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

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.

[1]  L. Beránek,et al.  Overview and Comparison of PLA Filaments Commercially Available in Europe for FFF Technology , 2023, Polymers.

[2]  F. Tarlochan,et al.  A multi-period multiple parts mixed integer linear programming model for AM adoption in the spare parts supply Chain , 2023, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing.

[3]  Thanh Tuan To,et al.  Teaching Sustainability Using 3D Printing in Engineering Education: An Observational Study , 2023, Sustainability.

[4]  O. Ulkir Energy-Consumption-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Additive-Manufactured Product with Different Types of Materials , 2023, Polymers.

[5]  A. Beheshti,et al.  Effect of 3D printing process parameters on surface and mechanical properties of FFF-printed PEEK , 2023, Journal of Manufacturing Processes.

[6]  Y. Liu,et al.  Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of the Manufacturing of Conventional and Innovative Aerators: A Case Study in China , 2022, Sustainability.

[7]  N. Vidakis,et al.  The effects of FFF 3D printing parameters on energy consumption , 2022, Materials and Manufacturing Processes.

[8]  Christopher S. Brownell,et al.  Developing and Evaluating Educational Innovations for STEAM Education in Rapidly Changing Digital Technology Environments , 2022, Sustainability.

[9]  Shubhada S. Warke,et al.  Comparison of energy consumption of ABS and PLA while 3 D printing with fused deposition modeling process , 2022, Materials Today: Proceedings.

[10]  F. Tarlochan,et al.  Additive Manufacturing Technology for Spare Parts Application: A Systematic Review on Supply Chain Management , 2022, Applied Sciences.

[11]  Shirin Khaki,et al.  Characterization of Emissions in Fab Labs: An Additive Manufacturing Environment Issue , 2022, Sustainability.

[12]  W. Harun,et al.  Fused deposition modeling: process, materials, parameters, properties, and applications , 2022, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.

[13]  G. Mărginean,et al.  The Influence of the Process Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of PLA Specimens Produced by Fused Filament Fabrication—A Review , 2022, Polymers.

[14]  Stephen B Martin,et al.  Towards sustainable additive manufacturing: The need for awareness of particle and vapor releases during polymer recycling, making filament, and fused filament fabrication 3-D printing. , 2022, Resources, conservation, and recycling.

[15]  D. A. L. Silva,et al.  Comparative LCA of conventional manufacturing vs. additive manufacturing: the case of injection moulding for recycled polymers , 2021, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering.

[16]  F. Sgarbossa,et al.  Age-based preventive maintenance with multiple printing options , 2021, International Journal of Production Economics.

[17]  S. Ghazali,et al.  Comparative Study of the Sensitivity of PLA, ABS, PEEK, and PETG’s Mechanical Properties to FDM Printing Process Parameters , 2021, Crystals.

[18]  E. Enemuoh,et al.  Effect of Process Parameters on Energy Consumption, Physical, and Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling , 2021, Polymers.

[19]  T. Jen,et al.  Advances in 3D printing materials processing-environmental impacts and alleviation measures , 2021, Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies.

[20]  N. Naveed Investigating the Material Properties and Microstructural Changes of Fused Filament Fabricated PLA and Tough-PLA Parts , 2021, Polymers.

[21]  Weimin Yang,et al.  Comprehensive Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Fused Filament Fabrication Products Produced Under Various Performance Requirements , 2020 .

[22]  M. H. Abidi,et al.  On the Effects of Process Parameters and Optimization of Interlaminate Bond Strength in 3D Printed ABS/CF-PLA Composite , 2020, Polymers.

[23]  S. Scholz,et al.  Experiment-Based Process Modeling and Optimization for High-Quality and Resource-Efficient FFF 3D Printing , 2020 .

[24]  C. Rodríguez,et al.  Environmental analysis of selective laser melting in the manufacturing of aeronautical turbine blades , 2020 .

[25]  Vincenzo Tagliaferri,et al.  Environmental and Economic Analysis of FDM, SLS and MJF Additive Manufacturing Technologies , 2019, Materials.

[26]  Chao-Ming Huang,et al.  Integration of 3D Printing and Industry 4.0 into Engineering Teaching , 2018, Sustainability.

[27]  Min Jeong Song,et al.  Design and Development of 3D Printed Teaching Aids for Architecture Education , 2018, Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn..

[28]  Neelesh Kumar Jain,et al.  Advanced Gear Manufacturing and Finishing: Classical and Modern Processes , 2017 .

[29]  Peter Troxler,et al.  Fabrication Laboratories (Fab Labs) , 2016 .

[30]  Gregor Wernet,et al.  The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[31]  C. Herrmann,et al.  A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of a 3D Printed Product with PLA, ABS & PETG Materials , 2022, Procedia CIRP.

[32]  M. Todino,et al.  Learning by Making. 3D Printing Guidelines for Teachers , 2021, Makers at School, Educational Robotics and Innovative Learning Environments.

[33]  Tim Minshall,et al.  Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education , 2019, Additive Manufacturing.

[34]  P. Minetola,et al.  Energy and Cost Assessment of 3D Printed Mobile Case Covers , 2018 .

[35]  Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Terminology , 2016 .