Environmental Performance Evaluation of Direct Metal Laser Sintering through Exergy Analysis

Abstract Additive manufacturing is rapidly emerging as an alternative to conventional manufacturing, including subtractive processes, often attributed to its claim for sustainable product development, e.g., reduced cost, reduced energy and material use, and the distributed production of tailored consumer products. However, many of these benefits remain unsubstantiated for large-scale production. The aim of the research herein is to identify the systemic contributors to environmental impacts for additive manufacturing using exergy analysis and life cycle impact assessment. These methods have been previously applied to evaluate the environmental performance of conventional and non-conventional manufacturing processes. Thus, they offer a validated approach to evaluate the environmental impacts of additive manufacturing with respect to systemic material and energy losses. In this study, the environmental impacts of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) of iron metal powder is characterized by performing a thermodynamic analysis of the resources and energy utilized and lost from cradle-to-gate. It is found that only 6% of total process inputs in DMLS contribute to material processing, while 94% is lost as bulk waste, heat, and work. Life cycle impact assessments are performed to characterize the environmental impacts of these losses using single issue indicator (Global Warming Potential, GWP) and aggregate indicator (ReCiPe 2008) methods. The results show that electricity consumption is a key contributor to the focal process and its related upstream processes. The systemic GWP impact for DMLS was found to be 7.2 kg CO 2 equivalent. ReCiPe 2008 indicates damage to human health outweighs damage to ecosystem quality (E=84%, H=58%, I=51%) and resource availability (E=74%, H=29%, I=19%) for the DMLS process.

[1]  Gian Paolo Beretta,et al.  Thermodynamics: Foundations and Applications , 1991 .

[2]  T. Foxon,et al.  Divergence of trends in US and UK aggregate exergy efficiencies 1960-2010. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing , 2009 .

[4]  Jouke Verlinden,et al.  THREE VIEWS ON ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING: BUSINESS, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION , 2012 .

[5]  Jeffrey B Dahmus,et al.  Thermodynamic analysis of resources used in manufacturing processes. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms , 2005 .

[7]  Behjat Hojjati,et al.  U.S. household energy consumption and intensity trends: A decomposition approach , 2012 .

[8]  S. De Stercke Dynamics of Energy Systems: A Useful Perspective , 2014 .

[9]  Steven J. Skerlos,et al.  Environmental aspects of laser-based and conventional tool and die manufacturing , 2007 .

[10]  M. Branham,et al.  A thermodynamic framework for analyzing and improving manufacturing processes , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.

[11]  C. Herrmann,et al.  A Global Assessment of Manufacturing: Economic Development, Energy Use, Carbon Emissions, and the Potential for Energy Efficiency and Materials Recycling , 2013 .

[12]  A. Maddison Contours of the World Economy, 1-2030AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History , 2007 .

[13]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  Decomposition of useful work intensity: The EU (European Union)-15 countries from 1960 to 2009 , 2014 .

[14]  Han Tong Loh,et al.  Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and process selection in rapid prototyping and manufacturing , 2001 .

[15]  Bin Chen,et al.  Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy—a case study of the Chinese society 1981–2001 , 2007 .

[16]  Julian M. Allwood,et al.  The efficient use of energy: Tracing the global flow of energy from fuel to service , 2010 .