Cited by 310Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes

Environmental Dimensions of Additive Manufacturing: Mapping Application Domains and Their Environmental Implications

Open access
Kellens, Karel, Baumers, Martin, Gutowski, Timothy G., Flanagan, William, Lifset, Reid, Duflou, Joost R.·2017·Journal of Industrial Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Additive manufacturing (AM) proposes a novel paradigm for engineering design and manufacturing, which has profound economic, environmental, and security implications. The design freedom offered by this category of manufacturing processes and its ability to locally print almost each designable object will have important repercussions across society. While AM applications are progressing from rapid prototyping to the production of end‐use products, the environmental dimensions and related impacts of these evolving manufacturing processes have yet to be extensively examined. Only limited quantitative data are available on how AM manufactured products compare to conventionally manufactured ones in terms of energy and material consumption, transportation costs, pollution and waste, health and safety issues, as well as other environmental impacts over their full lifetime. Reported research indicates that the specific energy of current AM systems is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher compared to that of conventional manufacturing processes. However, only part of the AM process taxonomy is yet documented in terms of its environmental performance, and most life cycle inventory (LCI) efforts mainly focus on energy consumption. From an environmental perspective, AM manufactured parts can be beneficial for very small batches, or in cases where AM‐based redesigns offer substantial functional advantages during the product use phase (e.g., lightweight part designs and part remanufacturing). Important pending research questions include the LCI of AM feedstock production, supply‐chain consequences, and health and safety issues relating to AM.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jiec.12629

Cites

94 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 96 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Gibson, I., D. Rosen, and B. Stucker. 2015. Additive manufacturing technologies. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  2. Helms, H. and U. Lambrecht. 2007. The potential contribu- tion of light-weighting to reduce transport energy consump- tion. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12/1: 58-64. www.ifeu.de/verkehrundumwelt/pdf/Helms(2006)_light- weighting.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2017.
  3. Jones, J., McNutt, P., Tosi, R., Perry, C. and Wimpenny, D. 2012. Remanufacture of turbine blades by laser cladding, machining and in-process scanning in a single machine. Proceedings of the 22nd International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 8-10 August, Austin, TX, USA, 821-827.
  4. Kellens, K., E. Yasa, Renaldi, W. Dewulf, J. P. Kruth, and J. R. Duflou. 2011a. Energy and resource efficiency of SLS/SLM processes. In Proceedings of the 22nd Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 8-10 August, Austin, TX, USA, 1-16.
  5. Luo, Y., Z. Ji, M. C. Leu, and R. Caudill. 1999. Environmental perfor- mance analysis of solid freefrom fabrication processes. Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 11-13 May 1999, Danvers, MA, USA, 1-6.
  6. Munsch, M., E. Wycisk, J. Kranz, V. Seyda, and E. Claus. 2012. Func- tional products through laser additive manufacturing of TiAl6V4. Workshop LAM Laser Additive Manufacturing 2012, Houston, TX 29.02.2012.
  7. Nimbalkar, S., D. Cox, K. Visconti, and J. Cresko. 2014. Life cycle en- ergy assessment methodology and additive manufacturing energy impacts assessment tool. In Proceedings from the LCA XIV In- ternational Conference, 6-8 October, San Francisco, CA, USA, 130-141.
  8. Nyamekye, P. 2015. Energy and raw material consumption analysis of powder bed fusion. Case study: CNC machining and laser additive manufacturing. Master's thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland.
  9. Sirris. 2013. Additive manufacturing workshop. www.interreg-fred. eu/wp-content/uploads/5_Sirris-AdditiveManufacturing_ Workshop_081013.pdf. Accessed February 2016.
  10. Telenko, C. and C. Conner Seepersad. 2012. A comparison of the energy efficiency of SLS and injection moulding of nylon parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal 18(6): 472-481.
  11. Tomlin, M. and J. Meyer. 2011. Topology optimization of an additive layer manufactured (ALM) aerospace part. In Proceedings of the 7th Altair CAE Technology Conference, 10 May, Gaydon, UK.
  12. Verma, A. and R. Rai. 2013. Energy efficient modeling and optimiza- tion of additive manufacturing processes. In Proceedings of the 24th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 12-14 August, Austin, TX, USA, 231-241.
  13. Walter, M., J. Hölmstrom, and H. Yrjölä. 2004. Rapid manufacturing and its impact on supply chain management. In Proceedings of the Logistics Research Network Annual Conference, 9-10 Septem- ber, Dublin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kellens, K., Baumers, M., Gutowski, T. G., Flanagan, W., Lifset, R., & Duflou, J. R.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • General Electric (United States) (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Kellens, Karel
Venue
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Published
2017-08
Volume
21
Issue
S1
ISSN
  • 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9290
OpenAlex
W2741018071
Cited by
310
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7
FWCI
15.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Wiley eBooks
Funders
GOA SUMMA
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Keywords
additive manufacturing, environmental impact, life cycle inventory, energy consumption, material consumption, waste and pollution, health and safety, feedstock production, supply chain, remanufacturing, lightweight design, conventional manufacturing comparison

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