Due to the apparent need for substantial changes based on environmental concerns, the manufacturing industry faces economic and technological hurdles due to the use of finite materials and energy resources. The authors in [1] considered that the direct metal deposition (DMD)-based additive manufacturing (AM) technique might be viewed as more environmentally benign than conventional tooling manufacturing. The authors examined three case studies: (1) a simple injection mold insert, (2) an outer-space mirror fixture, and (3) an automobile stamping die. The authors in [2] compared minimizing manufacturing costs by investigating application models for core structures other than cross and honeycomb structures, resulting in opportunities to reduce material usage and production time. The researchers in [3] developed two unique approaches for components and assemblies, A-DfAM and C-DfAM. These AM methodologies help the designers to improve the design topographies.

The authors in ^[4][5][4,5] provided an AM design of product qualities based on environmental data. This method focused on the product development process’s early design stages (EDS) to reduce the cost of manufacturing, quality improvement, and opportunity development for a new business. The authors in [6] reported a review to raise awareness of unsolved issues in estimating the environmental consequences of rapid prototyping (RP) and rapid tooling (RT) to identify the actual toxicological health and environmental risk that can arise during the handling, as well as use and disposal of RP and RT materials.  The researchers in [7] examined research initiatives to improve the sustainability of nonprocessed aluminum (Al) and iron oxide (Fe₂O₃) lightweight raw materials to be recycled and reused using AM technology, significantly reducing raw material waste. As a result, the nonprocessed raw materials may be recycled and reused by AM to minimize material waste substantially. The authors in [8] presented a design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) by considering design requirements and manufacturing constraints to produce an appropriate design of components manufactured using additive manufacturing.

Furthermore, some guidelines were provided for designing a product using additive manufacturing. The researchers in [9] proposed a method of enhancing AM production strategy in terms of production volume, cost, and the characteristics that impact the application of AM method in medium and high production volumes. The researchers in [10] predicted the future of AM with the perspective of three key elements: (1) applications, (2) materials, and (3) design. In addition, they compared AM technologies with traditional manufacturing methods based on formative and subtractive processes. The authors in [11] investigated the assessment of surface roughness on plane sides of cubic test specimens using layered additive printing technology. The researchers in [12] proposed a predictive model based on manufacturing and computer-aided design (CAD) model of fluid material and electrical consumption fluxes combined with a global perspective in a sustainable approach with an accurate assessment of flow consumption in the machine. The researchers in [13] examined the societal implications on healthcare products to improve their quality, reduce environmental impact on manufacturing sustainability and increase the efficiency of AM process from a technological standpoint. However, boosting machine utilization over machine and tool allocation is critical to lowering the environmental effect of AM. The authors in [14] proposed a decision-making framework for selecting a compelling portfolio of manufacturing techniques, which included AM and traditional manufacturing technologies using a methodological framework combined with multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) and data envelopment analysis (DEA). A criticality analysis was performed by [15] using AM strategy to determine the overall production efficiency of the workpieces. The authors in [16] explored a new system based on less energy consumption and resources by considering the economic models of mineral supply chains and 3D production systems to enhance sustainability and lower environmental impacts. A new method was proposed to evaluate the ecological effect of industrial operations. All fluxes consumed and generated (material, fluids, power) are addressed in this technique [17]. The researchers in [18] proposed a framework for the characterization of sustainability as a tool for the community to benchmark AM procedures. The authors in [19] reported a study on an integrated assessment of the literature on the environmental sustainability of dispersed production in several disciplinary sources. The study highlighted that distributed production provides a different approach to mass manufacturing and the consumer-producer relationship. The researchers in [20] addressed the potential impact of rapid prototyping systems on operator health, safety, and the environment, leading to increased technology adoption in business and academia. The authors in [21] offered an in-depth case study of energy consumption and explained the disparities between direct digital manufacturing and mass production, and highlighted the significant influence on sustainable development. Nevertheless, their study indicated that numerous technical and societal challenges exist to solve. In the selective laser sintering (SLS) process, genetic programming, support vector regression, and artificial neural networks were used to develop laser power-based-open porosity models to improve environmental performance [22]. The authors found that GP is the best model to predict open porosity based on supplied laser power values accurately. The researchers in [23] reviewed and summarized the benefits, drawbacks, and effects of AM on sustainable development concerning innovation sources, business models, and value chain architecture and shed light on the impact of AM on sustainable development. Direct energy deposition as AM and subtractive (milling) process was reported [24] in which different sustainability criteria for components of varying sizes were compared. The material removal rate (MRR) results emphasized that the directed energy deposition (DED)DED process performs better than sustainable manufacturing. A method based on the DfAM was proposed in [3] and absorbed into the EDS of the product development process. The aim of the design technology was to facilitate the methodological implementation of environmental decisions. The research reported in [25] demonstrated the use of additive manufacturing technology and traditional thermal imaging techniques to redesign and validate the optimized system’s precision to avoid instrumental methodological flaws. The authors explained the differences between experimental and actual values of the aforementioned ecological factors. Desktop-scale fused deposition modeling (FDM) machines [26] that can provide insight into volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from industrial-scale material extrusion machine printing were investigated using ABS and PC filaments. The researchers in [27] presented an overview of life cycle inventory data by comparing the environmental impact of different additive manufacturing processes, including selective laser melting, selective laser sintering, electron beam melting, fused deposition modeling, and stereolithography, in which the ecological evaluation considered energy usage. Reusing materials reduces the environmental burden by lowering the amount of fresh material needed. As reported in [28], specific components may be created with a low ecological load using additive manufacturing for customization. A process planning design strategy was also developed [29] focusing on material usage in additive manufacturing. Tests were performed using the sustainable manufacturing method, and the results showed that the effectiveness and feasibility could be increased by reducing material consumption. The authors in [30] provided a life cycle evaluation technique that compared the environmental consequences of several impeller production technologies, such as plunge milling, laser cladding forming, and additive remanufacturing (RM). The authors in [31] focused on technical factors to highlight the features and effectiveness limits of the FDM technique of plastic components production capacity and also considered the economic aspects to analyze the expenses associated with the various procedures. The usage of a stainless steel (SS) micro powder and a cement paste combination in AM was also reported in [32]. The optimum quality, strength, and durability were achieved by adding 5% SS micro powder to the cement paste. The researchers in [33] investigated the recycled SS 316L powder using X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray Diffraction (XRD), and rheology analysis. Reusing the recycled powders during the AM process considerably decreased powder consumption, production cost, and time.

2. Life Cycle Assessment on Environment Impact

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the most often utilized technique throughout the design process, and analysis of the environmental impact of input and output flows in production processes that may be attributed to the stages of a product’s life cycle. For instance, according to the LCA, powder elaboration and ingot manufacturing account for approximately 90% of the environmental consequences in machining. The study reported in [34] aimed to examine all critical sources of environmental impacts, including energy usage, waste, and tool production, as well as all major categories of impacts. Further research aimed to recommend that manufacturers produce the components utilizing AM, which are free from environmental effects, such as climate change, land usage, and toxicity, was reported in [35]. Design flexibility allows product parameters such as weight and effectiveness to obtain a superior life cycle performance [36]. Though size limitation is one of the key constraints, the potential of 3D printing technology for the construction sector is considered based on the findings gained from each work phase, particularly the case studies analysis [37]. The authors declared that the goal of many manufacturers and academics was the long-term viability of the built environment in terms of economic, environmental, and social advantages. The environmental performance of a revolutionary additive manufacturing technique, known as rapid mask-image-projection-based stereolithography, was assessed using a life cycle evaluation to find damage to ecosystems and human health [38]. The study was conducted in different approaches to decrease economic risks, carbon and ecological footprints, and environmental impacts of 3D printing technology to minimize the environmental impacts and costs associated with traditional manufacturing methods [39]. The impact of the LCA of AM process is significant in applying the technology in remanufacturing, reconstruction, and repair areas. The experimental result reported in [40] focused on the difference between semi-automated geometrical reconstruction and laser direct deposition methods to effectively repair faulty voids in turbine airfoils, which showed that direct laser deposition is successful in remanufacturing and can respond to a wide range of part faults. In the binder-jetting process, a generic framework was developed to incorporate the design stage in LCA to reduce the environmental effects of AM processes [41]. The research reported in [42] recommended an LCA approach and associated decision criteria to assist the choice of a manufacturing method for an aeronautical turbine. The dimensionless measures used enabled environmental trade-offs between subtractive and additive approaches. This study calculated the net changes in lifecycle primary energy use and greenhouse gas emission with AM for lightweight metallic airplane components to shedding light on the unique benefits of switching from conventional manufacturing (CM) to AM procedures [43]. To assist eco-design activities in the aeronautics sector, an eco-efficiency technique integrating life cycle costs and life cycle environmental evaluation was developed that accounts for particular reduction objectives such as equipment costs, materials costs, and environmental impacts [44]. The authors in [45] conducted a case study using a train’s binder jetting AM process with a modified floor connection. AM technique is used as the standard manufacturing process to find the lack of end-of-life data and a modest influence on maintenance and fuel efficiency and examine the impact on the environment on output. As demonstrated in [3], to improve the design features of DfAM, the research must focus on the early design stages to reduce environmental impacts. The authors in [46] created a methodology to supplement the LCA of an AM material to minimize hazards, human health, and ecological implications. A feasibility study was carried out by [47] to evaluate the applicability, manufacturing time, and production costs of AM versus CM of specified metallic construction components. Second, the authors’ analysis of LCA examined the environmental implications of AM and CM. The researchers in [48] compared conventional manufacturing processes with AM, exposed the AM system emissions, the impact of raw materials utilization, and operating parameters, and developed suitable control measures and best practices for hazard reduction. Four LCAs were also conducted [49] for mold core production techniques, including casting with low-melting alloy, milling from plaster-like substance Aqua pour, additive manufacturing with high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), and additive manufacturing using powder materials such as salt. The study also analyzed the environmental consequences of traditional and additive mold core manufacture in CFRP production. The researchers in [50] used life cycle inventory (LCI) and LCA data demonstrating that AM can be a good alternative for making bespoke parts or short production runs as well as complicated part designs, generating significant functional advantages throughout the part-use phase. This research focused on environmental evaluation and a methodology based on the LCA technique presented by [51]. This suggested technique can assist designers and manufacturers in selecting the best strategy for producing new components from existing parts while minimizing the environmental effect. An updated LCA methodology and a software concept were also established in [52] to quantify the environmental implications of using AM technology. The experiments performed and reported in [53] to calculate the total process and coating performance aimed at better understanding the coating process’s underlying mechanisms and the influence of operational factors. As part of the study, an LCA was conducted to validate the suggested technology’s efficacy in environmental issues, energy consumption, and cost. The investigation compared two different life cycles of two comparable insoles: one manufactured using traditional manufacturing and the other produced using 3D-printing technology. These were examined using the same scale production to find how environmental consequences can be addressed in this paradigm of AM utilization vs. traditional manufacturing [54]. The environmental impact of direct metal laser sintering of iron metal powder and fused deposition modeling of acrylonitrile styrene acrylate polymer filament were investigated in this work. The study showed that electrical energy usage is the primary contributor to the systemic environmental implications of additive manufacturing [55]. The researchers in [56] measured the inventory data of AM processes during a product’s lifecycle production stage. This work also explained the creation of a parametric process model that provides an operator with reliable estimates of the environmental performance of the fused deposition modeling process. The authors in [57] conducted LCA research, which aimed to contribute beneficially to making decisions for polymerizable ionic liquids (PIL) 3D-printing methods at the laboratory scale. The findings of this study aided in identifying the significant elements and environmental implications associated with the creation of monomer ionic liquids (ILs) and PILs additive manufacturing. A novel approach for assessing environmental effects and a technological and financial assessment was proposed in [58] and applied to several additive manufacturing methods, which can assist firms in making a multi-criteria production process selection. Energy consumption in AM is one of the areas that deserve research. The researchers in [59] investigated common AM processes’ specific energy consumption (SEC) and environmental consequences. The prospects of ensuring product quality while reducing energy usage were investigated using experimental analysis. The investigation was carried out to study the environmental effect of WAAM using LCA. Due to the high impact of stainless steel, this evaluation incorporated significant sources of uncertainty and is sensitive to variations in material use fractions [60]. This research aimed to provide an overview of the literature on the environmental performance of AM and to examine the application of LCA [61]. The authors in [62] studied the possible environmental consequences of AM in terms of essential concerns such as energy usage, occupational health, waste, lifecycle effect, and cross-cutting and policy issues as current research requirements and suggestions. An LCA-based study was also conducted [63] using powder bed fusion (PBF) of metal components of an engine in a light distribution truck. Conventional manufacturing was contrasted with 3D-printing scenarios, one indicating the current stage of development of 3D-printing technology and the other a probable future state. The authors in [64] researched the evaluation of new materials for paste extrusion printing. LCA technique was used to compare their whole-system environmental implications to typical ABS extrusion: testing also evaluated material strength, printability, and cost. The reported research on AM’s environmental impact emphasizes gaps and places where more study is needed. Finally, the effects of reusing metallic powder and the waste disposal processes were investigated [65]. The LCA for an inkjet fusion printer with unusually high spatial utilization capability was performed in [66], which compared with earlier LCAs of nine printers produced with eight materials. However, when evaluated in the same usage situations, the inkjet fusion printer had a more significant environmental effect per component than other printers due to its high energy consumption. The investigation was carried out, and a comparison of AM data from the literature on lifecycle evaluation was made with traditional industrialized data from the Granta EduPack database. According to the authors [67], the AM had considerably larger CO₂ footprints per kilogram of material produced than casting, extrusion, rolling, forging, and wire drawing. When this pertains to the manufacture of medical implants, this study analyzed whether AM is more environmentally friendly than CM. The environmental impact of producing the femoral component of a Ti-6Al-4V knee implant was examined. For the fabrication of this component, one AM process, i.e., electron beam melting (EBM) and milling operation, were investigated [68]. The authors in [69] undertook a life cycle environmental comparison of two different versions of a product fabricated utilizing additive technology. The products’ structures were the same, and the study trials involved modifying the materials used in additive manufacturing (from PLA to ABS). The impacts of adjustments on environmental factors were noted, and a direct comparison of the effects in the various components was performed. The life cycle assessment is accomplished in the brick-making process to assess environmental impacts considering conventional production systems and olive mill wastewater [70]. Overall, it is vital to assess the actual environmental impact of new manufacturing methods. The LCA, among other things, facilitates opportunities to build sustainable products and processes, provides information to decision-makers in businesses and government organizations, selects environmental performance indicators, and assists with green manufacturing and marketing.

3. Energy Modeling in Additive Manufacturing

Energy models in additive manufacturing allow determining which aspects of the machine contribute the most to global environmental effects to reduce energy consumption. The modeling approach involves simulating each machine characteristic that influences the environment. A novel approach was proposed to assess the environmental effect of all flows (materials, fluids, and power). The conventional approach is based on a predictive model of flow consumption specified by the production process and a CAD model of the item to be produced [13]. A novel technique for assessing electric, fluid, and raw material consumption in AM processes can be done by direct metal deposition. The method assists engineers in designing environmentally friendly products for additive manufacturing [71]. An experimental design is utilized to investigate the impact of production volume, material and operational costs, batch size, material machinability, and lowering AM processing time. The generated models give insight into how these variables impact the expenses of creating a mechanical product manufactured using AM and subtractive manufacturing (SM) technologies [72]. In a study reported in [73], a CAD model of a product was created, and the manufacturing program was utilized to create a prediction model of flow usage that aims to reduce production environmental effects during the design stage. A study on empirical research was conducted [74] by presenting an optimization framework for estimating laser energy consumption in the SLS process. This study’s experimental approach included the calculation of energy consumption by measuring the whole sintering area. A comparison of a machining strategy with an integrated production path based on an AM process plus finish machining was reported in [75], whose primary outcome was a criterion for selecting the best environmentally friendly manufacturing technique while modifying the production scenario. An energy modeling for FDM printing was also developed [76] to investigate from a life cycle viewpoint. The steps covered in a typical FDM life cycle included material manufacturing, printing, post-processing, and associated transportation. This model uses energy for each stage and measures unit energy consumption. Thus, the objectives of the study were to create a conceptual model for manufacturing to redesign products, identify AM process adoption possibilities, and apply the AM process in production [77]. The researchers in [78] studied and compared several environmental production processes for components composed of aluminum alloys. Life cycle assessment methodologies were used to study and compare SLS-based AM processes, machining, and shaping operations.

4. Energy Consumption and Sustainable Design for AM

The utilization of resources without exhaustion or negative environmental impact is called sustainability. Significant sustainability challenges in manufacturing include energy use, waste creation, water usage, and the manufactured item’s environmental effect. Sustainability concerns global ecological conditions (environment), economic development (technology), and societal equality. Engineering procedures are typically associated with economic progress. To minimize the amount of energy used in SLS of non-polymeric materials, work was reported in [79]. The strategy of this work was to mix a temporary binder with the material, make an SLS green part convert the binder, and densify the part by chemical deposition at room temperature inside the pore network. The authors in [80] have also compared the electrical consumption of two major polymeric SLS platforms: the 3D Systems Sinterstation HiQHS and the EOSINT P 390 from EOS GmbH. The measured energy rates were more significant than the reported and also demonstrated that the primary energy drain is entirely time-dependent energy usage. A method for developing an energy consumption model for the binder-jetting manufacturing process’s printing stage was described in [81]. Mathematical investigations were carried out to determine the relationship between energy usage and the geometry of the produced item. This process model is a tool for optimizing part geometry design regarding energy usage. The study was conducted to improve understanding of the energy inherent in each phase of the manufacturing process. To make the helpful model, users should calculate the energy spent by their manufacturing process equipment based on the energy-per-unit production volume for each material of interest, considering both alloy composition and shape [82]. The researchers in [83] analyzed a range of items and industries in this study to fully grasp the function of additive manufacturing in sustainable industrial systems. Four major areas where the use of additive manufacturing is improving resource efficiency can be identified: (1) products and process design, (2) material input processing, (3) product and component production to order, and (4) completing the loop. The authors in [84] examined AM good’s overall life cycle sustainability using the newly developed Product Sustainability Index (ProdSI) methodology. A case study was conducted with two iterations of an AM product confirming the ProdSI metrics of AM products. Furthermore, the features of additive manufacturing from the standpoint of sustainable design and the possibility of a new business model that might result in the sustainable design of consumer items were reported in [85]. The primary environmental benefits of using AM technologies in industrial production include lower energy consumption of printers throughout the manufacturing process, ease of product decommissioning and disposal, reduced waste, and enhanced raw material recycling rate [86]. The authors in [7] reviewed research initiatives that were carried out at the University of Exeter to improve the long-term viability of AM. These research efforts included: (1) sustainable product design through internal lightweight structure optimization, (2) process efficiency improvement through AM process parameter optimization, (3) energy consumption reduction through in situ thermite material reaction, and (4) sustainable production of individualized chocolates. Research on electric energy consumption of various processes was conducted ^[87][89], followed by some extensive studies that considered raw materials and all the process processes’ flows. The study provided a novel approach for accurately evaluating the environmental effect of a part based on its CAD model. The researchers ^[88][90] experimented and identified the machine effects, and aluminum powder impacts were computed using life cycle inventories of materials and processes; electricity usage was monitored using an in-line power meter, and transport and disposal were also evaluated. Energy consumption was used to calculate the impacts. A study was conducted and reported in ^[89][91] in which the part was manufactured and studied its construction orientation and interior filling, production time, energy consumption, and the product’s end-of-life. The study was further intended to assess the environmental implications of traditional manufacturing processes against AM for a real-world industrial application. The repair procedure of a burner was utilized in Siemens industrial gas turbine, and the results indicated that the AM-based repair procedure significantly reduces material footprint and primary energy use ^[90][92]. A mathematical model for energy consumption of stereolithography apparatus (SLA)-based procedures was also proposed ^[91][93], and experiments were conducted to assess the actual energy usage from an SLA-based AM machine. The comparative study results demonstrated that the overall energy consumption of SLA-based AM processes might be significantly lowered to optimize parameter settings without visible product quality degradation. According to ^[92][94], who created a system modeling framework using life cycle inventory analysis and results, the AM has the potential to save 3 to 5% primary energy, 4 to 7% GHG emissions, 12 to 60% lead time, and 15 to 35% cost over 1 million injection molding production cycles. Nagarajan and Haapala ^[93][95] conducted a study to uncover the systemic contributions to environmental effects in AM by exergy analysis and life cycle impact assessment. These methodologies were used to assess the environmental performance of conventional and non-conventional manufacturing processes. Yang and Li ^[94][96] studied how to enhance the state-of-the-art sustainable environmental assessment for AM batch processes by comparing key environmental sustainability characteristics (i.e., energy consumption, emission, and material waste) with batch production processes of varied batch sizes. Theirs study covers the critical sustainability challenges in AM manufacturing technologies. References

1.  Morrow, W.R.; Qi, H.; Kim, I.; Mazumder, J.; Skerlos, S.J. Environmental Aspects of Laser-Based and Conventional Tool and Die Manufacturing. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 932–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.030.
2. Lušić, M.; Barabanov, A.; Morina, D.; Feuerstein, F.; Hornfeck, R. Towards Zero Waste in Additive Manufacturing: A Case Study Investigating One Pressurised Rapid Tooling Mould to Ensure Resource Efficiency. Procedia CIRP 2015, 37, 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.022.
3. Laverne, F.; Segonds, F.; Anwer, N.; Le Coq, M. Assembly Based Methods to Support Product Innovation in Design for Additive Manufacturing: An Exploratory Case Study. Mech. Des. 2015, 137, 121701. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4031589.
4. Markou, F.; Segonds, F.; Rio, M.; Perry, N. A Methodological Proposal to Link Design with Additive Manufacturing to Environmental Considerations in the Early Design Stages. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 2017, 11, 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0412-1.
5. Floriane, L.; Frédéric, S.; Gianluca, D.; Marc, L.C. Enriching Design with X through Tailored Additive Manufacturing Knowledge: A Methodological Proposal. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 2017, 11, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-016-0314-7.
6. Drizo, A.; Pegna, J. Environmental Impacts of Rapid Prototyping: An Overview of Research to Date. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2006, 12, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540610652393.
7. Fitzgerald, D.P.; Herrmann, J.W.; Schmidt, L.C. A Conceptual Design Tool for Resolving Conflicts Between Product Functionality and Environmental Impact. Mech. Des. 2010, 132, 091006. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4002144.
8. Liang Hao; Raymond, D.; Strano, G.; Dadbakhsh, S. Enhancing the Sustainability of Additive Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Responsive Manufacturing—Green Manufacturing (ICRM 2010), Ningbo, China, 11–13 January 2010; IET: Ningbo, China, 2010; pp. 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2010.0462.
9. Ponche, R.; Hascoet, J.Y.; Kerbrat, O.; Mognol, P. A New Global Approach to Design for Additive Manufacturing: A Method to Obtain a Design That Meets Specifications While Optimizing a given Additive Manufacturing Process Is Presented in This Paper. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2012, 7, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2012.679499.
10. Aliakbari, M. Additive Manufacturing: State-of-the-Art, Capabilities, and Sample Applications with Cost Analysis. Master’s Thesis, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012.
11. Campbell, I.; Bourell, D.; Gibson, I. Additive Manufacturing: Rapid Prototyping Comes of Age. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541211231563.
12. Dezso, G.; Kósa, P. Roughness of plane faces produced by additive manufacturing. Fac. Eng. Hunedoara 2012, 10, 181.
13. Bourhis, F.L.; Kerbrat, O.; Hascoet, J.-Y.; Mognol, P. Sustainable Manufacturing: Evaluation and Modeling of Environmental Impacts in Additive Manufacturing. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 69, 1927–1939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5151-2.
14. Huang, S.H.; Liu, P.; Mokasdar, A.; Hou, L. Additive Manufacturing and Its Societal Impact: A Literature Review. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 67, 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4558-5.
15. Achillas, Ch.; Aidonis, D.; Iakovou, E.; Thymianidis, M.; Tzetzis, D. A Methodological Framework for the Inclusion of Modern Additive Manufacturing into the Production Portfolio of a Focused Factory. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 37, 328–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.07.014.
16. Beiker Kair, A.; Sofos, K. Additive manufacturing and production of metallic parts in the automotive industry: A case study on technical, economic and environmental sustainability aspects. Master's Thesis, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, 2014.
17. Giurco, D.; Littleboy, A.; Boyle, T.; Fyfe, J.; White, S. Circular Economy: Questions for Responsible Minerals, Additive Manufacturing and Recycling of Metals. Resources 2014, 3, 432–453. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3020432.
18. Kellens, K.; Renaldi, R.; Dewulf, W.; Kruth, J.; Duflou, J.R. Environmental Impact Modeling of Selective Laser Sintering Processes. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2014, 20, 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-02-2013-0018.
19. Mani, M.; Lyons, K.W.; Gupta, S.K. Sustainability Characterization for Additive Manufacturing. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 2014, 119, 419. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.119.016.
20. Kohtala, C. Addressing Sustainability in Research on Distributed Production: An Integrated Literature Review. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 654–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.039.
21. Short, D.B.; Sirinterlikci, A.; Badger, P.; Artieri, B. Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues in Rapid Prototyping. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2015, 21, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-11-2012-0111.
22. Chen, D.; Heyer, S.; Ibbotson, S.; Salonitis, K.; Steingrímsson, J.G.; Thiede, S. Direct Digital Manufacturing: Definition, Evolution, and Sustainability Implications. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.009.
23. Garg, A.; Lam, J.S.L. Measurement of Environmental Aspect of 3-D Printing Process Using Soft Computing Methods. Measurement 2015, 75, 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.04.016.
24. Ford, S.; Despeisse, M. Additive Manufacturing and Sustainability: An Exploratory Study of the Advantages and Challenges. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 1573–1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.150.
25. Doran, M.P.; Smullin, M.M.; Haapala, K.R. An Approach to Compare Sustainability Performance of Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing During Process Planning. In 21st Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems, Charlotte, NC, USA, 21–24 August 2016; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2016; Volume 4, p. V004T05A047. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2016-60209.
26. Salamone, F.; Danza, L.; Meroni, I.; Pollastro, M. A Low-Cost Environmental Monitoring System: How to Prevent Systematic Errors in the Design Phase through the Combined Use of Additive Manufacturing and Thermographic Techniques. Sensors 2017, 17, 828. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17040828.
27. Stefaniak, A.B.; LeBouf, R.F.; Yi, J.; Ham, J.; Nurkewicz, T.; Schwegler-Berry, D.E.; Chen, B.T.; Wells, J.R.; Duling, M.G.; Lawrence, R.B.; et al. Characterization of Chemical Contaminants Generated by a Desktop Fused Deposition Modeling 3-Dimensional Printer. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2017, 14, 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1302589.
28. Kellens, K.; Mertens, R.; Paraskevas, D.; Dewulf, W.; Duflou, J.R. Environmental Impact of Additive Manufacturing Processes: Does AM Contribute to a More Sustainable Way of Part Manufacturing? Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.153.
29. Tateno, T.; Kondoh, S. Environmental Load Reduction by Customization for Reuse with Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.219.
30. Jin, Y.; Du, J.; He, Y. Optimization of Process Planning for Reducing Material Consumption in Additive Manufacturing. Manuf. Syst. 2017, 44, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.05.003.
31. Peng, S.; Li, T.; Wang, X.; Dong, M.; Liu, Z.; Shi, J.; Zhang, H. Toward a Sustainable Impeller Production: Environmental Impact Comparison of Different Impeller Manufacturing Methods: Environmental Comparison of Impeller Manufacturing. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S216–S229. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12628.
32. Tagliaferri, V.; Trovalusci, F.; Guarino, S.; Venettacci, S. Environmental and Economic Analysis of FDM, SLS and MJF Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Materials 2019, 12, 4161. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12244161.
33. Melugiri-Shankaramurthy, B.; Sargam, Y.; Zhang, X.; Sun, W.; Wang, K.; Qin, H. Evaluation of Cement Paste Containing Recycled Stainless Steel Powder for Sustainable Additive Manufacturing. Build. Mater. 2019, 227, 116696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116696.
34. Gorji, N.E.; O’Connor, R.; Brabazon, D. XPS, XRD, and SEM Characterization of the Virgin and Recycled Metallic Powders for 3D Printing Applications. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 591, 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/591/1/012016.
35. Priarone, P.C.; Pagone, E.; Martina, F.; Catalano, A.R.; Settineri, L. Multi-Criteria Environmental and Economic Impact Assessment of Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2020, 69, 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2020.04.010.
36. Serres, N.; Tidu, D.; Sankare, S.; Hlawka, F. Environmental Comparison of MESO-CLAD® Process and Conventional Machining Implementing Life Cycle Assessment. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1117–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.010.
37. Faludi, J.; Bayley, C.; Bhogal, S.; Iribarne, M. Comparing Environmental Impacts of Additive Manufacturing vs Traditional Machining via Life-Cycle Assessment. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2015, 21, 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2013-0067.
38. Burkhart, M.; Aurich, J.C. Framework to Predict the Environmental Impact of Additive Manufacturing in the Life Cycle of a Commercial Vehicle. Procedia CIRP 2015, 29, 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.194.
39. Oberti, I.; Plantamura, F. Is 3D Printed House Sustainable? In Proceedings of the International Conference CISBAT 2015 Future Buildings and Districts Sustainability from Nano to Urban Scale, Lausanne, Switzerland, 9–11 September 2015. https://doi.org/10.5075/epfl-cisbat2015-173-178.
40. Malshe, H.; Nagarajan, H.; Pan, Y.; Haapala, K. Profile of Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing and Environmental Assessment of a Novel Stereolithography Process. In Materials; Biomanufacturing; Properties, Applications and Systems; Sustainable Manufacturing; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2015; Volume 2, p. V002T05A012. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2015-9371.
41. Meyer, V.B. Prototyping the Environmental Impacts of 3D Printing: Claims and Realities of Additive Manufacturing. Master's Thesis, Fordham University, New York, USA, 2015.
42. Wilson, J.M.; Piya, C.; Shin, Y.C.; Zhao, F.; Ramani, K. Remanufacturing of Turbine Blades by Laser Direct Deposition with Its Energy and Environmental Impact Analysis. Clean. Prod. 2014, 80, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.084.
43. Tang, Y.; Mak, K.; Zhao, Y.F. A Framework to Reduce Product Environmental Impact through Design Optimization for Additive Manufacturing. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 1560–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.037.
44. Paris, H.; Mokhtarian, H.; Coatanéa, E.; Museau, M.; Ituarte, I.F. Comparative Environmental Impacts of Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing Technologies. CIRP Ann. 2016, 65, 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.04.036.
45. Huang, R.; Riddle, M.; Graziano, D.; Warren, J.; Das, S.; Nimbalkar, S.; Cresko, J.; Masanet, E. Energy and Emissions Saving Potential of Additive Manufacturing: The Case of Lightweight Aircraft Components. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1559–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.109.
46. Mami, F.; Revéret, J.-P.; Fallaha, S.; Margni, M. Evaluating Eco-Efficiency of 3D Printing in the Aeronautic Industry. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S37–S48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12693.
47. Yang, S.; Talekar, T.; Sulthan, M.A.; Zhao, Y.F. A Generic Sustainability Assessment Model towards Consolidated Parts Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing Process. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 10, 831–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.086.
48. Bours, J.; Adzima, B.; Gladwin, S.; Cabral, J.; Mau, S. Addressing Hazardous Implications of Additive Manufacturing: Complementing Life Cycle Assessment with a Framework for Evaluating Direct Human Health and Environmental Impacts: Hazard Implications of 3D Printing Materials. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S25–S36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12587.
49. Mrazovic, N.; Mocibob, D.; Lepech, M.; Fischer, M. Assessment of Additive and Conventional Manufacturing: Case Studies from the AEC Industry. Int. Struct. Eng. Constr. 2017, 4, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.res.2017.201.
50. Baumers, M.; Duflou, J.R.; Flanagan, W.; Gutowski, T.G.; Kellens, K.; Lifset, R. Charting the Environmental Dimensions of Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 9 - 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12668.
51. Kafara, M.; Süchting, M.; Kemnitzer, J.; Westermann, H.-H.; Steinhilper, R. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Additive Manufacturing in Mold Core Making for CFRP Production. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 8, 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.028.
52. Kellens, K.; Baumers, M.; Gutowski, T.G.; Flanagan, W.; Lifset, R.; Duflou, J.R. Environmental Dimensions of Additive Manufacturing: Mapping Application Domains and Their Environmental Implications: Environmental Dimensions of Additive Manufacturing. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S49–S68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12629.
53. Le, V.T.; Paris, H.; Mandil, G. Environmental Impact Assessment of an Innovative Strategy Based on an Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing Combination. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.204.
54. Barros, K.D.S. Identification of the Environmental Impacts Contributors Related to the Use of Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Doctoral Thesis, Université Grenoble Alpes (ComUE): Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France, 2017.
55. Guarino, S.; Ucciardello, N.; Venettacci, S.; Genna, S. Life Cycle Assessment of a New Graphene-Based Electrodeposition Process on Copper Components. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.168.
56. da Silva Barros, K.; Zwolinski, P.; Mansur, A.I. Where do the environmental impacts of Additive Manufacturing come from? Case study of the use of 3d-printing to print orthotic insoles. In 12ème Congrès International de Génie Industriel (CIGI 2017); Compiegne, France. May 2017.
57. Nagarajan, H.P.N.; Haapala, K.R. Characterizing the Influence of Resource-Energy-Exergy Factors on the Environmental Performance of Additive Manufacturing Systems. Manuf. Syst. 2018, 48, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.06.005.
58. Yosofi, M.; Kerbrat, O.; Mognol, P. Energy and Material Flow Modelling of Additive Manufacturing Processes. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2018, 13, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1418900.
59. Yosofi, M.; Kerbrat, O.; Mognol, P. Framework to combine technical, economic and environmental points of view of additive manufacturing processes. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.085.
60. Liu, Z.Y.; Li, C.; Fang, X.Y.; Guo, Y.B. Energy Consumption in Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 26, 834–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.104.
61. Bekker, A.C.M.; Verlinden, J.C. Life Cycle Assessment of Wire + Arc Additive Manufacturing Compared to Green Sand Casting and CNC Milling in Stainless Steel. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.148.
62. Garcia, F.L.; Moris, V.A.d.S.; Nunes, A.O.; Silva, D.A.L. Environmental Performance of Additive Manufacturing Process—An Overview. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 1166–1177. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-05-2017-0108.
63. Rejeski, D.; Zhao, F.; Huang, Y. Research Needs and Recommendations on Environmental Implications of Additive Manufacturing. Manuf. 2018, 19, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.10.019.
64. Yosofi, M.; Kerbrat, O.; Mognol, P. Additive Manufacturing Processes from an Environmental Point of View: A New Methodology for Combining Technical, Economic, and Environmental Predictive Models. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 102, 4073–4085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03446-2.
65. Jiang, Q.; Liu, Z.; Li, T.; Cong, W.; Zhang, H.-C. Emergy-Based Life-Cycle Assessment (Em-LCA) for Sustainability Assessment: A Case Study of Laser Additive Manufacturing versus CNC Machining. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 102, 4109–4120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03486-8.
66. Böckin, D.; Tillman, A.-M. Environmental Assessment of Additive Manufacturing in the Automotive Industry. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 977–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.086.
67. Faludi, J.; Van Sice, C.M.; Shi, Y.; Bower, J.; Brooks, O.M.K. Novel Materials Can Radically Improve Whole-System Environmental Impacts of Additive Manufacturing. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1580–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.017.
68. Arrizubieta, J.I.; Ukar, O.; Ostolaza, M.; Mugica, A. Study of the Environmental Implications of Using Metal Powder in Additive Manufacturing and Its Handling. Metals 2020, 10, 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10020261.
69. Shi, Y.; Faludi, J. Using Life Cycle Assessment to Determine If High Utilization Is the Dominant Force for Sustainable Polymer Additive Manufacturing. Manuf. 2020, 35, 101307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101307.
70. Van Sice, C.; Faludi, J. Comparing Environmental Impacts of Metal Additive Manufacturing to Conventional Manufacturing. Des. Soc. 2021, 1, 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.67.
71. Lyons, R.; Newell, A.; Ghadimi, P.; Papakostas, N. Environmental Impacts of Conventional and Additive Manufacturing for the Production of Ti-6Al-4V Knee Implant: A Life Cycle Approach. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 112, 787–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06367-7.
72. Dudkowiak, A.; Dostatni, E.; Rojek, I.; Mikołajewski, D. The Environmental Analysis of a Product Manufactured with the Use of an Additive Technology. In Advances in Manufacturing III; Trojanowska, J., Kujawińska, A., Machado, J., Pavlenko, I., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99310-8_7.
73. Silvestri, L.; Forcina, A.; Di Bona, G.; Silvestri, C. Circular economy strategy of reusing olive mill wastewater in the ceramic industry: How the plant location can benefit environmental and economic performance. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 129388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129388.
74. Le Bourhis, F.; Kerbrat, O.; Dembinski, L.; Hascoet, J.-Y.; Mognol, P. Predictive Model for Environmental Assessment in Additive Manufacturing Process. Procedia CIRP 2014, 15, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.031.
75. Manogharan, G.; Wysk, R.A.; Harrysson, O.L.A. Additive Manufacturing–Integrated Hybrid Manufacturing and Subtractive Processes: Economic Model and Analysis. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2016, 29, 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2015.1067920.
76. Kerbrat, O.; Bourhis, F.L.; Mognol, P.; Hascoët, J. Environmental Performance Modeling for Additive Manufacturing Processes. J. of Rapid Manuf. 2015, 5, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1504/15.74812.
77. Panda, B.N.; Garg, A.; Shankhwar, K. Empirical Investigation of Environmental Characteristics of 3-D Additive Manufacturing Process Based on Slice Thickness and Part Orientation. Measurement 2016, 86, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.03.006.
78. Priarone, P.C.; Ingarao, G. Towards Criteria for Sustainable Process Selection: On the Modelling of Pure Subtractive versus Additive/Subtractive Integrated Manufacturing Approaches. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.165.
79. Peng, T.; Sun, W. Energy Modelling for FDM 3D Printing from a Life Cycle Perspective. J. Manuf. Res. 2017, 12, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMR.2017.083651.
80. Zhang, H.; Nagel, J.K.; Al-Qas, A.; Gibbons, E.; Lee, J.J.-Y. Additive Manufacturing with Bioinspired Sustainable Product Design: A Conceptual Model. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 26, 880–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.113.
81. Ingarao, G.; Priarone, P.C.; Deng, Y.; Paraskevas, D. Environmental Modelling of Aluminium Based Components Manufacturing Routes: Additive Manufacturing versus Machining versus Forming. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.115.
82. Sreenivasan, R.; Goel, A.; Bourell, D.L. Sustainability Issues in Laser-Based Additive Manufacturing. Procedia 2010, 5, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2010.08.124.
83. Baumers, M.; Tuck, C.; Bourell, D.L.; Sreenivasan, R.; Hague, R. Sustainability of Additive Manufacturing: Measuring the Energy Consumption of the Laser Sintering Process. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2011, 225, 2228–2239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405411406044.
84. Xu, X.; Meteyer, S.; Perry, N.; Zhao, Y.F. Energy Consumption Model of Binder-Jetting Additive Manufacturing Processes. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 7005–7015. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.937013.
85. Watson, J.K.; Taminger, K.M.B. A Decision-Support Model for Selecting Additive Manufacturing versus Subtractive Manufacturing Based on Energy Consumption. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 1316–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.009.
86. (112). Despeisse, M.; Ford, S. The role of additive manufacturing in improving resource efficiency and sustainability. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 129–136.
87. Hapuwatte, B.; Seevers, K.D.; Badurdeen, F.; Jawahir, I.S. Total Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis of Additively Manufactured Products. Procedia CIRP 2016, 48, 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.016.
88. Angioletti, C.M.; Sisca, F.; Taisch, M.; Rocca, R. Additive Manufacturing as an Opportunity for Supporting Sustainability through Implementation of Circular Economies. In Proceedings of the 21st Summer School Francesco Turco 2016; AIDI-Italian Association of Industrial Operations Professors: Politecnico Di Milano, Italy, 2016; pp. 25–25.
89. Kerbrat, O.; Bourhis, F.L.; Mognol, P.; Hascoët, J.Y. Environmental impact assessment studies in additive manufacturing. In Handbook of Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 31–63.
90. Faludi, J.; Baumers, M.; Maskery, I.; Hague, R. Environmental Impacts of Selective Laser Melting: Do Printer, Powder, Or Power Dominate? Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S144–S156. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12528.
91. Freitas, D.; Almeida, H.A.; Bártolo, H.; Bártolo, P.J. Sustainability in Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Addit. Manuf. 2016, 1, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-016-0007-6.
92. Walachowicz, F.; Bernsdorf, I.; Papenfuss, U.; Zeller, C.; Graichen, A.; Navrotsky, V.; Rajvanshi, N.; Kiener, C. Comparative Energy, Resource and Recycling Lifecycle Analysis of the Industrial Repair Process of Gas Turbine Burners Using Conventional Machining and Additive Manufacturing: Additive Manufacturing Repair LCA Study. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S203–S215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12637.
93. Yang, Y.; Li, L.; Pan, Y.; Sun, Z. Energy Consumption Modeling of Stereolithography-Based Additive Manufacturing Toward Environmental Sustainability. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S168–S178. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12589.
94. Huang, R.; Riddle, M.E.; Graziano, D.; Das, S.; Nimbalkar, S.; Cresko, J.; Masanet, E. Environmental and Economic Implications of Distributed Additive Manufacturing: The Case of Injection Mold Tooling. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S130–S143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12641.
95. Nagarajan, H.P.N.; Haapala, K.R. Environmental Performance Evaluation of Direct Metal Laser Sintering through Exergy Analysis. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 10, 957–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.087.
96. Yang, Y.; Li, L. Evaluation of Environmental Sustainability for Additive Manufacturing Batch Production. In Additive Manufacturing; Materials; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017; Volume 2, p. V002T01A038. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2017-2957.