpoints impact for CNC and AM processes were estimated using the Ecoinvent v3.8 database and ReCiPe (E) impact assessment method. The review revealed that global warming potential is one of the most widely studied environmental indicators; however, only 6% of the studies have investigated the life cycle economic impacts of AM technologies using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. The results have shown that in terms of ReCiPe endpoints, DMLS has the highest environmental impact on human health while CM has more impact on the eco-system quality. Electricity consumption is the main contributor to environmental impact categories in both manufacturing technologies. This is due to the high electricity utilization for casting and milling conventionally manufactured parts and printing the AM parts. LCC net present values revealed that manufacturing all parts with AM costs 91% more compared to CNC. The LCC analysis has shown that AM is more suitable and cost-effective for parts with highly complex geometries. Whereas CNC machining was found to be economically feasible for large-sized and low-complexity parts. The Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis demonstrated that for the case of AM, the most significant parameter is the processing cost followed by material cost, which highlighted the importance of energy-efficient AM and dematerialization through design for circularity.

Suggested Citation

  • Asma Mecheter & Faris Tarlochan & Murat Kucukvar, 2023. "A Review of Conventional versus Additive Manufacturing for Metals: Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-29, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12299-:d:1215687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12299/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12299/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joana R. Gouveia & Sara M. Pinto & Sara Campos & João R. Matos & João Sobral & Sílvia Esteves & Luís Oliveira, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Additive Manufacturing Repair Processes in the Mold Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Lei Di & Yiran Yang, 2020. "Cost Modeling and Evaluation of Direct Metal Laser Sintering with Integrated Dynamic Process Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sunil Yadav & C. P. Paul & A. K. Rai & A. N. Jinoop & S. K. Dixit, 2024. "Effect of Interlayer Composition on the Properties of Laser-Directed-Energy-Deposition-Based Additively Manufactured Copper-Stainless Steel Wall Structures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-14, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joana R. Gouveia & Sara M. Pinto & Sara Campos & João R. Matos & Catarina Costa & Thiago Assis Dutra & Sílvia Esteves & Luís Oliveira, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Circularity Case Study Using Additive Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-44, August.
    2. Hossein Eskandari Sabzi & Pedro E. J. Rivera-Díaz-del-Castillo, 2023. "Sustainable Powder-Based Additive Manufacturing Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Mario Santiago-Herrera & Jesús Ibáñez & Marco De Pamphilis & Jesús Manuel Alegre & Juan Antonio Tamayo-Ramos & Sonia Martel-Martín & Rocío Barros, 2023. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of the Production of Ti6Al4V-TiC Metal–Matrix Composite Powder by High-Energy Ball Milling and Ti6Al4V Powder by Gas Atomization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12299-:d:1215687. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.