Life cycle cost, energy, and carbon emissions of molds for precast concrete: Exploring the impacts of material choices and additive manufacturing

Kristina O. Armstrong; Dipti Kamath; Xianhui Zhao; Mitchell L. Rencheck; Halil Tekinalp; Matthew Korey; Diana Hun; Soydan Ozcan

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107117

Life cycle cost, energy, and carbon emissions of molds for precast concrete: Exploring the impacts of material choices and additive manufacturing

Kristina O. Armstrong, Dipti Kamath, Xianhui Zhao, Mitchell L. Rencheck, Halil Tekinalp, Matthew Korey, Diana Hun, Soydan Ozcan

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Molds for precast concrete are commonly used to create simple- to complex-shaped concrete products away from construction sites. These molds are often handmade from wood; however, additively manufacturing (AM, or 3D printing) fiber-reinforced polymer composites is an advantageous alternative, producing significantly more durable, highly complex molds faster, but likely at a higher cost. This study explores the impact of material and production variables on the cost, energy, and carbon emissions of employing composite AM molds over the full lifecycle. The case study employed techno-economic and life cycle assessments to show that using wood flour–poly(lactic acid) or recycled carbon fiber–acrylonitrile butadiene styrene for AM molds can be less expensive than conventional wood molds, especially when considering use phase costs. While wood molds have the least environmental impacts due to wood's higher biogenic carbon sequestration and minimal processing, optimizing AM designs could reduce energy demand, carbon emissions, and cost.

Original language	English
Article number	107117
Journal	Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Volume	197
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107117
State	Published - Oct 2023

Funding

The authors acknowledge the support from the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, and Bioenergy Technologies Office. The authors would like to thank Brian Post of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Nathan Brooks of Gates Precast Company for their great help and discussion. This manuscript was authored by UT-Battelle LLC under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with DOE. The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan ( https://www.energy.gov/doe-public-access-plan ). The authors acknowledge the support from the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, and Bioenergy Technologies Office. The authors would like to thank Brian Post of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Nathan Brooks of Gates Precast Company for their great help and discussion. This manuscript was authored by UT-Battelle LLC under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with DOE. The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (https://www.energy.gov/doe-public-access-plan).

Funders	Funder number
DOE Public Access Plan
Nathan Brooks of Gates Precast Company
U.S. Department of Energy
Advanced Manufacturing Office
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Bioenergy Technologies Office	DE-AC05-00OR22725

Keywords

3D printing
Additive manufacturing
Bio-derived composites
Composite recycling
Precast concrete

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107117

Cite this

@article{0344177685894a34a27c0c55dcc79eb5,

title = "Life cycle cost, energy, and carbon emissions of molds for precast concrete: Exploring the impacts of material choices and additive manufacturing",

abstract = "Molds for precast concrete are commonly used to create simple- to complex-shaped concrete products away from construction sites. These molds are often handmade from wood; however, additively manufacturing (AM, or 3D printing) fiber-reinforced polymer composites is an advantageous alternative, producing significantly more durable, highly complex molds faster, but likely at a higher cost. This study explores the impact of material and production variables on the cost, energy, and carbon emissions of employing composite AM molds over the full lifecycle. The case study employed techno-economic and life cycle assessments to show that using wood flour–poly(lactic acid) or recycled carbon fiber–acrylonitrile butadiene styrene for AM molds can be less expensive than conventional wood molds, especially when considering use phase costs. While wood molds have the least environmental impacts due to wood's higher biogenic carbon sequestration and minimal processing, optimizing AM designs could reduce energy demand, carbon emissions, and cost.",

keywords = "3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Bio-derived composites, Composite recycling, Precast concrete",

author = "Armstrong, {Kristina O.} and Dipti Kamath and Xianhui Zhao and Rencheck, {Mitchell L.} and Halil Tekinalp and Matthew Korey and Diana Hun and Soydan Ozcan",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023",

year = "2023",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107117",

language = "English",

volume = "197",

journal = "Resources, Conservation and Recycling",

issn = "0921-3449",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Life cycle cost, energy, and carbon emissions of molds for precast concrete

T2 - Exploring the impacts of material choices and additive manufacturing

AU - Armstrong, Kristina O.

AU - Kamath, Dipti

AU - Zhao, Xianhui

AU - Rencheck, Mitchell L.

AU - Tekinalp, Halil

AU - Korey, Matthew

AU - Hun, Diana

AU - Ozcan, Soydan

PY - 2023/10

Y1 - 2023/10

N2 - Molds for precast concrete are commonly used to create simple- to complex-shaped concrete products away from construction sites. These molds are often handmade from wood; however, additively manufacturing (AM, or 3D printing) fiber-reinforced polymer composites is an advantageous alternative, producing significantly more durable, highly complex molds faster, but likely at a higher cost. This study explores the impact of material and production variables on the cost, energy, and carbon emissions of employing composite AM molds over the full lifecycle. The case study employed techno-economic and life cycle assessments to show that using wood flour–poly(lactic acid) or recycled carbon fiber–acrylonitrile butadiene styrene for AM molds can be less expensive than conventional wood molds, especially when considering use phase costs. While wood molds have the least environmental impacts due to wood's higher biogenic carbon sequestration and minimal processing, optimizing AM designs could reduce energy demand, carbon emissions, and cost.

AB - Molds for precast concrete are commonly used to create simple- to complex-shaped concrete products away from construction sites. These molds are often handmade from wood; however, additively manufacturing (AM, or 3D printing) fiber-reinforced polymer composites is an advantageous alternative, producing significantly more durable, highly complex molds faster, but likely at a higher cost. This study explores the impact of material and production variables on the cost, energy, and carbon emissions of employing composite AM molds over the full lifecycle. The case study employed techno-economic and life cycle assessments to show that using wood flour–poly(lactic acid) or recycled carbon fiber–acrylonitrile butadiene styrene for AM molds can be less expensive than conventional wood molds, especially when considering use phase costs. While wood molds have the least environmental impacts due to wood's higher biogenic carbon sequestration and minimal processing, optimizing AM designs could reduce energy demand, carbon emissions, and cost.

KW - 3D printing

KW - Additive manufacturing

KW - Bio-derived composites

KW - Composite recycling

KW - Precast concrete

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85165385190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107117

DO - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107117

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85165385190

SN - 0921-3449

VL - 197

JO - Resources, Conservation and Recycling

JF - Resources, Conservation and Recycling

M1 - 107117

ER -

Life cycle cost, energy, and carbon emissions of molds for precast concrete: Exploring the impacts of material choices and additive manufacturing

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this