Professor Jacqueline Isaacs, Northeastern UniversityProfessor Janey Twomey, Wichita State University

Professor Michael Overcash, Wichita State University

Cambridge, MAAugust 29, 2009

Presentation in Three PartsHistory of events – Jackie IsaacsImplementation – Jan TwomeyStrategic Issues – Michael Overcash

Professor Jackie IsaacsNortheastern University

Isaacs Mfg /LCA Research FocusTwo Areas:

Powder metallurgy and responsible nanomanufacturing

Process-based cost models built to simulate engineering economics of unit processes in part fabrication

Use materials from cost models as input for LCA models

Issues with impact assessment…

Integrated Systems Approach Required for Appropriate and Efficient Commercialization

Social & Ethical Issues

Regulatory Issues in MA

Enviro & Economic Uncertainties

EHS Assessment,

Tox Screening& EOL Impacts

with UML

with Benneyan

with Bosso NSF NIRT

with Sandler NSF NIRT

Determine best safety practices and screening methods for nanomaterials as well as impact of possible releases

Perform Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of developing processes / products and evaluate tradeoffs for EHS (environmental health and safety) with costs

Promote informed policymaking

Advocate productive public discourse

InventoryAnalysis

ImpactAssessment

Interpretation

Life Cycle Assessment Framework

ISO 2005

Goal & Scope

Inventory Analysis

Impact Assessment

Interpretation

Cost of catalystover entire annual

production

Output VariablesIntermediate VariablesInput Variables

# of lines of Arc vessels

Labor hours forinput production

Square feet spaceinput production

No of batchesbased on prod vol.

Total time to make required batches

Cost of heliumover entire annual

production

Moles of heliumused per batch

Production Volg/yr

Working hoursper year

Building spaceper vessel

Vessel size

Catalyst composition

Cost of catalyst

Cost of helium

Catalyst weightper batch

1) Equipment2) Building3) Overhead4) Tools5) Maintenance

1) Raw Material2) Labor3) Energy

Variable Costs

Fixed Costs

Yield

Cost Modeling /Simulation to Seek EHS Tradeoffs

Ok, Benneyan, IsaacsJournal of Industrial Ecology

Special Nanotechnology Issue 2008

Healy, Dahlben, IsaacsJournal of Industrial Ecology

Special Nanotechnology Issue 2008

Worker Protection

Worker Protection

Worker Protection

Analyses provide useful guidance for decisionmakers Distinctions among scenarios would allow more informed decisions…

Monte Carlo SimulationsCost Modeling Scenarios

In the Meantime…Pathway to Present

Goals:Create a tool set for the efficient lci of

manufactured products based on the individual unit processes that sum to a product lci

Stimulate a large community to both develop and use the uplci tools on diverse manufactured products

Begin with low complexity products as examples

BackgroundOrigins were process/product improvement

= EBDM

Funding leadership – U.S. National Science Foundation (Dr. Delcie Durham)

Continual international participation

Evolution of EBDM Events2001: WTEC Study on EBM2001: Transport. Indstr Workshop Yipsilanti, MI2003: EBDM Workshop (Sustainable Mfg I)

Birmingham, AL2003: Green Engineering, Sandestin, FL2004: Sustainable Mfg II: Global Conference on

Sustainable Product Design and LCE, Berlin, Germany

2005: Sustainable Mfg III, Shanghai, China2006: EBDM for Sustainable Economic

Competitiveness, Arlington VA2006: Sustainable Mfg IV, São Carlos, Brazil2007: Sustainable Mfg V, Rochester, NY

Unit Process LCI Project• Built on earlier uplci studies by

• J. Allen and M. Overcash, June, 2001• C. Murphy, et. al., ES&T 2003 vol.37, p.5373

• 2003 Alabama Breakout Session Concept• Concept conveyed to Alting and Seliger

• 2006 Brazil Conference • concept identified again• international solicitation for participant• No non-U.S. volunteers

EBDM UPLCI Team (Alphabetical Order)Bert Bras, Georgia TechAndres Clarens, Virginia TechDelcie Durham, University of South FloridaTim Gutowski, MITJackie Isaacs, Northeastern UniversityLeon McGinnis, Georgia TechCynthia Murphy, University of Texas, AustinMichael Overcash, Wichita State UniversityMatthew Realff, Georgia TechSteve Skerlos, University of MichiganJan Twomey, Wichita State University

Continued Planning…EBDM Team meetings at Northeastern

University to discuss concepts and methodologyOctober 2007 February 2008

Draft Generic uplci methodology finalizedFebruary 5, 2008

EBDM Team votes on name…..“unit process life cycle inventory” (uplci)October, 2008

Professor Janet TwomeyWichita State University

Implementation of UPLCI MethodologyU.S. Dept. of Energy interest in wind

energy

Primarily nonfuel electricity where mot of the life cycle inventory is in manufacturing

Focus on green manufacturing tools as a means to improve wind energy

Needed life cycle information that focused on many individual decision possibilities and not just wind versus coal data

First stepsSelected unit processes in cluster, such as

materials removal

Learned how to combine or how to search for data from industry, published articles, handbooks, other books, etc.

- Helps when one group will do many uplci

Began to examine a non-complex, but widely used product, the brace for aircraft members, called a clip

A Generic Sheet Metal Clip

Finn Power Turret Punch Multi-CAM Router

Cut Profile

Amada Brake Press

Form Bend

Validation

Website intended for collaborative effort

Operates somewhat like a Wiki

Anyone can download content

you have to have permission to add content

Taxonomy of

process

Log in to add

comments, content

Instructions

http://cratel.wichita.edu/uplci

Expanded

taxonomy

Content is in Word formatCan be down

loaded by anyone

New or updated content can be added with author and date only by users with log

in

Professor Michael OvercashWichita State University

Background from Chemical Manufacturing Life Cycle Inventory Tools, 1990 - presentHeuristics – 20 – 25

Used to create process flow diagrams of entire plant and then lci outputs

700+ chemicals

Major lessons learnedTransparency is vital90:10 rule is the focusCreates substantial power to lower cost and expand user

communityNot just inputs and energy, but decision-making

Manufacturing Unit Process Life Cycle InventoriesManufacturing plants represent the transition

and use of materials (metals/polymers) and chemicals into a final product

Uplci thus links the chemical lci world to the product manufacturing world

Goal to encourage development of other uplci using similar format, so that additive property

is achieved

Draft Generic Format: Includes Seven Sections (I to VII)(User is not expert in unit process, but is interested in product)

I. Description of unit process operation (such as general discussion of milling machine)

• Picture of machine and process• High production plant• Representative unit process

II. Mass input-output for process• functional unit floor-to floor of workpiece (focus is

on lci of product not plant)• not limited to mass I/O of workpiece, but focused on

machine

Draft Generic Format: Section IIIIII. Description of the overall sequence by which

a workpiece arrives, is operated on, and departs from the unit process

• Basic energy offloading and unloading (standby mode)

• Idle energy of tool positioning (partial power mode)

• Tip energy of operation (full power mode)

Draft Generic Format: Sections IV-VIIIV. List of parameters affecting energy or mass loss

(critical phase that differentiates life cycle use from unit process design intentions)

• Reduction of parameters to only major variables• Allows user to identify how to refine

V. Detailed explanation and equations for linking major variables to the energy and mass loss equations (allows users to follow clearly and apply to all other applications of the uplci)

• Strengthens understanding that a representative case is used

VI. Example application fully worked out to show mass loss and energy estimates for use of the uplci (every variable and equation used in the example should be in section V. )

VII. References

Lessons Learned with uplciImportant concept is to remember the

systems goal of product life cycle Even low complexity products may be 10 – 100 uplci Specialized resources can dive deeply on other

issues

Keep user perspective Focus is on a specific product, like a gearbox or

ceiling fan Have default data in uplci to allow use

Path ForwardLearn how to reduce to most important

variables, but show others Provides data beyond CO2

Many of the important data are not as easily available and so need transparent approximation concepts are important

Idle time (partial standby mode)

Reviewing stage = new territory Industrial context Not easy to adopt idea of review outside very unique

user case Process flow diagrams (approximation)

Important Path Forward IssuesUplci principles and harmonization

Encouragement of others to write these documents (multiple per unit process can be good, but needs to be consolidated)

TaxonomyIs substitution of similar processes reasonable?Allow objectives of research on improvement?

CO2PE

Allen and Todd 1. Liquid initial material state

2. Primary shaping fiber reinforced plastic3. Pappy/mushy intial material state

4. Granular or powder intial material state

5. Scarf or steam intial material state6. Gas intial material state

7. Prototypes from ionized state

1. Pressure forming2. Tension compression forming

Shaping 3. Tension forming4. Bend process5. Shear forming

1. Separting2.Cutting with geometrically defined cutting edges

3. Cutting with non geometrically defined cutting edges4. Non conventional machining

5. Disassembly6. Cleaning

ManufacturingProcesses 1. Assembling

2. Filling3. Press fitting

4. Joining by primary shaping5. Joining by forming

6. Welding7. Soldering

8. Gluing9. Textile Joining

1. Melt dipping2.coating with material which is in the grain

3. Coating through welding4. Coating through soldering

5. Coating with material which is in the gas6. Coating with material which is in the ionized state

Non Shaping1. Stiffen through plastic deformation

2. Heat treatment3. Thermo-mechanical treatment

F. Change of material properties 4. sintering, burning5. Magnetizing6. Irradiating

7. Photo-chemical processKalpakjian and Schmid, 2008

12. Surface Preparation

13. Surface Coating

14. Surface Modification

Manufacturing Processes

I.Shaping

A. Mass Reducing

1. Mechanical Reducing

2. Thermal Reducing

3. Chemical Reducing

B.Mass Conserving

E. Coating and Fininshing

D. Joining

C. Seperating

8. Chemical Joining

II.Non Shaping

D. Heat Treatment

9. Annealing

10. Hardening

11. Other

E. Surface Fininshing

6. Mechanical Joining

7. Thermal Joining

B.Transforming

A. Original Forming

4. Consolidation

5. Deformation

C. Joining

Both these equal to mass conserving From Allen and Todd

Discussion Questions to Address…1. Can your research effort add to

a. The database of unit processes?b. The review and refinement of these uplci?

2. How does your research effort intersect the development of the CO2PE/uplci project (such as process improvement)?