← 論文一覧に戻る

建設における3Dプリンティングの環境・経済性能：ライフサイクル証拠、コスト、システム境界

Environmental and Economic Performance of 3D Printing in Construction: Life Cycle Evidence, Costs, and System Boundaries (原題)

Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh, Willy Sher

Buildings📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-08#省エネOrigin: Global対象セクター: construction
DOI: 10.3390/buildings16193969
原典: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16193969

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

建設3DプリンティングのLCA・LCC研究を網羅的にレビューした研究。2021年以降に関心が急増したが、GWP比較の結果は機能単位・システム境界・材料・比較基準により大きく異なり、共通の効果量として統合できない。低炭素結合材や材料効率の高い形状、リサイクル材との組み合わせで低環境負荷が報告されるが、持続可能性は条件付きの可能性にとどまる。

English

A comprehensive review of LCA and LCC studies on 3D-printed construction. Interest has surged since 2021, but reported GWP differences are highly heterogeneous and cannot be pooled as a common effect size, shifting with functional unit, system boundary, material, and baseline. Lower impacts appear only in specific scenarios such as low-carbon binders or material-efficient geometries, indicating conditional rather than inherent sustainability potential.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

建設業のScope 3・ embodied carbon 算定に関わるが、日本固有の制度論ではなく、SSBJや有報での建設資材調達開示を検討する実務者への方法論的示唆にとどまる。

In the global GX context

Speaks to embodied-carbon accounting and green procurement in construction, relevant to Scope 3 and CSRD/ISSB building-sector disclosure debates, though it offers methodological caution rather than a disclosure framework.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:LCA手法の機能単位・システム境界の感度分析が結論を左右する点を、建設分野の脱炭素評価設計に活かせる。

🏢実務担当者:3Dプリント建材の環境優位性を前提にせず、調達・設計段階で比較基準と境界条件を明確化する必要がある。

🏛政策担当者:建設分野の低炭素技術支援策では、LCA手法の標準化と比較可能性の確保が政策設計上の論点となる。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has had a strong impact on many industries, including the biomedical and automotive industries and, more recently, the construction industry. Achieving the 2050 carbon neutrality targets calls for change, especially in the most energy-intensive production sectors. This study has three objectives: to identify global trends in 3D-printed construction related to LCA and LCC; to compare the economic and environmental performance of 3D-printed construction with conventional methods; and to examine the applied system boundaries and existing methodological gaps. This study conducted a comprehensive review of these documents to compare the LCA of 3D printing and alternative methods, evaluate LCA and cost findings, and examine life-cycle system boundaries. We noted a substantial rise in interest since 2021 alongside advances in additive manufacturing. The comparative evidence was highly heterogeneous, and the reported GWP differences could not be pooled or interpreted as a common effect size. Within-study outcomes varied according to the functional unit, system boundary, reference lifetime, material formulation, structural application, geographical context, and comparison baseline. In some studies, changing the functional unit or comparator altered and occasionally reversed the apparent environmental advantage. Lower impacts were reported in particular scenarios combining 3D printing with low-carbon binders, material-efficient geometries, or recycled and earth-based materials. Accordingly, construction 3D printing shows conditional sustainability potential rather than an inherent or uniformly demonstrated environmental advantage. However, the impacts vary strongly according to the assumptions of the researchers. Wall thickness, mix design, machine type, and the definition of functional units can fundamentally shift conclusions. Overall, the evidence shows sustainability potential for 3D printing, while critical barriers remain in methodology selection and incomplete system-level evaluation.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。