Applied Chemical Engineering

Energy consumption analysis of SLA and FDM printing: A comparative study using power meter data

Sanan Thaer Abdalwahab

Department of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Al-Turath University, Baghdad,10013, Iraq

Mustafa Moaied Rabeaa

Department of Analytics Laboratories, Al-Farahidi University, Baghdad,10111, Iraq

Haider Falih Shamikh Al-Saedi

Department of pharmaceutics Faculty of pharmacy, University of Al-Ameed, Karbala Governorate, 56001,Iraq

Shahlaa Majid J.

Al-Hadi University College, Baghdad,10011, Iraq

Jaber Hameed Hussain

Department of Medical Laboratories Technology, Al-Nisour University College, Nisour Seq. Karkh, Baghdad,10015, Iraq

Mohannad Mohammed

Department of Mathematics, Warka University College,Basrah,110073, Iraq

Israa Alhani

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Mazaya university college,Dhi Qar, 21974,Iraq

Abdul Sattar Jabbar Taha

College of health medical techniques,Al Bayan University,  Baghdad,6111, Iraq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/ace.v8i4.5737

Keywords: Additive Manufacturing; Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM); Stereolithography (SLA); energy consumption; sustainable manufacturing; power meter analysis; energy efficiency; SDG

---

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) is transitioning from rapid prototyping toward sustainable, production-level technologies, making energy efficiency a critical performance metric alongside part quality. Among AM methods, Stereolithography (SLA) and Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) dominate consumer and industrial adoption, yet their comparative energy footprints remain insufficiently quantified. Existing literature reports FDM printers typically draw 100–250 W due to heated beds and extrusion systems, whereas SLA systems generally consume 50–100 W, but most studies rely on manufacturer specifications rather than empirical data. To address this gap, this work conducts a state-of-the-art comparative energy analysis of SLA and FDM printing using real-time wattmeter monitoring under standardized benchmark conditions. Using a Bambu Lab A1 (FDM) and an ELEGOO Saturn 4 Ultra (SLA), identical parts (~20 cm³) were printed, and consumption normalized by part mass and volume. Results revealed that FDM consumed 81.3 Wh/part (0.89 Wh/g, 0.98 Wh/cm³) with peak loads of 265 W, while SLA required only 48.2 Wh/part (0.51 Wh/g, 0.57 Wh/cm³) with a maximum of 112 W. SLA also exhibited lower standby power (2.8 Wh/h vs. 6.1 Wh/h for FDM) and reduced variability (±3.2% vs. ±7.4%), highlighting its stability and efficiency. These findings extend prior state-of-the-art studies by providing empirical, high-resolution energy profiles across full print cycles and normalized metrics, enabling fair comparison. By positioning SLA as more energy-efficient for high-resolution parts and FDM as more favorable for mechanically demanding applications, this study contributes to sustainable AM practice and supports decision-making aligned with SDGs 7, 9, 12, and 13.

---

References

[1]. Aarthi, S., Subramani, R., Rusho, M. A., Sharma, S., Ramachandran, T., Mahapatro, A., & Ismail, A. I. (2025). Genetically engineered 3D printed functionally graded-lignin, starch, and cellulose-derived sustainable biopolymers and composites: A critical review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 145843.

[2]. Lazarus, B., Raja, S., Shanmugam, K., & Yishak, S. (2024). Analysis and Optimization of Thermoplastic Polyurethane Infill Patterns for Additive Manufacturing in Pipeline Applications.

[3]. Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa, S. Raja, Layth Abdulrasool A. L. Asadi, Nashrah Hani Jamadon, N. Rajeswari, Avvaru Praveen Kumar, "A Decision-Making Carbon Reinforced Material Selection Model for Composite Polymers in Pipeline Applications", Advances in Polymer Technology, vol. 2023, Article ID 6344193, 9 pages, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6344193

[4]. Olaiya, N. G., Maraveas, C., Salem, M. A., Raja, S., Rashedi, A., Alzahrani, A. Y., El-Bahy, Z. M., & Olaiya, F. G. (2022). Viscoelastic and Properties of Amphiphilic Chitin in Plasticised Polylactic Acid/Starch Biocomposite. Polymers, 14(11), 2268. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14112268

[5]. Praveenkumar, V., Raja, S., Jamadon, N. H., & Yishak, S. (2023). Role of laser power and scan speed combination on the surface quality of additive manufactured nickel-based superalloy. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 14644207231212566.

[6]. Raja, S., & Rajan, A. J. (2022). A Decision-Making Model for Selection of the Suitable FDM Machine Using Fuzzy TOPSIS. 2022.

[7]. Raja, S., Agrawal, A. P., Patil, P. P., Thimothy, P., Capangpangan, R. Y., Singhal, P., & Wotango, M. T. (2022). Optimization of 3D Printing Process Parameters of Polylactic Acid Filament Based on the Mechanical Test. 2022.

[8]. Raja, S., Jayalakshmi, M., Rusho, M. A., Selvaraj, V. K., Subramanian, J., Yishak, S., & Kumar, T. A. (2024). Fused deposition modeling process parameter optimization on the development of graphene enhanced polyethylene terephthalate glycol. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 30744.

[9]. Yüceer, Ö. M., Kaynak Öztürk, E., Çiçek, E. S., Aktaş, N., & Bankoğlu Güngör, M. (2025). Three-Dimensional-Printed photopolymer resin materials: A narrative review on their production techniques and applications in dentistry. Polymers, 17(3), 316.

[10]. Liz Basteiro, P. (2025). Design of tailor-made resins for 3D printing by vat photopolymerization: preparation of thermosensitive hydrogels for cell manipulation.

[11]. Raja, S., Murali, A. P., & Praveenkumar, V. (2024). Tailored microstructure control in Additive Manufacturing: Constant and varying energy density approach for nickel 625 superalloy. Materials Letters, 375, 137249.

[12]. Aziz, K. M. A., Daoud, A. O., Singh, A. K., & Alhusban, M. (2025). Integrating digital mapping technologies in urban development: Advancing sustainable and resilient infrastructure for SDG 9 achievement–a systematic review. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 116, 512-524.

[13]. Raja, S., Praveenkumar, V., Rusho, M. A., & Yishak, S. (2024). Optimizing additive manufacturing parameters for graphene-reinforced PETG impeller production: A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach. Results in Engineering, 24, 103018.

[14]. Raja, S., Rajan, A. J., Kumar, V. P., Rajeswari, N., Girija, M., Modak, S., Kumar, R. V., & Mammo, W. D. (2022). Selection of Additive Manufacturing Machine Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. 2022.

[15]. Pang, R., Lai, M. K., Teo, H. H., & Yap, T. C. (2025). Influence of Temperature on Interlayer Adhesion and Structural Integrity in Material Extrusion: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 9(6), 196.

[16]. Kühn-Kauffeldt, M., Kühn, M., Perrin, N., & Saur, W. (2025). Fused filament fabrication of thermoplastics in high vacuum without convective heat transfer. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 27497.

[17]. Gupta, V., Bankapalli, N. K., Saxena, P., Bajpai, A., & Ruan, D. (2025). Additive Manufacturing of Fiber‐Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites through Material Extrusion: A Comprehensive Review on Filament Fabrication, Printing, Testing Methods, Applications, and Challenges. Advanced Engineering Materials, 2500676.

[18]. Shahan, H. T. (2025). A Study on 3D Printing Process to Optimize the Mechanical and Thermal Behavior of PLA, ABS, and Carbon Fiber/PEEK Composite (Master's thesis, Tuskegee University).

[19]. Ramos, A., Angel, V. G., Siqueiros, M., Sahagun, T., Gonzalez, L., & Ballesteros, R. (2025). Reviewing additive manufacturing techniques: Material trends and weight optimization possibilities through innovative printing patterns. Materials, 18(6), 1377.

[20]. Massaroni, C., Saroli, V., Aloqalaa, Z., Presti, D. L., & Schena, E. (2025). Extrusion‐Based Fused Deposition Modeling for Printing Sensors and Electrodes: Materials, Process Parameters, and Applications. SmartMat, 6(4), e70027.

[21]. Yang, K., Shan, Z., Chen, Y., Fan, C., Song, W., & Zheng, J. H. (2025). Research on the Optimization of Z‐Direction Forming Process for Additively Manufactured Polyetheretherketone Composite in Environments Without Bed and Chamber Heating. Polymer Composites.

[22]. Yang, Z., Zhu, W., Shi, J., Yang, Z., Chen, F., & Han, X. (2025). Rapid in-situ thermal curing 3D printing of engineering thermosetting resins. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 20(1), e2553180.

[23]. Raja, S., Rao, R., Shekar, S., Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, D., Rajan, A. J., Rusho, M. A., & Navas, R. (2025). Application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for site selection of offshore wind farms in India. Operational Research, 25(3), 1-34.

[24]. S. Raja, A. John Rajan, "Challenges and Opportunities in Additive Manufacturing Polymer Technology: A Review Based on Optimization Perspective", Advances in Polymer Technology, vol. 2023, Article ID 8639185, 18 pages, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8639185

[25]. S., R., & A., J. R. (2023). Selection of Polymer Extrusion Parameters By Factorial Experimental Design – A Decision Making Model. Scientia Iranica, (), -. doi: 10.24200/sci.2023.60096.6591

[26]. S., Aarthi, S., Raja, Rusho, Maher Ali, Yishak, Simon, Bridging Plant Biotechnology and Additive Manufacturing: A Multicriteria Decision Approach for Biopolymer Development, Advances in Polymer Technology, 2025, 9685300, 24 pages, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1155/adv/9685300

[27]. Selvaraj, V. K., Subramanian, J., Krishna Rajeev, P., Rajendran, V., & Raja, S. Optimization of conductive nanofillers in bio‐based polyurethane foams for ammonia‐sensing application. Polymer Engineering & Science.

[28]. Subramani Raja, Ahamed Jalaludeen Mohammad Iliyas, Paneer Selvam Vishnu, Amaladas John Rajan, Maher Ali Rusho, Mohamad Reda Refaa, Oluseye Adewale Adebimpe. Sustainable manufacturing of FDM-manufactured composite impellers using hybrid machine learning and simulation-based optimization. Materials ScienceinAdditive Manufacturing 2025, 4(3), 025200033. https://doi.org/10.36922/MSAM025200033

[29]. Subramani, R. (2025). Optimizing process parameters for enhanced mechanical performance in 3D printed impellers using graphene-reinforced polylactic acid (G-PLA) filament. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 1-11.

[30]. Subramani, R., & Yishak, S. (2024). Utilizing Additive Manufacturing for Fabricating Energy Storage Components From Graphene‐Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites. Advances in Polymer Technology, 2024(1), 6464049.

[31]. Subramani, R., Kaliappan, S., Arul, P. V, Sekar, S., Poures, M. V. De, Patil, P. P., & Esakki, E. S. (2022). A Recent Trend on Additive Manufacturing Sustainability with Supply Chain Management Concept , Multicriteria Decision Making Techniques. 2022.

[32]. Cicek, U. I., & Johnson, A. A. (2025). Multi-objective optimization of FDM process parameters for 3D-printed polycarbonate using Taguchi-based Gray Relational Analysis. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1-17.

[33]. Subramani, R., Leon, R. R., Nageswaren, R., Rusho, M. A., & Shankar, K. V. (2025). Tribological Performance Enhancement in FDM and SLA Additive Manufacturing: Materials, Mechanisms, Surface Engineering, and Hybrid Strategies—A Holistic Review. Lubricants, 13(7), 298.

[34]. Subramani, R., Vijayakumar, P., Rusho, M. A., Kumar, A., Shankar, K. V., & Thirugnanasambandam, A. K. (2024). Selection and Optimization of Carbon-Reinforced Polyether Ether Ketone Process Parameters in 3D Printing—A Rotating Component Application. Polymers, 16(10), 1443.

[35]. Alijagic, A., Suljevic, D., Engwall, M., & Särndahl, E. (2025). 3D printing: Balancing innovation for sustainability with emerging environmental and health risks. iScience, 28(8).

[36]. Surakasi, R., Subramani, R., Rusho, M. A., & Yishak, S. (2025). Optimization of Viscosity of Propylene Glycol and Water (50: 50)/Graphene nanofluid: A Response Surface Methodology and Machine Learning Approach. Results in Engineering, 105692.

[37]. Theng, A. A. S., Jayamani, E., Subramanian, J., Selvaraj, V. K., Viswanath, S., Sankar, R., ... & Rusho, M. A. (2025). A review on industrial optimization approach in polymer matrix composites manufacturing. International Polymer Processing.

[38]. Da Silva, L. S., Silva, L. R., Pittner, H. S., Stefano, J. S., Vanzin, D., Dornellas, R. M., ... & Rocha, D. P. (2025). Carbon black-integrated polylactic acid 3D-printed sensors for the voltammetric determination of pyrogallic acid: Experimental and computational insights. Electrochimica Acta, 147339.

[39]. Vanerio, D., Guagliano, M., & Bagherifard, S. (2025). Emerging trends in large format additive manufacturing processes and hybrid techniques. Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 10(4), 1945-1972.

[40]. Chekkaramkodi, D., Hisham, M., Ahmed, I., Ali, M., Shebeeb, C. M., & Butt, H. (2025). Post-processing techniques to enhance the optical properties of 3D printed photonic devices. Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 1-26.

[41]. Aziz, U., McAfee, M., Manolakis, I., Timmons, N., & Tormey, D. (2025). A Review of Optimization of Additively Manufactured 316/316L Stainless Steel Process Parameters, Post-Processing Strategies, and Defect Mitigation. Materials, 18(12), 2870.

[42]. Shaw, P. K., Dwivedi, S., Dixit, A. R., & Pramanik, A. (2025). Engineering biocompatibility and mechanical performance via heat treatment of LPBF-fabricated Ti-6Al-4V for next-generation implants. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 152, 1250-1274.