Produceer met minder energie energie meten is weten - joost duflou

518 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
518
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Produceer met minder energie energie meten is weten - joost duflou

  1. 1. Produceer met minder energie: Meten is weten Prof. Dr. ir. Joost Duflou Dept. Werktuigkunde, K.U.Leuven Joost.Duflou@mech.kuleuven.be
  2. 2. Manufacturing as part of LCA Manufacturing LCA Phase: Manufacturing Phase: Impact¡ Relevance¡ Case Study Material¡ Body of Processing Product Knowledge Manufacture Mining Unit Process Distribution Approach¡ Methodology¡ Case Study Air Bending Use¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Disposal Product Approach Take-back¡ Case Study Material Laser Cutting Re-pro- Disassembly cessing 2
  3. 3. Manufacturing Impact Relevance Total Industrial Electricity Consumption EU-27 (2007) Manufacturing Impact 200ü Relevance 180¡ Case Study 160¡ Body of 140 Knowledge Billion kWh 120 100 200 186 Unit Process 80 142 158 139 Approach 60 112 81 85¡ Methodology 40 20¡ Case Study Air Bending 0¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 158 Billion kWh ≈ consumption of 45 million households Source: European Commission, 2009. 3 Energy – Yearly statistics 2007
  4. 4. Manufacturing Impact Relevance Trend towards more Energy Intensive Processes Manufacturing Impactü Relevance Specific energy¡ Case Study requirements (J/cm3) Micro/Nano¡ Body of for various 8 orders of Knowledge magnitude manufacturing processes Unit Process Advanced Approach Processes¡ Methodology Processing rate¡ Case Study Air Bending Conventional Energy requirements¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Processes Systems Source: T. Gutowski, J. Dahmus, Approach and A. Thiriez, “Electrical Energy Requirements for Manufacturing¡ Case Study Processes”, Proceedings 13th CIRP Laser Cutting International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, 2006, 4
  5. 5. Manufacturing Impact Relevance Manufacturing Trend towards more energy intensive processes in Impact sheet metal cuttingü Relevance¡ Case Study (Guillotine)¡ Body of Knowledge Shearing Unit Process Approach Punching¡ Methodology¡ Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Water Jet Cutting Laser Cutting Systems Approach Plasma Cutting¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Laser Cutting 5
  6. 6. Manufacturing Impact Manufacturing Case Study Energy Intensity of Impact Manufacturing: Book support¤ Relevanceü Case Study Target: Determination of sensitivity of energy related¡ Body of Knowledge environmental impact of discrete parts production for chosen manufacturing processes. Unit Process Approach¡ Methodology Dimensions blank :¡ Case Study 245 x 105 x 1 Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Weight : 0.185 kg Systems Approach Material : St37-2 (S235JR)¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 6
  7. 7. Manufacturing Impact: Case Study Manufacturing Case Study: Book support Impact 1 part 2 parts 6 parts¤ Relevanceü Case Study Thickness : 1 mm¡ Body of Material : St 37-2 Knowledge Cutting length 1,60 m 2.71 m (1.36) 7.01 m (1.17) Unit Process Approach Cutting time 14 s 23 s (11.5) 60 s (10)¡ Methodology (5 kW laser, rate 7 m / min)¡ Case Study Air Bending 0.933 kWh¡ Case Study Cutting Energy (47,6 kW) 0.218 kWh 0.358 kWh (0.179) (0.156) Laser Cutting Bending Energy Systems 0.107 kWh 0.214 kWh 0.643 kWh (Press Brake of 50 ton) Approach¡ Case Study 0.572 kWh 1.576 kWh Total Machining Energy 0.325 kWh Laser Cutting (0.286) (0.263) 7
  8. 8. Manufacturing Impact: Case Study Manufacturing Case Study: Book support Impact Material Utilisation Influence¤ Relevanceü Case Study Nesting efficiency 75% 85% 95%¡ Body of Knowledge Product Weight 0.185 kg 0.185 kg 0.185 kg Waste Weight 0.062 kg 0.033 kg 0.010 kg Unit Process Approach Total Weight 0.247 kg 0.218 kg 0.195 kg¡ Methodology Material Energy 3.90 MJ 3.44 MJ 3,08 MJ¡ Case Study (15,8 MJ/kg) 1.08 kWh 0.96 kWh 0.86 kWh Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Waste Energy 0.272 kWh 0.145 kWh 0.044 kWh Systems Recycling Approach -0.27 kWh -0.24 kWh -0.215 kWh (Reduction of 25%)¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Total Material Energy 0.81 kWh 0.72 kWh 0.65 kWh 8
  9. 9. Manufacturing Impact: Case Study Manufacturing Case Study: Book support Impact¤ Relevanceü Case Study Contribution min max average¡ Body of Knowledge Total Material Energy 0.65 kWh 0.81 kWh 0.73 kWh Machining Energy 0.263 kWh 0.325 kWh 0.294 kWh Unit Process Approach Total Energy 0.913 kWh 1.135 kWh 1.024 kWh¡ Methodology¡ Case Study Air Bending Depending on the scenario, direct machining¡ Case Study represents 25 to 33% of the total energy Laser Cutting consumption. Systems Approach Note: Not covered in this case study:¡ Case Study • Indirect energy consumption Laser Cutting • Consumables consumption (e.g. tooling) • Emission impact 9
  10. 10. Manufacturing Impact: Body of Knowledge Manufacturing Impact Non-negligible influence of manufacturing processes¤ Relevance on ecological impact of products!¤ Case Studyü Body of & Knowledge Many processes inadequately investigated / documented. Unit Process Approach¡ Methodology Large potential for improvement!¡ Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems CO2PE ! - Initiative Approach Cooperative Effort on (CO2) Process Emissions¡ Case Study Laser Cutting http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/co2pe 10
  11. 11. Manufacturing Impact: Body of Knowledge Manufacturing CO2PE!: Targets/Objectives Impact¤ Relevance¤ Case Study 1. Study the environmental footprint ofü Body of manufacturing processes with energy Knowledge consumption/CO2 emission as first priority. Scope limited to discrete part manufacturing. Unit Process Approach 2. Develop a methodology that allows to provide data¡ Methodology¡ Case Study in a format useful for inclusion in LCI dbases. Air Bending¡ Case Study 3. Identify opportunities for improved process design in Laser Cutting close cooperation with machine tool developers. Systems Derive design rules and guidelines in support of Approach eco-design of machine tools.¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 4. Draft a proposal for an eco-label system for machine tools 11
  12. 12. Manufacturing Impact: Body of Knowledge Manufacturing CO2PE! Network: 29 partners and still growing Impact¤ Relevance¤ Case Studyü Body of Knowledge Unit Process Approach¡ Methodology¡ Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 12
  13. 13. Towards Low Impact Manufacturing Manufacturing Impact Potential for Unit Process Process¤ Relevance Energy and Resource Level Level¤ Case Study efficiency optimization¤ Body of at different levels. Knowledge Multi- Multi-Machine Multi-Machine Unit Process Level Approach¡ Methodology Factory Level¡ Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Multi-Facility Systems Level Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Global Supply Chain Level 13
  14. 14. Unit Process Level: Methodology Manufacturing Methodological approach to analyse unit processes Impact¤ Relevance¤ Case Study Machine Tool Level¤ Body of Knowledge Unit Process LCI-data Approachü Methodology¡ Case Study Air Bending Sub-Unit Level¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Design Guidelines Approach & Best Practices¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 14
  15. 15. Unit Process Level: Methodology Manufacturing Methodological approach to analyse unit processes Impact¤ Relevance Time study Power study¤ Case Study Time Power¤ Body of # Production mode share (%), # Production mode (avg, kW) Knowledge 1 Start-up Mode T1 1 Start-up Mode P1 2 Full Power Mode T2 2 Full Power Mode P2 Unit Process 3 Partial Power Mode T3 3 Partial Power Mode P3 Approach 4 Standby Mode T4 4 Standby Mode P4 5 Shutdown Mode T5 5 Shutdown Mode P5ü Methodology 6 OFF Mode T6 6 OFF Mode P6 m Other Mode(s) Tm m Other Mode(s) Pm¡ Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting æ ææ T öö ææ T + T ö 115 * 24 ö ö ö ç T ö æ ç ç Ps * s ÷ + ç Pe * e ÷ ÷ ç ç16 - æ s e ö ÷ + æ ç ç ÷÷ ç ÷ ÷÷ Systems ç m æ T ö 3600 ø è 3600 ø ÷ çè è 3600 ø ø è 250 ø ÷ ÷ Approach Pm + ç å ç Pi * i ÷ + ç è ç +P *ç ÷÷ ç i =1 è Tm ÷ ç ø ç 8 ÷ off 8 ÷ ç ÷÷¡ Case Study ç è ø ç ÷÷ è è øø Laser Cutting Ere = 3600 Equivalent energy demand per unit of time 15 of effective use
  16. 16. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Unit Process Analysis of Air Bending Impact¤ Relevance¤ Case Study¤ Body of Knowledge Time study Unit Process Human needs Approach and distraction Tool Setup Preparation on 4,6% pc 7,2% Workpiece 10,2%¤ Methodology measuringü Case Study 6,8% Air Bending Supporting tasks 16,6%¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Workpiece transport Systems 14,0% Loading new sheet Approach 13,1%¡ Case Study Intermediate Laser Cutting action Punch moving 14,9% downwards and Punch moving bending upwards 9,4% 16 3,1%
  17. 17. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Time study analysis Impact % of¤ Relevance n° production mode total time¤ Case Study 1 tool setup: get tool, change and carry away 4.6¤ Body of Knowledge 2 preparation on pc: load new order from 7.2 central server + programming or adapting bending program Unit Process 3 supporting task: move pallets, rearrange 16.6 Approach sheets, counting, administrative tasks¤ Methodology 4 new sheet: take a new sheet and position it 13.0 against backgaugeü Case Study 5a punch moving downwards and bending: 9.4 Air Bending actual bending process¡ Case Study 5b punch moving upwards 3.1 Laser Cutting 6 intermediate action: consult instruction 14.9 Systems screen and turn the part around between stand by two bends Approach move down 7 transport workpiece: put workpieces away+ 14.0¡ Case Study rearrange them Laser Cutting 8 measure: measure the workpiece 6.8 move up 9 human needs and distraction: being absent, 10.2 non-productivity: drinking, talking,… 17
  18. 18. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Power and energy consumption analysis Impact Cumulative¤ Relevance Power (W) Total yearly¤ Case Study energy consumption 9.8 kW¤ Body of (2000 hours) Knowledge M1: main pump 1,2 MWh M2: pump to clamp 26 % Unit Process Drives + server Approach 9% 65 % 6,3 kW¤ Methodology 0,4 MWh 2,9 MWhü Case Study Air Bending stand by¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 3,1 kW move down Systems move up 1,7 kW Approach¡ Case Study Time (% of total Laser Cutting production time) 1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 5% 7% 17% 13% 9% 3% 15% 7% 14% 10% Pumps responsible for > 90% of energy consumption 18
  19. 19. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Alternative pump control system: Impact Influence of hydraulic pump and speed control system¤ Relevance¤ Case Study Power and Energy Consumption for a similar task of 40 ton, 1mm/s¤ Body of Knowledge Max. Capacity Technical adjustments Machine Tool A 80 ton Conventional hydraulic press brake Unit Process Machine Tool B 135 ton A + adjustable flow pump Approach Machine Tool C 135 ton A + adjustable flow pump and frequency¤ Methodology convertor Machine Tool D 80 ton A + adjustable flow pump and frequencyü Case Study convertor Air Bending¡ Case Study 12 (kWh / Laser Cutting 10 Bend) A B C D Power (kW) 8 Machine A Systems 6 Machine B Bending 0,055 0,046 0,029 0,022 Energy Approach 4 Machine C Standby Machine D Energy 0,105 0,180 0,122 0,097¡ Case Study 2 Laser Cutting 0 Total 0,160 0,226 0,151 0,119 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 Energy Time (s) 19
  20. 20. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Case Study: Press Brake Redesign Impact¤ Relevance Traditional press: Alternative press design:¤ Case Study Conventional hydraulic pump Servo motor driven pump¤ Body of Knowledge Unit Process Approach¤ Methodologyü Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach Comparison basis:¡ Case Study “Availabilty and functionality of a small press brake Laser Cutting for bending operations during one year” 20
  21. 21. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Traditional hydraulic press design Impact Energy consuming units Function¤ Relevance¤ Case Study M1 Hydraulic pump 1 Move the pistons connected to the (main pump) ram¤ Body of Knowledge M2 Hydraulic pump 2 Clamp the toolset (punch and die) (pump to clamp) Unit Process M3 Small motor Compensate deformation of the Approach punch¤ Methodology Drives 5 Servo motors + drives Move backgaugeü Case Study Air Bending Server PC + control panels + Programming the machine display¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 21
  22. 22. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Alternative press design based on servo pumps Impact¤ Relevance Energy consuming units Function¤ Case Study 2 Servo pumps + drives Move the pistons connected to the ram¤ Body of Knowledge 2 Servo motors + drives Move backgauge Feed Feed (24 V, drives) Unit Process Approach Valves Hydraulic circuit¤ Methodology Fan Cooling of the electrical cabinetü Case Study Pc + control panels + display Programming the machine Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 22
  23. 23. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Alternative press design: Impact Power consumption measurements¤ Relevance¤ Case Study¤ Body of Knowledge Unit Process Approach¤ Methodologyü Case Study Air Bending¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 23
  24. 24. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Press brake redesign: comparative results Manufacturing Impact Power measurements: (kW) Traditional press Alternative press¤ Relevance Machine mode M1 M2 M3 pc total 2 SP 2 SM Other total¤ Case Study start-up /shut down - - - 0,26 0,26 0,10 0,13 0,41 0,63¤ Body of stand by 1,40 0,03 0,00 0,26 1,69 0,10 0,13 0,41 0,63 Knowledge move down max 9,50 0,03 0,00 0,26 9,79 6,20 0,13 0,41 6,73 Production & bend min 2,80 0,03 0,00 0,26 3,10 0,22 0,13 0,41 0,75 Unit Process Approach move up 6,00 0,03 0,00 0,26 6,29 0,10 0,13 0,41 0,63 12,0¤ Methodology Max: 9,8 kWü Case Study 10,0 Max: 6,7 kW Total power (kW) Air Bending 8,0¡ Case Study Min: 0,8 kW Laser Cutting 6,0 Min: 3,1 kW Traditional Alternative Systems 4,0 Approach 2,0¡ Case Study Laser Cutting 0,0 1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 24 Production mode
  25. 25. Case Study: Air Bending Study: Manufacturing Traditional press Comparison energy consumption Impact kWh/year¤ Relevance 1,2 MWh/year 2,9 MWh/year Traditional Alternative difference¤ Case Study stand-by 2951 1100 1851¤ Body of 26 % move down* 1203 282 921 Knowledge move up 391 39 352 9% Total kWh 4545 1421 3124 65 % Unit Process Total EUR** 440 - 68.7% 138 303 Approach 250 days per year¤ Methodology 0,4 MWh/year 8 hours per shift 1 shift per dayü Case Study 2000 hours per year Air Bending Alternative press 0.0969 EUR/kWh** (Eurostat and INSEE)¡ Case Study 0,04 MWh/year Laser Cutting 0,3 MWh/year * To calculate the energy to move down, an average 3% value is used: Systems 20% PPEB: 6,4 kW (power to bend 25 ton) Approach PPRM: 1,5 kW (power to bend 20 ton)¡ Case Study 77% Laser Cutting A potential energy reduction of 3124 kWh/year is equivalent to 1,1 MWh/year 0.89 households 25
  26. 26. Case Study: Laser Cutting Study: Manufacturing Unit Process Analysis of Laser Cutting Impact¤ Relevance¤ Case Study¤ Body of Knowledge Unit Process Approach¤ Methodology¤ Case Study Air Bendingü Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¡ Case Study Laser Cutting Power profile of a 5kW CO2-laser cutting machine tool. 26
  27. 27. Case Study: Laser Cutting Study: Manufacturing Time and power studies: Time Study Impact Cutting Sheets 84,2%¤ Relevance Changing Tables¤ Case Study 6,3%¤ Body of Program Knowledge Loading 0,8% Power Study Unit Process Changing 80 Configuration C - 6kW Other Checking Approach 70 3,8% Workpiece Laser Head 0,4% Configuration C - 5kW 4,5%¤ Methodology 60 Power (kW) 50 Configuration C - 4kW¤ Case Study Air Bending 40 30 50% Configuration B - 5kWü Case Study 20 Configuration B - 4kW Laser Cutting 10 Configuration A - 4kW 0 Systems 1 2 3 4 5 6 Configuration A - 2,5kW Approach Laser Output (kW)¡ Case Study Different machine tool architectures (positioning system) Laser Cutting Configuration A : hybrid (4m x 2m) Configuration B: flying optics (4m x 2m) Configuration C: flying optics (12,5m x 3m) 27
  28. 28. Case Study: Laser Cutting Study: Manufacturing Total impact analysis Impact 1 hour of laser cutting at full power load of 5 kW¤ Relevance¤ Case Study Impact % (mpts)¤ Body of Knowledge Energy Consumption 52.2 kWh 1357 68.1 Process Gas (N2) 13.6 m³ 193 9.7 Unit Process Consumption Approach Produced Waste (St37-2) 6.5 kg 406 20.4¤ Methodology 7.3 mg NO2 Emissions 4.9 mg NO 35 1.8¤ Case Study 917 mg aerosols Air Bendingü Case Study Total 1991 Laser Cutting Most impact created by energy (electricity) consumption Systems Approach Improvement potential can be found in:¡ Case Study ü Replacement of laser source ( CO2-laser <=> fiber/diode laser) Laser Cutting ü Selectively switching on/off subsystems ü Increasing the nesting efficiency. ü Selecting the right machine tool for the job 28
  29. 29. Case Study: Laser Cutting Study: Manufacturing Systems Level Analysis of Laser Cutting Impact¤ Relevance¤ Case Study¤ Body of Knowledge Unit Process Approach¤ Methodology Energy¤ Case Study input Air Bending 100%¤ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approachü Case Study Sankey diagram for a 5kW CO2 laser cutter at full load Laser Cutting Could “wasted energy” be retrieved ? 29
  30. 30. System Level Opportunities Manufacturing Impact Inefficiency of the¤ Relevance applied unit processes¤ Case Study¤ Body of Knowledge Unit Process Approach¤ Methodology¤ Case Study Air Bending¤ Case Study Laser Cutting Systems Approach¤ Case Study Laser Cutting Opportunity at system level Grassmann exergy diagram for the book support example 30
  31. 31. Conclusions Manufacturing Impact ü At unit process level systematic analysis of impact¤ Relevance factors (energy, emissions, consumables) allows¤ Case Study identification of improvement potential for CNC¤ Body of sheet metal working process of -25 to -65%. Knowledge ISO/TC 39/WG 12: ISO WD 14955-1Part 1: Unit Process Energy-saving design methodology for machine tools Approach¤ Methodology ü At systems level machine tool selection and efficient¤ Case Study process planning (e.g. nesting) significantly Air Bending influence the total manufacturing impact.¤ Case Study Laser Cutting ü At systems level so-called ‘energy losses’ can be Systems considered potential resources. Exergy analysis Approach allows systematic quantification of the system¤ Case Study Laser Cutting performance. Need for exergy based performance indicators 31

×