A comparison of the energy efficiency of selective laser sintering and injection molding of nylon parts

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the energy consumed to fabricate nylon parts using selective laser sintering (SLS) and to compare it with the energy consumed for injection molding (IM) the same parts. Design/methodology/approach Estimates of energy consumption include the energy consumed for nylon material refinement, adjusted for SLS and IM process yields. Estimates also include the energy consumed by the SLS and IM equipment for part fabrication and the energy consumed to machine the injection mold and refine the metal feedstock required to fabricate it. A representative part is used to size the injection mold and to quantify throughput for the SLS machine per build. Findings Although SLS uses significantly more energy than IM during part fabrication, this energy consumption is partially offset by the energy consumption associated with production of the injection mold. As a result, the energy consumed per part for IM decreases with the number of parts fabricated while the energy consumed per part for SLS remains relatively constant as long as builds are packed efficiently. The crossover production volume, at which IM and SLS consume equivalent amounts of energy per part, ranges from 50 to 300 representative parts, depending on the choice of mold plate material. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to material refinement and part fabrication and does not consider other aspects of the life cycle, such as waste disposal, distributed 2 manufacturing, transportation, recycling or use. Also, the crossover volumes are specific to the representative part and are expected to vary with part geometry. Originality/value The results of this comparative study of SLS and IM energy consumption indicate that manufacturers can save energy using SLS for parts with small production volumes. The comparatively large amounts of nylon material waste and energy consumption during fabrication make it inefficient, from an energy perspective, to use SLS for higher production volumes. The crossover production volume depends on the geometry of the part and the choice of material for the mold.