Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 31–36
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference

Energy Consumption and Scope 2 Emissions for Fused Deposition Modelling

Sakinah Zakariaa,b*, Paul Mativengaa, Akos Csekea

a
Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 02600, Arau, Perlis, Malaysia
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a layer-by-layer manufacturing process and gaining importance for applications in digital manufacturing, repair
and remanufacturing. Although there are many studies on life cycle assessment in AM, the existing studies do not focus on quantifying Scope 1
and Scope 2 emissions which are required for reporting to support net-zero pathway. It is timely to model and optimise additive manufacturing
processes for the net-zero carbon agenda. This study discusses energy state monitoring and energy studies to quantify and understand the energy
consumption and Scope 2 carbon emissions for fused deposition modelling (FDM) based on the evaluation of the energy states of the FDM
machine and energy consumption when printing an exemplar product. The proposed approach can assist manufacturers in identifying key modules
of the machine design and process responsible for significant energy consumption, quantifying energy consumption of fused deposition and its
contribution to Scope 2 emissions.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.
Keywords: Additive manufacturing; scope 2; low carbon manufacturing; fused deposition modelling

1. Introduction example related to production, recycling and disposal are

covered by Scope 3. Scope 3 is an optional reporting category
Climate change has become a huge global challenge. Global that allows for treating all other indirect emissions. Most
warming is disrupting the weather and ecosystem's equilibrium. organisations are pursuing or contemplating a net-zero
By 2050, essential industries such as manufacturing must attain transition based on Scope 1 and 2 emissions only. While
Net-Zero Emissions by focusing on industrial process CO2 organisations report aggregate emissions at the company level,
emissions based on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions [1]. it is important to understand what is contributing to these
The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol provides a framework emissions, especially at the production and machine level and
for businesses, governments, and other entities to measure and how this interacts with productivity.
report their greenhouse gas emissions in ways that support their BS EN ISO 14040, BS EN ISO 14044, PAS 2050 are to
established mission and goals according to three operational guide the evaluation of the carbon footprint and life cycle GHG
groups for emissions [2]. Scope 1 emissions are direct GHG emission of goods and services [3-5]. The assessment of GHG
emissions that arise from sources that are owned or controlled emissions can be done using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [6].
by the company. Examples are emissions from combustion in LCA includes four steps, according to BS EN ISO 14040 and
owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles and on-site BS EN ISO 14044: Goal and Scope, Life Cycle Inventory, Life
process emissions. Meanwhile, the indirect GHG emissions Cycle Impact Assessment, and Life Cycle Interpretation. The
from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the scope of LCA can normally cover Cradle-to-Grave, Cradle-to-
company are classified as Scope 2. Other indirect emissions Gate or Gate-to-Gate analysis. While this is comprehensive, it
from sources not owned or controlled by the company, for does not perfectly align with Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.
10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.006

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 32 Sakinah Zakaria et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 31–36

reporting. Scope 1 and 2’s system boundary can be considered carbon emissions of fused deposition modelling. The system
closest to Gate-to-Gate analysis of manufacturing, but focused boundary is the entire FDM printing process, consistent with
on procured energy and on-site emissions inventory. Gate-to-Gate analysis and Scope 2 emissions at the process
Kellens et al. published a well-defined methodology for the level. The functional unit is defined as 3D printing of a defined
generation of uniform, complete and robust unit process life component. BS EN ISO 14955-1:2017 [10] on machine tools
cycle inventory (UPLCI) based on screening and an in-depth and environmental evaluation of machine tools is used to create
approach [7]. While the screening is based on available data and the new framework for evaluating the energy operating states.
modelling, the in-depth approach includes a time study, a power
consumption study, a consumables study, and an emissions 2. Power Monitoring in Fused Deposition Modelling
study. All relevant processes in- and outputs are measured and Machine
analysed in detail. While their approach was in the context of
informing LCA, this paper is with the motivation for energy 2.1. The new framework of energy consumption for Fused
effectiveness and reporting Scope 2 emissions. Deposition Modelling Machine
Therefore, companies need a simple tool for evaluating
energy patterns and emissions linked to manufacturing In order to investigate the power profile for a Stacker S4
variables. This would give latitude to optimise both FDM machine, the machine operating states are defined
energy/emissions and manufacturing objectives. Key following the framework from ISO 14955-1:2017 standard
technology for digital manufacturing is 3D printing, and it is operating state of machine tools. The major components
important to understand the associated emissions according to contributing to energy usage are control unit, heating elements,
the GHG protocol. Hence, this paper focused on Scope 2, cooling elements, and stepper motors. These components are
carbon emissions for fused deposition modelling, a popular 3D illustrated in Fig. 1 and defined as follows:
printing technology.
• Control unit and always ON fans: The main device for
1.1. Fused Deposition Modelling Machine controlling all the sub-devices when the machine is
turned ON.
Additive manufacturing (AM) by fused deposition • Heating: Consisted of heating elements for the build bed
modelling (FDM) consists of a heated build bed, a polymer- and extruder nozzle.
based material deposited through an extrusion nozzle to a build • Cooling elements: Consisted of two cooling fans and
platform. The extrusion nozzle deposits plastic-based material one blower fan. One fan is attached on the filament
based on the contour of the current layer. Electric heating extruder’s stepper motor, and another one is attached to
partially melts the material, extruded through a nozzle that the heat sink on the nozzle. The blower fan is used to
determines the diameter. While the material is added to the top cool the filament as it exits the nozzle.
portion of the partially finished part, the build platform is • Stepper motors: The devices for the movement in x, y,
adjusted in the z-direction to determine the layer thickness. z-axis and feeding the filament into the extruder.
Gutowski et al. investigated and modelled the electricity
requirements for manufacturing processes according to
equation (1) [8]:

𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃0 + 𝑘𝑘𝑣𝑣̇ (1)

where P and P0 represent total power and idle state power

respectively in W, k is a constant, with units of J/cm3 and v is
the rate of material processing in cm3/s.
Balogun et al. [9] modelled the direct energy requirement in
FDM machines as shown in equation (2):

𝐸𝐸 = 𝑃𝑃𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡𝑏𝑏 + 𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑉𝑅𝑅 𝑡𝑡𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 (2)

where E is the direct energy requirement in J, Pb is the basic Fig. 1. Main energy consuming components in Stacker S4 FDM machine
power in W for non-value adding activities, tb is the basic
energy state duration in seconds, em is the specific material The energy operating states for the FDM machine can be
printing energy as determined by the material and process partitioned into four primary operating states: standby state,
mechanism in Ws/mm3, VR is the volumetric manufacturing warm-up state, printing state, cool-down state, as listed in
rate in mm3/s and tva is the actual build time in seconds. Table 1 and explained below.
• Standby state: This state begins after the machine is
1.2. Research Aim switched ON and after cool-down state. The main
controller and always-ON fans are turned ON.
The research aim is to understand and characterise the • Warm-up state: The heating elements of FDM machine
energy operating states, energy consumption and associated are heated up from initial temperature to the desired

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Sakinah Zakaria et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 31–36 33

temperature i.e. 70oC for the build bed and 230oC for the
extruder nozzle for the Stacker S4.
• Printing state: The printing process starts after reaching
the desired temperature, while the temperature of the
heating elements is continuously controlled within the
desired temperature.
• Cool-down state: All the printing and heating elements for
the build bed and nozzle are turned OFF during the cool-
down stage.

Table 1. Operating states for FDM machine

Operating Control Heating Fans and Stepper Motors
State Unit & Elements Blower (Filament Drive, Fig. 2. Power profile during warm-up the build bed for Stacker S4
Always Fan x,y,z- Axis)
ON Fans
Standby ON OFF OFF OFF
Warm-up ON ON ON OFF
Printing ON ON ON ON
Cool-down ON OFF ON OFF

Based on the design of FDM machine and operating states,

the energy requirements in the FDM machine can further be
derived as in equation (3):

𝐸𝐸 = 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 + 𝑃𝑃𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡𝑏𝑏 + 𝑃𝑃𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 + 𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡𝑐𝑐 (3)

where Pi, Pb, Pbn, Ppp and Pc are the basic power in W for Fig. 3. Power profile during warm-up the nozzle for Stacker S4
standby state, heating build bed, heating bed and nozzle,
processing, and cool-down state, respectively.
Investigations are done on the Stacker S4 machine to
characterise the machine’s energy and time requirements for
the entire printing process. The electrical power demand is
measured using a Fluke 434 Power Quality and Energy
Analyser, and Fluke i30s AC/DC Current Clamp with a
tolerance of ± 1% [11]. The investigations are extended to two
more FDM machine models i.e. Ultimaker S3 and Prusa i3
MK3 for comparison.
Fig. 4. Landing gear attachment model

3. Results and Discussions Table 2. Parameters for printing landing gear

Parameter Setting value
3.1. Energy consumption according to the operating states Diameter of the filament 1.75 mm
Nozzle size 0.40 mm
Fig. 2 presents the power profile during the warm-up
Build Bed Temperature 70 oC
process of the build bed, while Fig. 3 shows the power profile
for the warm-up process of the extruder nozzle from initial Nozzle Temperature 230 oC
temperature. Their average power usages for the build bed and Printing Speed 60 mm/s
extruder nozzle are 233.30 W and 49.91 W, respectively. The Infill Density 50 %
Stacker S4 uses a PID controller to continuously adjust the
power for the heating of the nozzle and build bed, in order to Fig. 5 illustrates the power profile of Stacker S4 for the
maintain the consistent temperatures during printing state [12]. entire printing process. The warm-up process requires 621 s to
The functional unit and printed part used for all the reach the desired temperature for the build bed and extruder
measurements of the FDM machines is a landing gear nozzle before printing. This process occurs only once, unless
attachment model for a DJI F450 Drone, as shown in Fig. 4. the build bed and extruder nozzle temperatures decrease to
This model has an overall dimensions of 201 mm x 35.4 mm room temperature.
x 8.8 mm. The workpiece material used is Polylactic Acid The total area under the curve is the direct energy consumed
(PLA) and the parameters setting for the FDM machines are by the Stacker S4 corresponding to the operating states. The
listed in Table 2. average power and energy in printing the landing gear are
summarised in Table 3. Clearly, the average power used during

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 34 Sakinah Zakaria et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 31–36

the warm-up stage is the highest. Even though the average Table 4. Specification of FDM machine models [13-15]
power usage of the printing process is lower than the warm-up Stacker S4 Ultimaker S3 Prusa i3 MK3
state, it can be seen in Fig. 6 that the energy consumption is Power 230 VAC 230 VAC 230 VAC
larger than the latter. The printing state contributed 77% of the supply
energy requirements. The warm-up state is second highest, Build 36.5 x 51 23 x 19 x 20 25 x 21 x 21
contributing about 21% of the energy requirements. This is volume (cm) x 65.5
expected since the entire duration of the printing state is Number of 4 Dual- 1
significantly longer (refer to Fig. 5). nozzles extrusion
During the cool-down state, fans for the stepper motor and Print surface Aluminium bed Heated glass Magnetic heat bed
nozzle are turned ON. The fans turned OFF automatically when with Flex-Plate build plate with removable PEI
the temperature of the nozzle drops below 100oC. and BuildTak spring steel sheets

Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the power profile of the entire

printing process for the Ultimaker S3 and Prusa i3 MK3,
respectively. It can be seen that the power profile for all FDM
machine models during the warm-up state is similar (refer
Figs. 5, 7, and 8) as high-power usage is needed to achieve the
desired temperature in a short period.

Fig. 5. Power profile during entire printing process for Stacker S4

Table 3. Average power and energy consumed by the Stacker S4

Printing Cool-
Operating state Standby Warm-up
process down
Duration (s) 108 621 3970 266
Average Power (W) 50.06 572.27 323.37 62.20
Energy (Whr) 1.55 98.88 356.70 4.61 Fig. 7. Power profile for Ultimaker S3

Fig. 6. Energy demand according to the operating state Fig. 8. Power profile for Prusa i3 MK3

3.2. Benchmarking of three (3) different FDM Machines The average power and energy consumption of Ultimaker
S3 and Prusa i3 MK3 are tabulated in Table 5 and Table 6,
The energy consumption of three different FDM machine respectively. Table 7 summarises the energy consumption for
models are compared i.e Stacker 4S, Ultimaker S3 and Prusa i3 the three FDM machine models in various operational modes.
MK3 by printing the same part as shown in Fig. 4 and using the The total energy is calculated using equation (3). It needs to be
same parameters setting in Table 2. Even though Ultimaker S3 noted that the size of the Stacker S4’s build bed is larger than
features an integrated support material nozzle, this was turned Ultimaker S3 and Prusa i3 MK3. It is expected that the
OFF during the printing process to ensure all settings are the Stacker S4 used more energy to heat up the bed than Ultimaker
same. Table 4 shows the specifications of the FDM machine S3 and Prusa i3 MK3. In addition, Prusa i3 MK3 has no
models. significant energy demanding cool-down state as fans are
immediately turned OFF after the printing state is finished.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Sakinah Zakaria et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 31–36 35

Table 5. Average power and energy in Ultimaker S3

Printing Cool-
Operating state Standby Warm-up
process down
Duration (s) 282 226 5425 47
Average Power (W) 16.18 273.96 133.93 54.29
Energy (Whr) 1.27 17.20 201.82 0.71

Table 6. Average power and energy in Prusa i3 MK3

Operating state Standby Warm-up Printing process
Duration (s) 78 211 6166
Average Power (W) 9.63 192.16 95.32
Energy (Whr) 0.21 11.26 163.27

Table 7. Energy consumption in FDM machine models

Stacker S4 Ultimaker S3 Prusa i3 MK3
Standby Energy (Whr) 1.55 1.27 0.21
Heating Energy (Whr) 98.88 17.20 11.26
Printing Energy (Whr) 356.70 201.82 163.27 Fig. 9. Energy requirement per build volume
Cooling Energy (Whr) 4.61 0.71 -
Total Energy (Whr) 461.74 221.00 174.74

Fig. 9 illustrates the energy consumption by the Stacker S4,

Ultimaker S3 and Prusa i3 MK3 compared to other
manufacturing processes as published by Gutowski et al. [16].
It can be seen that the energy per build volume for those FDM
machines falls within the cluster of other previously studied
FDM machines (circled in red). However, it is interesting to see
that the energy per build volume for FDM machine can be
further minimised by implementing multiple nozzles in the
printing process as achieved by the Stacker S4 (Batch of 2
and 3). This nesting method took advantage of the size of the
Stacker S4's build bed and reduced the energy demand per Fig. 10. Scope 2 carbon emission FDM machines in the United Kingdom
build rate initially from 8.324E+07 J/kg at 0.019 kg/hr to
3.472E+07 J/kg at 0.058 kg/hr (Batch of 3).

3.3. Scope 2 carbon emissions

The Scope 2 carbon emission can be calculated from the

direct energy consumed during the manufacturing process, as
shown in equation (4).

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸 × 𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 (4)

Carbon Emission is in kgCO2, E is the direct energy consumed

in manufacturing which is in kWh and eco2 is the carbon
Fig. 11. Scope 2 carbon emission FDM machines according to countries
intensity factor in kgCO2/kWh. According to Alswat and
Mativenga, the carbon intensities factor of electricity
carbon emission of the countries varies due to international
generation in 2018 for the United Kingdom, China and the
differences in the primary energy resource inputs for electrical
United States are 0.25, 0.69 and 0.41 kgCO2/kWh
energy generation and carbon intensity.
correspondingly [17].
These results show that the energy requirements of FDM
Fig. 10 illustrates Scope 2 carbon emission for each
vary significantly for the same part, as influenced by the FDM
operating state as stated in Table 7 of the studied FDM machine
machine design. This means that, there is significant unrealised
models corresponding to United Kingdom carbon intensity
potential in reducing the energy requirements of some FDM
factor. Fig. 11 shows the overall Scope 2 carbon emission for
machines or in selecting FDM machines for reduced energy
FDM machine models based on the carbon intensity of
consumption. For lowering the associated emissions, both the
electricity used in each country. It can be seen that Scope 2
design of energy-efficient FDM machines and choosing low

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 36 Sakinah Zakaria et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 31–36

carbon intensity electrical energy can help significantly reduce References

emissions. The key areas for improvement relate to bed heating
and enabling rapid printing. [1] Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, International
Energy Agency (IEA), (accessed 27 June 2021).
[2] The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard, revised edition, World Business Council for Sustainable
Conclusions Development/World Resources Institute. Available online:
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-
This research investigates the energy requirements of fused revised.pdf
deposition modelling (FDM) machines and associated process [3] PAS 2050:2011, Specification for the assessment of the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
level Scope 2 carbon emissions. The following conclusions are [4] ISO 14040. 2006, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
reached: Principles and Framework, International Organization for Standardisation..
• The additive manufacturing process energy requirements [5] ISO 14044. 2006, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
and Scope 2 emissions can be modelled as other Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for
manufacturing systems based on BS EN ISO 14955-1:2017 Standardisation.
[6] Duflou, J. R., Sutherland, J. W., Dornfeld, D., Herrmann, C., Jeswiet, J.,
energy states framework. Breaking the overall energy Kara, S., Hauschild, M. & Kellens, K. (2012). 'Towards energy and
demand down into different operational states enables the resource efficient manufacturing: A processes and systems approach',
identification of areas for improvement. CIRP Annals, 61(2), pp. 587-609.
• The warm-up state dominates the maximum power demand [7] Kellens K, Dewulf W, Overcash M, Hauschild M Z, Duflou J R. (2012).
for all three FDM machine models in this study. Innovative Methodology for systematic analysis and improvement of manufacturing
unit process life-cycle inventory (UPLCI) —CO2PE! initiative
design of bed and nozzle heating systems needs to be (cooperative effort on process emissions in manufacturing). Part 1:
considered, in order to reduce the peak power during warm- Methodology description. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
up and the associated energy for heating the printer bed. 17:69–78. DOI 10.1007/s11367-011-0340-4
• The printing state consumes a significant amount of energy [8] Gutowski T., Dahmus, J., Thiriez, A.. Electrical energy requirements for
compared to other operating states due to a high cycle time. manufacturing processes, 13th CIRP International Conference on Life
Cycle Engineering 2006; Leuven, Belgium.
The FDM printing state also includes regulation of the [9] Vincent A. Balogun, Neil D. Kirkwood, Paul T. Mativenga, Direct
temperature of the build bed and extruder nozzle. Electrical Energy Demand in Fused Deposition Modelling, Procedia CIRP,
• Different FDM machine models consume different amounts Volume 15, 2014, pp. 38-43.
of energy due to their design configurations and operating [10] ISO 14955-1:2017, Machine tools — Environmental evaluation of
states. The three printers are compared by building the same machine tools — Part 1: Design methodology for energy-efficient machine
tools.
model under the same settings. The obtained energy [11] Fluke i30s AC/DC Current Clamp, Technical Data. Available online :
demand and Scope 2 emissions are more than doubled https://dam-assets.fluke.com/s3fs-public/2747115_6001_ENG_B_W.PDF
when comparing FDM machines. This shows that there is [12] Stacker S4 User Guide Part II. Available online:
significant scope for reducing the energy requirements and https://www.stacker3d.com/pdf/STACKERS4S2UserGuide_PARTII.pdf.
Scope 2 emissions of FDM by considering the design and [13] Stacker S4 User Guide Part I. Available online:
https://www.stacker3d.com/pdf/S2-S4-UserGuide-Part-I.pdf.
operating states of the machine. The reduction is from 55% [14] Ultimaker S3 and Ultimaker S5, Installation and user manual. Available
to 64% when comparing the choice of FDM machine online: https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012089319-
models in this study. Ultimaker-S3-user-manual.
[15] 3D Printing Handbook, User Manual For 3d Printers: Original Prusa i3
MK3S+ Kit. Available online:
https://www.prusa3d.com/downloads/manual/prusa3d_manual_mk3s_en.
Data Statement pdf.
[16] Gutowski T, Jiang S, Cooper D, Corman G, Hausmann M, Manson J et al.
The data for this study is reported in the paper and supported Note on the Rate and Energy Efficiency Limits for Additive
by cited in the references. Manufacturing. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2017;21(S1):S69-S79.
[17] Haitham M. Alswat, Paul Mativenga, The International Dimension of
Electrical Energy Derived Emissions for Machine Tools, Procedia CIRP,
CRediT Authorship Contribution Statement Volume 98, 2021, pp. 696-701.

Sakinah Zakaria: Conceptualisation, Methodology,

Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Visualisation. Paul Mativenga: Conceptualisation,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project
administration. Akos Cseke: Writing – Review & Editing.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially, supported by the Engineering and

Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded project
on New Industrial Systems: Manufacturing Immortality
(EP/R020957/1). The authors are also grateful to the
Manufacturing Immortality consortium.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.