THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY: A SISTEMATIC
REVIEW
Thais Moreira
Tavares
Federal
University of São Carlos, Brazil
E-mail: thaism0405@gmail.com
Moacir Godinho
Filho
Federal
University of São Carlos, Brazil
E-mail:
moacir@dep.ufscar.br
Gilberto Devós
Ganga
Federal
University of são carlos, Brazil
E-mail: ganga@dep.ufscar.br
Mário Henrique
callefi
Federal
University of são carlos, Brazil
E-mail: mariocallefi@gmail.com
Submission: 3/3/2020
Revision:4/3/2020
Accept:3/11/2020
ABSTRACT
One of the important technologies in Industry 4.0 is Additive Manufacturing, which makes it possible to manufacture objects layer by layer continuously or incrementally. Circular economy aims to improve resource efficiency, leading to an evolution from the current linear model of extraction, transformation, and elimination to the model where resources flow in a circular manner. Many early studies have pointed to Additive Manufacturing as a technology that promises the environmental sustainability and the development of circular material flows. However, there is still great uncertainty about the relationship between circular economy goals and 3D printing goals. From this context, a Systematic Literature Review was performed by applying the Method Ordination multicriteria methodology in order to map the main publications. Then, 10 articles were analyzed to obtain relevant information about the relationship between Additive Manufacturing and Circular Economy.
Keywords: Additive manufacturing; Circular economy; Systematic Review
1.
INTRODUCTION
The manufacturing processes comprise
several moments since the beginning of the advance of the industrial era, which
took place in England in the 18th century. Since that time, technology has
advanced so that its evolution is divided into phases, called industrial
revolutions.
The first Industrial Revolution
can be defined as the era of mechanization. The second, stood out for its
intensive use of electric energy; and the third for the widespread
digitalization. More recently, based on advanced digitization within the
factories, the reconciliation of internet technologies and future-oriented
technologies in the field of “smart” objects (machines and products) seems to result
in a paradigm shift in industrial production. Representing the future
expectations, the term “Industry 4.0” was created to refer to a fourth
industrial revolution (LASI et al., 2014)
The concept of Industry 4.0 is quite
new. It was launched in Germany in 2011 representing the current production
paradigm, which combines information and communication technologies with
digital production technologies (KANG et al., 2016).
According to Shrouf et al. (2014),
the main characteristic of industry 4.0 is the connectivity between machines,
orders, employees, suppliers and customers due to the Internet of things and
electronic devices. Kang et al. (2016) includes in the main industry 4.0
technologies: internet of things, big data, data analysis, Cyber-Physical
systems (CPS) and systems integration, sustainable manufacturing and Additive
Manufacturing (AM).
Shipp et al. (2012) suggests one of
the technologies that should be highlighted is Additive Manufacturing, since in
recent years the intensification of competition, combined with the challenge of
increasing the complexity of manufactured products has required companies and
designers to substantially change the process of product development. In this
context, interest in so-called Additive Manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing
processes is growing.
Additive manufacturing is defined by
the ISO / ASTM terminology standard as the “process of joining materials to
manufacture parts from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to
subtraction and formative manufacturing methodologies” (ASTM, 2013). This
requires the use of a computer to translate a solid model into a real part. In
other words, 3D printing allows objects to be manufactured layer by layer in a
continuous or incremental manner, allowing three-dimensional objects to be
"printed" on demand (PETROVIC et al., 2011).
The development of cheap 3D printing
hardware has equipped consumers with tools that allow them to influence product
innovation and manufacturing processes. However, with a forecast of rapid
growth in the near future and the technology maturing, 3D printing is likely to
result in a significant product output and therefore also a significant
environmental impact (CERDAS et al., 2017).
This impact of technological
advances can bring potential benefits to sustainability (GEBLER et al., 2014).
Such benefits include the potential to move towards a Circular Economy (CE),
which aims to radically improve the efficiency of society's resources,
eliminating the concept of waste and changing from the linear model of
take-make-waste to a circular model (DESPEISSE et al., 2017).
Yuan et al. (2006) say the core of
the circular economy is the circular flow of materials and the resources and
energy use through multiple phases. The circular economy is beneficial to
society and the economy as a whole, since it can reduce the use of the natural
environment as a waste sink and reduce the use of virgin materials for economic
activities (ANDERSEN, 2007).
According to Loy and Tatham (2016),
the relationship between the objectives of circular economy and the economy of
3D printing as a production system is just beginning to be articulated in the
literature.
There is great doubt whether the
current trajectory of adopting additive manufacturing is creating more circular
material flows or leading to an alternative scenario in which localized
production is less eco-efficient. Therefore, it is still unclear whether 3D
printing technology can realistically allow a more circular use of resources,
and under what circumstances they are truly beneficial from the point of view
of sustainability (DESPEISSE et al., 2017).
Evans et al. (2009) argues this
clarity requires a better understanding of information flows and of the
relationships between stakeholders throughout the product and material life
cycles.
According to Despeisse et al. (2017)
and Unruh (2018) it is essential that the principles of CE are incorporated
into the new manufacturing system before the adoption of AM reaches a critical
turning point in which negative practices entrench themselves.
In addition, according to Loy and
Tatham (2016), even less has been debated about the effects of the circular
economy in the context of a production based on Additive Manufacturing.
In view of these current studies, it
can be seen that there is a two-way gap in the literature on the relationship
between Additive Manufacturing and Circular Economy. In other words, how
Additive Manufacturing influences and Circular Economy and how Circular Economy
influences Additive Manufacturing are little studied relations.
Given the previously presented, the
present work aims to fill this gap and has the objective of describe the
general effects of the relationship between Additive Manufacturing and Circular
Economy. Within this proposed context, it is define the research question to be
explored through a Systematic Review of the Literature: what are the effects of
the relationship between Additive Manufacturing and Circular Economy?
2.
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
This subsection presents a brief history of
the emergence of AM, its definition and AM stages.
2.1.
Brief history of AM
According to Bourell, Rosen and Leu
(2014), the first records on the use of three-dimensional technologies to
create objects, date back to the second half of the 19th century, more
precisely in 1860, when François Willème conducted initial trials in the
creation of replicas of 3D objects. He was a then French artist from Paris who
was developing photosculture. Willème used the newly invented photography and combined
it with the principles of optics and sculpture to create three-dimensional
replicas of objects and even people (ZHAI et al., 2014).
From this technique, others were
developed. Then, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, 3D technology was finally
patented and commercialized by companies such as 3D System, Stratasys and EOS
(BANDYIPADHYAY et al., 2015). Ruffo
et al. (2006) point out that these technologies were called for many years
rapid prototyping tools. However, technological maturation has stimulated the
development and use of 3D technology for rapid manufacturing, and not just for
the prototype.
Despite this development, even today
the use of 3D printing for the final use of products and components is strongly
limited to some industrial niches. For example, for the production of tools on
the international space station the application is logical, but the commercial
viability of manufacturing is still questionable in some cases (HOLWEG, 2015).
Since the commercialization of 3D
technologies, its construction methods have been quite developed and
diversified with the use of greater number and more refined processes, as well
as sophisticated materials.
2.2.
AM definition
Constructive layers are the basic
principle of 3D printing, as it consists in the manufacture of an item from the
deposition of a certain material in overlapping layers repeatedly until the
complete part is obtained. Additive manufacturing differs from traditional
production processes for not being subtractive. It means material is not removed
progressively until the desired part is obtained; and this makes 3D printing a
“disruptive” technology (KIETZMANN et al., 2015).
So, additive manufacturing can be
understood as a technology that uses an additive process to manufacture
three-dimensional objects, from a digital model (NYMAN; SARLIN, 2014). It means
the printing of a complete product or part of a product using materials that
are deposited within the limits of the printer. These machines can not only
create objects without grooves, but also mold complex shapes resulting in a
final product or an item that can be integrated into a set with other items
(GRESS; KALAFSKY, 2015).
Modern AM technologies need to have
four resources to achieve the creation of the three-dimensional object: a computerized
system; a software for editing three-dimensional designs; an equipment with the
ability to print in layers ; and the appropriate input resource to form the
layers of the object to be created. In addition, the central principles of AM
are the same in all technologies (SIN, 2016).
2.3.
AM Steps
The three-dimensional printing
process has common steps in all its variants and it starts in a virtual model
of a part to be materialized. So, it does not matter the machine used to build
the model.
The stages of the MA process are:
digital or design, manufacturing or printing and post process (KIETZMANN et
al., 2015). They are explained below:
· Digital
or Design: This stage is formed by two main activities: Computer Aided Design
(CAD) and Standard Triangle Language (STL) (KIETZMANN et al., 2015). In
this way, the user creates his project in 3D drawing by computer in the CAD
phase and in the next phase he exports the project to an STL file extension,
which is a legible 3D printing form.
· Manufacturing
or Printing: In this stage, the machine is configured and the part is produced.
That is, before printing layer by layer, it is necessary to have a machine
configuration to adapt the print nozzle (KIETZMANN et al., 2015).
· Post-process:
In this step, post-processing is performed separately to create the final
object. This is necessary because some operations require surface treatment or
other manufacturing procedures in order to improve the shape of the printed
objects (KIETZMANN et
al., 2015).
3.
CIRCULAR ECONOMY
We currently live in a linear
economy model, but this has proven to be unsustainable, as it is based on the
theory that resources are inexhaustible. In this model, first there is the
extraction of resources from the ecosystem. From that, the products are fabricated
and consumed. Finally, when they reach the end of their useful life, they are
considered waste and eliminated without creating any additional value.
Therefore, The market economy assumes
that natural resources are inexhaustible and inexpensive, disregarding the
degradation of natural resources, as well as the growing accumulation of waste.
This linear model is structured taking into account extraction, transformation
and elimination. Thus, the move to a circular economy is essential for a smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth.
Circular Economy aims to create
circular flows of resources in the economy (as opposed to currently dominant
linear flows ranging from resource extraction to landfill disposal). It is
framed as an economic imperative rather than an environmental imperative. Also,
it has been described at three special levels: The individual level of the
company using cleaner production; Level of the eco-industrial park with grouped
or linked industries (responsible supply chain); Between production and
consumption systems in regions (YUAN et al., 2006). As such, the circular
economy differs from industrial ecology through a more economical approach.
The concept of circular economy has
deeply rooted origins and it is gaining more and more prominence, especially in
China (MATHEWS, 2011). Its practical applications for modern economic systems
and industrial processes, however, have gained strength since the 1970s by a
small number of academics, thinkers and companies. The expression "Cradle
to Cradle" (C2C), conceived by Stahel in the late 1970s, indicates the
development of a "closed loop" approach to production processes
(MACARTHUR, 2013).
The Ellen Macarthur Foundation's
report (2013) highlights four sources of value creation for business models, in
which initiatives to "close the cycle" of products can be very
profitable: maintenance, redistribution, remanufacturing and recycling. A
general illustration of the concept of circular economy is given in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Circular economy for renewable and non-renewable
resources.
Source: Ellen
Macarthur Foundation report (2013).
The utility of cascading in Figure 1
is to illustrate that smaller loops (closer to the user) generally have less
impact. The Ellen Macarthur Foundation Report (2013) further identifies that
new business models will be part of the new economic approach and that the
sources of value creation in a circular economy can be identified as:
a) Internal circles: offer greater
substitution of embedded costs for materials, labor, energy;
b) Circulating longer: Through better
design to make products last longer;
c) Cascading uses: like transformating
old clothes made of fibers in furniture;
d) Pure and non-toxic inputs: to have
purer material flows, improving the potential for reuse and recycling.
The last point in particular
represents a point of tension between designing high-performance systems with
inputs of complex materials that are also complex to recycle, rather than simpler
systems that are simpler to recycle.
4.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Due to the amount of information
currently available, there was a need to perform a literature review in order
to cover a large number of works without favoring those aligned with the researchers'
point of view (BADGER et al., 2000).
According to Biolchinni et al.
(2005), the systematic literature review (RSL) is a research approach that has
well-defined steps, planned according to previously established protocol and
objectives. The systematic review is recognized for being methodical,
transparent and replicable, according to Cooper (1998). In some areas, such as
medicine, the use of Systematic Review is quite frequent, however, recently
other areas have also started to enter this type of research, such as
management research (TRANFIELD et al., 2003).
This review is structured following
the method described in the PRISMA statement (Preferred reporting items for
systematic review and Meta-Analysis) (MOHER et al., 2009). The PRISMA flowchart
reporting the different phases of this systematic literature review is shown in
Figure 2.
The four stages of PRISMA that are
performed in the Systematic Review are: Identification, Screening, Eligibility
and Inclusion. In the first stage there is the identification of the relevant
literature in the area and elaboration of the Strings developed in the
databases to be used. In the next stage, of Screening, there is a selection of
articles, removing non-adherent ones, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.
In the Eligibility stage, there is a full reading of previously filtered
articles, with the removal of non-adherent articles. Finally, in the inclusion
stage, articles are included in the quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Figure 2: PRISMA flowchart Practical steps.
Source: Adapted
from Moher et al. (2009)
For this work, the multicriteria
methodology Methodi Ordinatio was used to compose the bibliographic portfolio.
Methodi Ordinatio is a multi-criteria decision-making methodology that was born
from the need to qualify the articles obtained in a systematic bibliographic
review (PAGANI et al., 2015). After applying the filters, when there is already
a defined article base, the calculation of InOrdinatio is performed.
Some authors, like Vinkler (2012),
discuss the importance of a publication's impact factor. Bornmann (2010) and
Antelman (2004) emphasize the importance of the number of citations, given the
recognition by the scientific community. In addition, the year of publication
is also seen with great relevance, since it is a parameter that evaluates the
actuality of information and data. According to Pagani et al (2015) there is a
high probability that the most current articles are based on methodologies
which have already been validated, reinforcing the importance of extolling the
most recent research.
Thus, the Methodi Ordinatio
methodology was conceived based on these three analysis criteria identified in
the literature: number of citations, impact factor and year of publication.
After the criteria are identified, the articles are ordered by calculating the
InOrdinatio, using the following equation:
InOrdinatio= [(Fi/100)*α*[10-(apes-apub)]+nc]
(1)
In
the equation, the Impact Factor is divided by 1000 so its value is normalized
against the other criteria. The weighting factor is given by α and is
assigned by the researchers, varing from 1 to 10. The closer to 1, the lower
the importance attributed by the researcher to the year of publication
criterion and the closer to 10, the greater the importance.
4.1.
Systematic literature review
The main point of interest in this
review is to investigate the link between Additive Manufacturing and Circular
Economy. To achieve this goal, a simple conceptual framework was initially
developed, in figure 3, to summarize the findings in the literature.
Figure 3: Relationship between additive manufacturing and circular
economy.
Source: Authors
From this, it was possible to
elaborate the research questions, which, according to figure 3, are:
(a) How does Additive Manufacturing
(AM) Enhance or Restrict the Circular Economy (CE)?
(b) How does the Circular Economy
Enhance or Restrict Additive Manufacturing?
From a literature search, the Keywords
(table 1) were defined so the string were developed. For Additive
Manufacturing, the various synonyms found in the literature were used as
keywords and for Circular Economy, the principles of CE, found in the work of
Ghisellini et al. (2016) were used.
Table 1: Search keywords
Source:
Authors.
From the keywords, the search
strings were elaborated and inserted in 3 search engines or databases:
Engineering Village, Scopus and Web of Science. After being inserted into each
database, the strings returned the articles. Each database returned the
following number of articles: Spcopus (337); Web of Science (219) and
Engineering Village (128), as seen in Figure 4:
Figure 4: Number of
documents returned in each database.
Source: Authors
Based on the strings, the databases returned 684 articles. After
removing duplicate articles, 584 articles remained to be filtered applying the
inclusion and exclusion criteria. Figure 5 shows the quantitative list of
duplicate articles in the databases. As can be seen, the base that returned the
greatest number of articles was Scopus; and the majority of duplicate articles
were found in Scopus and Web of Science.
Figure 5: Quantitative relationship of duplication in the databases
Source: Authors
To ensure objective
reasoning in the selected readings, the inclusion and exclusion criteria (BUER
et al., 2018), presented in table 2, were used.
In the screening stage,
the exclusion and inclusion criteria were applied to the articles returned from
databases by reading the Abstract, keywords and title. Then 65 articles were
selected for the full reading of the text in the next step. As can be seen in
Figure 6, there has been an increasing trend in publications on the subject
over the past few years. This trend in publications is proportional to the
adoption curve of 3D printing in organizations (UNRUH, 2018). According to the
aforementioned author, managers who want to guide their companies towards a
sustainable future begin to turn their attention as the additive, distributed
and circular future unfolds.
Table 2: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
|
Inclusion Criteria |
(I-1) Partially relates to Additive Manufacturing and Circular
Economy; |
|
(I-2) Partially relates some circular economy construct to Additive
Manufacturing; |
|
|
(I-3) Partially relates environmental factors to additive
manufacturing; |
|
|
(I-4) Strongly relates to Additive Manufacturing and Circular Economy; |
|
|
(I-5) Strongly relates some circular economy construct to Additive
Manufacturing; |
|
|
(I-6) Strongly relates environmental factors to additive
manufacturing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Exclusion Criteria |
(E-1) The article is not from a journal; |
|
(E-2) The article is not in English; |
|
|
(E-3) The article does not relate Additive Manufacturing to Circular
Economy or its constructs; |
|
|
(E-4) The article is only loosely related to additive manufacturing or
circular economy. |
|
|
|
Source: Authors
Figure 6: Number of Publications per year
Source: Authors.
In the eligibility stage, the articles
were fully read. Those who met all the inclusion criteria were considered in
the systematic review in order to guarantee the quality of the selected
materials (TRANFIELD et al., 2003). This filter resulted in 27 articles for
final analysis, as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7:
Summary of the search in the databases
Source: Authors.
24 out of the 27 articles to be
included in the analysis can be found on Scopus database. This result was
verified by inserting all titles in the Scopus database one by one. Replicating
the insertion of the titles of articles accepted in the other two databases, it
was possible to verify the contribution of each one in the present review
(figure 7). This result demonstrated the Scopus database was the most relevant
academic database for finding articles related to the relationship between AM
and CE among the bases considered.
The inclusion stage represents the
analysis, synthesis and communication of the results of the two proposed
questions. For this, the content analysis methodology is applied, following
Krippendorff (2018). This step is recommended to facilitate the rigorous
exploration of complex issues in management area (DURIAU et al., 2007).
In the inclusion stage, an ordering
of the articles was made through the In Ordination calculation, with an α
equal to 10. After that, the 10 most relevant articles were prioritized for
qualitative analysis. Thus, the base of articles obtained through the
application of the Method Ordination is shown in Table 3, with the respective
authors and year, title, Journal and keywords.
Table 3 : Base of articles based on the In Ordination
calculation
Source:
Authors
In general, it can be seen from the
articles analysis the current industrial applications of 3D printing are
already enabling a circular production system with the use of recycled and
recovered materials as an input for additive manufacturing processes. The
process not only uses less material due to its additive nature (the material is
added only when necessary), but the system around the process is designed to
allow material loop.
Therefore, additive manufacturing
has been identified as having the potential to provide several sustainability
advantages. These advantages include the generation of less waste during
manufacture; the ability to optimize geometries and create lightweight
components that reduce material consumption in manufacturing and energy
consumption in use; the subsequent reduction in transportation in the supply
chain; and reduced inventory waste due to the ability to create spare parts on
demand.
Despite this, Rejeski et al. (2018),
in his work on the environmental implications of Additive Manufacturing, summarizes the current state of the art and
research needs and points out that AM can announce the apotheosis of
consumerism, instant gratification and the disposable society. All of this can
have negative impacts on the environment.
In addition to this work, which
points out research needs in the area, the research by Despeisse et al. (2017)
also presents a research agenda to explore the means by which 3D printing can
enable more sustainable modes of production and consumption and unlock value in
the circular economy. The article explores six areas of research identified as
critical to understanding how 3D printing can enable them for a CE, namely: (1)
product, service and system design, (2) material supply chains, (3) information
structure and flows, (4) entrepreneurial responses, (5) business model
transformations and (6) skills and education development.
Ford and Despeisse (2016) discuss
how AM creates opportunities for sustainability and what types of organizations
are doing them. They also discuss the possible sustainability benefits that may
arise in the future through the adoption of new business models and the
redistribution of manufacturing. They investigated the adoption of AM from a
life cycle perspective. Four main categories have been identified in which MA
is enabling sustainability benefits to be achieved: redesign of products and
processes; material input processing; manufacture of components and products to
order; and closing the loop.
In spite of the aforementioned
authors conclude that AM is inherently a technology which will support
sustainable production and consumption, they reveal the role played by AM in
the transition to a more sustainable industrial system remains uncertain.
According to them, its adoption and application can safeguard dangers and
unintended consequences from negative impacts to sustainability. In this way,
they make it clear that although the benefits of sustainability are evident,
there are also substantial challenges, among them: high volumes of machinery
costs; lack of knowledge and understanding of the environmental performance of
technologies, supply chains and products manufactured through AM; AM
integration with hybrid technologies in design ; and limited automation
production.
Garmulewicz et al. (2018) also
identifies as opportunities and barriers that 3D printing imposes on the
Circular Economy. Thus, they pose a question of whether or not 3D printing can
act as a facilitator of the circular economy. His findings confirm that 3D
printing, in fact, has a strong potential for acting as a facilitator of the
circular economy for three reasons. First, 3D printing has the potential to
alter the economics of the existing manufacturing value chain, so, at least in
principle, it can enable economically viable small-scale local production.
Second, all the technologies needed to collect and process waste plastics to
transform primary 3D printing materials are now available. Third, waste streams
can provide plastic raw materials of minimal quality and quantity.
In addition, Garmulewicz et al.
(2018) offers a vision of how the circular economy could affect Additive
Manufacturing through the recycling of plastic materials for 3D printing. The
technologies needed to transform plastic waste into raw material for 3D
printing are available today, albeit on a small experimental scale. In
addition, some technological barriers were cited. First, the functional quality
of 3D printed products, their high cost and, in turn, the limited consumer
demand for these recycled products were mentioned. The group reached a
consensus that this represented the biggest barrier of all, but also recognized
the fast pace of innovation in printing technology. In addition, the general
lack of suitable materials for recycling to be used in 3D printing and the
availability of local materials were seen as a major barrier.
Sauerwein et al. (2019) and Yang et
al. (2019) explore the AM opportunities for sustainable design. The first
explores if AM opportunities for sustainable design are also useful when
designing for a circular economy. Also, it is explored the extent to which AM
can support design for a circular economy. The second, develops a comprehensive
decision support tool to select a more sustainable assembly design solution in
the initial product design stage.
Sauerwein et al. (2019), through an
analysis of design projects, shows that AM creates opportunities to allow
circular design strategies, such as updates and repairs which extend the life
of a product, even if they have not been considered in the original product
design. This can be attributed to characteristics of AM, such as digital
production and adaptability and digital product files which allow changes and
repair. This is essential for extending product life.
Peng et al. (2018) studies the issue
of sustainability in AM, focusing on its environmental impact. The study
provides the latest developments on the Sustainability of Additive
Manufacturing. In this work, the context of sustainability was introduced and
elaborated with a focus on energy demand and environmental impact.
Cerdas et al. (2017) compares two
different ways to manufacture a product that offers the same equivalent
function. Using glasses frames as an example, the environmental implications
related to the 3D printed product produced under a distributed manufacturing
system (DMSs) and the equivalent product manufactured in a conventional
centralized manufacturing system are investigated. Although the general results
of the study do not indicate precisely whether one production system has
potential environmental advantages over the other, this article identified the
main relevant aspects in a DMS to understand how this technology can also
impact the environment.
Finally, Unruh (2018) proposes a
guide for the implementation of a CE built on a 3D printing base. The author
brings together two fields in an existing structure - the rules of the
biosphere and an industrial model inspired by ecology.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
This work approached how Additive
Manufacturing and Circular Economy are related. The results showed many
opportunities for future research, since the subject is not yet at an advanced
stage. Initial studies indicated that Additive Manufacturing has the potential
to provide the advantages of sustainability and the circular production system.
However, more recent studies have highlighted some barriers that can prevent
this vision from becoming a reality.
Other studies have indicated that AM
may evolve into a trend to encourage consumerism, instant gratification and
disposable society, which also goes against the principles of circular economy.
Among the 10 studies analyzed, only one showed how circular economy is capable
of enhancing additive manufacturing with the idea of recycling plastic
materials for 3D printing. The same study, however, highlights the barriers
found for such an idea.
Regarding the limitations of the
work, it wasn´t used a software for content analysis and it was only analyzed
ten articles so far.
6.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was carried out with the
support of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel -
Brazil (CAPES) - Financing Code 001.
REFERENCES
ANDERSEN, M. S. (2007) An introductory note on
the environmental economics of the circular economy, Sustainability Science, v. 2, n. 1, p. 133-140.
ANTELMAN, K. (2004) Do open-access articles
have a greater research impact? College
& research libraries, v. 65, n. 5, p. 372-382.
ASTM. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies
(2013) [s.l.] American Society for
Testing and Materials – ASTM.
BADGER, D.; NURSTEN, J.;
WILLIAMS, P.; WOODWARD, D. (2000) Should
all literature reviews be systematic? Evaluation
& Research in Education, v. 14, n. 3-4, p. 220-230.
BANDYOPADDHYAY, A.; GUALTIERI T. P.; BOSE S.
(2015) Global engineering and additive manufacturing, Additive
Manufacturing, v. 1, p. 9-11.
BIOLCHINI, J.; MIAN, P. G.;
NATALI A. C. C.; TRAVASSOS G. H. (2005) Systematic review in software
engineering. System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Technical Report ES, v. 679, n. 05, p.
45.
BORNMAN, L. (2010) Towards an ideal method of
measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff, Journal of Informetrics, v. 3, n. 4, p.
441-443.
BOURELL, D. L.; ROSEN, D. W.;
LEU, M. C. (2014) The roadmap for additive manufacturing and its impact, 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing,
v. 1, n. 1, p. 6-9.
BUER, S.; STRANDHAGEN; JAN, O.; CHAN, F. T. S.
(2018) The link between Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing: mapping current
research and establishing a research agenda, International Journal of Production Research, v. 56, n. 8, p.
2924-2940.
CERDAS, F.; JURASCHEK, S.; THIEDE, C.; HERRMAN,
C. (2017) Life cycle assessment of 3D printed products in a distributed
manufacturing system, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, v. 21, n. S1,
p. S80-S93, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12618
COOPER, H. M. (1998) Synthesizing
research: A guide for literature reviews. Sage.
DESPEISSE, M.; BAUMERS, M.; BROWN, P.;
CHARNLEY, F.; FORD, S.; GARMULEWICZ A.; KNOWLES, S.; MINSHALL, T. H. W.; MORTARA, L.; REED-TSOCHAS, F. P.; ROWLEY, J.
(2017) Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research
agenda, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, v. 115, p. 75-84, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.021
DURIAU, V. J.; REGER, R. K.; PFARRER, M. D.
(2007) A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization
studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements, Organizational research methods, v. 10,
n. 1, p. 5-34.
EVANS, S.; GREGORY, M.; RYAN, C.; BERGENDAHL,
M. N.; TAN, A. (2009) Towards a sustainable industrial system: With
recommendations for education, research, industry and policy, University of Cambridge, Institute for
Manufacturing.
FORD, S.; DESPEISSE, M. (2016) Additive
manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and
challenges, Journal of Cleaner
Production, v. 137, p. 1573-1587.
GARMULEWICZ, A.; HOLWEG, M.; VELDHUIS, H.;
YANG, A. (2018) Disruptive technology as an enabler of the circular economy:
what potential does 3D printing hold?, California
Management Review, v. 60, n. 3, p. 112-132.
GHISELLINI, P.; CIALANI, C.; ULGIATI, S. (2016)
A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay
of environmental and economic systems,
Journal of Cleaner production, v. 114, p. 11-32.
GRESS, D. R.; KALAFSKY, R. V. (2015)
Geographies of production in 3D: Theoretical and research implications stemming
from additive manufacturing, Geoforum,
v. 60, p. 43-52.
HOLWEG, M. (2015) The limits of 3-D printing, Harvard Business Review.
JABBOUR, A. B. L. S.; JABBOUR, C. J. C.;
GODINHO FILHO, M.; ROUBAUD, D. (2018) Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: a
proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations, Annals of Operations Research, v. 270,
n. 1-2, p. 273-286, doi: 10.1007/s10479-018-2772-8.
KANG, H. S.; LEE, J. Y.; CHOI, S.; KIM, H.;
PARK, J. H.; SON J. Y.; KIM, B. H.; DO NOH, S. (2016) Smart manufacturing: Past
research, present findings, and future directions, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green
Technology, v. 3, n. 1, p. 111-128, doi: 10.1007/s40684-016-0015-5
KIETZMANN, J.; PITT, L.; BERTHON, P. (2015)
Disruptions, decisions, and destinations: Enter the age of 3-D printing and
additive manufacturing, Business
Horizons, v. 58, n. 2, p.
209-215.
KRIPPENDORFF, K. (2018) Content analysis: An
introduction to its methodology, Sage
publications.
LASI, H.; FETTKE, P.; KEMPER, H. G; FELD, T.;
HOFFMANN M. (2014) Industry 4.0. Business
& information systems engineering, v. 6, n. 4, p. 239-242.
LOY, J.; TATHAM, P. (2016) Redesigning
production systems, In: Handbook of Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing, Springer, Singapore. p. 145-168.
MACARTHUR, E. (2013) Towards the circular
economy, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
v. 2, p. 23-44.
MATHEUS, J. A.; TAN, H. (2011) Progress toward
a circular economy in China: The drivers (and inhibitors) of eco‐industrial
initiative, Journal of industrial
ecology, v. 15, n. 3, p. 435-457.
MOHER, D.; LIBERATI, A.; TETZLAFF, J.; ALTMAN,
D. G. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,
Annals of internal medicine, v. 151, n. 4, p. 264-269.
NUMAN, H. J.; SARLIN, P. (2014) From bits to
atoms: 3D printing in the context of supply chain strategies, In: 2014 47th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, IEEE. p. 4190-4199.
PAGANI, R. N.; KOVALESKI, J. L.; RESENDE, L. M.
(2015) Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant
scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year
of publication, Scientometrics, v.
105, n. 3, p. 2109-2135.
PENG, T.; KELLENS, K; TANG, R.; CHEN, C.; CHEN,
G. (2018) Sustainability of additive manufacturing: An overview on its energy
demand and environmental impact. Additive
Manufacturing, v. 21, p. 694-704.
PETROVIC, V.; GONZALEZ, A. H. J.; FORDÁ, F. O.;
GORDILLO, J.; PUSHADES, J.; GRIÑAN L. (2011) Additive layered manufacturing:
sectors of industrial application shown through case studies, International Journal of Production
Research, v. 49, n. 4, p. 1061-1079.
REJESKI, D.; ZHAO, F.; HUANG, Y. (2018)
Research needs and recommendations on environmental implications of additive
manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing, v. 19, p. 21-28.
RUFFO, M.; TUCK, C.; HAGUE, R. (2006) Cost
estimation for rapid manufacturing-laser sintering production for low to medium
volumes, Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, v. 220, n. 9, p. 1417-1427.
SAUERWEIN, M.; DOUBROVSKI, E.; BALKENENDE, R.;
BAKKER, C. (2019) Exploring the potential of additive manufacturing for product
design in a circular economy, Journal of
Cleaner Production, v. 226, p. 1138-1149.
SHIPP, S. S.; GUPTA, N.; LAL, B.; SCOTT, J. A.;
WEBER, C. L.; FINNIN, M. S.; BLAKE, M.; NEWSOME, S.; THOMAS, S. (2012 )
Emerging global trends in advanced manufacturing. Institute For Defense Analyses Alexandria Va. FFRDC: Science and Technology
Policy Institute. IDA document: P-4603.
SHROUF, F.; ORDIERES, J.; MIRAGLIOTTA, G. (2014)
Smart factories in Industry 4.0: A review of the concept and of energy
management approached in production based on the Internet of Things paradigm, In: 2014 IEEE international conference on
industrial engineering and engineering management. IEEE, p. 697-701.
SIN, M. L. (2016) Achieving ship's mission flexibility through designing, printing and
operating unmanned systems with additive manufacturing and delayed
differentiation, Tese de Doutorado. Monterey, California: Naval
Postgraduate School.
TRANFIELD, D.; DENYER, D.; SMART, P. (2003)
Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management
knowledge by means of systematic review. British
journal of management, v. 14, n. 3, p. 207-222.
UNRUH, G. (2018) Circular economy, 3D printing,
and the biosphere rules. California
Management Review, v. 60, n. 3, p. 95-111.
VINKLER, P. (2012) The case of
scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, v. 6, n. 2, p.
254-264.
YANG, S.; MIN, W.; GHIBAUDO, J.; ZHAO, Y. F.
(2019) Understanding the sustainability potential of part consolidation design
supported by additive manufacturing, Journal
of Cleaner Production, v. 232, p.722-738.
YUAN, Z.; BI, J.; MORIGUICHI, Y. (2006) The
circular economy: A new development strategy in China, Journal of Industrial Ecology, v. 10, n. 1‐2, p. 4-8.
ZHAI, Y.; LADOS, D. A.; LAGOY, J. L. (2014)
Additive manufacturing: making imagination the major limitation, Journal of Management, v. 66, n. 5, p.
808-816