Mrazovic, N and Fischer, M (2022) Assessment framework for additive manufacturing in the AEC industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(5): 04022013, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM), popularly known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, is starting to coexist with conventional manufacturing (CM) in architecture-engineering-construction (AEC) industry. However, AEC practitioners do not have validated systematic means to rapidly and consistently assess AM for the production of building components through transparent metrics such as cost and environmental impact. We developed a semiautomated assessment framework to rapidly and consistently evaluate the applicability (A), schedule (S), environmental impact (E), and cost (C) of AM compared with CM to produce building components. The validation of the framework showed that it reduced the effort required for the ASEC analyses, specifically the time for the assessment by 97%, and provided consistent A, S, and C results in comparison with the assessment without the framework. The consistency of the E results was improved fourfold. An uncertainty source analysis of the E results showed the reduction of inconsistencies by 68% in the formalized assessment and proposed mitigations. Future work includes framework's further automation such as development of direct links to design and life cycle assessment (LCA) tools.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | mitigation, building component, life cycle assessment, additive manufacturing, automation, practitioner, environmental impact, validation |
| Subjects: | practitioner, environmental impact, financial risk, professional development, automation and robotics, architectural elements, manufacturing engineering |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Sustainability, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here