Comparing Metal Additive Manufacturing with Conventional Manufacturing Technologies: Is Metal Additive Manufacturing More Sustainable?

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
CO2 emissions continue to rise, along with the associated environmental risks. In response, the United Nations has been promoting the adoption of sustainable practices among businesses worldwide. In parallel, an innovative technology known as additive manufacturing (AM) has emerged over the past four decades. This technology has the potential to be more sustainable than conventional manufacturing (CM) technologies. When metals are used as the material, the process is referred to as metal additive manufacturing (mAM). AM technologies have seven process categories, which include metal mAM processes, most notably powder bed fusion (PBF), directed energy deposition (DED), binder jetting (BJT), material extrusion of metal-filled feedstock, and sheet lamination. Among these, PBF and DED are by far the most widely applied metal AM technologies in both industrial practice and academic research. The use of mAM is increasing; however, is it truly more sustainable than CM? Motivated by this question, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to compare the sustainability impacts of mAM and CM across the three dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. The evidence shows mixed sustainability outcomes, which are synthesized later in the conclusions. The sustainability comparison is influenced by factors like part redesign with topological optimization (TO), the material and energy mix used, geometric complexity, production volume per batch, and the boundaries adopted. Economic viability remains critical; companies are unlikely to adopt mAM if it proves more expensive than CM as this could threaten its competitiveness. Social impacts are the least studied dimension, and it is difficult to anticipate the changes that might occur because of such a transition.

This publication has 94 references indexed in Scilit: