scholarly journals Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Additive Manufacturing

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ribeiro ◽  
Matos ◽  
Jacinto ◽  
Salman ◽  
Cardeal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Value Chains ◽  
Illustrative Case ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Disruptive Technologies ◽  
The People ◽  
Specific Dimension ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing (AM) is a group of technologies that create objects by adding material layer upon layer, in precise geometric shapes. They are amongst the most disruptive technologies nowadays, potentially changing value chains from the design process to the end-of-life, providing significant advantages over traditional manufacturing processes in terms of flexibility in design and production and waste minimization. Nevertheless, sustainability assessment should also be included in the research agenda as these technologies affect the People, the Planet and the Profit: the three-bottom line (3BL) assessment framework. Moreover, AM sustainability depends on each product and context that strengthens the need for its assessment through the 3BL framework. This paper explores the literature on AM sustainability, and the results are mapped in a framework aiming to support comprehensive assessments of the AM impacts in the 3BL dimensions by companies and researchers. To sustain the coherence of boundaries, three life cycle methods are proposed, each one for a specific dimension of the 3BL analysis, and two illustrative case studies are shown to exemplify the model.

Comparing Environmental Impacts of Additive Manufacturing vs. Investment Casting for the Production of a Shroud for Gas Turbine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Serra ◽  
Martina Malarco ◽  
Alessandro Musacchio ◽  
Giulio Buia ◽  
Pietro Bartocci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Investment Casting ◽  
Gas Turbines ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Base Material ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Atomization Process ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM hereinafter) is revolutionizing prototyping production and even small-scale manufacturing. Usually it is assumed that AM has lower environmental impact, compared to traditional manufacturing processes, but there have been no comprehensive environmental life-cycle assessment studies confirming this, especially for the gas turbines (GT hereinafter) and turbomachinery sector. In this study the core processes performed at Baker Hughes site in Florence are considered, together with the powder production via atomization process to describe the overall environmental impact of a GT shroud produced through additive manufacturing and comparing it with traditional investment casting production process. Particular attention is given to materials production and logistics. The full component life cycle starts from the extraction of raw materials during mining, their fusion and, as said, the atomization process, the powders are transported to the gas turbines production site where they are used as base material in additive manufacturing, also machining and finishing processes are analyzed as they differ for a component produced by AM respect to one produced by traditional investment casting. From the analysis of the data obtained, it emerges that the AM process has better performances in terms of sustainability than the Investment casting (IC hereinafter), highlighted above all by a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG hereinafter) of over 40%.

scholarly journals Integration of Simulation Driven DfAM and LCC Analysis for Decision Making in L-PBF

Metals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1179
Author(s):  
Patricia Nyamekye ◽  
Anna Unt ◽  
Antti Salminen ◽  
Heidi Piili
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Practical Case ◽  
Layer By Layer ◽  
Powder Bed ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing ◽  
Application Fields ◽  
The Impact

Laser based powder bed fusion (L-PBF) is used to manufacture parts layer by layer with the energy of laser beam. The use of L-PBF for building functional parts originates from the design freedom, flexibility, customizability, and energy efficiency of products applied in dynamic application fields such as aerospace and automotive. There are challenges and drawbacks that need to be defined and overcome before its adaptation next to rivaling traditional manufacturing methods. Factors such as high cost of L-PBF machines, metal powder, post-preprocessing, and low productivity may deter its acceptance as a mainstream manufacturing technique. Understanding the key cost drivers of L-PBF that influence productivity throughout the whole lifespan of products will facilitate the decision-making process. Functional and operational decisions can yield profitability and increase competitiveness among advanced manufacturing sectors. Identifying the relationships between the phases of the life cycle of products influences cost-effectiveness. The aim of the study is to investigate the life cycle cost (LCC) and the impact of design to it in additive manufacturing (AM) with L-PBF. The article provides a review of simulation driven design for additive manufacturing (simulation driven DfAM) and LCC for metallic L-PBF processes and examines the state of the art to outline the merits, demerits, design rules, and life cycle models of L-PBF. Practical case studies of L-PBF are discussed and analysis of the interrelating factors of the different life phases are presented. This study shows that simulation driven DfAM in the design phase increases the productivity throughout the whole production and life span of L-PBF parts. The LCC model covers the whole holistic lifecycle engineering of products and offers guidelines for decision making.

scholarly journals Ranking product systems based on uncertain life cycle sustainability assessment: a stochastic multiple criteria decision analysis approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 850-874
Author(s):  
Breno Barros Telles do Carmo ◽  
Manuele Margni ◽  
Pierre Baptiste
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Illustrative Case ◽  
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Product Systems ◽  
Conflicting Objectives

Purpose – Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) provides useful and comprehensive information on product system performance. However, it poses several challenges for decision-making process due to (i) multidimensional indicators, (ii) conflicting objectives and (iii) uncertainty associated with the performance assessment. This research proposes an approach able to account uncertain life cycle sustainability performances through multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) process to support decision-making.Design/methodology/approach – Our method is structured in three phases: i) assessing the uncertainty of LCSA performances, ii) propagating LCSA uncertainty into MCDA methods and iii) interpreting the stochastic results. The approach is applied on an illustrative case study, ranking four alternatives to biodiesel supply.Findings –The recommendation generated by this approach provides an information about the confidence the decision maker can have in a given result (ranking of solutions) under the form of a probability, providing a better knowledge of the risk (in this case due to the uncertainty of the preferred solution). As such, stochastic results, if appropriately interpreted, provide a measure of the robustness of the rankings generated by MCDA methods, overcoming the limitation of the overconfidence of deterministic rankings.Originality/value – The fundamental contributions of this paper are to (i) integrate LCSA uncertainty into decision-making processes through MCDA approach; (ii) provide a sensitivity analysis about the MCDA method choice, (iii) support decision-makers’ preference choices through a transparent elicitation process and (iv) provide a practical decision-making platform that accounts simultaneously uncertain LCSA performances with stakeholders’ value judgments.

BIM-enabled sustainability assessment of material supply decisions

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 668-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alireza Ahmadian F.F. ◽  
Taha H. Rashidi ◽  
Ali Akbarnezhad ◽  
S. Travis Waller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Impacts ◽  
Life Cycle Thinking ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Material Supply ◽  
Trade Offs

Purpose Enhancing sustainability of the supply process of construction materials is challenging and requires accounting for a variety of environmental and social impacts on top of the traditional, mostly economic, impacts associated with a particular decision involved in the management of the supply chain. The economic, environmental, and social impacts associated with various components of a typical supply chain are highly sensitive to project and market specific conditions. The purpose of this paper is to provide decision makers with a methodology to account for the systematic trade-offs between economic, environmental, and social impacts of supply decisions. Design/methodology/approach This paper proposes a novel framework for sustainability assessment of construction material supply chain decisions by taking advantage of the information made available by customized building information models (BIM) and a number of different databases required for assessment of life cycle impacts. Findings The framework addresses the hierarchy of decisions in the material supply process, which consists of four levels including material type, source of supply, supply chain structure, and mode of transport. The application is illustrated using a case study. Practical implications The proposed framework provides users with a decision-making method to select the most sustainable material alternative available for a building component and, thus, may be of great value to different parties involved in design and construction of a building. The multi-dimensional approach in selection process based on various economic, environmental, and social indicators as well as the life cycle perspective implemented through the proposed methodology advocates the life cycle thinking and the triple bottom line approach in sustainability. The familiarity of the new generation of engineers, architects, and contractors with this approach and its applications is essential to achieve sustainability in construction. Originality/value A decision-making model for supply of materials is proposed by integrating the BIM-enabled life cycle assessment into supply chain and project constraints management. The integration is achieved through addition of a series of attributes to typical BIM. The framework is supplemented by a multi-attribute decision-making module based on the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution to account for the trade-offs between different economic and environmental impacts associated with the supply decisions.

scholarly journals Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources for the Western Australian Transport Sector

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (14) ◽  
pp. 5565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Najmul Hoque ◽  
Wahidul Biswas ◽  
Ilyas Mazhar ◽  
Ian Howard
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Alternative Energy ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Transport Sector ◽  
Energy Sources ◽  
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Hydrogen Fuel ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Alternative Energy Sources ◽  
Western Australian

Environmental obligation, fuel security, and human health issues have fuelled the search for locally produced sustainable transport fuels as an alternative to liquid petroleum. This study evaluates the sustainability performance of various alternative energy sources, namely, ethanol, electricity, electricity-gasoline hybrid, and hydrogen, for Western Australian road transport using a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. The framework employs 11 triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability indicators and uses threshold values for benchmarking sustainability practices. A number of improvement strategies were devised based on the hotspots once the alternative energy sources failed to meet the sustainability threshold for the determined indicators. The proposed framework effectively addresses the issue of interdependencies between the three pillars of sustainability, which was an inherent weakness of previous frameworks. The results show that the environment-friendly and socially sustainable energy options, namely, ethanol-gasoline blend E55, electricity, electricity-E10 hybrid, and hydrogen, would need around 0.02, 0.14, 0.10, and 0.71 AUD/VKT of financial support, respectively, to be comparable to gasoline. Among the four assessed options, hydrogen shows the best performance for the environmental and social bottom line when renewable electricity is employed for hydrogen production. The economic sustainability of hydrogen fuel is, however, uncertain at this stage due to the high cost of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs). The robustness of the proposed framework warrants its application in a wide range of alternative fuel assessment scenarios locally as well as globally.

scholarly journals Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1900-1905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Valdivia ◽  
Jana Gerta Backes ◽  
Marzia Traverso ◽  
Guido Sonnemann ◽  
Stefano Cucurachi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Life Cycle Initiative ◽  
Iso 14040 ◽  
Trade Offs

Abstract Purpose and context This paper aims to establish principles for the increased application and use of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). Sustainable development (SD) encompassing resilient economies and social stability of the global system is growingly important for decision-makers from business and governments. The “17 SDGs” emerge as a high-level shared blueprint for peace, abundance, and prosperity for people and the planet, and “sustainability” for supporting improvements of products and organizations. A “sustainability” interpretation—successful in aligning stakeholders’ understanding—subdivides the impacts according to a triple bottom line or three pillars: economic, social, and environmental impacts. These context and urgent needs inspired the LCSA framework. This entails a sustainability assessment of products and organizations in accordance with the three pillars, while adopting a life cycle perspective. Methods The Life Cycle Initiative promotes since 2011 a pragmatic LCSA framework based on the three techniques: LCSA = environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) + life cycle costing (LCC) + social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This is the focus of the paper, while acknowledging previous developments. Identified and reviewed literature shows challenges of addressing the three pillars in the LCSA framework implementation like considering only two pillars; not being fully aligned with ISO 14040; lacking interconnectedness among the three pillars; not having clear criteria for results’ weighting nor clear results’ interpretation; and not following cause-effect chains and mechanisms leading to an endpoint. Agreement building among LCSA experts and reviewing processes strengthened the consensus on this paper. Broad support and outreach are ensured by publishing this as position paper. Results For harmonizing practical LCSA applications, easing interpretation, and increasing usefulness, consensed ten LCSA principles (10P) are established: understanding the areas of protection, alignment with ISO 14040, completeness, stakeholders’ and product utility considerations, materiality of system boundaries, transparency, consistency, explicit trade-offs’ communication, and caution when compensating impacts. Examples were provided based on a fictional plastic water bottle Conclusions In spite of increasing needs for and interest in SD and sustainability supporting tools, LCSA is at an early application stage of application. The 10P aim to promote more and better LCSA applications by ensuring alignment with ISO 14040, completeness and clear interpretation of integrated results, among others. For consolidating its use, however, more consensus-building is needed (e.g., on value-laden ethical aspects of LCSA, interdependencies and interconnectedness among the three dimensions, and harmonization and integration of the three techniques) and technical and policy recommendations for application.

Life cycle costing as a bottom line for the life cycle sustainability assessment in the solar energy sector: A review

Solar Energy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 238-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Ximenes Naves ◽  
Camila Barreneche ◽  
A. Inés Fernández ◽  
Luisa F. Cabeza ◽  
Assed N. Haddad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Solar Energy ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
Life Cycle Costing ◽  
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Bottom Line
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document