Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVýtisk, Jan
dc.contributor.authorHonus, Stanislav
dc.contributor.authorKočí, Vladimír
dc.contributor.authorPagáč, Marek
dc.contributor.authorHajnyš, Jiří
dc.contributor.authorVujanović, Milan
dc.contributor.authorVrtek, Mojmír
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-28T10:47:12Z
dc.date.available2022-11-28T10:47:12Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationSustainable Materials and Technologies. 2022, vol. 32, art. no. e00431.cs
dc.identifier.issn2214-9937
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10084/148917
dc.description.abstractAn integral part of the rapid development of modern technologies is additive manufacturing (AM) or threedimensional (3D) printing, which produces specific products that can replace the classic subtractive methods of machining or conventional manufacturing (CM). This study assessed the manufacturing processes of these two methods during the production of an air ejector and a centric orifice plate using the life cycle assessment (LCA) with the cradle-to-grave method, supported by experimental measurements. In general, the study serves as a tool for the companies for the development of circular economy. This study is specifically focused on and conducted for the industrial sector in the Czech Republic. This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the energy and material flows during the processes of mining, production of semi-finished products, processing of byproducts, and subsequent recycling. Moreover, it includes an assessment of the production of emissions and their effect and impact on the environment and, subsequently, the social aspect. It was found that from a primary energy demand (PED) perspective, AM single build is 30% more demanding in the case without recycling and 27.5% more demanding with the inclusion of the end-of-life phase. Moreover, the impact of AM is greater in four out of six impact categories for the ReCiPe 2016v 1.1 methodology. In addition, for the CML 2001 - Aug. 2016 methodology, AM is greater in four out of five categories. Finally, AM is greater in four out of four impact categories for the EF 3.0 methodology. The study highlights the hypothesis based on the production time for the full build, where from a PED perspective, AM with the end-of-life phase is only 2.76% and 3.89% more demanding with and without the offsetting of time deviation, respectively. The results of this study discuss the potential development and reduction of the burden on the environment during the life cycle of AM, especially during the cooling AM and the production of metallic powder. Although previous studies compared AM and CM were conducted, common and simple rotating components were virtually absent. This study aims to address this problem and arouse interest in the development of the issues presented.cs
dc.language.isoencs
dc.publisherElseviercs
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSustainable Materials and Technologiescs
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00431cs
dc.rights© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.cs
dc.subjectLCA modelingcs
dc.subjectemissionscs
dc.subjectenvironmental impactscs
dc.subjectadditive manufacturingcs
dc.subjectconventional manufacturingcs
dc.titleComparative study by life cycle assessment of an air ejector and orifice plate for experimental measuring stand manufactured by conventional manufacturing and additive manufacturingcs
dc.typearticlecs
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00431
dc.type.statusPeer-reviewedcs
dc.description.sourceWeb of Sciencecs
dc.description.volume32cs
dc.description.firstpageart. no. e00431cs
dc.identifier.wos000794865300003


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record