Life Cycle Assessment of Tensile Specimens of Stainless Steel Obtained by Additive Manufacturing versus Conventional Manufacturing

Abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of additive manufacturing (AM) evaluates the environmental impacts associated with each stage of the process, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal. Unlike conventional manufacturing, AM offers significant advantages, such as reduced material waste, optimized designs for lightweight structures, and localized production, which can decrease transportation emissions. However, its environmental benefits are context-dependent, as energy-intensive processes like laser powder bed fusion or high reliance on specific materials can offset these gains. LCA provides a comprehensive framework to assess these trade-offs, guiding sustainable decision-making by identifying hotspots in energy use, material efficiency, and recyclability, ultimately driving innovation towards greener AM practices. This research conducted a cradle-to-gate study of a cylindrical dog-bone tensile specimen. The life-cycle inventory data were obtained from Ecoinvent for conventional manufacturing, while data from the literature review and our research were employed for laser-based powder bed fusion. The results obtained show that the additive manufacturing process is more environmentally friendly. Although the environmental impact is minor, this process consumes a large amount of energy, mainly due to the atomization process and the high laser power. Regarding the mechanical response, AM reduced the ductility but increased the yield strength and achieved the same fracture strength.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment / Additive manufacturing / Laser powder bed fusion / Stainless steel / Tensile test

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for financial support from SENESCYT; ANID project (FONDEQUIP EQM 180081); Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Proyectos de Investigación Aplicada 2024 - Categoría Multidisciplinarios.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.O.B. and F.E.A.; Methodology, G.O.B. and J.A.-G.; Software, J.A.-G.; Validation, L.L.-G., and F.E.A.; Formal Analysis, G.O.B. and L.L.-G.; Investigation, G.O.B. and J.A.-G.; Data Curation, L.L.-G. and F.E.A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, G.O.B.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.A.-G. and F.E.A; Visualization, L.L.-G.; Supervision, F.E.A.

Ethics Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Shah IH, Hadjipantelis N, Walter L, Myers RJ, Gardner L. Environmental life cycle assessment of wire arc additively manufactured steel structural components. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 389, 136071. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136071.

[2] Na H, Sun J, Qiu Z, He J, Yuan Y, Yan T, et al. A novel evaluation method for energy efficiency of process industry—A case study of typical iron and steel manufacturing process. Energy 2021, 233, 121081. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121081.

[3] Fu J, Qu S, Ding J, Song X, Fu MW. Comparison of the microstructure, mechanical properties and distortion of stainless steel 316 L fabricated by micro and conventional laser powder bed fusion. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 44, 102067. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2021.102067.

[4] Yin Y, Tan Q, Bermingham M, Mo N, Zhang J, Zhang MX. Laser additive manufacturing of steels. Int. Mater. Rev. 2021, 67, 487-573. doi:10.1080/09506608.2021.1983351.

[5] Bakhtari AR, Sezer HK, Canyurt OE, Eren O, Shah M, Marimuthu S. A Review on Laser Beam Shaping Application in Laser-Powder Bed Fusion. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2024, 26, 2302013. doi:10.1002/adem.202302013.

[6] Ali MH, Sabyrov N, Shehab E. Powder bed fusion--laser melting (PBF--LM) process: Latest review of materials, process parameter optimization, application, and up-to-date innovative technologies. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 7, 1395-1422.

[7] Mazzer EM, Kiminami CS, Gargarella P, Cava RD, Basilio LA, Bolfarini C, et al. Atomization and selective laser melting of a Cu-Al-Ni-Mn shape memory alloy. Mater. Sci. Forum 2014, 802, 343-348. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.802.343.

[8] Kassym K, Perveen A. Atomization processes of metal powders for 3D printing. Mater. Today Proc. 2019, 26, 1727-1733. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.364.

[9] Lagutkin S, Achelis L, Sheikhaliev S, Uhlenwinkel V, Srivastava V. Atomization process for metal powder. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2004, 383, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2004.02.059.

[10] Fagerberg E, Rotter C. Life Cycle Assessment of Metal Laser Powder Bed Fusion: A Deep Dive into the Significance of System Boundary Expansion and Improvement Potential. Master’s Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 4 July 2023.

[11] Barrionuevo GO, Toapanta M, Mullo JL, Camacho-Játiva L. Recovery of Hydro Turbines: From Welding to Additive Manufacturing. Solid State Phenom 2022, 338, 55-62. doi:10.4028/p-lx8uye.

[12] Vinod Kumar S, Reddy U, Nagpal A, Kumar A, Jayronia S, Hussien RA. Towards Sustainable Additive Manufacturing:Exploring Eco-friendly Materials for Green 3D Printing. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applied Research and Engineering (ICARAE2023), Cape Town, South Africa, 17-19 November 2023. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202450501009.

[13] Gutowski T, Jiang S, Cooper D, Corman G, Hausmann M, Manson JA, et al. Note on the Rate and Energy Efficiency Limits for Additive Manufacturing. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S69-S79. doi:10.1111/jiec.12664.

[14] DebRoy T, Mukherjee T, Wei HL, Elmer JW, Milewski JO. Metallurgy, mechanistic models and machine learning in metal printing. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021, 6, 48-68. doi:10.1038/s41578-020-00236-1.

[15] Hong TY, Chen CA, Chien CF. Towards sustainable production with resource efficiency: An empirical study of steelmaking continuous casting scheduling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 209, 107806. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107806.

[16] Na H, Sun J, Yuan Y, Qiu Z, Zhang L, Du T. Theoretical Energy Consumption Analysis for Sustainable Practices in Iron and Steel Industry. Metals 2024, 14, 563. doi:10.3390/met14050563.

[17] Yang L, Li Z, Hu H, Zou Y, Feng Z, Chen W, et al. Evaluation of Energy Utilization Efficiency and Optimal Energy Matching Model of EAF Steelmaking Based on Association Rule Mining. Metals 2024, 14, 458. doi:10.3390/met14040458.

[18] Mandal S, Sadeghianjahromi A, Wang CC. Experimental and numerical investigations on molten metal atomization techniques-A critical review. Adv. Powder Technol. 2022, 33, 103809. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2022.103809.

[19] Yu S, Zhao Y, Zhao G, Liu Q, Yao B, Liu H. Review on preparation technology and properties of spherical powders. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2024, 132, 1053-1069. doi:10.1007/s00170-024-13442-w.

[20] Nalivaiko AY, Arnautov AN, Zmanovsky SV, Gromov AA. Al-Si-Cu and Al-Si-Cu-Ni alloys for additive manufacturing: composition, morphology and physical characteristics of powders. Mater. Res. Express 2019, 6, 086536. doi:10.1088/2053-1591/ab1828.

[21] Jung S, Kara LB, Nie Z, Simpson TW, Whitefoot KS. Is Additive Manufacturing an Environmentally and Economically Preferred Alternative for Mass Production? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 6373-6386. doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c04927.

[22] Xiao H, Gao B, Yu S, Liu B, Cao S, Peng S. Life cycle assessment of metal powder production: A Bayesian stochastic Kriging model-based autonomous estimation. Auton. Intell. Syst. 2024, 4, 20. doi:10.1007/s43684-024-00079-5.

[23] Ramadugu S, Ledella SRK, Gaduturi JNJ, Pinninti RR, Sriram V, Saxena KK. Environmental life cycle assessment of an automobile component fabricated by additive and conventional manufacturing. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2024, 18, 847-858. doi:10.1007/s12008-023-01532-0.

[24] Kokare S, Oliveira JP, Godina R. Life cycle assessment of additive manufacturing processes: A review. J. Manuf. Syst. 2023, 68, 536-559. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2023.05.007.

[25] Gopal M, Lemu HG, Gutema EM. Sustainable Additive Manufacturing and Environmental Implications: Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 150504. doi:10.3390/su15010504.

[26] Rejeski D, Zhao F, Huang Y. Research needs and recommendations on environmental implications of additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 19, 21-28. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2017.10.019.

[27] Peng T, Wang Y, Zhu Y, Yang Y, Yang Y, Tang R. Life cycle assessment of selective-laser-melting-produced hydraulic valve body with integrated design and manufacturing optimization: A cradle-to-gate study. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101530. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101530.

[28] ISO 14040:2006; Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization: Vernier, Switzerland, 2006.

[29] GreenDelta,OpenLCA 1.9—Comprehensive User Manual, no. June. 2020. Available online: https://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Report_PC_PET_Tutorial.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).

[30] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, et al. The ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodological Framework (7 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10, 3-9. doi:10.1065/lca2004.10.181.1.

[31] GrantaDesign, “Ansys Granta EduPack: Materials Information Management,” Granta Des, 2019. Available online: https://www.ansys.com/products/materials/granta-edupack (accessed on 25 May 2024).

[32] Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138-147. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.

[33] Barrionuevo GO, La Fé-Perdomo I, Ramos-Grez JA, Walczak M, Mendez PF. Microstructural differences and mechanical performance of stainless steel 316L conventionally processed versus a selective laser melted. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2024, 12, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s40964-024-00774-y.

[34] Kan WH, Chiu LNS, Lim CVS, Zhu Y, Tian Y, Jiang D, et al. A critical review on the effects of process-induced porosity on the mechanical properties of alloys fabricated by laser powder bed fusion. J. Mater. Sci. 2022, 57, 9818-9865. doi:10.1007/s10853-022-06990-7.

[35] Lanzutti A, Marin E. The Challenges and Advances in Recycling/Re-Using Powder for Metal 3D Printing: A Comprehensive Review. Metals 2024, 14, 1-41. doi:10.3390/met14080886.

[36] Barrionuevo GO, Ramos-Grez JA, Sánchez-Sánchez X, Zapata-Hidalgo D, Mullo JL, Puma-Araujo SD. Influence of the Processing Parameters on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2024, 8, 35. doi:10.3390/jmmp8010035.

[37] Barrionuevo GO, La Fé-Perdomo I, Cáceres-Brito E, Navas-Pinto W. Tensile / Compressive Response of 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing. Ingenius 2024, 31, 9-18. doi:10.17163/ings.n31.2024.01.

[38] Rahmani R, Bashiri B, Lopes SI, Hussain A, Maurya HS, Vilu R. Sustainable Additive Manufacturing: An Overview on Life Cycle Impacts and Cost Efficiency of Laser Powder Bed Fusion. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2025, 9, 18. doi:10.3390/jmmp9010018.