The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Transparency Built‐in: Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Additive Manufacturing
Abstract
Summary: The supply chains found in modern manufacturing are often complex and long. The resulting opacity poses a significant barrier to the measurement and minimization of energy consumption and therefore to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing. The current article investigates whether the adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) technology can be used to reach transparency in terms of energy and financial inputs to manufacturing operations. AM refers to the use of a group of electricity‐driven technologies capable of combining materials to manufacture geometrically complex products in a single digitally controlled process step, entirely without molds, dies, or other tooling. The single‐step nature affords full measurability with respect to process energy inputs and production costs. However, the parallel character of AM (allowing the contemporaneous production of multiple parts) poses previously unconsidered problems in the estimation of manufacturing resource consumption. This research discusses the implementation of a tool for the estimation of process energy flows and costs occurring in the AM technology variant direct metal laser sintering. It is demonstrated that accurate predictions can be made for the production of a basket of sample parts. Further, it is shown that, unlike conventional processes, the quantity and variety of parts demanded and the resulting ability to fully utilize the available machine capacity have an impact on process efficiency. It is also demonstrated that cost minimization in additive manufacturing may lead to the minimization of process energy consumption, thereby motivating sustainability improvements.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Huang, R., Riddle, M., Graziano, D., Warren, J., Das, S., Nimbalkar, S., Cresko, J., & Masanet, E. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.109 · Cited by 805
The cost of additive manufacturing: machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push
Baumers, M., Dickens, P., Tuck, C., & Hague, R. (2016) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015 · Cited by 658
Self-citationDirect digital manufacturing: definition, evolution, and sustainability implications
Chen, D., Heyer, S., Ibbotson, S., Salonitis, K., Steingrímsson, J. G., & Thiede, S. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.009 · Cited by 498
Kellens, K., Baumers, M., Gutowski, T. G., Flanagan, W., Lifset, R., & Duflou, J. R. (2017) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12629 · Cited by 310
Self-citationWhy manufacturers adopt additive manufacturing technologies: The role of sustainability
Niaki, M. K., Torabi, S. A., & Nonino, F. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.019 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E., & Hague, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Industrial Ecology
- Published
- 2012-09-07
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 418-431
- ISSN
- 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9290
- OpenAlex
- W2100219312
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Transparency Built‐in: Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Additive Manufacturing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00512.x
- The paper
- Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E., & Hague, R. (2013). Transparency Built‐in: Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00512.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.