Life cycle assessment of additive metal manufacturing versus conventional manufacturing: a case study on a 316L stainless steel part

Read full text
Authors: Alina Clemens, Martin Bonenberger, Adrian Huwer, Joachim Brinkmann, Susanne Hartard, Michael Wahl
Cited by: 1
References: 37

Abstract

Abstract Resource and energy efficiency remain key challenges in environmentally sustainable manufacturing. Additive manufacturing (AM), particularly powder bed fusion of metals using a laser beam (PBF-LB/M), offers greater design freedom than conventional manufacturing (CM), enabling complex geometries and bionic lightweight structures. However, due to its high energy demand, AM’s environmental benefits are uncertain. In this study, a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) compares a conventionally manufactured stainless steel food-filling nozzle to an additively manufactured design-optimized counterpart. The LCA follows ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (Hierarchist, H) was applied to evaluate the environmental impacts. The results show that the AM route has lower environmental impacts in 15 out of 18 categories, including a substantial 56.3% reduction in carcinogenic human toxicity. The CM route exhibited lower impacts only in ionizing radiation due to its lower energy demand. Material efficiency and energy intensity emerged as the key drivers influencing comparative outcomes in both manufacturing processes.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies Digital Transformation in Industry

Publication details

Journal / source
Progress in Additive Manufacturing
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
6687–6698
Publication date
7 May 2026
Language
EN