A Comparison between Powder Bed Fusion of Polyamide 12 and Aluminum Computer Numeric Control Machining: A Carbon Footprint and Energy Assessment

Samuel Sipert (), Edna dos Santos Almeida, Bruno Caetano dos Santos Silva, Hamilton de Araújo Silva Neto, André Souza Oliveira, Diego Russo Juliano and Rodrigo Santiago Coelho
Additional contact information
Samuel Sipert: Centro Universitário SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845 Piatã, Salvador 41650-010, BA, Brazil
Edna dos Santos Almeida: Centro Universitário SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845 Piatã, Salvador 41650-010, BA, Brazil
Bruno Caetano dos Santos Silva: Centro Universitário SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845 Piatã, Salvador 41650-010, BA, Brazil
Hamilton de Araújo Silva Neto: Centro Universitário SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845 Piatã, Salvador 41650-010, BA, Brazil
André Souza Oliveira: Centro Universitário SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845 Piatã, Salvador 41650-010, BA, Brazil
Diego Russo Juliano: Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltd., Av. República do Chile, 330 Centro, Rio de Janeiro 20031-170, RJ, Brazil
Rodrigo Santiago Coelho: Centro Universitário SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845 Piatã, Salvador 41650-010, BA, Brazil

Sustainability, 2024, vol. 16, issue 9, 1-16

Abstract: This study presents a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of two manufacturing scenarios for a camera housing: Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) using polyamide 12 (PA-12) and Computer Numeric Control (CNC) machining using aluminum, for a cradle-to-gate boundary. The selected impact categories were cumulative energy demand (CED) and global warming potential (GWP). The key findings indicate that the PA-12 PBF part outperformed the aluminum CNC machining one in terms of environmental and energy performance, showing a significant reduction of approximately 90% in equivalent carbon emissions and 84% in cumulative energy demand. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the PBF process was highly sensitive to changes in the proportion of virgin/recycled material for the printing process, variations in the life cycle inventory (LCI) data sources for PA-12 powder production, and changes in the transportation system for imported materials, as is the case for the main input in the process (PA-12 powder). Sensitivity analysis also showed less impact for the PBF camera housing even considering a lifespan of one-fifth that of the aluminum for the impact categories considered. However, it should be noted that this analysis did not include considerations for the usage and end-of-life phases, which may have significant contributions to the overall environmental impact.

Keywords: additive manufacturing; multi-jet fusion; metal to plastic; LCA; carbon footprint; energy demand (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3767/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3767/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3767-:d:1386981

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().