Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Presentation Outline
z
z
z
z
z
(b)
(c)
z
z
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainability:
General Background
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainability: Definitions
Sustainability means different things to different people
There is no universally acceptable definition for the term
sustainability, but the most commonly known definition
comes from the 1987 U.N. Brundtland Commission headed
by Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntland:
Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Similar Thoughts
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
SUSTAIN
Society
Environment
Economy
People
Planet
Prosperity
OBJECTIVES
Society
Improved Health
Safety
Enhanced Quality
of life
Ethics
Environment
Economy
New Employment
Product and Process
Innovation (Technological
Advancement)
Large-Scale new business
opportunities
(3 new Rs)
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainability Drivers
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Significance of Sustainability
Source: http://www.beechenhill.co.uk/sustainability.htm
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
?
Can a single earth support the ever-increasing demands for resources ?
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainable Growth
Balances economic, environmental and societal needs
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainable
Agriculture
Sustainable
Energy
Economy
Sustainable
Transportation
Innovation
Creativity
Sustainable
Construction &
Building
Technology
Sustainable
Housing
Environment
Sustainable
Assets &
Management
Society
Sustainable
Manufacturing
Sustainable
Architecture &
Design
Sustainable
Companies &
Business
Systems
Sustainable
Manufacturing
Products
Processes
A traffic jam idles motorists in Bangkok; carbon emissions from gasolineburning cars are one of the causes of global worming
(Source: TIME Global Warming, 2007)
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Global Warming
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Source: http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/images/6-1.gif
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Source: http://www.inmagine.com/pdv031/pdv031027-photo
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Asia
Developing
World
Latin
America
Africa
World
Developed
World
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Electronic Waste
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Legislative Drivers
z
z
z
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Ref: http://www.scienceinthebox.com/en_UK/sustainability/lifecycleassessment_en.html
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
STAGE I:
PRE-MANUFACTURING
STAGE II:
MANUFACTURING
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Take It Back!
Source: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Leo%20Wiegman/Moving%20Toward%20aonomy%20Jan05.ppt
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Several countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have implemented EPR
legislation for a wide range of products, including:
- packaging
- electric and electronic equipment
- vehicles
- tires
- batteries
- office machinery
Source: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Leo%20Wiegman/Moving%20Toward%20aonomy%20Jan05.ppt
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainable Manufacturing:
Definitions, Basic Elements and
Most Common Terms
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
z
z
z
z
z
z
Environmentally-responsible manufacturing
Environmentally benign manufacturing
Cleaner processes (Green manufacturing)
Economically advantageous manufacturing (Lean
manufacturing)
Energy-efficient manufacturing
Manufacturing using renewable source of energy
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Ecology
Environment
Energy
Economy
Employment
Empowerment
Education
Excellence
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Innovation Elements
Sustainable Manufacturing
(Innovative, 6R-based)
Remanufacture
Redesign
Stakeholder Value
Green Manufacturing
Recover
(Environmentally-benign, 3R-based)
Lean Manufacturing
Recycle
(Waste Reduction-based)
Reuse
Traditional Manufacturing
(Substitution-based)
Reduce
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Time
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
6R
3R
CONCEPT
CONCEPT
AT RA
ER W
IA
EN
LS
ER
GY
T
AS
ES
S
ON
I
S
IS
EM
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Application of
Lean
Manufacturing
Concepts
Subsequent
(2nd and beyond)
PRE MANUFACTURING
Life-cycle Stages
REDUCE
MANUFACTURING
USE
REUSE
POST USE
Application of
Total
Sustainability
Concepts
RECYCLE
RECOVER
3R Concept
6R Concept
REDESIGN
REMANUFACTURE
Acceptable
Recovered Material
Quality ?
Landfill
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
VALUE ($)
Savings ($)
gained by
consumer
Use
Remanufacture
Manufacturing
Reuse
Redesign
Use
Savings ($)
gained by
manufacturer
Pre-manufacturing
Recover
Disposal
Disposal
Recycle
Landfill
Traditional product life-cycle
1st life-cycle of product (extended life-cycle)
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Overall Standards
Natural Step System Conditions
Nordic Swan Eco-label
Clean Vehicles
Green Seal Product Standards
Certified Green-e Program
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
US Green Building Council
LEED Rating System
European Union Eco-label
Cleaner and Greener Certification
Energy Star Eco-label
Sustainable Textile Standard
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
z
z
Step 2:
z
z
z
z
A 3x4 matrix that represents all components of sustainability and all four life-cycle stages.
Allocate a score/rating between 0-10 for each influencing factor.
Weighting can be applied to the influencing factors based importance.
Non-quantifiable factors can be scored based on designers experience and judgment.
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Analytical Foundation of
Product Design for Sustainability
Step 3:
Methodology for Calculating PSI
n
PSI (en_pm) =
IF (en_pm)
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Analytical Foundation of
Product Design for Sustainability (contd.)
PSIen
where,
PSI(en_pm) =
PSI(en_m)
PSI(en_u) =
PSI(en_pu) =
The overall product sustainability index (PSITLC) for a product over its total life-cycle
PSITLC
PSIso
PSIen
PSIec
=
=
=
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Pre-manufacturing
Score
out of 10
Score
out of 10
Post-use
Score
out of 10
Material Extraction
Emissions
Recyclability
Functionality
Remanufacturability
Material Processing
Redesign
Landfill Contribution
(%) PSI (en_pu) =
Environment
(%) PSI (en_pm) =
Sustainability Components
Score
out of 10
70
80
86.67
Worker Health
Work Ethics
Product Pricing
Take-back Options
Work Safety
Ergonomics
Human Safety
Re-use
Ergonomics
Work Safety
Upgradeablility
Recovery
Complaints
Society
(%) PSI (so_pm) =
76.67
73.33
77.5
Production Cost
Maintenance Cost
Recycling Cost
Packaging Cost
Repair Cost
Disassembly Cost
(%) PSI pm =
45
Energy Cost
Disposal Cost
Transportation Cost
(%) PSI (ec_m) =
Remanufacturing Cost
(%) PSI (ec_pu) =
65
(%) PSI m =
63.89
65
72.78
(%) PSI u =
70
78.06
(%) PSI pu =
77.29
(%) PSI so =
73.54
(%) PSI ec =
61.25
70.69
66.67
Labor Cost
Economy
(%) PSI en =
72.5
68.06
Symbol
Score
Excellent
85-90%
Good
70-84%
Average
50-69%
Poor
< 50%
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
10
Recyclability
0
10
0
10
Reliability
Price of Product
Worker
Safety
Hazardous
Substance
Fuel Economy
Society
Environment
Economy
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Sustainability Components
PreManufacturing
Manufacturing
Environment
Society
Economy
R1 - Reduce
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R2 - Reuse
Use
Post-use
R1
R1
R1
R3 - Recycle
PreManufacturing
Manufacturing
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R1
R2
R3
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R4
R5
R6
R4 - Recover
R1
R1
R2
R2
R1
Post-use
R2
R6
R5
R1
R3
Use
R1
R2
R2
R3
R1
R2
R3
R6
R5
R1
R5 - Redesign
R2
R3
R1
R2
R6
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R6 - Remanufacture
Matrix showing a generic scoring methodology for assessing the 6Rs in terms of
economy, environment and society for multiple life-cycles.
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
z
z
z
z
z
z
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Reduce
Reduce
Remanufacture
Reuse
Certified
Sustainable
Product
Recycle
Reuse
Redesign
Recover
Recycle
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Case Study 1
Machining Processes:
Sustainability Evaluation
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Turning Operations
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Machining
Cost
Environmental
Friendliness
Personnel
Health
Sustainable
Machining
Processes
Power
Consumption
Fuzzy nature
Operational
Safety
Waste
Management
Analytical
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
+
Personnel
health
+
Machining
cost
Power
consumption
Waste
management
Environmental
friendliness
MC min MC
PC min PC
CB CBmin
+ 1 + C PC
+ 1 + CCB
S = C MC
MC max MC min
PC max PC min
CBmax CBmin
f (V, f, d)
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
+ S SHE
F (si)
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
SSHE
Primary fuzzy rules
Operational
safety
Personnel
health
Environmental
friendliness
Process
safety
Workplace
contamination
Wastes
Recycling
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
S op
C SHE
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
C MC
i =0
MC min MCi
+ 1 + C PC
MC max MC min
PC min PCi
+ 1 + C CB
PC max PC min
CBi CBmin
CBmax CBmin
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Metal
Cutting
Theories
Database of
Experimental
Results
Select
Optimization
Objectives
Process
Model
Numerical
Methods
Optimization
Algorithm
(SA)
Most Sustainable
Cutting Conditions
Set Constraints
of Machining
Sustainability
Measures
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Optimization Constraints
Constraints for two-pass turning
Two-pass turning
Turning pass
Roughing pass
Finishing pass
V (m / min)
150-250
250-400
f (mm / rev)
0.15-0.254
0.056-0.15
d (mm)
1.20-1.905
0.254-1.20
MC ($)
1.7-2.6
2.5-4.1
PC (KW )
2.5-3.4
1.3-2.2
CB
0.6
0.7
Ra ( m)
3.2
0.8
Fc (N )
1200
500
M R (mm 3 / min)
T (min)
30 000
15 000
6.00
2.00
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
[C MC , C PC , CCB ]
Turning pass
Optimum
cutting
conditions
Predicted
machining
performance
and
sustainability
2.7 (P)
2.9 (Q)
[0.8,0.15,0.05]
[0.6,0.35,0.05]
[0.8,0.15,0.05]
[0.6,0.35,0.05]
Rough
Finish
Rough
Finish
Rough
Finish
Rough
Finish
V (m / min)
f (mm / rev)
d (mm)
150
250
150
250
150
250
150
257
0.247
0.116
0.235
0.116
0.229
0.112
0.215
0.107
1.613
1.087
1.613
1.087
1.771
1.129
1.817
1.083
Ra ( m)
2.491
0.800
2.227
0.800
2.153
0.775
1.866
0.739
Fc (N )
1091
361
1037
361
1091
365
1051
337
M R (mm 3 / min)
T (min)
MC ($)
PC (KW )
CB
S op
59782
31440
56798
31432
60936
21756
58635
30002
6.307
4.260
6.489
4.261
6.129
4.199
6.228
4.166
1.734
2.500
1.782
2.500
1.853
2.578
1.935
2.619
3.207
1.770
3.048
1.769
3.210
1.788
3.089
1.704
0.67
83.58
0.76
92.17
0.68
71.80
0.76
81.73
0.64
73.38
0.75
94.12
0.64
67.47
0.77
92.41
S op
87.88
76.77
83.75
79.94
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
[C MC , C PC , CCB ] = [0.8,0.15,0.05]
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
[C MC , C PC , CCB ] = [0.8,0.15,0.05]
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Personnel
Health
7
0
Waste
Reduction
10
Machining
Cost
worst
best
Operational Safety
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Case Study 2
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Laser Printers
Inkjet Printers
Ref: www.lexmark.com
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Elements of Sustainability
Environmental
Impact
Societal
Impact
Functionality
Product
Sustainability
Scoring
Model
Resource
Utilization/
Economy
Manufacturability
Recyclability/
Remanufacturability
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Product
Sustainability Index
6 Sustainability
Elements
24 Sub-Elements
44 Influencing
Factors
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Environmental Impact
SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENTS
Environmental Impact
SUB-ELEMENTS
Life-cycle factor
INFLUENCING FACTORS
Recovery rate after first life
Recovery cost
Potential for next life
Environmental effects
Toxic substances
Emission
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Societal Impact
SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENTS
Societal Impact
SUB-ELEMENTS
Ethical responsibility
INFLUENCING FACTORS
Take back options
Product pricing
Societal impact
Safety
Quality of life
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Functionality
SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENTS
Functionality
SUB-ELEMENTS
INFLUENCING FACTORS
Reliability
Type of material
Maintenance schedule
Service life/Durability
Maintenance schedule
Upgradeability
Ease of installation
Option for upgrade
Modularity
Modules available
Ergonomics
Safety
Maintainability/Serviceability
Maintenance schedule
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
SUB-ELEMENTS
INFLUENCING FACTORS
Energy efficiency
Production energy
Energy for use
Recycle energy
Material utilization
Type of material
Quantity of material
Cost of material
Market value
Operational cost
Cost to operate
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Manufacturability
SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENTS
Manufacturability
SUB-ELEMENTS
Packaging
INFLUENCING FACTORS
Take back options
Packaging material
Quantity used
Assembly
Number of parts/components
Transportation
Cost of transportation
Storage
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Methodology
z
Each influencing factor can be quantified differently, and they are all on a
scale of 0-1, where 0 is the lowest and 1 being the highest rating.
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Calculations for
Influencing factors
High Importance
Sub Elements
Weighting
from
Industrial
Partners
Medium Importance
Sub Elements
Sufficient
Data?
Y
Index
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Weighting (%)
Energy efficiency
29
Material utilization
20
Life-cycle factor
13
Environmental effects
19
Recyclability
19
Medium Importance
Weighting (%)
Reliability
27
22
Ethical responsibility
16
Packaging
21
Upgradeability
14
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Life-cycle Factor
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
1.2
Life-cycle factor (y3)
1
Life-cycle factor (y2)
Life-cycle Factor
0.6
0.4
0.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
-0.2
0.3
0.6
0
0
Life-cycle factor
= (1/3) [ A1 e-B1x1 + A2 e-B2x2 + C3x3 ]
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Average Rating
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
Series1
Environment
Societal
Functionality
Resource
Utilization/
Recyclability
6.985
8.769
8.542
7.746
6.231
Sustainability Factors
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
OEM (%)
Consumer
(%)
Environmental Impact
30.5
18.3
Societal Impact
8.0
22.9
Functionality
31.5
22.3
10.0
20.2
Manufacturability
10.5
N/A
Recyclability/Remanufacturability
9.5
16.3
Sustainability Element
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Environmental Impact
40.0
Recyclability
20.0
Societal Impact
0.0
Manufacturability
Functionality
OEM
Resource Utilization &
Economy
Consumer
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Elements of Product 1
Elements of Product 2
Recyclability/
Remanufactur
ability
5%
Manufacturabili
ty
9%
Environmental
Impact
26%
Recyclability/
Remanufactur
ability
6%
Manufacturabi
lity
12%
Environmental
Impact
26%
Resource
Utilization &
Economy
17%
Resource
Utilization &
Economy
18%
Societal
Impact
8%
Societal
Impact
11%
Functionality
31%
Functionality
31%
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Recyclability/Remanuf
acturability
Societal Impact
Manufacturability
Functionality
Product 1
Product 2
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Case Study 3
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
319
274
251
224
183
1991
1996
1999
2002
2006
Year
Total aluminum content
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Aluminum Characteristics
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Over the average lifetime of a vehicle, every pound of aluminum that replaces
two pounds of steel can save 20 pounds of CO2 from being emitted.
Aluminum enjoys "sustained recyclability" - which means it can be recycled
again and again with no loss in material performance or quality.
Approximately 70 to 80% of aluminum used in today's vehicles is sourced
from recycled metal.
While aluminum today accounts for less than 5 to 10% of a car's content by
weight, it accounts for almost 35 to 50% of the total material scrap value at the
end of the vehicle's useful life.
An estimated 85 to 90% of post-consumer automotive aluminum scrap, at least
one billion pounds per year, is recycled today.
Recycling aluminum consumes only 5% of the energy required to produce new
aluminum.
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Aluminum Limitations
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
PREMANUFACTURING
MANUFACTURING
Aluminum
Steel
Aluminum
Solid/Liq.
Residues
Air
Emissions
POST-USE
TOTAL
Aluminum
Steel
Aluminum
Steel
Aluminum
Steel
12/20
13/20
14/20
12/20
12/20
11/20
Environmental impact
(e.g., toxicity, air
pollution, etc.)
15/20
12/20
13/20
11/20
15/20
13/20
Total
11/30
18/30
15/30
17/30
28/30
20/30
27/30
17/30
81/120
72/120
Resource usage
(energy use)
Waste
output
Steel
USE
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
Year 10
$16,017.43
$16,996.32
Year 4
$7,962.2
$8,135.67
Year 1
$3,492.80
Aluminum
Pre-manufacturing
Manufacturing
$3,219.32
Steel
Use
Aluminum
Steel
Material Comparison
Post-use
Aluminum
Steel
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
CO 2 emissions (kg.)
25
75
100
% Recycled
Steel
Al(75%),
S(25%)
Aluminum
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
30000
27,008.01
23,686.81
CO2 emissions(kg)
25000
20000
Year 4
15000
10,453.79
Year 1
10000
5000
8,537.47
4,361.91
2,962.59
0
Steel
Aluminum
Steel
Aluminum
Steel
Aluminum
Manufacturing
Use
Post-use
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
CO 2 em issions
(kg.)
2 3
5 6
9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of years
Steel
Aluminum
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
C o st ($ )
A ir Em issions (kg)
Steel
Aluminum
Steel
Material
Pre-manufacturing
Manufacturing
Aluminum
Material
Use
Post-use
Pre-manufacturing
Manufacturing
Use
Post-use
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
CIRP Initiatives
z
z
z
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
www.inderscience.com/ijsm
Research Institute for Sustainability Engineering
College of Engineering
Lexington, KY 40506-0108, USA
Copyright 2008 by Dr. I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY