Energy Modelling for FDM 3D Printing from a Life Cycle Perspective

Abstract

Advances in 3D printing is penetrating in many industries. It is changing the way of doing manufacturing business and people's life. Performing energy and related environmental impact analysis of this technology is necessary and profound. In this paper, energy modelling is studied for FDM printing from a life cycle perspective. For a typical FDM life cycle, the stages covered are material production, printing, post-processing and related transportation. For each stage, energy consumption is modelled and measures for unit energy consumption are also proposed to assist quick calculation of a life cycle energy consumption. Besides, the machines used in different stages are analysed and the main energy consuming components are summarised. Based on a sample part, preliminary calculation of its life cycle energy consumption is presented, showing that life cycle energy saving is possible, particular with collective efforts from different stages. This offers additional data to select an energy-efficient manufacturing process.

Systematic analysis of comparative studies between additive and conventional manufacturing focusing on the environmental performance of logistics operations

“…On the other hand, for the authors Peng & Sun (2017), Kellens et al (2017a), Ingarao et al (2018) and Pour et al (2016), the central point of the discussions presented in the articles was the environmental dimensions of the additive manufacturing process. Peng & Sun (2017) performed a life cycle assessment of products for additive manufacturing, nevertheless, the effects of the energy consumption of the transportation stage were not mentioned. According to Pour et al (2016), even though the shorter supply chain reduces the need for transportation, due to the possibility of bringing production centers closer to customers, this factor is barely held in AM studies and no conclusion could be extracted.…”

“…At this stage, the 51 studies analyzed were produced by the authors (Abdulhameed et al, 2019;Afshari et al, 2019;Agrawal & Vinodh, 2019;Ahmad & Enemuoh, 2020;Arrizubieta et al, 2020;Attaran, 2017;Böckin & Tillman, 2019;Campitelli et al, 2019;Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019;Cerdas et al, 2017;Chen et al, 2015;Barros & Zwolinski, 2016;Esmaeilian et al, 2016;Faludi et al, 2019;Ford & Despeisse, 2016;Fruggiero et al, 2019;Garg & Lam, 2015;Ingarao et al, 2018;Kek et al, 2016;Kellens et al, 2017a, b;Kohtala, 2015;Kothman & Faber, 2016;Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020;Li et al, 2017;Liu & De Giovanni, 2019;Ma et al, 2018;Maciel et al, 2019;Mele et al, 2020;Minetola & Eyers, 2018;Mrazović et al, 2018;Nagarajan & Haapala, 2018;Niaki et al, 2019;Nyamekye et al, 2015;Nyman & Sarlin, 2014;Paris et al, 2016;Peng et al, 2018;Peng & Sun, 2017;Pour et al, 2016;Priarone & Ingarao, 2017;Priarone et al, 2018;Saade et al, 2020;…”

Energy modeling and eco impact evaluation in direct metal laser sintering hybrid milling

“…It was reported that smart tools such as topology optimization provides optimal geometries and increased cost has no bearing on cost of finished parts. Peng and Sun [13] developed an analytical model for quantification of energy consumption in fused deposition of thermoplastics. Notable contribution on energy modelling in subtractive systems was made by Gutowski et al [14] by introducing a novel mathematical model for energy requirement in milling.…”

“…Fractions of the total time such as T lp1 , T ls1 for single part production can be calculated using Eqs. (12) and (13).…”

“…To find the total energy requirements, both additive and subtractive units have been subdivided into smaller units called energy consuming units (ECU) as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Basic physics and methodology of theoretical framework of additive and subtractive aligns with energy frameworks developed and employed by Jackson et al [2] and Peng and Sen [13] for additive subsystems and Figure 6. Energy consuming units for EBM.…”