A Comparative Study of Metal Additive Manufacturing Processes for Elevated Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Metal additive manufacturing (AM) processes have gone through a compound growth over the past decade, and the technology is widely applied in industries like aerospace, automobile and bio-medical fields. There is an increasing need to understand and improve its sustainability given the high profile of existing environmental challenges. This paper aims at developing a precise comparative model for the three major metal AM processes (including Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), Electron Beam Melting (EBM), and Direct Energy Deposition (DED)) with respect to environmental performance assessment with a future goal of providing closed-loop feedbacks for design optimization with elevated sustainability. To improve the precision of previously reported models, new factors including embodied impacts of machine and recycled powder, operation patterns, system lifespan and batch size, are considered. A topologically optimized rocket bracket made of Ti6Al4V is used as an example to investigate the environmental performance of the three processes. The results showed that given the same design solution, the EBM had the lowest environmental impacts for low batch size, while the DED excelled at production efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".