See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308970924

Sustainability of 3D Printing: A Critical Review and Recommendations

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.1115/MSEC2016-8618

CITATIONS READS
0 1,886

5 authors, including:

Zhi-Chao Liu Qiuhong Jiang

Sustainable design and manufacturing Dalian University of Technology
40 PUBLICATIONS   189 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tao Li
Dalian University of Technology
29 PUBLICATIONS   188 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy modeling in Laser additive manufacturing View project

Diesel engine life cycle assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhi-Chao Liu on 14 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference
MSEC2016
June 27-July 1, 2016, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

MSEC2016-8618

SUSTAINABILITY OF 3D PRINTING: A CRITICAL REVIEW AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Zhichao Liu Qiuhong Jiang

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dalian Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dalian
University of Technology University of Technology
Dalian, China Dalian, China
Department of Industrial Engineering, Texas Tech
University
Lubbock, TX, USA

Yang Zhang Tao li Hong-Chao Zhang

Department of Industrial
Engineering, Texas Tech
University
Lubbock, TX, USA
Department of Mechanical Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Dalian University of Engineering, Dalian University of
Technology Technology
Dalian, China Dalian, China
Department of Industrial
Engineering, Texas Tech
University
Lubbock, TX, USA

ABSTRACT
3D printing has been recognized as an efficient and
sustainable technology in the fields of advanced manufacturing.
In the past few years, a considerable research, including basic
theoretical research, technology innovation and industries
application, have been conducted to promote 3D printing for a
better performance in manufacturing. However, the benefits of
3D printing from environmental perspective are still to be seen
and its sustainability is also a mystery. This paper presents a
critical review about the qualitative and quantitative
environmental impact of 3D printing to provide a
comprehensive understanding of 3D printing for the public and
provide a better guide for the future research. In addition, based
on the principle of multi-objective optimization, this paper
proposes a novel framework for 3D printing processes
sustainability assessment and improvement by integrating the
product Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA). At last, recommendations about major
concerns when analyzing the sustainability of 3D printing are
put forward, which might be considered for the coming
research.
KEYWORDS
3D printing; Sustainability; Environmental impact;
1. INTRODUCTION
Since late 1980’s, when the first Stereo Lithography
Apparatus (SLA) machine was developed, a sustainable
resolution to reduce waste and production cycle has come
around [1]. From the fabrication of complicated jet engine parts
to simple cups, 3D printing is being regarded as an alternative
and more efficient way to develop new product. Statistics show
that the global market for 3D printing will be worth $16.2
billion by 2018, which is four times larger than that of 2014 [2].
Holding a competitive advantage in materials efficiency
and less processing procedures, the technological and economic
benefits of 3D printing has been widely reported and
documented, and it became especially popular in the United
States in the last decade. Web of Science suggests that more
than 1200 papers have been published from 2005-2015 within
the US, and it still presents a trend of fast increase in the basic
theory exploration and technology development. Although
several survey about 3D printing have been documented [3~7],
almost all of them are written on behalf of its categories,
processes, quality and cost benefits or focus on environmental
impact of rapid prototyping technologies before 2006, the
environmental issue in terms of this new coming technology is
still to be seen.

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Being different from traditional manufacturing processes,
3D printing starts from modeling, going through printing and
finishing, it saves the traditional processes of casting, forging
and rough machining without reducing the final part quality.
Difference of processes in 3D printing and traditional
manufacturing is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 DIFFERENCE OF PROCESSES IN 3D PRINTING
AND TRADITIONAL MANUFACUTING
Traditional
Items 3D printing
manufacturing
Forming method Additive Subtractive
Powders, Filament and Block, Bar, Plate,
Materials
Tapes, etc. etc.
Efficiency Higher Lower
Production Waste Less More
Built time Hours to days Days to months
Cost Higher Lower
Life cycle Shorter Longer
Required
Ordinary workers Skillful workers
employees
Suitable Making prototypes,
Batch production
applications Complex shapes
With the increasing awareness of resource saving and
environment protection, environmental issues has been paid
more attention during product manufacturing processes. Both
governments and corporations are being pushed by inside and
outside activists and consumers to pay more attention to the
environmental impacts of the product they buy. As a new
technology, the sustainability survey is necessary for 3D
printing before its extensive industrial application.
Being different with the consensus of the technological
benefits of 3D printing, a different opinion is held on its
sustainability in academic field. It is claimed that the in-home
3D printing is an effective way to recycle and upcycle with
minimal waste, meanwhile, it can reduce the environmental
impact by lessening transportation needs and packaging, thus to
reduce the air pollution and less plastic pollution, which are two
major contributions to current climate crisis [8]. However, it is
also suggested that 3D printing is not always environmental
friendly under a certain situation when comparing
environmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional
machining for plastic materials, and the sustainability of
additive manufacturing vs. Computer Numerical Control (CNC)
machining depends primarily on the percent utilization of each
machine [9]. In 2009, research at MIT's Environmentally
Benign Manufacturing program showed that laser direct metal
deposition used hundreds of times the electricity as traditional
casting or machining [10]. Moreover, Stephens et al. pointed
out that when heating the plastic and printing small figures, the
machines using polylactic acid (PLA) filament emitted 20
billion ultrafine particles per minute, and the acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS) emitted up to 200 billion particles per
minute. These particles can settle in the lungs or the
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
bloodstream and lead health risk, especially for those with
asthma [11].
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool for
quantifying the environmental impact over the entire life cycle
of a product [12]. As a systematic, phased approach, the LCA
process consists of four components: goal definition and
scoping, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and
interpretation [13]. Extensive research about LCA method and
application have been conducted during the past few decades
[14-18]. Apart from environmental benefit, cost-effectiveness is
another key components during product design stage. Economic
Life Cycle Assessment (also called LCC) is applied to compare
cost effectiveness of different business decisions or investments
from the point of view of a decision maker [19]. Generally,
process of LCC analysis considers the first two stages of LCA,
which is goal definition and scoping, life cycle inventory
analysis. As a useful tool to determine the most cost-effective
option among different competing alternatives, LCC is now
widely used in purchase, operation, maintenance and disposal of
a product. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to LCC
in a wide range from governmental usage to industrial
applications and the theoretical methodology and practical
application has already been documented extensively [20-25].
The public opinion are divergent about the sustainability of
3D printing, but what is the objective situation of the
environmental impact of 3D printing at the present and how to
evaluate the environmental impact of 3D printing from a
scientific way is a problem worth studying. This paper
illustrated the sustainability of 3D printing through
summarizing and analyzing published works. Meanwhile, a
scientific way to evaluate the environmental impact of 3D
printing is presented in the future perspective combined with
the current research topic. This paper presents a comprehensive
understanding of 3D printing for the public and it will provide a
better guide for the future research.
2. SUSTAINABILITY SURVEY OF 3D PRINTING
In order to present the sustainability of 3D printing and to
demonstrate the situation of different 3D printing method, a
survey of recent papers and reports about environmental and
cost analysis of 3D printing from Google Scholar and Web of
Science is conducted, and more than 20 typical papers/reports
among the existing publications have been selected and
separated into two categories (Positive and Negative) referring
to the environmental impact of 3D printing.
2.1 Positive Opinions
Based on layer by layer fabrication, many advantages can
be achieved by 3D printing, for example, material waste is
significant reduced [26] and also the supporting material, which
is utilized to make the increasingly exotic geometries possible,
is able to be recycled into raw material after 3D printing is
finished. Meanwhile, many CNC machined parts are produced
from block, which is always significantly more than the part that
is to be produced, it is said that the ratios of waste of materials
with the material ends-up in the final part can reach up to 19:1
[27]. Although the waste materials can be recycled back, it will
also generate second energy and resource consumption as well
as environmental emissions. In contrast with traditional
manufacturing process, 3D printing release less carbon dioxide
because of less energy usage comparing with the traditional
pattern of factory manufacturing and shipped to warehouse.
Kreiger et al. indicated that the cumulative energy demand of
manufacturing polymer products can be reduced by 41−64%
with existing low-cost open-source 3D printers [28]. Besides,
casting, forging and rough machining transportation and
packaging which are essential during the traditional
manufacturing processes can be simplified or shortened in 3D
printing processes, thus, it is reasonable that 3D printing will
generate less environmental impact.
Apart from the consideration of material and energy, in the
life cycle of 3D printing processes, the transportation and
manufacturing carbon footprint can be reduced during the
design stage, because the manufacturing processes will be
basically confirmed once the structure of the product is
determined. The designer could modify the design strategy in
the design stage and thus help to reduce the carbon footprint
before deliver it to the manufacturing. Moreover, the
environmental impact can be further reduced by scaling back or
eliminating complex supply chains [29]. Besides, Mani et al.
claimed that additive manufacturing is more sustainable option
because it requires no specialized tooling or fixtures and
capable to create on-demand spare parts, reducing or
eliminating inventory [30]. On the other hand, reading through
the selected papers, the product built by 3D printing mostly
contain single raw material, when considering the end-of-life
disposal strategy, the recycling process of single material
products is not as difficult as the recycling of products made of
multiple materials [31].
Advantages of 3D printing, like less waste, no specialized
tooling, life cycle reduction, etc. enable it to be considered as
more environmentally friendly than traditional manufacturing,
however, more efforts should be made to explore the
environmental impacts of 3D printing, and a comprehensive
approach, like life cycle assessment, should be conducted to
capture the quantitative benefits and potential hazards when
applying this new technology [5].
2.2 Negative Opinions
Being contradictory with the supporters who regard 3D
printing as more environmentally, researchers put forward some
different points of view. Some researchers claimed that 3D
printers are not necessarily less wasteful, especially in a
nutshell, and also their waste is not necessarily recyclable.
Moreover, the transportation is a tiny part of most products’
environmental impacts [9]. When quantitatively comparing the
environmental impacts of additive manufacturing with
traditional machining, Faludi indicated that at mass-
manufacturing scale, 3D printers have far higher impacts per
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
part than traditional injection molding, and inkjet printer had
significantly worse ecological impacts than traditional
machining [9].
For the energy use, some researchers hold a totally
different idea compared with those who insist that 3D printing
could reduce the energy consumption. When comparing
industrial-grade printers to injection molding machines, Kurman
revealed that a large amount of electrical energy will be
consumed during the 3D-printing process, which is estimated 50
to 100 times more electrical energy than injection molding to
make an object of the same weight [32]. Similarly, Yoon et al.
pointed out that the specific energy consumption of 3D printing
processes is estimated to be 100 times higher than that of
conventional bulk-forming processes. When comparing the
energy consumption of three different manufacturing processes,
they concluded that injection molding consumed the largest
amount of energy, followed by FDM, and machining [33].
Indeed, due to the characteristics of several powders, some
negative environmental emissions maybe appear during 3D
printing processes. Kim et al. evaluated the emissions
characteristics of hazardous material during fused deposition
modeling type 3D printing, they concluded that the 3D printing
processes using ABS and PLA cartridge will generate 1.61 ×
1010 ea/min and 4.27–4.89 × 108 ea/min cartridge, which are
adversely affect the environment and human health [34].
Conclusions about sustainability of 3D printing varies
under different situations, Former literature review indicates
that different methods and materials using in 3D printing
technology will generate different point of view in
environmental impact evaluation. In order to obtain an
objective environmental profile of 3D printing, some researcher
suggested using several assessment models to quantitatively
reflect the actual environmental burden referring to this new
coming technology.
3. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT MODELING OF 3D
PRINTING
3.1 Literature Survey
When new technology comes, the sustainability evaluation
is necessary and it will help to provide references to guide the
decision-makers to prevent the negative aspects. However, the
evaluation processes may come across many challenges.
Literature review indicates that sustainability assessment for 3D
printing processes can be divided into two methods: qualitative
analysis and quantitative analysis.
Due to the lack of process and material data, qualitative
analysis is applied for most sustainability assessment and
modeling for 3D printing. With life cycle thinking approach,
Kunnari et al. evaluated environmental performances of inkjet
printing and concluded that it is possible to make electronics
printing consume less primary energy than traditional
lithography, but this conclusion are obtained based on an
limitation of a lack of process-specific data for both the printing
processes and the materials [35]. Kellens suggested an
environmental impact evaluation model for 3D printing based section. Product CAD is the first step in 3D printing processes,
on multiple linear regression analysis, and applied the model to any decision related to the printing process, like materials
assess the energy and resource consumption and environmental selection, parameters variation, geometry change and processes
pollutions for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) processes [36]. adjustment, will affect the sustainability of the final part. The
Similarly, Burkhart developed a framework to predict the final product CAD file is composed by different characteristics,
environmental impact of a commercial vehicle with additive which are the geometric features, such as false boss, hole,
manufacturing, and it can help to identify the improvement groove and chamfer, etc. that are processed during the CAD
opportunity to decrease the environmental impact of the vehicle stage. The essence of the method is to realize the integration of
[37]. However, the processes and components may be different Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and product Computer Aided
when conducting 3D printing, therefore, the application of the Design (CAD) process. The general structure of proposed
proposed models is very limited due to its finite universality. framework is shown in Figure 1.
Bourhis et al. presented a new methodology for electric,
fluids and raw material consumptions assessment for a direct Sustainability assessment and
improvement system of 3D
metal deposition process [38, 39]. The method intend to predict printing
the environmental impact of 3D printing during the design step,
thus to minimize the whole consumption during the Product design
requirement and indicators
manufacturing step. The method focus on the prediction of
material and electricity consumptions and it did not consider the
specific environmental impact, like Global warming potential, Product family Product family
module (original) module (aboriginal)
and ozone depletion potential, etc.
With the help of professional and public databases,
Product family database Product CAD-LCA LCA of the
quantitative analysis for sustainability assessment of 3D marked with LCA value model components
printing become feasible and it can help to track and document
the environmental impact in each life cycle stage and major
Product redesign
contributing process. Life Cycle Assessment is a leading-edge
methodology to analyze the environmental benefits of 3D No No
printing quantitatively. It is indicated that compared with CNC Structure Process
change ? change ?
machining, Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) could achieve
Yes Yes
the lowest ecological impacts [9] and that through 3D printing,
Module correlation Product structure Product Process correlation
the energy demand for manufacturing polymer products can be analysis design process design analysis
reduced by a half [28]. Also, aiming to reduce the energy
consumption during 3D printing processes, LCA is utilized to
No
investigate the effect of parameters in 3D printing on the final Satisfy the
requirement ?
energy consumption and environmental emission [40].
Being able to provide lightweight and cost effective Yes

designs, 3D printing is increasingly applied in aircraft Product Life

cycle analysis
components fabrication. By integrating engineering criteria, life
cycle environmental data and fuel use models, Huang et al. No
Satisfy the
predicted that the life cycle energy savings for aircraft requirement ?
components 3D printing can reach to 173 million GJ/year in
Yes
2050 [41].
Environmental evaluation models for 3D printing is helpful Product design
scheme output
for Eco design before the impletion of the final printing
processes, however, it can hardly satisfy the practical situation
of 3D printing due to its property of high instability, also most 3D printing

of the models are specific to the single environmental aspect. A

more persuasive way is to apply a quantitative method to
evaluate the sustainability, not only environmentally, but also
economic and technological, and tries to reflect the overall
benefits of 3D printing processes.
3.2 Proposed Framework
Aiming at make overall plans and take all factors into
consideration, a framework for 3D printing processes
sustainability assessment and improvement is proposed in this
FIGURE 1 GENERAL STRUCTURE OF PROPOSED
FRAMEWORK
The major procedures of the framework including four steps
that are listed as follows:
(1) Construction of product CAD-LCA model
With product LCA method, environmental impact of each
characteristic can be obtained and then the data is recorded in a

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

database, named as a product family. Once the product CAD is
finished, with the marked LCA information in product family,
the CAD information can be transferred to relative
environmental impact, then the product CAD-LCA model can
be constructed with the mapping relationship between separate
characteristic and related LCA result.
The final environmental impacts indicator of each
characteristic is calculate by Eq.1:
properties. Therefore, a systematic multi-objective optimization
is necessary. The objective in this framework is to optimize the
product performance (P), process cost (C) and environmental
impact (T) and the objective function is defined in equation (2).
Min   P 1 ( X ), C0 ( X ), D0 ( X ), Te ( X ) (2)
Subject to[P]  P  0, C0  [C0 ]  0, D0  [ D0 ]  0, Te  [Te ]  0

m
Where, C0, D0 and Te is the actual process cost, process
n ∑EI i × Gi
(1)
time and environmental impact; [P] is the lowest product
performance, and [C0], [D0], [Te] is the highest production cost,
EI = ∑Vk × ( i =1 ) the longest process time and highest environmental impact
k =1 Rk
limited by the company.
Where, EI is the final environmental impact indicator; Gi is
the value of ith substance in life cycle inventory; EIi is (4) Seamless connection of LCA and CAD software
characterization factor of ith substance to kth indicator, k=1~5; The time for new product design is very limited and it is
Rk is the reference value of kth indicator; Vk is the weight factor required to reduce the research and development period, then
of kth indicator, and m is the number of substance related to kth the evaluation process need to be not only effective but also
indicator, n is the number of the indicators. efficient. Therefore, seamless connection of LCA and CAD
software can help the designers finish the evaluation instantly.
(2) Local Redesign The integrated framework for the seamless connection of LCA
The final environmental profile of the former designed and CAD software is shown in Figure 2.
product can help the process planner identify the process or
parameter that generates largest environmental impact, and then CAD system
improvement opportunity can be provided. Redesign process Feature 11
Transfer Process
ID= 11
should follow the basic principle that the geometrical feature Part 1 Feature 12
after redesign should not only satisfy the original quality Transfer Process
Part 2 ……
requirement, but also reduce the environmental impact and Product
ID= 1i
Feature 1n
bring about cost-savings. For example, assuming a product has ……

totally n components, which are represented as Ci, i=1~m, and Part n Computer Programming (Java, C++)

the characteristics of ith component is represented as Fj, j=1~n

and Ei: Life cycle assessment result of jth characteristic. LCA
API
Assume that there are two design options for ith component, LCA system
and the materials for the two options are same but the structure ID= 11 ID= 12 ID= 1n
and process are different (one of the characteristics is changed 1.Classification &

from F1 to F2), after module and process correlation analysis, Recourse Energy Environment Impact Characterization
consumption Consumption al Emissions Analysis
they can both satisfied with the requirements. Their 3D printing 2.Normalization
3.Weighting/Grouping
process begin with CAD, going through slicing, converting and
deposition. Once the structure is determined in the CAD stage,
the following processes as well as relative environmental impact Databases: BOM, Volume, Mass, Cost, Tensile Strength, Environmental Impact. etc.

are basically confirmed. Before the slicing step, we can

compare the environmental impact of the two options, if
Ej1>Ej2, select option 1 as the optimal design. The cost analysis
will be much alike the process and in this case, the decision-
maker can compare the cost and environmental impact of each
method and make an overall sustainable approach. The new
design will be evaluated with the same procedure in step (1).
(3) Multiple objective optimization
Usually, the manufacturing cost, performance and
efficiency are the selected as the evaluation standard for a new
process or new design, the environmental impact are neglected
in most cases. However, the improvement on environmental
performance may bring about confliction for cost and
FIGURE 2: INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR LCA AND
CAD SOFTWARE
The proposed framework can be used in all kinds of 3D
printing methods and the environmental profile for each feature
modeled in CAD can be directly presented on an independent
module designed by Application Program Interface (API), thus
help to provide a quantitative way to evaluate the sustainability
of the 3D printing. The current commercial LCA software, like
GaBi, Simapro, and E-balance can provide sufficient
environmental impact information, and the biggest challenge is

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

the computer programming (Java or C++) to realize the
seamless connection of LCA and CAD software.
4 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
3D printing is moving in an all-around way and all clues
are indicating that it will continue to expand in many areas in
the future. In the meanwhile, with the increasing awareness of
sustainable manufacturing, the sustainability issue of 3D
printing has been paid attention gradually. A comprehensive
understanding can help to promote the development of 3D
printing better and faster. The future trend for 3D printing
sustainability assessment needs to address the following points.
(1) Scientific environmental impact evaluation of 3D printing
processes
As mentioned before in this paper, different 3D printing
processes may generate totally different result referring to its
environmental impact. It is not only relative to various
processing principle, but also involved in the powders itself.
The reasonable conclusion is that environmental impact of 3D
printing is case-by-case depending on specific situation. 3D
printing process is instable and many factors will affect the final
environmental impact, including powders, parameters settings,
and even the printers itself, therefore, in order to draw a
convincing conclusion, quantitative way, like LCA can be used
to when modeling the environmental impacts of 3D printing.
(2) 3D printing sustainability assessment modeling
Sustainability covers not only environmental aspect, it also
involved with economy and social aspect. The application of
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) to analyze the economic benefit of 3D
printing has given some promising results, however, they are
mostly conducted separately, did not consider the environment
and social aspects. Sustainability assessment modeling of 3D
printing needs not only accurate calculation of single aspect, but
also integrates the three pillars (environmental, economy and
social) comprehensively.
(3) Environmental friendly powders development
Some of the materials currently used in 3D printing will
generate negative environmental emissions during the forming
processes. On the basis of satisfying the requirement of final
mechanical property of the product, new generations of
environmental friendly powders, filament, tapes, etc. are
needed. If this bottleneck can be solved, there should be no
argument and obstruction for the promotion of this new
technology.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The sustainability evaluation for new coming technology is
necessary and it will help to provide improvement opportunities
for the new product designers. The literature survey indicates
that due to the variety of processing procedures and materials
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
used, there exist both positive and negative opinions as for the
environmental impact of 3D printing, and it is not easy to draw
an exact conclusion. A reasonable conclusion is that the
environmental impact of 3D printing is case-by-case depending
on specific situation.
In order to better evaluate the sustainability of 3D printing
processes quantitatively and better guide the decision-makers,
this paper proposed a framework for 3D printing processes
sustainability assessment. The integration of product CAD and
LCA can realize the improvement in the early design stage,
which is an essential step for 3D printing.
To realize the sustainable manufacturing is the goal in
current industries, it’s unclear exactly how far we could go with
3D printing or if it will finally be marked as purely sustainable,
but certainly it is a worthy study area now and in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of and the
National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No.
2011CB013406).
REFERENCES
[1] Hull, C., (1988): Stereolithography: plastic prototype from
CAD data without tooling. Mod Cast 78:38.
[2] Bloomberg Businessweek, (2014): 3D printing, materials &
services: global market size 2014-2018, May 19 - May 25,
2014, page S4.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/315363/global-market-
for-3d-priting-and-services/
[3] Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., Hou, L., (2013):
Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature
review, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 67, pp.1191–1203.
[4] Thomas, D. S., Gilbert, S. W., (2014): Costs and Cost
Effectiveness of Additive Manufacturing: A Literature
Review and Discussion, NIST Special Publication 1176,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
[5] Frazier, W. E., (2014): Metal Additive Manufacturing: A
Review, Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, Vol 23(6), pp. 1917-1928.
[6] Pearce, J.M., Blair, C. M., Laciak, K. J., Andrews, R and
Nosrat, A., (2010): 3-D Printing of Open Source
Appropriate Technologies for Self-Directed Sustainable
Development, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol.
3, No. 4, pp. 17-29.
[7] Wittbrodt, B.T., Glover, A.G., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G.C.,
Oppliger, D., Irwin, J.L., Pearce, J.M., (2013): Life-cycle
economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-
source 3-D printers, Mechatronics, Vol. 23, pp.713–726.
[8] Drizo, A., Pegna J., (2006): Environmental impacts of rapid
prototyping: an overview of research to date, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 12 No.2 pp. 64 – 71.
[9] Faludi, J., Bayley, C., Bhogal, S., Iribarne, My., (2015):
Comparing environmental impacts of additive
manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle
 assessment, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp.14 – 33.
[10] Gilpin, L., (2014): The dark side of 3D printing: 10 things
to watch, TechRepublic.
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-dark-side-of-3d-
printing-10-things-to-watch/
[11] Stephens, B., Stephens, P., Orch, Z. E., Ramos, T., (2013):
Ultrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D printers,
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 79, pp. 334-339.
[12] Curran MA. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Mc
Graw-Hill Inc, New York, 1996.
[13] EPA. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, ohio, 2006.
[14] Shi, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, H., Jiang, Q., & Li, T. (2015). Life
Cycle Assessment: State of the Art and Future
Perspectives. Recent Patents on Mechanical Engineering,
8(3), 211-221.
[15] Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., & Bras, B. (2008). A
survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(5),
374-388.
[16] Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D.,
Norris, G., Rydberg, T., & Pennington, D. W. (2004). Life
cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope
definition, inventory analysis, and applications.
Environment international, 30(5), 701-720.
[17] Pennington, D. W., Potting, J., Finnveden, G., Lindeijer,
E., Jolliet, O., Rydberg, T., & Rebitzer, G. (2004). Life
cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment
practice. Environment international, 30(5), 721-739.
[18] Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J.,
Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent
developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of
environmental management, 91(1), 1-21.
[19] Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J., & Alting, L. (2005). From life
cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and
perspectives. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology,
54(2), 1-21.
[20] Asiedu, Y., & Gu, P. (1998). Product life cycle cost
analysis: state of the art review. International journal of
production research, 36(4), 883-908.
[21] Ozbay, K., Jawad, D., Parker, N., & Hussain, S. (2004).
Life-cycle cost analysis: State of the practice versus state
of the art. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, (1864), 62-70.
[22] Woodward, D. G. (1997). Life cycle costing—theory,
information acquisition and application. International
journal of project management, 15(6), 335-344.
[23] Senthil Kumaran, D., Ong, S. K., Tan, R. B., & Nee, A. Y.
C. (2001). Environmental life cycle cost analysis of
products. Environmental Management and Health, 12(3),
260-276.
[24] Durairaj, S. K., Ong, S. K., Nee, A. Y., & Tan, R. B.
(2002). Evaluation of life cycle cost analysis
7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
methodologies. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(1),
30-39.
[25] Gluch, P., & Baumann, H. (2004). The life cycle costing
(LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness
for environmental decision-making. Building and
environment, 39(5), 571-580.
[26] Post, E., (2015): The Case for 3D Printing and
Sustainability, Type a machines.
http://www.typeamachines.com/blog/the-case-for-3d-
printing-and-sustainability
[27] Reeves, P., (2009): Additive Manufacturing – A supply
chain wide response to economic uncertainty and
environmental sustainability, Econolyst Limited, The
Silversmiths, Crown Yard, Wirksworth, Derbyshire, DE4
4ET, UK.
[28] Kreiger, M. and Pearce. J. M., (2013): Environmental Life
Cycle Analysis of Distributed Three-Dimensional Printing
and Conventional Manufacturing of Polymer Products,
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.
1511−1519.
[29] Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O., Garrett, B.,
(2011): Could 3D Printing Change the World?
Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive
Manufacturing, strategic foresight report, Atlantic Council.
[30] Mani, M., Lyons, K.W., Gupta, S.K., (2014):
Sustainability Characterization for Additive
Manufacturing, Journal of Research of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Vol. 119, pp. 419-
428.
[31] Rydberg, H., (2012): What is the environmental impact of
3D printing? Quora.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-environmental-impact
-of-3D-printing
[32] Kurman, M. & Lipson, H. (2013): Is Eco Friendly 3D
Printing a Myth? Triple Helix Innovation and Cornell
University.
http://www.livescience.com/38323-is-3d-printing-eco-
friendly.html.
[33] Yoon, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Kim, H.S., Kim, M.S., Kim, E.S.,
Shin, Y.J., Chu, W.S., Ahn, S. H., (2014): A Comparison
of Energy Consumption in Bulk Forming, Subtractive, and
Additive Processes: Review and Case Study, International
journal of precision engineering and manufacturing green
technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 261-279.
[34] Kim, Y., Yoon, H.S., Ham, S., Park, J., Kim, S.H., Kwon,
O, Tsai, P.J., (2015): Emissions of Nanoparticles and
Gaseous Material from 3D Printer Operation,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 20,
pp. 12044–12053.
[35] Kunnari, E., Valkama, J., Keskinen, M., Mansikkamaki, P.,
(2009): Environmental evaluation of new technology:
printed electronics case study, Journal of cleaner
production, Vol. 17, pp. 791–799.
[36] Kellens, K., Renaldi, R., Dewulf, W., Kruth, J. P., Duflou,
J. R., (2014): Environmental impact modeling of selective
 laser sintering processes, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol.
20 No. 6, pp. 459 – 470.
[37] Burkharta, M., Aurichb, J. C., (2015): Framework to
predict the environmental impact of additive
manufacturing in the life cycle of a commercial vehicle,
Procedia CIRP, Vol. 29 ,pp. 408 – 413.
[38] Bourhis, F.L., Kerbrat, O., Dembinski, L., Hascoet, J.Y.,
Mognol, P., (2014): Predictive model for environmental
assessment in additive manufacturing process, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 15, pp. 26 – 31.
[39] Bourhis, F.L., Kerbrat, O., Dembinski, L., Hascoet, J.Y.,
Mognol, P., (2013): Sustainable manufacturing: evaluation
and modeling of environmental impacts in additive
manufacturing, International journal of advanced
manufacturing technology, Vol. 69, pp. 1927-1939.
[40] Mognol, P., Lepicart, D., & Perry, N. (2006). Rapid
prototyping: energy and environment in the spotlight.
Rapid prototyping journal, 12(1), 26-34.
[41] Huang, R., Riddle, M., Graziano, D., Warren, J., Das, S.,
Nimbalkar, S., & Masanet, E. (2015). Energy and
emissions saving potential of additive manufacturing: the
case of lightweight aircraft components. Journal of
Cleaner Production.

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

View publication stats