Sustainability Perspectives A Review of Add 2023 Sustainable Manufacturing

Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smse
Sustainability perspectives – a review of additive and subtractive

manufacturing
Heshan Jayawardane a,∗, Ian J. Davies b, J.R. Gamage c, Michele John a, Wahidul K. Biswas a
a
Sustainable Engineering Group, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
b
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: The manufacturing industry contributes to the rapid development of world economy but generates substantial
Sustainable manufacturing adverse impacts on the environment and society. This research paper explores the tools and methods used to
3D printing evaluate the sustainability of additive and subtractive manufacturing. A systematic literature review has been
Additive manufacturing
conducted to carefully assess literature on part choice, material choice, technical assessment, environmental as-
Subtractive manufacturing
sessment, economic assessment, social implications, integrations, and sustainability performance comparisons.
Machining
Technical feasibility The study highlights that whilst sustainability performance of additive and subtractive manufactured parts and
Life cycle assessment systems has been assessed, integration of technical feasibility to improve sustainability performance has not been
Life cycle costing adequately explored. The study concludes that technical feasibility integrated sustainability assessments of addi-
Social life cycle assessment tive and subtractive manufactured parts should be followed to bridge the gap between technical and sustainability
performance. Further, this review explores challenges to integrate technical and sustainability performance and
to improve the overall sustainability aspects of additive and subtractive manufactured parts.
Introduction There is an increasing demand for sustainability in modern soci-

ety due to the increased awareness of climate change, global warm-
The rapid development of the manufacturing processes has signifi- ing, diminishing natural resources, implications of product usage,
cantly influenced the global economy in terms of value addition through and stringent government regulations [5]. The United Nations fur-
increased industrial metabolism. The manufacturing sector contributes ther emphasises that research on aspects of sustainability is a signif-
16.96% of global value addition (in comparison to 4.61% for the agri- icant driver to achieve the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. The in-
culture sector and 78.43% for the service sector) by converting raw ma- creasing burden has pushed the manufacturing industry to move to-
terials to consumable finished goods [1,2]. However, the accelerated wards sustainable production practices for future economic growth.
level of growth of manufacturing not only generates goods and services The triple bottom line theory of sustainability shows that economic,
but also depletes natural resources and generates waste and emissions environmental, and social sustainability contributes to business suc-
which pose adverse impacts on the environment [3]. As of 2021, the cess [6], which improves profitability, meets stakeholders’ demands,
manufacturing industry consumes 25% of global energy demand, 40% and conserves natural resources [7]. Hence, sustainable manufactur-
of global material demand, and produces 20% of global CO2 emissions ing has become a vital topic, which needs to be addressed by tech-
[4]. The reduction of energy use, material use, waste, and emissions in nological innovations, availability of up-to-date manufacturing data,
industrial manufacturing could significantly improve the global sustain- and application of sustainability performance measurement methods
ability. [8,9].
Abbreviations: ELCA, environmental life cycle assessment; LCC, life cycle costing; EEA, eco-efficiency assessment; SM, subtractive manufacturing; MQL, minimum
quantity lubrication; EBM, electron beam melting; JIT, just in time; DMLS, direct metal laser sintering; FDM, fused deposition modelling; GWP, global warming
potential; EP, eutrophication potential; CM, conventional manufacturing; PBF, powder bed forming; LCI, life cycle inventory; SLCA, social life cycle assessment; SLR,
systematic literature review; AM, additive manufacturing; UNEP, United nations environment programme; CNC, computer numerical control; SEC, specific energy
consumption; LBM, laser beam melting; SLM, selective laser melting; RM, additive remanufacturing; ADP, abiotic depletion potential; AP, acidification potential;
CLAD, direct laser additive manufacturing; SLS, selective laser sintering; HPDC, high pressure die casting.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Jayawardane).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smse.2023.100015
Received 20 June 2022; Received in revised form 12 April 2023; Accepted 15 April 2023
2667-3444/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
H. Jayawardane, I.J. Davies, J.R. Gamage et al. Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100015
Table 1
Keyword selection.
Keyword Justification
1. Additive manufacturing This refers to literature on manufacturing processes which achieve the desired shape of the product by addition of raw material.
2. 3D printing 3D printing is a synonym for additive manufacturing.
3. Subtractive manufacturing This refers to literature on manufacturing processes which achieve the desired shape of the product by removal of raw material.
4. Machining Machining is a synonym for subtractive manufacturing.
5. Sustainable manufacturing This refers to literature on manufacturing processes that lowers environmental, economic, and social impacts.
6. Technical feasibility This refers to literature on feasibility studies of technical properties of material for the intended applications.
7. Life cycle assessment This refers to literature on environmental impact assessment methods based on a life cycle approach.
8. Life cycle costing This refers to literature on economic impact assessment methods based on a life cycle approach.
9. Social life cycle assessment This refers to literature on social impact assessment methods based on a life cycle approach.
Additive manufacturing (AM) is as a resource-efficient manufactur-

ing technology that decreases the material waste through layer by layer
deposition of material using 3D model data. [6]. AM is becoming a tech-
nology that can support the transition from a linear economy in manu-
facturing to a circular economy [10]. The inconsistent product quality
in polymer AM and higher energy consumption in metal AM have hin-
dered the adoption of the technology. However, recent developments in
AM have produced high-quality AM parts with similar functional per-
formance to subtractive manufactured (SM) parts [11,12]. Furthermore,
rapid tooling and hybrid manufacturing methods have expanded the ap-
plicability of AM in industrial applications [12]. The technological inno-
vations such as AM coupled with sustainability performance assessments
could deliver intended sustainable manufacturing targets for industrial
applications.
Several sustainability assessment tools and methods have been used
in the life cycle approach to evaluate the sustainability performance of
AM and SM parts [9]. The environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA),
life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (SLCA) are the
most prominent tools that assess the triple bottom line objectives. Some
studies have integrated ELCA and LCC into tools such as eco-efficiency
assessment (EEA) to find environmentally friendly options not entailing
excessive costs [6]. However, there are challenges associated with the
integrations of technical feasibility aspects into the sustainability perfor-
mance assessment frameworks for manufacturing. Most sustainability
assessment tools and methods assume AM parts have similar technical
feasibility as SM parts which does not accurately assess the implications
of the technical performance on the sustainability assessment [13].
Although general solutions have been proposed, the tools and meth-
ods used in sustainability performance assessments, the comparison of
AM and SM in sustainability, and the level of integration of techni-
cal feasibility in sustainability performance studies remain unexplored. Fig. 1. Paper screening process flowchart [adopted from 15].
In this context, this study aims to discover research gaps by review-
ing the state of art of technical feasibility assessment methods and
sustainability assessment tools used for additive and subtractive man-
ufactured parts. This paper also discusses sustainability performance ity assessment methods used for additive and subtractive manufactured
comparisons as a decision support tool and approaches towards an parts”. The following keywords in Table 1 have been derived from the
improved framework for sustainability assessment for manufactured aim of the review.
parts. The keywords were then structured into a search term by searching
all items that contain either keywords by OR logic and searching for all
Method items that contain both keywords by AND logic (“sustainable manufac-
turing” OR “3D printing” OR “additive manufacturing” OR “machining”
The paper employs a systematic literature review (SLR) methodol- OR “subtractive manufacturing”) AND (“technical feasibility” OR “life
ogy to identify eligible literature and to analyse the gathered informa- cycle assessment” OR “life cycle costing” OR “social life cycle assess-
tion through a structured method. Accordingly, a method has been de- ment”).
veloped to collect, review, and synthesise articles focusing on the sus- The scope of the literature review was defined as the literature avail-
tainability of additive and subtractive manufacturing utilising available able in Scopus [14] and Google Scholar, as they contain very diffused
tools and methods. literature on manufacturing. The keywords string was searched within
the title, abstract, and keywords of articles in these databases. The ar-
Selection of articles for review ticle screening process has been presented in Fig. 1. Accordingly, 2,110
research articles were found in Scopus and Google Scholar databases
The structured methodology in SLR was used to define the keywords following a structured keyword search method. The following eligibil-
and the scope of the literature. The aim of the review is to “assess the ity criteria were used for the initial screening of sources for the literature
state of art of technical feasibility assessment methods and sustainabil- review and 1,326 articles were removed:
2
Fig. 2. Theoretical framework of literature review.
Fig. 3. Number of articles selected for review and their pub-

lication years.
• Scientific research published within the last ten years (2011–2022). further classified and synthesised in the review to generate meaningful
• Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and documents pub- information according to the objectives of the review paper. Further-
lished in recognised bodies (e.g., ISO, UNEP). more, state of the art for sustainable manufacturing was reviewed, and
• Articles published in English, which is an international language. weaknesses, challenges, and future directions were identified.
Out of these articles, 158 duplicate articles were removed. Another
468 articles were removed during the first stage of the screening pro- Analysis and discussion
cess based on the relevance of title and abstract to the research question
and 66 articles were removed during the second stage of the screen- Manufacturing involves the process of transforming raw materials
ing process, which focused solely on new material or process develop- into a desired product [11]. The manufacturing process that removes
ment as they were beyond the scope of the research. The final screening material has been termed as subtractive manufacturing while the manu-
identified 92 sources with relevant themes, which were selected for the facturing process that adds material has been termed additive manufac-
literature review. turing, during the development of additive manufacturing technology
The results were then categorised into themes and analysed under [16].
the theoretical framework as presented in Fig. 2.
Additive manufacturing (AM) technology
Sample and descriptive analysis
Additive manufacturing is an emerging manufacturing technology
Fig. 3 shows the number of articles published in each year from the whereby “material is added layer by layer from 3D model data to ob-
sample of 92 articles, with 70 articles (76.1%) being published from tain the desired shape of the product” [17]. This manufacturing route is
2016 onwards. This shows that the interest in sustainable manufactur- a key technology driving the Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing [8].
ing has grown significantly in recent years and may be due to the grow- Yoon et al. [11] stated that 3D printing is the most predominant additive
ing activities on combatting climate change. The main publication titles manufacturing method and has transformed from a rapid prototyping
for articles encountered during this review were Journal of Cleaner Pro- tool to a standard manufacturing technology for end-use products over
duction (14 articles), Journal of Industrial Ecology (7 articles), Additive recent years. Composites, ceramics, metals, biomaterials, and other in-
Manufacturing (5 articles), and International Journal of Advanced Man- novative materials are used to make functional parts in 3D printing [6].
ufacturing Technology (5 articles), while other articles were primarily This manufacturing method further eliminates the need for complex fix-
from journals in manufacturing. tures, tools and other cutting fluids [12] whilst allowing customisation,
Table 2 summarises the literature review carried out in this study by complex freeform fabrication and shorter lead times, hence enabling
presenting the tools, parameters, and manufacturing techniques evalu- Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing [18]. However, additive manufactur-
ated. The table indicates that 51% of articles have used the ELCA frame- ing technology has faced drawbacks such as high machine costs, mate-
work for environmental assessment, 25% have used the LCC framework rial costs and energy costs, which have hindered the widespread adop-
for economic assessment, 14% have used SLCA for social impact assess- tion of the technology [10].
ments, and 30% have discussed the technical feasibility of manufactured
parts. However, only 2% of the articles have considered the integration Subtractive manufacturing (SM) technology
of technical, economic, and environmental impact assessments.
The additive manufacturing has been found to offer benefits such as Subtractive manufacturing is the process of producing the desired
material efficiency, lower supply chain costs, improved functionality of shape and size of the product by removing the excess raw materials
parts, elimination of tools, jigs, and fixtures, and the use of recycled ma- with complex tools, fixtures, and jigs [19]. The computer numeric con-
terials over SM. However, lower surface quality, dimensional accuracy, trolled (CNC) machining method enables to achieve the required level
mechanical properties, and microstructure have hindered the applicabil- of dimensional accuracy and surface properties in modern manufactur-
ity of AM in industrial applications compared to SM. The literature was ing [11]. The material waste and cutting/lubricating fluids used to cool
3
Table 2
Summary of tools, manufacturing techniques, and sources encountered during the present work.
Tools Manufacturing Techniques Author
Technical feasibility assessment (TFA) Electron beam melting (EBM) (Aboulkhair et al., 2014, Austin et al., 2017)
Selective laser melting (SLS) (Aidibe et al., 2016, Brandl et al., 2012)
Fused filament fabrication (FFF) (Bárnik et al., 2019, Brenken et al., 2018, Fernández et al.,
2016, Kim et al., 2017, Khalid et al., 2021)
Powder bed forming (PBF) (Islam et al., 2013)
Laser engineered net shaping (LENS) (Bevan et al., 2017, Abdulrahuman et al., 2018)
CNC machining (Boswell et al., 2017)
CNC machining, laser cladding (Zhang et al., 2016)
Energy consumption (EC) SLM (Huang et al., 2016, Baumers et al., 2017)
FFF (Yoon et al., 2014, Ramesh et al., 2022, and Weng et al., 2022)
LBM, EBM (Watson and Taminger, 2018)
Environmental life cycle assessment PBF (Böckin and Tillman, 2019)
(ELCA) Directed energy deposition (DED) (Liu et al., 2018)
FDM and inkjet printing (Faludi et al., 2015)
Laser beam machining (LBM) (Walachowicz et al., 2017, Landi et al., 2022)
Selective laser sintering (SLS) (Kellens et al., 2014)
Wire additive manufacturing (Smythe et al., 2020)
CNC machining (Halstenberg et al., 2016)
SLM, CNC machining, forming (Ingarao et al., 2018)
Plunge milling, LBM (Peng et al., 2017)
SLM, CNC machining (Peng et al., 2020)
Laser cladding, CNC machining (Serres et al., 2011)
Life cycle costing (LCC) High pressure die cutting (HPDC), direct metal laser sintering (Atzeni and Salmi, 2012)
(DMLS)
SLM, injection mould tooling (Huang et al., 2017)
FFF, SLM, SLS (Lindemann et al., 2012)
Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) FFF (Naghshineh et al., 2020)
FFF, SLM, SLS (Matos et al., 2019)
(Naghshineh et al., 2021, Ruben et al., 2018)
TFA and ELCA LENS, CNC machining (Jiang et al., 2019)
ELCA and LCC EBM, CNC machining (Paris et al., 2016)
FFF (Pereira et al., 2019, Yosofi et al., 2019)
ELCA and design optimisation Binder jetting, CNC machining (Tang et al., 2016)
ELCA and eco-efficiency assessment (EEA) Petrochemical (Pereira et al., 2018)
ELCA, LCC, and SLCA CNC machining (Fatimah et al., 2013)
FFF, CNC machining
ELCA, LCC, and Human toxicity potential FFF (Ma et al., 2018)
ELCA, LCC, and EEA EBM (Mami et al., 2017)
TFA, ELCA, and EC SLM, CNC machining (Priarone and Ingarao, 2017)
TFA, ELCA, LCC, and EEA FFF (Jayawardane et al., 2021)
cutting tools in the manufacturing process are ultimately disposed of to The unit cost of parts produced by AM remains relatively constant
landfills causing eco-toxicity [20,21]. The CNC machining method for regardless of the scale of production, whereas the unit cost of parts pro-
subtractive manufacturing has improved machining performance, min- duced by SM decreases significantly with increasing scale of production.
imising waste, and increasing resource efficiency. Furthermore, CNC This is because SM involves substantial initial costs associated with the
machining has allowed users to determine the optimum cutting path, acquisition of tools, fixtures, and jigs, which are not required for AM
reduce machining time through automatic tool changing, development [19].
of cutting fluid control to provide minimum quantity lubrication (MQL)
and compressed air systems/cryogenic coolant system to improve ma- Part choice in studies of sustainable manufacturing
chined surface properties and tool life [22]. The fabrication of complex
geometries from 3D model data in multiple axes has been facilitated Additive and subtractive manufacturing processes have advantages
by this method. However, the CNC machining method is highly energy- and disadvantages over each other in terms of manufacturing an indi-
intensive for hard materials and difficult to machine complex geometries vidual part. Selecting a part that could be sustainably manufactured in
[23]. these processes has been essential in sustainability assessments. Studies
have chosen parts to evaluate based on parameters such as complex-
Additive manufacturing vs. subtractive manufacturing ity [19,23,26], solid-to-cavity/solid-to-envelope ratio [16,25], applica-
tion [10,13,19], functionality [12], simplicity [11] and availability of
Additive manufacturing (AM) and subtractive manufacturing (SM) standard performance testing criteria [26]. Sustainability assessments
are two contrasting manufacturing processes identified in the litera- have been performed for the parts such as turbine impellers [19,23],
ture [24]. These processes are distinct from each other, as AM involves pump impellers [26], axisymmetric parts [16,25] and simple mechan-
adding material to create the desired shape, whereas SM involves re- ical parts [12] based on the parameters as mentioned above. Multi-
moving material from a block to create the desired shape [25]. In prac- criteria decision-making models have been widely adopted in these stud-
tical applications, AM is commonly used for the production of cus- ies to select feasible parts based on the parameters [27].
tomised, low-volume, complex parts with a lower solid-envelope ra-
tio in sectors such as aerospace, healthcare, and automotive indus- Material choice in studies of sustainable manufacturing
tries [16,19]. In contrast, SM is preferred for the industrial produc-
tion of large-scale, identical parts with a higher solid-envelope ratio The material selection for manufacturing is another important con-
[4]. sideration in resource efficiency that determines the fundamental prop-
4
erties and the type of manufacturing process, i.e., additive or subtrac- mance of pumps [49]. It was found that impellers chemically treated
tive [21]. For example, it is unnecessary to use an energy-intensive steel with dimethyl ketone have higher hydraulic performance compared to
component when a plastic component does the same work with a reason- untreated impellers. This shows that improvement of surface quality
able lifetime [28]. Raw material production activities resulted in 25% of by post-treatment can increase the functional performance of additive
all anthropogenic CO2 emissions [29]. Steel, cement, paper, aluminium manufactured parts. Studies have also considered technical performance
and aggregate plastics are the major contributors to CO2 emissions, with improvement strategies such as weight reduction (composite parts in-
steel and aluminium alone being responsible for 28% of CO2 emissions stead of metal parts), design optimisation (topology and shape optimi-
in material production [25]. sation) and added functional value (3D printed cooling channels in en-
Aluminium [25,30], titanium [12,19,23], steel [31] and polymer gine components for higher efficiency) in sustainability assessment stud-
[11,32,33] have been the preferred materials for further investigation ies [4,18,26]. However, these studies did not conduct a comprehensive
in terms of difficulties associated with material extraction [25] and ma- technical evaluation of parts manufactured by additive manufacturing
chining [34], higher strength-weight ratio [19], higher availability of techniques in order to determine the durability and service life, which
materials in both bulk and powder forms [16], and availability of infor- could then be integrated into the economic and environmental analysis
mation on material production/properties [25]. Pusavec et al. [21] have [19].
scored the sustainability of materials in terms of abundance of raw ma- Jayawardane et al. [50] considered the technical feasibility assess-
terial, environmental impact during manufacturing, estimated life, ease ment of a 3D printed centrifugal pump impeller. The impeller was as-
of recycling, and cost of the finished product. sessed for dimensional and geometric tolerance, microstructure exam-
It is evident that the sustainability of materials selected for manufac- ination, material property evaluation such as tensile and fatigue tests
turing has gained prominence in sustainable manufacturing. However, and hydraulic performance. The technical feasibility assessment results
the influence of process parameters during material processing has af- indicated that 100% infill short fibre, carbon-nylon composite material
fected the material composition in AM, which has made it difficult to reinforced with fibreglass, was the only candidate material that achieved
select a material for AM compared to selecting a material with bulk the benchmark properties of conventional nylon materials. Service life
material properties in conventional SM [16]. Further, high cost of ma- estimation for the pump impeller was made through the fatigue life pre-
terials, limitations on the range of materials available for production diction method. Service life was used as the functional unit for economic
(several metals and composites cannot be controlled by temperature in and environmental life cycle assessments.
AM), and limits on the recyclability of materials (plastics and composites The technical feasibility of AM and SM parts has been tested through
have limited recyclability due to degradation of properties) and parts mechanical characterisation tests [28], build material property assess-
(complex products have parts made from different materials, making it ments [51], and performance tests. However, due to the variety of pro-
difficult to disintegrate to constituent parts) have hindered the adoption cess parameters, post-processing (finishing, heat treatment), and materi-
of AM technology [34,35]. als used in AM, it has been difficult to provide regulation for process pa-
rameters and certification of parts for technical feasibility [36]. Further,
Technical performance assessment for sustainable manufacturing service life estimation of parts has been used to determine the feasibility
in functional applications [50]. In summary, the studies reviewed here
Technical properties of parts were not significantly considered when show that the technical feasibility assessment of AM parts is imperative
additive manufacturing technology was only used for prototypes [36]. for comparative sustainability assessment with SM parts.
However, recent applications of AM to produce functional parts used
in safety-critical applications, such as aeronautical, medical, and indus- Sustainability assessment tools under triple bottom line objectives
trial appliances, need to be technically feasible [37,38]. The mechanical
properties and technical performance of parts vary with different manu- Once manufactured parts are found to be technically feasible, they
facturing methods, which influences the durability and service life of the need to fulfil social, economic, and environmental objectives of sustain-
appliances. Geometric and dimensional tolerance have been evaluated ability. The triple bottom line of sustainability encompasses a given
as primary technical performance indicators in additive manufacturing product system’s economic, environmental, and social implications
[39]. However, Mami et al. [13] showed that the technical performance [52]. The literature on sustainability assessment of AM and SM parts
of parts was generally not considered in sustainability performance stud- have been analysed under the triple bottom line objectives in this study.
ies, with the assumption being that parts made by different manufactur-
ing methods possessed the same mechanical performance and service Environmental assessment of manufacturing
life. Liu et al. [40] stated that the quality and performance of additive Energy consumption in manufacturing. Several studies have modelled en-
manufactured parts might not necessarily be similar to subtractive man- ergy consumption in manufacturing for environmental impact assess-
ufactured parts. ment using elementary assessment tools [53,54]. Yoon et al. [11] stud-
The most common defects of AM parts compared to SM parts have ied the energy consumption of the manufacturing stage of a simple part
been residual stresses, part deformation due to heat localisation, and in conventional formative, subtractive and additive (fused deposition
oxidation of metallic parts. These defects have been minimised through modelling) processes. The specific energy consumption (SEC) method
heat treatment, improvement of the build chambers, novel processing was used for each part in the manufacturing stage, and energy-saving
methods, and standardisation of process parameters. The International strategies for each process were discussed. It was found that the conven-
Organisation of Standardization has a standard for the technical eval- tional formative (SEC of 9.9 kWh.kg−1 ) and subtractive manufacturing
uation of additive manufactured parts (ISO 17,296–3) [41] in which (SEC of 3.49 kWh.kg−1 ) methods were more energy-efficient when com-
part properties should be tested for several technical properties, includ- pared to additive manufacturing methods (SEC of 75.1 kWh.kg−1 ) in
ing surface quality, geometric and dimensional tolerances, mechanical large scale fabrication, whereas additive manufacturing was viable for
properties (tensile and fatigue strength) and microstructure [42]. Stud- small scale fabrication. Furthermore, results showed that conventional
ies have been conducted to improve the additive manufacturing process bulk forming has the highest efficiency (∼100 times that of AM effi-
parameters such as dimensional and geometric tolerance [43], surface ciency). However, the study omitted the energy consumption in material
quality [44], mechanical properties [36,45] and microstructure [46– sourcing, preparation, tooling, and mould making. It was also stated that
48]. the development of technology for additive manufacturing could over-
Fernández et al. [26] conducted a technical performance compari- come the barriers associated with mass-scale manufacturing, thereby
son of pump impellers made through fused deposition modelling, us- reducing the SEC by lowering product weight and improving the effi-
ing standard testing methods for the testing of the hydraulic perfor- ciency of the equipment.
5
Paris et al. [23] studied the comparative environmental impacts of different characterisation factors in methods [59,60]. However, they are
additive (electron beam melting - EBM) and subtractive manufacturing easy to interpret for a general audience [33,61].
(CNC machining) methods for aeronautical component manufacturing, Faludi et al. [33] studied two polymer-based standard shape com-
mainly considering the energy consumption in the product life cycle. ponents with holes and features to compare the environmental impact
The cumulative energy demand in a life cycle approach was used in of additive manufacturing (FDM and inkjet) and conventional manufac-
the study to measure the environmental impact using ten indicators se- turing (CNC milling) using an ELCA approach. The ReCiPe endpoint H
lected from ‘CML 2 baseline 2000′. The results showed that, for a part method was adopted to quantify the environmental impacts for com-
with a shape complexity factor of 7.08, the EBM additive manufactur- parison [62]. The utilisation of the build-envelope (maximum physical
ing method was found to be more energy efficient (8.3 kWh) compared dimensions of the 3D print area) in AM has reduced idle time-energy
with CNC machining (27.5kwh). However, when the shape complexity and environmental impact per part. On the other hand, CNC machining
factor (ratio of the volume of material needed in SM to the volume of with maximum utilisation contributes to material waste such as scrap,
the part) fell below 2.6 with lower material removal, CNC machining lubricant, and emissions. These results are essential when correlating
became more energy efficient. This study showed that the shape com- machine utilisation with regards to the sustainability impact of the pro-
plexity factor is an important parameter which could affect the energy cess.
consumption of manufacturing when selecting a manufacturing method. Peng et al. [19] studied titanium alloy impellers for sustainability
Huang et al. [10] studied the energy-saving potential of additive assessment using the ELCA approach. Plunge milling (CM – Conven-
manufactured lightweight aircraft components. Forging, milling, turn- tional manufacturing), laser cladding forming (AM combined with CM)
ing, machining, and casting were selected for conventional manufactur- and additive remanufacturing (RM) were compared in terms of their en-
ing pathways, while selective laser melting (SLM), direct metal laser sin- vironmental impact. The study considered replacing conventional ma-
tering (DMLS) and EBM were considered additive manufacturing path- chining with additive manufacturing for a repairing process in order
ways. A life cycle energy modelling approach was used to calculate the to save materials and energy. RM was found to be the most environ-
energy consumption for each stage of the product life cycle. The mod- mentally favourable option followed by AM combined with CM pro-
elling was conducted with different estimates for the number of years cess in terms of global warming potential (GWP), abiotic depletion po-
taken to adopt additive manufacturing for 80% of aircraft components tential (ADP), eutrophication potential (EP) and acidification poten-
according to three scenarios: slow adoption (28 years), medium adop- tial (AP). Compared to CM and AM, RM reduced GWP, ADP and EP
tion (10 years), and rapid adoption (5 years). In the rapid adoption sce- by 64.7%, 66.1%, and 75.4%, respectively. However, AM exhibited a
nario, the results indicated a total primary energy-saving potential of lower environmental impact compared to CM when manufacturing com-
70–173 million GJ/year by 2050. The majority of the energy and cost ponents with complex geometries. CM requires fixtures and tools and
savings were found to come from the reduction of weight in aircraft may cause possible collisions, invisible zones, and difficulties in cutter
components made by additive manufacturing, which lowered the air- access, making it time-consuming and costly for complex parts. How-
craft fuel consumption. ever, the use of AM to produce large parts and simple geometries has
Wang et al. [55] has evaluated the energy efficiency of AM using a a higher environmental impact than CM. It should be noted that an as-
machine learning based multimodal attention fusion network. The re- sumption made in the reviewed literature was that manufactured prod-
sults of the numerical experiment showed that machine learning based ucts with different methods possessed the same mechanical behaviour.
energy consumption calculation provides accurate prediction compared However, this was assumed without conducting any laboratory-based
to conventional energy consumption calculations. Integration of com- assessments.
putational models could provide real-time environmental assessment of Serres et al. [12] studied the environmental impact of a titanium
AM parts. component with different functional and structural features for com-
In summary, the high energy-intensive nature of current metal addi- parison using the ELCA approach. Direct additive laser manufacturing
tive manufacturing methods (material production, manufacturing, and (CLAD – Construction Laser Additive Directe in French) process was com-
waste) has received global attention to improve the energy-saving po- pared with CNC milling (CM). The results showed that the CLAD process
tential and minimise resulting emissions through several research stud- reduced the environmental impact by 70% compared to the conven-
ies [56]. The results showed comparatively higher energy efficiencies tional machining process. The environmental impact of additive man-
for AM when applied to custom parts, complex shapes, and critical ap- ufacturing was mainly attributed to the upstream processing (material
plications that involve high cost and energy-saving when the design extraction, material processing and powder production) rather than the
and weight of the components are optimised [57]. Further, energy con- actual manufacturing.
sumption and other environmental impact assessments could be inte- Böckin and Tillman [24] conducted an ELCA to manufacture and
grated with machine learning based computational models to improve assemble a light distribution truck. Three midpoint environmental im-
efficiency and accuracy of assessment. pact indicators, namely, fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emis-
sions and material resource use, were used to quantify the environmen-
tal impacts of manufacturing. The comparative assessment considered
Environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA) in manufacturing. Several three scenarios: conventional manufacturing (S0), additive manufactur-
studies identified the environmental life cycle assessment approach as ing (PBF) of engine components (S1) and additive manufacturing of po-
the most influential environmental impact evaluation tool [12,25,33]. tential components with technology development (S2). The results in-
In an ELCA, the goal and scope of the study are first established, the indicated lower fossil fuel depletion in S1 and S2 and attributed to the
ventory of relevant inputs and outputs from a product-system are com- energy-intensive nature of 3D printing being offset by use stage savings
piled, and the environmental impacts are ascertained through a prod- of fossil fuel. GHG (Green House Gas) emission results showed the low-
uct’s life cycle to assess, evaluate, and interpret according to the objec- est figure for the S2 scenario, which was directly linked to a 25% weight
tives of the study [12,58]. The life cycle impact assessment results are reduction due to the optimisation and the selection of alternative mate-
computed either as midpoints or endpoints. Midpoints (global warming rials in AM. The material resource use also exhibited the lowest figure
potential, cumulative energy demand, abiotic depletion potential, eco- (8.3 kg) in S1 and S2 due to replacing high alloy steel in S0 (11.7 kg)
toxicity, etc.) are computed directly from the life cycle inventory data, with low alloy steel.
which are relatively difficult to interpret for a general audience [19]. Walachowicz et al. [63] conducted an ELCA on repairing gas tur-
However, endpoints (eco-system quality, resource depletion, and human bine burner tips made of nickel-based superalloys, comparing laser beam
health) are difficult to compute and entail a degree of uncertainty due melting (LBM) additive manufacturing with the conventional manufac-
to differences in inventory data, coverage of substances in methods, and turing process. The study focused on variations in recycling rates (0%
6
to 100%) of metal powder (99% stays in a closed loop) and the qual- Unconventional methods like high pressure jet assisted machining and
ity of recycling (% of contaminants in the recycled feedstock mixture) cryogenic machining have significantly lowered the environmental bur-
in order to identify the environmental impacts on material and en- den of conventional subtractive manufacturing. This shows that innova-
ergy consumption. The results showed that the material consumption tion in manufacturing technologies within the same dimension of sub-
(0.004 kg Sb-eq.), energy consumption (1100 MJ) and global warming tractive manufacturing could lower the environmental impacts of man-
potential (GWP) (80 kg CO2 -eq.) for conventional manufacturing was ufacturing.
significantly higher than that for LBM by 50%, 45% and 88%, respec- Material consumption in additive and subtractive manufacturing has
tively, for the 80% recycling rate scenario. This indicated that the LBM been extensively researched in order to reduce the environmental impli-
method possessed a lower environmental footprint compared to conven- cations of material extraction. Cruz Sanchez et al. [66] studied the po-
tional manufacturing for the same recycling scenario. tential use of recycled plastic composites as feedstock in additive manu-
Peng et al. [64] conducted a similar ELCA study for the comparison facturing. The main challenges for recycled plastics have been structural
between additive and subtractive manufacturing processes of an aircraft and morphological issues, the feasibility of production and stability of
valve body using ReCiPe midpoint H (18 indicators) and endpoint (3 in- polymers and the presence of low molecular weight compounds such
dicators) indicator methods. The study showed that the environmental as additives. Metal recycling has also been investigated by Smythe et al.
footprint of the additive manufactured part was 37.42% lower than that [67] for the recycling of titanium powder since the material cost for tita-
of the subtractive manufactured part. Kafara et al. [65] compared the nium is increasing significantly whilst the availability of ores is rapidly
environmental impacts of mould cores manufactured by additive manu- depleting. The main barriers to the use of recycled titanium feedstock
facturing and conventional mould manufacturing. This showed that the have been the embrittlement of interstitial elements and a high chance
AM significantly lowered the environmental impacts of mould manufac- of contamination.
turing. Since environmental impacts play an increasingly significant role in
Overall, the articles mentioned in this section have followed the sustainability assessments, research on environmental impacts has pro-
structured guidelines of an ELCA and have highlighted the potential of liferated. Energy consumption modelling, environmental life cycle as-
AM in a sustainable manufacturing landscape. Parameters including the sessments with different indicators and indicator types and other frame-
scale of production, technology adoption scenarios and use of recycled works have been used to assess the environmental impacts of additive
feedstock have been evaluated to portray a snapshot of the sustainabil- and subtractive manufactured parts. Hotspots in environmental impact
ity potential of additive manufacturing. The scope of the ELCA should have been identified as part weight, lower build volume utilisation,
cover the complete cradle-grave analysis to cover all the environmental lower machine utilisation, material waste, energy mix and high energy
impacts of a product. Further, the life cycle inventory (LCI) used in the consumption, with these issues being tackled through design optimisa-
studies have reported limited inputs and outputs in terms of comprehen- tion, build volume optimisation, recycled material feedstock, the use of
sive energy consumption, material consumption, and process emissions clean energy and efficient machines.
due to non-disclosure of information by material and equipment manu-
facturers, which results in studies relying heavily on assumptions. This Economic assessment of manufacturing
could be solved by using commercial LCA software like SimaPro in the The value-addition to the global economy through advanced man-
assessments. ufacturing methods continues to increase [68]. The applications of ad-
ditive manufacturing have been emerging in high value, low volume,
Other aspects of environmental impact in manufacturing. Material con- customised markets such as medical equipment and tools manufactur-
sumption, design optimisation and process emissions are other aspects ing, aircraft and space applications, customised sports applications, and
that have been studied to determine the environmental impacts of man- consumer goods manufacturing [8,69]. In this context, there is a grow-
ufacturing [13,18]. Kellens et al. [32] studied the environmental impact ing interest to quantify the economic implications of these product sys-
of the selective laser sintering (SLS) additive manufacturing method tems [70]. Economic assessments have been predominantly conducted
using a parametric model. The model included a time study (produc- through the life cycle costing (LCC) approach before introducing a struc-
tive time – laser sintering and recoating; non-productive time – ma- tured ELCA framework [71]. The LCC includes the costs from the cradle
chine tool cleaning, preparation, and heating), a power study (standby, to the grave, in all stages of the product life cycle (i.e., material extrac-
pre-heating, exposure, and reheating) and a consumables study (com- tion, material production, manufacturing, use and end-of-life), which
pressed air and powder material) to develop models separately for the are evaluated using the same LCI used in the ELCA [6] in order to
environmental process, impact, and improvement potential. The impact meet conformity of comparison. Developments in additive manufactur-
model for AM showed a total environmental impact of 35.56 eco-points ing technology have offered economic benefits such as production flex-
that was ascribed equally between waste materials (50%) and energy ibility, reduced machine/material costs and material/energy wastage.
consumption (50%). The improvement potential model indicated the Furthermore, the capital investment costs of additive manufactur-
potential to improve nesting efficiency (increased utilisation of build- ing (3D printer capital costs range from US$5000∼1000,000) have been
envelope) by stacking the build-envelope, optimising machine tool con- offset by cheaper operating costs (15% reduction in AM part unit cost
trol to reduce non-productive time and using recycled feedstock to re- compared to conventionally manufactured part) over the lifetime of the
duce environmental impact. 3D printer [69]. Cost savings have also been explored in AM part in-
Tang et al. [18] developed a framework to evaluate the environmen- tegration, which has the potential to reduce costs by 80% through the
tal impact of manufacturing an engine bracket through the binder jetting elimination of assembly and logistic costs for each part [72]. The cost of
additive manufacturing process. The environmental impact assessed by subtractive manufacturing has been reduced through cheaper machines,
ELCA was improved by changing the product design through shape and lower maintenance costs, MQLs, and higher tool life [73].
topology optimisation for additive manufacturing. The results indicated Huang et al. [71] studied the economic implications of additive man-
a GWP of 49.3 kg CO2 -eq for the design optimised additive manufac- ufacturing (SLM) and conventional manufacturing (CNC machining) in-
tured part compared to 55.83 kg CO2-eq for the CNC machined part jection moulding tools. The lead-time analysis shows that on-site AM has
and attributed to lower material and energy consumption given the opti- a 12% lower lead time compared to conventional offshore manufactur-
mised part design. This result confirms that additive manufacturing can ing. However, on-site AM is four days slower than conventional onshore
offer lower environmental impacts compared to CNC machining when manufacturing due to longer production times. These higher lead times
design optimisation is considered. translate into plant downtime and result in increased costs. A 15% to
Pusavec et al. [21] evaluated conventional and unconventional sub- 35% cost saving was noted in distributed additive manufacturing sce-
tractive manufacturing methods for their sustainability performance. narios over conventional manufacturing methods for a functional unit
7
of 1 million injection moulding cycles, i.e., the lifetime of the injection selected for assessment. The results showed that AM possesses better so-
mould in a number of injection moulding cycles, in the LCC. Further- cial performance, such as a reduction of occupational hazards, recogni-
more, this study evaluated GHG, along with life cycle costs, in order tion of professional status, new opportunities for leisure and recreation
to help interpret the environmental implications of economic decisions and personalised products improving satisfaction. However, exposure to
(Huang et al., 2017). harmful substances was identified as a negative social impact of additive
Atzeni and Salmi [74] evaluated the economic impacts of an additive manufacturing.
manufactured aircraft landing gear. The life cycle costs of the manufac- Naghshineh et al. [78] developed an SLCA framework based on the
tured parts by high pressure die casting (HPDC) and DMLS were com- UNEP/SETAC [75] framework in order to quantify the social impacts
pared in the study. The results showed that unit cost depended strongly of additively manufactured products. This framework proposed sev-
on the batch size due to the high cost of the die used to cast the land- eral subcategories of social impact indicators, stakeholder categories
ing gear ($210 for die cost per unit in a batch of 100 landing gears – and life cycle stages. The qualitative survey enabled the gathering of
91% of the total cost). The total cost of the landing gear through the respondents’ perceptions to determine social impact indicators, which
DMLS method was $526 (machine cost per unit was $473 – 90% of the were later converted to a single social impact score. A UK 3D print-
total cost). The break-even point for the HPDC and DMLS methods was ing company case study was used to validate the selection of social im-
42 units. This result suggested that a future reduction in machine costs pact indicators proposed in the developed framework. Naghshineh et al.
could increase the break-even point between conventional manufactur- [79] further evaluated the social impacts of additive manufacturing in
ing methods, thereby making AM cost-competitive in the future. a stakeholder-driven framework. The study concluded that 29% of in-
Lindemann et al. [72] developed a time-driven activity-based cost dicators were assigned to the local community, 25% were assigned to
model for their life cycle cost calculation. The cost calculation for a consumers, 25% were assigned to society, 14% were assigned to value
stainless steel 316 L aerospace bracket resulted in a cost portfolio of chain actors, and 7% were assigned to employees, reflecting the degree
73% machine costs and 12% material costs for a batch size of 190 parts. of AM impact for each stakeholder category.
Labour costs were only calculated for loading and unloading since AM Ruben et al. [80] developed a simplified two-level generic SLCA
is regarded to be a blind production process (without the involvement framework from the UNEP/SETAC [75] framework, including first-level
of labour). enablers and second-level indicators. The first level includes stakehold-
The reviewed studies in this section have shown that cost is an im- ers such as employees, products, and society. The second level includes
portant consideration in manufacturing business decision making. The three indicators under employees (fair salary, working hours, and local
results show that the costs of AM methods have been higher than their employment), products (product safety, orientation, and secure operat-
conventional manufacturing counterparts, mainly due to high machine ing conditions), and society (technology development, contribution to
costs (capital/purchase costs and operational costs), which are expected economic development, and operational commitment to sustainability
to be reduced due to further developments in technology and the ex- issues). The framework was validated by a case study of an Indian au-
piration of intellectual property rights in the additive manufacturing tomotive manufacturer, which identified two social hotspots, including
area. Furthermore, additive manufacturing supply chains in distributed contribution of manufacturing to economic development and the opera-
networks have the potential to offset higher lead times for parts man- tional commitment to sustainable issues towards the societal stakehold-
ufactured offshore. Studies have considered life cycle costs along with ers.
environmental impacts for better visualisation of triple bottom line ob- Bours et al. [81] analysed the hazardous implications of additive
jectives. manufacturing to human health and developed a framework to minimise
hazards and social impacts. The study identifies the sources of emissions
Social implications of manufacturing of particulate matter, the toxicity of materials (feedstock, solvent, wash-
The social sustainability perspective of additive and subtractive man- ing compounds), explosion, and fire as potential negative social impacts.
ufacturing has not been researched extensively [6]. However, the social Establishing a hazard management framework in an AM system similar
implications of manufacturing have been studied for both qualitative to SM systems could lower the negative social impacts.
and quantitative impacts through different assessment methods. For ex- Social impact assessments in additive and subtractive manufactur-
ample, Ma et al. [6] stated that the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) ing are limited, unlike ELCA and LCC assessments, due to the inherently
by UNEP/SETAC [75] is the most commonly used framework for so- qualitative nature and the uncertainty of indicators subjected to bias
cial impact assessment. The social impact indicators have been mod- [6]. However, the social life cycle assessment framework proposed by
elled through stakeholder categories of the local community, society, UNEP/SETAC [75] has garnered the interest of several researchers in
consumers and value-chain actors [75]. Although the Global Reporting order to develop a framework and conduct empirical research in this
Initiative [76] has introduced 19 social impact indicators categorised as domain. It was found that several AM methods have better positive so-
core and additional indicators, most are qualitative indicators, resulting cial impacts (occupational hazards, job satisfaction and opportunities
in quantification difficulties. for leisure and recreation) on the local community, stakeholders, con-
Health and safety have been quantified in terms of human toxicity sumers, and overall society compared to conventional manufacturing.
potential (HTP) in several social impact assessments due to the quan- However, HTP was identified as a major negative social impact of AM.
titative nature of this parameter. The results have found that HTP is
positively correlated with the weight of the material used in the man- Eco-efficiency analysis
ufacturing process. Tang et al. [18] compared the social impacts of the It is challenging to objectively assess the best options that are si-
HTP of the binder jetting process (AM) with SM and found that higher multaneously economically and environmentally feasible, as an environ-
amounts of dichlorobenzene equivalent (DCB-eq.) in both manufactur- mentally friendly option may not be cost-competitive whilst a cheaper
ing processes lead to higher human toxicity potential, thereby exposing option may not offer the required level of environmental benefit [82].
a negative social impact of manufacturing. The results indicated that an A substantial amount of research has been carried out to assess the en-
AM part produced 44.1 kg of DCB-eq., whereas an SM part only pro- vironmental and economic sustainability of manufacturing separately.
duced 29.5 kg DCB-eq. This highlights that additive manufacturing may However, studies have not considered the optimisation of technical, eco-
exhibit more negative social implications due to higher HTP impacts. nomic, environmental and social implications in order to simultaneously
Matos et al. [77] investigated the social impacts of additive man- meet those four objectives [8]. Therefore, eco-efficiency analysis (EEA)
ufacturing using an SLCA method. Social impact indicators of health is an important tool to address this sustainability balance as it integrates
and social well-being, institutional, legal, political, equitable, quality the life cycle costs and environmental impact into a single indicator to
of the living environment and economic and material well-being were analyse the environmental impact made per dollar invested in a product.
8
The eco-efficiency analysis aims to determine cost-competitive and AM is not suitable for parts with unexposed features making it unable to
environmentally friendly products made through different manufactur- remove residual material and support structures. Further, hybrid manu-
ing techniques. The framework uses a distance to target approach, mak- facturing methods could be utilised for applications that require spe-
ing it suitable for comparative analysis rather than a definitive study. cific tolerances that could be completed by post-processing with SM
A micro-level improvement in the product or process could be guided methods.
to a macro level target through this study [83]. The EEA tool has been Several studies have formulated decision support tools by incorporat-
used to assess environmental and economic impacts together in order to ing parameters such as batch size for process selection [89] and solid to
simplify the interpretation of the sustainability performance of power cavity ratio [25] when comparing the environmental impact and energy-
supply systems [84], aircraft applications [13], nanocellulose [85] and saving potential of parts manufactured from aluminium alloys by con-
petrochemical production [86]. ventional forming, subtractive manufacturing, and additive manufac-
Mami et al. [13] evaluated the sustainability of 3D printing in the turing processes. Priarone and Ingarao [4] utilised life cycle emissions
aeronautical industry using the eco-efficiency approach, with ELCA be- for sustainability performance comparison between 3D printed and CNC
ing aggregated with LCC in order to identify eco-efficiency strategies. A machined parts. The batch size or scale of production was considered to
case study was conducted for an aircraft doorstep to compare the eco- select the manufacturing method with the lowest life cycle emissions.
efficiency of additive manufacturing and conventional manufacturing. Comparative assessments have shown positive environmental implica-
Three scenarios, namely, conventional manufacturing, additive manu- tions for additive manufacturing due to improved resource efficiency
facturing, and additive manufacturing with topology optimisation, were and lower emissions [69].
selected for comparison. The results were analysed through a normali- Yosofi et al. [27] also developed a framework to measure the triple
sation procedure interpreted as an X-Y scatter diagram, which showed bottom line sustainability performance of additive manufacturing meth-
that additive manufacturing possessed benefits over conventional man- ods through a graphical visualising tool (radar chart) with a ‘distance to
ufacturing in terms of cost and environmental impact. target’ approach. The parameters included electrical energy consump-
Jayawardane et al. [50] evaluated the techno-eco-efficiency perfor- tion, mass of part, mass of support, cost, and surface roughness. The
mance of a 3D printed centrifugal pump impeller using a life cycle ap- results showed that parts manufactured with material jetting AM (3D
proach. Both ELCA and LCC were conducted using the same LCI gener- inkjet process cured by UV light) exhibited the lowest environmental im-
ated from manufacturing and other secondary data. The results of ELCA pact and life cycle costs compared to conventional SM parts. The graph-
and LCC were normalised to have common denominators for compar- ical model proposed by Yosofi et al. [27] have integrated the technical
ison purposes and to reduce complexity. The results were integrated performance of the AM process by linking the surface roughness per-
into the EEA, which concluded the most eco-efficient option to be a 3D formance of the AM part with the environmental and economic impact
printed impeller made from 100% infill carbon-nylon composite mate- assessment, which is a step towards integrating technical feasibility into
rial reinforced with fibreglass. sustainability performance. However, this study considered a limited
The EEA has been used to integrate the results of the ELCA and number of indicators compared to other researchers for sustainability
LCC for a decision-making. The eco-inefficient options found in the assessments [90,91].
eco-efficiency portfolio could be further improved by incorporating Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) aims to assess environ-
cause diagnosis and improvement strategies. This is an iterative process mental, economic, and social aspects of manufactured parts through
that continues until the eco-efficiency of a product can be achieved or ELCA, LCC, and SLCA tools [6]. However, the assessment is limited to
else can no longer be improved. This improved techno-eco-efficiency individual aspects and requires integrative approach to determine envi-
assessment tool combines technical feasibility assessment with environmental impacts per dollar invested in a product.
ronmental and economic assessments to assess the triple bottom line The ‘techno-eco-efficiency framework’ proposed by Jayawardane
objectives. et al. [50] manages to integrate technical, economic and environmental
impacts into a single framework to evaluate sustainability performance
Sustainability performance comparisons of AM and SM parts of AM and SM parts. The application of the decision support framework
has found that AM parts significantly lower the environmental impacts
Comparative assessment of manufacturing technologies to determine compared to conventional SM parts. Further, AM parts were found to be
the feasibility of manufacturing a part is an important aspect of modern eco-efficient since the impact of higher costs in AM have been offset by
manufacturing [87]. A sustainable manufacturing system should meet the lower environmental impacts.
all the aspects of the triple bottom line objectives of sustainability as In summary, the decision support tools developed by several re-
well as the technical aspects [20]. Several studies have proposed frame- searchers have considered a primary analysis of the break-even points
works for the selection of technically feasible and sustainable processes of energy consumption and life cycle costs. In contrast, some studies
to manufacture parts. have used technical characterisations such as shape complexity, volume
Watson and Taminger [16] used a resource consumption-based com- fraction/solid-cavity ratio, and batch size parameters for process selec-
putational model for sustainability performance measurement as a de- tion. There exists a need for comprehensive decision support tools that
cision support tool. The model stated a critical volume fraction value, could integrated life cycle costing, life cycle environmental impact, and
defined by resource consumption. Additive and subtractive methods technical aspects of the parts to select optimum methods for sustainable
were found to be equally efficient in manufacturing a product through manufacturing assessment and decision making.
this framework. Lower volume fractions would indicate additive manu-
facturing methods to be more suitable than subtractive manufacturing Lessons learned and research gaps
methods and vice versa.
Bikas et al. [88] also formulated a decision support tool for addi- Additive manufacturing has revolutionised sustainable manufactur-
tive manufacturing based on a probability score (0 to 1) assignment ing, evolving from rapid prototyping technology to a manufacturing-
for unfeasible, unlikely, likely, very likely, and feasible outcomes in a scale industry. The following lessons were learned, and respective re-
multi-criteria logical flowchart. This framework considered criteria in search gaps were identified from the literature review.
the first level (presence of complex internal structures, freeform sur-
faces, controlled porosity, and integration of multiple parts), second Applicability of AM
level (machine constraints, material constraints, process constraints, and
part constraints), and third level (manufacturability and post-processing Some studies have evaluated the technical properties of manufac-
by a single process or hybrid processes). The framework identified that tured parts and have improved process parameters to produce techni-
9
cally feasible additive manufactured parts. The studies have carefully methodologies used in the sustainability performance assessment of ad-
considered the design, material, and process for manufacturing a part ditively and subtractive manufactured parts to identify barriers and pro-
for technical feasibility assessments. The technical feasibility has been pose improvement strategies.
assessed under mechanical characterisation, build material properties, The studies that could further contribute to the current body of
and functional performance. AM parts are required to have comparable knowledge in sustainable AM include, the investigation into the tools
technical feasibility to SM parts for sustainability performance compar- and methods used in triple bottom line sustainability performance as-
isons in real world applications. sessments, the comparative analysis of sustainability performance be-
tween additive and subtractive manufacturing, the extent of integration
Integration of technical feasibility to sustainable manufacturing of technical feasibility of sustainability performance studies, and to ex-
plore the right material recycling strategies to further improve sustain-
The technical aspects (reliability, durability, and service life) of addi- ability of manufacturing.
tive manufactured parts have been widely disregarded in sustainability The following findings emerged from this review in line with the
assessments, thereby implicitly assuming similar technical performance themes addressed and several managerial insights has been identified.
as the conventional subtractive manufactured counterparts. Considera-
• Manufacturing a product requires careful consideration in the as-
tion of the same durability of these parts could either underestimate or
pects of design, material, and process which affects the technical,
overestimate the sustainability performance of products [90]. The in-
economic, environmental, and social impacts. The technical feasi-
tegration of the technical performance into sustainability performance
bility of AM and SM parts could be assessed through mechanical
assessment tools could result in realistic outcomes.
characterisation, build material properties, and the performance of
the selected part in the functional application.
Integration of sustainability assessment methods
• It is imperative to incorporate the technical feasibility into sustain-
able assessment to obtain an accurate comparison of AM and SM
The triple bottom line objectives of environmental, economic, and
parts as estimated service life could significantly affect the life cycle
social impacts have been extensively assessed in several literature in-
results.
dividually. However, the integration of these objectives has not been
• The sustainability performance assessment methods need to be de-
adequately applied or researched. Eco-efficiency analysis has received
ployed to provide a holistic overview of the trade-off between the
recent attention by several authors, given that the environmental im-
economic and environmental performance of a manufactured part.
plications using ELCA and economic implications using LCC can be in-
Eco-efficiency assessment (EEA) could be used as an integrative ap-
tegrated into a single indicator to find the most eco-efficient option(s),
proach to assess economic and environmental impacts combinedly.
followed by a social impact assessment of the eco-efficient options. In
Material consumption, design optimisation, and process develop-
addition, the ability to incorporate improvement strategies and the use
ment should be considered in environmental impact assessment
of ‘distance to target’ approaches have made it suitable for comparative
studies.
assessment.
• The social impacts of AM and SM parts need to be assessed through
social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and human toxicity potential
Lack of consideration of social aspects
(HTP) assessment methods.
• Material processing and end-of-life processing stages of the prod-
The social impacts of AM parts have not been adequately investi-
uct life cycle could be improved by considering circular economy
gated, except for a few notable studies which have evaluated social im-
strategies such as the use of recycled polymer and metal compos-
pacts through an SLCA framework. This could have been predominantly
ites as feedstock to enhance the sustainability outcomes of additive
due to the qualitative nature of several social impact indicators and the
manufacturing strategies.
complexities with the integration of social aspects into the technical as-
sessments. The results could also assist in achieving United Nations sustain-
able development goals (SDG) such as pollution prevention (SDG
Material recycling 6), cleaner production (SDG 7), simplified supply chains (SDG 9),
sustainable sourcing (SDG 12), and product performance (SDG 13)
Furthermore, when comparing the sustainability performance of AM [34].This study highlighted the existing research gaps in sustain-
and SM parts, the distinction of system boundary and the scope of the able AM and SM, proposed solutions for future work in sustainable
ELCA and LCC affects the accuracy of the results. Since some studies AM which could assist researchers and industry to develop tools,
have not included the material processing stage or end-of-life stage in frameworks, policies, and technology to improve the sustainability of
the scope of the life cycle assessment, an accurate comparison can only manufacturing.
be made considering all the input and output processes of all life cy-
cle stages. The resource consumption in feedstock and waste associated Funding
with the disposal of end-of-life products regarding product life cycle
approaches has a significant bearing on the triple bottom line objec- The ‘Sustainable Engineering Group Scholarship’, Curtin University
tives of the sustainability performance of manufactured parts. Few stud- supported the studies of Heshan Jayawardane in preparing this research
ies have researched the sustainability performance assessment of 3D work.
printed parts made of recycled feedstock using circular economy princi-
ples. However, limited research on the technical investigation of parts Ethics approval
made from recycled feedstock using different technologies has left much
of this research area unexplored. The ethics approval for this research work was obtained from Curtin
University under approval number HRE2020–0203.
Conclusion
Declaration of Competing Interest
In conclusion, the unsustainable manufacturing processes have re-
sulted in socio-economic and environmental consequences that need to The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
be addressed through a structured theoretical framework. This review interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
presents a systematic review of the state-of-the-art of frameworks and the work reported in this paper.
10
Data availability ing versus machining versus forming, J. Clean Prod. 176 (6) (2018) 261–275,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.115.
[26] S. Fernández, M. Jiménez, J. Porras, L. Romero, M. Espinosa, M. Domínguez, Ad-
The research data and material will be made available at Curtin Re- ditive manufacturing and performance of functional hydraulic pump impellers in
search Data Collection. fused deposition modeling technology, J. Mech. Des. 138 (2) (2016) 024501.
[27] M. Yosofi, O. Kerbrat, P. Mognol, Additive manufacturing processes from an envi-
ronmental point of view: a new methodology for combining technical, economic,
References and environmental predictive models, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 102 (9) (2019)
4073–4085, doi:10.1007/s00170-019-03446-2.
[1] A.M. Santacreu, H. Zhu, Manufacturing and service sector roles in the evolution of [28] I. Anderson, Mechanical properties of specimens 3D printed with virgin and
innovation and productivity, Econ. Synop. (2) (2018) 1–3. recycled polylactic acid, 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 4 (2) (2017) 110–115,
[2] F.A. Halstenberg, K. Lindow, R. Stark, Utilization of product lifecycle data from PLM doi:10.1089/3dp.2016.0054.
systems in platforms for industrial symbiosis, Procedia Manuf. 8 (2017) 369–376, [29] E. Worrell, J. Allwood, T. Gutowski, The role of material efficiency in environmental
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.047. stewardship, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 (1) (2016) 575–598, doi:10.1146/an-
[3] T. Peng, K. Kellens, R. Tang, C. Chen, G. Chen, Sustainability of additive manufac- nurev-environ-110615-085737.
turing: an overview on its energy demand and environmental impact, Addit. Manuf. [30] J. Faludi, M. Baumers, I. Maskery, R. Hague, Environmental impacts of selective
21 (5) (2018) 694–704, doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.04.022. laser melting: do printer, powder, or power dominate? J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1) (2017)
[4] P.C. Priarone, G. Ingarao, Towards criteria for sustainable process selec- S144–S156, doi:10.1111/jiec.12528.
tion: on the modelling of pure subtractive versus additive/subtractive inte- [31] Q. Jiang, Z. Liu, T. Li, W. Cong, H.-.C. Zhang, Emergy-based life-cycle assessment
grated manufacturing approaches, J. Clean Prod. 144 (16) (2017) 57–68, (Em-LCA) for sustainability assessment: a case study of laser additive manufacturing
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.165. versus CNC machining, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 102 (9) (2019) 4109–4120,
[5] A.V. Balatsky, G.I. Balatsky, S.S. Borysov, Resource demand growth and sustain- doi:10.1007/s00170-019-03486-8.
ability due to increased world consumption, Sustainability 7 (3) (2015) 3430–3440 [32] K. Kellens, R. Renaldi, W. Dewulf, J.-p. Kruth, J.R. Duflou, Environmental impact
[Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/3430 . modeling of selective laser sintering processes, Rapid Prototyp. J. 20 (6) (2014)
[6] J. Ma, J.D. Harstvedt, D. Dunaway, L. Bian, R. Jaradat, An exploratory investiga- 459–470, doi:10.1108/RPJ-02-2013-0018.
tion of additively manufactured product life cycle sustainability assessment, J. Clean [33] J. Faludi, C. Bayley, S. Bhogal, M. Iribarne, Comparing environmental impacts of
Prod. 192 (29) (2018) 55–70, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.249. additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment, Rapid
[7] S.Y. Janjua, P.K. Sarker, W.K. Biswas, A review of Residential buildings’ sustainabil- Prototyp. J. 21 (1) (2015) 14–33, doi:10.1108/RPJ-07-2013-0067.
ity performance using a life cycle assessment approach, J. Sustain. Res. 1 (1) (2019) [34] S. Ford, M. Despeisse, Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory
e190006 Art no. e190006, doi:10.20900/jsr20190006. study of the advantages and challenges, J. Clean Prod. 137 (2016) 1573–1587,
[8] M. Gebler, A.J.M. Schoot Uiterkamp, C. Visser, A global sustainability per- doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.150.
spective on 3D printing technologies, Energy Policy 74 (2014) 158–167, [35] G. Dwivedi, S.K. Srivastava, R.K. Srivastava, Analysis of barriers to implement addi-
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033. tive manufacturing technology in the Indian automotive sector, Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
[9] M.R.M. Saade, A. Yahia, B. Amor, How has LCA been applied to 3D printing? A Logist. Manag. (2017).
systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies, J. Clean Prod. [36] H. Kim, E. Park, S. Kim, B. Park, N. Kim, S. Lee, Experimental study on mechanical
244 (19) (2020) 118803, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118803. properties of single- and dual-material 3D printed products, Procedia Manuf. 10 (45)
[10] R. Huang, et al., Energy and emissions saving potential of additive manufacturing: (2017) 887–897, doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.076.
the case of lightweight aircraft components, J. Clean Prod. 135 (3) (2016) 1559– [37] F. Bárnik, M. Vaško, M. Handrik, F. Dorčiak, J. Majko, Comparing mechanical prop-
1570, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.109. erties of composites structures on Onyx base with different density and shape of fill,
[11] H.-.S. Yoon, et al., A comparison of energy consumption in bulk forming, subtractive, Transp. Res. Procedia 40 (13) (2019) 616–622.
and additive processes: review and case study, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green [38] M. Khalid, Q. Peng, Investigation of printing parameters of additive manufacturing
Technol. 1 (3) (2014) 261–279, doi:10.1007/s40684-014-0033-0. process for sustainability using design of experiments, J. Mech. Des. 143 (3) (2021),
[12] N. Serres, D. Tidu, S. Sankare, F. Hlawka, Environmental comparison of MESO- doi:10.1115/1.4049521.
CLAD® process and conventional machining implementing life cycle assessment, [39] M.N. Islam, B. Boswell, A. Pramanik, An investigation of dimensional accuracy of
J. Clean Prod. 19 (9) (2011) 1117–1124, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.010. parts produced by three-dimensional printing, in: Proceedings of the World Congress
[13] F. Mami, J.-.P. Revéret, S. Fallaha, M. Margni, Evaluating eco-efficiency of on Engineering 2013, IAENG, 2013, pp. 522–525.
3D printing in the aeronautic industry, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1) (2017) S37–S48, [40] Z. Liu, Q. Jiang, W. Cong, T. Li, H.-.C. Zhang, Comparative study for envi-
doi:10.1111/jiec.12693. ronmental performances of traditional manufacturing and directed energy de-
[14] Scopus. "Document Search Results For “(‘sustainable manufacturing’ OR ‘3D print- position processes, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15 (11) (2018) 2273–2282,
ing’ OR ‘additive manufacturing’ OR ‘subtractive manufacturing’) AND (‘sustainabil- doi:10.1007/s13762-017-1622-6.
ity Assessment tools’ OR ‘sustainability assessment method’ OR ‘technical feasibility’ [41] Additive ManufacturingGeneral Principles: Part 3 - Main Characteristics and Corre-
OR ‘life cycle Sustainability assessment’ OR ‘life cycle costing’ OR ‘social life Cycle sponding Test Methods, International Organization for Standardization, 2014.
assessment’ OR ‘eco-efficiency assessment’)”." Elsevier B.V. www.scopus.com (ac- [42] Additive ManufacturingGeneral Principles; Part 2 - Overview of Process Categories
cessed 18th May 2021). and Feedstock, International Organization for Standardization, 2015.
[15] F. Acerbi, M. Taisch, A literature review on circular economy adop- [43] B. Brenken, E. Barocio, A. Favaloro, V. Kunc, R.B. Pipes, Fused filament fabrication
tion in the manufacturing sector, J. Clean Prod. 273 (2020) 123086, of fiber-reinforced polymers: a review, Additive Manufacturing 21 (5) (2018) 1–
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123086. 16.
[16] J.K. Watson, K.M.B. Taminger, A decision-support model for selecting additive man- [44] N.T. Aboulkhair, N.M. Everitt, I. Ashcroft, C. Tuck, Reducing porosity in AlSi10Mg
ufacturing versus subtractive manufacturing based on energy consumption, J. Clean parts processed by selective laser melting, Addit.Manuf. 1-4 (1) (2014) 77–86,
Prod. 176 (17) (2018) 1316–1322, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.009. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2014.08.001.
[17] ISO/ASTM 52900:2015Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Terminology, [45] M.A. Bevan, et al., Mechanical properties and behavior of additive manufac-
International Organization for Standardization, 2015. tured stainless steel 316L, in: Characterization of Minerals, Metals, and Materials,
[18] Y. Tang, K. Mak, Y.F. Zhao, A framework to reduce product environmental impact Springer, 2017, pp. 577–583. 2017.
through design optimization for additive manufacturing, J. Clean Prod. 137 (15) [46] A. Aidibe, A. Tahan, V. Brailovski, Metrological investigation of a selective laser
(2016) 1560–1572, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.037. melting additive manufacturing system: a case study, IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (31)
[19] S. Peng, et al., Toward a sustainable impeller production: environmental impact (2016) 25–29, doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.12.156.
comparison of different impeller manufacturing methods, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1) (2017) [47] E. Brandl, U. Heckenberger, V. Holzinger, D. Buchbinder, Additive manufac-
S216–S229, doi:10.1111/jiec.12628. tured AlSi10Mg samples using Selective Laser Melting (SLM): microstructure,
[20] Y.A. Fatimah, W. Biswas, I. Mazhar, M.N. Islam, Sustainable manufactur- high cycle fatigue, and fracture behavior, Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 159–169,
ing for Indonesian small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): the case of doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.067.
remanufactured alternators, J. Remanuf. 3 (1) (2013) 6, [48] D. Austin, et al., Microstructural investigation and impact testing of additive man-
doi:10.1186/2210-4690-3-6. ufactured TI-6AL-4V, in: Characterization of Minerals, Metals, and Materials 2017,
[21] F. Pusavec, P. Krajnik, J. Kopac, Transitioning to sustainable production–part I: Springer, 2017, pp. 191–199.
application on machining technologies, J. Clean Prod. 18 (2) (2010) 174–184, [49] M. Zhang, Y. Liu, W. Wang, P. Wang, J. Li, The fatigue of impellers and blades, Eng.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.08.010. Fail. Anal. 62 (2016) 208–231, doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.02.001.
[22] B. Boswell, M.N. Islam, I.J. Davies, Y. Ginting, A.K. Ong, A review identifying the ef- [50] H. Jayawardane, I.J. Davies, G. Leadbeater, M. John, W.K. Biswas, Techno-eco-
fectiveness of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) during conventional machining, efficiency’ performance of 3D printed impellers: an application of life cycle assess-
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 92 (1) (2017) 321–340. ment, Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 5 (1) (2021) 44–80, doi:10.1504/ijsm.2021.116871.
[23] H. Paris, H. Mokhtarian, E. Coatanéa, M. Museau, I.F. Ituarte, Comparative environ- [51] I. Farina, N. Singh, F. Colangelo, R. Luciano, G. Bonazzi, F. Fraternali, High-
mental impacts of additive and subtractive manufacturing technologies, CIRP Ann. performance nylon-6 sustainable filaments for additive manufacturing, Materials 12
65 (1) (2016) 29–32, doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2016.04.036. (23) (2019) 3955 (Basel), doi:10.3390/ma12233955.
[24] D. Böckin, A.-.M. Tillman, Environmental assessment of additive manufactur- [52] A.M. Braccini, E.G. Margherita, Exploring organizational sustainability of industry
ing in the automotive industry, J. Clean Prod. 226 (21) (2019) 977–987, 4.0 under the triple bottom line: the case of a manufacturing company, Sustainability
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.086. 11 (1) (2019) 36.
[25] G. Ingarao, P.C. Priarone, Y. Deng, D. Paraskevas, Environmental modelling [53] P. Dudek, K. Zagórski, Cost, resources, and energy efficiency of additive manufac-
of aluminium based components manufacturing routes: additive manufactur-
11
turing, in: Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, 14, EDP Sciences, 2017, 23th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium–An Additive Manufac-
p. 01040. turing Conference, 2012 Austin Texas USA 6th-8th August, doi:10.26153/tsw/15341.
[54] K.O. Abdulrahman, E.T. Akinlabi, R.M. Mahamood, Laser metal deposition tech- [73] M. Bengtsson, M. Kurdve, Machining equipment life cycle costing model
nique: sustainability and environmental impact, Procedia Manuf. 21 (2018) 109– with dynamic maintenance cost, Procedia CIRP 48 (2016) 102–107,
116, doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.100. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.110.
[55] K. Wang, Y. Song, H. Sheng, J. Xu, S. Zhang, J. Qin, Energy efficiency design for eco- [74] E. Atzeni, A. Salmi, Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable
friendly additive manufacturing based on multimodal attention fusion, J. Manuf. metal parts, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 62 (9) (2012) 1147–1155,
Process 79 (2022) 720–730, doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.05.010. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3878-1.
[56] P. Ramesh, S. Vinodh, Analysis of factors influencing energy consumption of mate- [75] UNEP/SETACThe Methodological Sheets For Subcategories in Social Life Cy-
rial extrusion-based additive manufacturing using interpretive structural modelling, cle Assessment (S-LCA), United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, 2021
Rapid Prototyp. J. 27 (7) (2021) 1363–1377, doi:10.1108/RPJ-05-2020-0100. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/S-LCA_methodo
[57] L.A. Verhoef, B.W. Budde, C. Chockalingam, B.G. Nodar, A.J.M. van Wijk, The effect logical_sheets_11.11.13.pdf accessed 14th January.
of additive manufacturing on global energy demand: an assessment using a bottom- [76] Global Reporting Initiative, "Consolidated set of GRI sustainability reporting stan-
up approach, Energy Policy 112 (2018) 349–360, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.034. dards," in "Amsterdam, The Netherlands," 2016.
[58] F.Le Bourhis, O. Kerbrat, J.-.Y. Hascoet, P. Mognol, Sustainable manufacturing: eval- [77] F. Matos, R. Godina, C. Jacinto, H. Carvalho, I. Ribeiro, P. Peças, Additive manu-
uation and modeling of environmental impacts in additive manufacturing, Int. J. facturing: exploring the social changes and impacts, Sustainability 11 (14) (2019)
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 69 (9–12) (2013) 1927–1939. 3757, doi:10.3390/su11143757.
[59] X. Chen, H.S. Matthews, W.M. Griffin, Uncertainty caused by life cycle impact assess- [78] B. Naghshineh, F. Lourenço, R. Godina, C. Jacinto, H. Carvalho, A social life cycle as-
ment methods: case studies in process-based LCI databases, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. sessment framework for additive manufacturing products, Appl. Sci. 10 (13) (2020)
172 (2021) 105678, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105678. 4459, doi:10.3390/app10134459.
[60] D. Landi, F.C. Zefinetti, C. Spreafico, D. Regazzoni, Comparative life cycle [79] B. Naghshineh, A. Ribeiro, C. Jacinto, H. Carvalho, Social impacts of additive man-
assessment of two different manufacturing technologies: laser additive manufacturing: a stakeholder-driven framework, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 164
ufacturing and traditional technique, Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 700–705, (2021) 120368, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120368.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.117. [80] R.B. Ruben, P. Menon, R. Sreedharan, Development of a social life cycle assessment
[61] F. Cerdas, M. Juraschek, S. Thiede, C. Herrmann, Life cycle assessment of 3D printed framework for manufacturing organizations, in: Proceedings of the International
products in a distributed manufacturing system, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1) (2017) S80– Conference on Production and Operations Management Society (POMS), IEEE, 2018,
S93, doi:10.1111/jiec.12618. pp. 1–6.
[62] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs, and R. Van [81] J. Bours, B. Adzima, S. Gladwin, J. Cabral, S. Mau, Addressing hazardous implica-
Zelm, "ReCiPe 2008," a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised tions of additive manufacturing: complementing life cycle assessment with a frame-
category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, vol. 1, pp. 1–126, 2009. work for evaluating direct human health and environmental impacts, J. Ind. Ecol.
[63] F. Walachowicz, et al., Comparative energy, resource and recycling lifecycle anal- 21 (S1) (2017) S25–S36.
ysis of the industrial repair process of gas turbine burners using conventional [82] A. Al-Lami, P. Hilmer, M. Sinapius, Eco-efficiency assessment of manufacturing car-
machining and additive manufacturing, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1) (2017) S203–S215, bon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) in aerospace industry, Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
doi:10.1111/jiec.12637. 79 (2018) 669–678, doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.06.020.
[64] T. Peng, Y. Wang, Y. Zhu, Y. Yang, Y. Yang, R. Tang, Life cycle assessment [83] A. Arceo, M. Rosano, W.K. Biswas, Eco-efficiency analysis for remote area power
of selective-laser-melting-produced hydraulic valve body with integrated design supply selection in Western Australia, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 20 (3) (2018)
and manufacturing optimization: a cradle-to-gate study, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020) 463–475, doi:10.1007/s10098-017-1438-6.
101530, doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101530. [84] A. Arceo, W.K. Biswas, M. John, Eco-efficiency improvement of Western Aus-
[65] M. Kafara, M. Süchting, J. Kemnitzer, H.-.H. Westermann, and R.J.P.M. Steinhilper, tralian remote area power supply, J. Clean. Prod. 230 (1) (2019) 820–834,
"Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and additive manufacturing in doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.106.
mold core making for CFRP production," vol. 8, pp. 223–230, 2017. [85] F. Piccinno, R. Hischier, S. Seeger, C. Som, Eco-efficient process improvement at the
[66] F.A. Cruz Sanchez, H. Boudaoud, S. Hoppe, M. Camargo, Polymer recycling in an early development stage: identifying environmental and economic process hotspots
open-source additive manufacturing context: mechanical issues, Addit. Manuf. 17 for synergetic improvement potential, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (10) (2018) 5959–
(2017) 87–105, doi:10.1016/j.addma.2017.05.013. 5967, doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b01197.
[67] S.A. Smythe, B.M. Thomas, M. Jackson, Recycling of titanium alloy powders and [86] C.P. Pereira, D.M. Prata, L.d.S. Santos, L.P.C. Monteiro, Development of eco-
swarf through continuous extrusion (ConformTM) into affordable wire for additive efficiency comparison index through eco-indicators for industrial applications,
manufacturing, Metals 10 (6) (2020) 843 (Basel). Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 35 (2018) 69–90 [Online]. Available http://www.scielo.
[68] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, "Advanced manu- br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-66322018000100069&nrm=iso .
facturing - a roadmap for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia," 2016. [87] M. Attaran, The rise of 3-D printing: the advantages of additive manufac-
[Online]. Available: https://www.csiro.au/∼/media/1critical/IndustryRoadmap_ turing over traditional manufacturing, Bus. Horiz. 60 (5) (2017) 677–688,
AdvancedManufacturing.pdf?la=en&hash=A76BB5633AEC92207ADEC859D08D4 doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.011.
403540F4949. [88] H. Bikas, S. Koutsoukos, P. Stavropoulos, A decision support method for evalu-
[69] T. Pereira, J.V. Kennedy, J. Potgieter, A comparison of traditional manufacturing ation and process selection of additive manufacturing, Procedia CIRP 81 (2019)
vs additive manufacturing, the best method for the job, Procedia Manuf. 30 (2019) 1107–1112.
11–18, doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.003. [89] G. Ingarao, P.C. Priarone, R. Di Lorenzo, L. Settineri, A methodology for evalu-
[70] M. Baumers, P. Dickens, C. Tuck, R. Hague, The cost of additive manufacturing: ating the influence of batch size and part geometry on the environmental perfor-
machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push, Technol. Forecast. mance of machining and forming processes, J. Clean. Prod. 135 (2016) 1611–1622,
Soc. Change 102 (2016) 193–201, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.041.
[71] R. Huang, et al., Environmental and economic implications of distributed addi- [90] S.Y. Janjua, P.K. Sarker, W.K. Biswas, Sustainability implications of service life on
tive manufacturing: the case of injection mold tooling, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1) (2017) residential buildings–an application of life cycle sustainability assessment frame-
S130–S143. work, Environ. Sustain. Indic. 10 (2021) 100109, doi:10.1016/j.indic.2021.100109.
[72] C. Lindemann, U. Jahnke, M. Moi, R. Koch, Analyzing product lifecycle costs for a [91] Y.A. Fatimah, Remanufacturing As a Potential Means of Attaining Sustainable In-
better understanding of cost drivers in additive manufacturing, in: Proceedings of the dustrial Development in Indonesia, Curtin University, 2015 PhD.
12

Sustainability Perspectives A Review of Add 2023 Sustainable Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Perspectives A Review of Add 2023 Sustainable Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Perspectives A Review of Add 2023 Sustainable Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100015

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics

Sustainability perspectives – a review of additive and subtractive

Introduction There is an increasing demand for sustainability in modern soci-

Additive manufacturing (AM) is as a resource-eﬃcient manufactur-

Fig. 2. Theoretical framework of literature review.

Fig. 3. Number of articles selected for review and their pub-

Tools Manufacturing Techniques Author

You might also like