IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12319-d1216099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fused Filament Fabrication Three-Dimensional Printing: Assessing the Influence of Geometric Complexity and Process Parameters on Energy and the Environment

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)

Abstract

Fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D printing has been recently adopted in various industries and production processes. Three-dimensional printing (3DP) has gained significant popularity and is being adopted in schools, universities, and fabrication labs, as well as in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education curricula. The aim of this study is to evaluate the energy consumption and environmental impacts of multiple parts with different complexity levels based on various process parameters through FFF printing. This paper focuses on three material filaments: polylactic acid (PLA), tough PLA (T-PLA), and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). The influence of geometric complexity, layer height, density, infill pattern, speed, and temperature on energy and the environment will be analyzed through a life-cycle assessment approach. Moreover, this study provides a set of guidelines for 3DP users in education for the energy-efficient and sustainable use of 3D printers. Our results reveal that for the proposed geometries, an energy increase of 8% is recorded for PLA when transitioning from the simple geometry to the very complex one. However, for ABS and T-PLA, no change in energy values due to geometric change is observed. Layer height is found to be the most influential parameter on energy consumption, with an increase of 59%, 54%, and 61% for PLA, ABS, and T-PLA, respectively. Printing temperature, on the other hand, is found to be the least influential parameter on energy and the environment. Furthermore, PLA is found to be the most environmentally friendly material, followed by ABS and T-PLA in terms of climate change, human toxicity, and cumulative energy demand impact categories. However, for the ozone depletion category, ABS contributes the most to environmental damage compared to T-PLA. The results suggest that PLA can be used for visual and prototype models, whereas ABS and T-PLA serve as good candidates for complex end-use applications and functional parts. The presented guidelines will assist 3DP users in the adequate and optimal use of 3DP technology in order to achieve resource efficiency, energy savings, and environmental sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Asma Mecheter & Faris Tarlochan, 2023. "Fused Filament Fabrication Three-Dimensional Printing: Assessing the Influence of Geometric Complexity and Process Parameters on Energy and the Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12319-:d:1216099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12319/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12319/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shirin Khaki & Maud Rio & Philippe Marin, 2022. "Characterization of Emissions in Fab Labs: An Additive Manufacturing Environment Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, March.
    2. Min Jeong Song & Euna Ha & Sang-Kwon Goo & JaeKyung Cho, 2018. "Design and Development of 3D Printed Teaching Aids for Architecture Education," International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), IGI Global, vol. 10(3), pages 58-75, July.
    3. Peter Troxler, 2016. "Fabrication Laboratories (Fab Labs)," Progress in IS, in: Jan-Peter Ferdinand & Ulrich Petschow & Sascha Dickel (ed.), The Decentralized and Networked Future of Value Creation, pages 109-127, Springer.
    4. Zsolt Lavicza & Robert Weinhandl & Theodosia Prodromou & Branko Anđić & Diego Lieban & Markus Hohenwarter & Kristof Fenyvesi & Christopher Brownell & Jose Manuel Diego-Mantecón, 2022. "Developing and Evaluating Educational Innovations for STEAM Education in Rapidly Changing Digital Technology Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Thanh Tuan To & Abdullah Al Mahmud & Charlie Ranscombe, 2023. "Teaching Sustainability Using 3D Printing in Engineering Education: An Observational Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-27, May.
    6. Haochen Hou & Haiheng Wang & Anqi Ren & Yun Zhang & Ying Liu, 2022. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of the Manufacturing of Conventional and Innovative Aerators: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-11, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Péter Körtesi & Zsolt Simonka & Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Jan Guncaga & Ramona Neag, 2022. "Challenging Examples of the Wise Use of Computer Tools for the Sustainability of Knowledge and Developing Active and Innovative Methods in STEAM and Mathematics Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Noura Al-Mazrouei & Ali H. Al-Marzouqi & Waleed Ahmed, 2022. "Characterization and Sustainability Potential of Recycling 3D-Printed Nylon Composite Wastes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Xiaoqi Kong & Qinghua Zeng & Xingfeng Guo & Feng Kong, 2024. "Sustainable Cultivation of Discipline Competition Programs for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education: An Example of the Food Science and Engineering Major," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Wonjae Choi & Seonggyu Kim, 2023. "Curriculum Development of EdTech Class Using 3D Modeling Software for University Students in the Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-28, December.
    5. Shiyao Ding & Cees J. P. M. de Bont & Stuart Cockbill & Qiaozhuang Zhou, 2023. "A Review of Service Design Pedagogy to Identify Potential Added Value to Product Innovation in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Angel Deroncele-Acosta & Madeleine Lourdes Palacios-Núñez & Alexander Toribio-López, 2023. "Digital Transformation and Technological Innovation on Higher Education Post-COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, January.

    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:12319-:d:1216099. 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.