1. Produceer met minder energie:
Meten is weten
Prof. Dr. ir. Joost Duflou
Dept. Werktuigkunde, K.U.Leuven
Joost.Duflou@mech.kuleuven.be

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. Manufacturing Impact Relevance
Total Industrial Electricity Consumption EU-27 (2007)
Manufacturing
Impact 200
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact Relevance
Trend towards more Energy Intensive Processes
Manufacturing
Impact
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact Relevance
Manufacturing
Trend towards more energy intensive processes in
Impact sheet metal cutting
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact
Manufacturing Case Study Energy Intensity of
Impact Manufacturing: Book support
¤ Relevance
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact: Case Study
Manufacturing Case Study: Book support
Impact
1 part 2 parts 6 parts
¤ Relevance
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact: Case Study
Manufacturing Case Study: Book support
Impact Material Utilisation Influence
¤ Relevance
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact: Case Study
Manufacturing Case Study: Book support
Impact
¤ Relevance
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact:
Body of Knowledge
Manufacturing
Impact
Non-negligible influence of manufacturing processes
¤ Relevance
on ecological impact of products!
¤ Case Study
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact:
Body of Knowledge
Manufacturing CO2PE!: Targets/Objectives
Impact
¤ Relevance
¤ Case Study
1. Study the environmental footprint of
ü 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. Manufacturing Impact:
Body of Knowledge
Manufacturing CO2PE! Network: 29 partners and still growing
Impact
¤ Relevance
¤ Case Study
ü Body of
Knowledge
Unit Process
Approach
¡ Methodology
¡ Case Study
Air Bending
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
Systems
Approach
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
12

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. 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
Approach
ü Methodology
¡ Case Study
Air Bending
Sub-Unit Level
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
Systems Design Guidelines
Approach & Best Practices
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
14

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 P5
ü 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. 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
measuring
ü 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. 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 backgauge
ü 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. 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 MWh
ü 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. 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 frequency
ü 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. 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
¤ Methodology
ü 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. 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 backgauge
ü Case Study
Air Bending Server PC + control panels + Programming the machine
display
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
Systems
Approach
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
21

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 cabinet
ü Case Study Pc + control panels + display Programming the machine
Air Bending
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
Systems
Approach
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
22

23. Case Study: Air Bending
Study:
Manufacturing Alternative press design:
Impact Power consumption measurements
¤ Relevance
¤ Case Study
¤ Body of
Knowledge
Unit Process
Approach
¤ Methodology
ü Case Study
Air Bending
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
Systems
Approach
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
23

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 kW
ü 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. 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 day
ü 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. 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 Bending
ü Case Study
Laser Cutting
Systems
Approach
¡ Case Study
Laser Cutting
Power profile of a 5kW CO2-laser cutting machine tool.
26

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 - 5kW
ü 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. 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 Bending
ü 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. 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
Approach
ü Case Study Sankey diagram for a 5kW CO2 laser cutter at full load
Laser Cutting
Could “wasted energy” be retrieved ?
29

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. 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