FINAL PHASE-ALAKA

ByAlaka U.K4NM14MES02

GREEN PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2ENERGY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE SURVEY

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

CONTENTS


Production is one of the most important human activity .It is a complex activity which is a function of various tangible, intangible, external and internal factors.

First Industrial Revolution led to the growth of Production and Mechanization.

True industrial revolution started when the concept of mass production was introduced by Henry Ford in 1748 AD to lower the production cost so that the benefits of engineering could reach to common man

INTRODUCTION


The trend then moved towards job production, batch production and then to lean production.

Lean production system relentlessly aims at eliminating waste from all of its activities and operations.

The manufacturing process has transformed its course from LEAN to GREEN production in order to achieve sustainable development as well reduce green house gas emission.

Green production technology is the need of the hour due to following reasons:

Rising CO2 and GHG emissions and associated climate change.

Faster depletion of scarce natural resources. Growing waste generation and pollution.


It involves transformation of industrial operation in three ways:

Using green energy

Employing Green processes

Developing Green product


An exhaustive literature survey has been carried out for the purpose to understand various tools of Green production, implementation of Green to an industry, concepts of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Carbon Footprinting and its significances. The literature survey can be classified under :

Implementation of Green to an IndustryLife Cycle AssessmentCarbon Footprint

LITERATURE SURVEY


Sl. No.

Author Title Year

1. Asli Suder Green Productivity And Management, PICMET Proceeding.

2009

2. H Reichi

Strategies to Integrate Life Cycle Engineering Into Technological

Developments

2005

3. J Muller and L.Stobbe

Intelligent Green Production in Ceramic Technology

2011

4. K Rick The 3G Green book Initiative 2003

5. Haiben Deng,Zhang Hua, Zhao Gang,

Jiang Zhigang

Research on the Application Technology of Green Planning And

Optimal Operation for the Workshop Production

2000

6. Jing Huang, Zhaofu Hong, Chengbin Chu

and Yugang yu

Optimization of Production Planning for Green Manufacturing

2012

7, Wu Xioozhen Connotation and Architecture of Green Production Logistics In

Manufacturing Enterprises

2009


Sl. No.

Author Title Year

8. Liao Hongkai, Xu Chenghong , Song

Jinghui and Yu Yuexi

Green Power Generation Technology for Distributed Power Supply

2008

9. Lifford Mclauchlan and Mehrube Mehrubeoglu

A Survey of Green Energy Technology and Policy

2010

10. Booi H Kam and Ling chen,

Contribution of Recycling and Material Reuse to Greener

Production.

2010

11. Aprad Hovrath, Yaser Soliman

Qudaih, Q Yamuda , Yasunori Mitani, Zia

Fawzi, Issam Alqadoumi and Yaseer el-farsi,

Anti Conflict Energy Sources For a Sustainable Energy Future

2012

12. Chris Hendrickson, Markus Dick, Jakob Drangmeiser, Eva

Kern and Stefan Nauman

Green Software Engineering with Agile Methods.

2013

13. Deanna Mathews, Ralf Bonefield, jose

Luiz Bittecourt, Giovanni diorio, and

Goncalo Candido

Energy Efficiency In Machine Tools- A Self Learning Approach.

2013


Various stages in a life cycle analysis has been studied.

Life cycle assessment plays a vital role in Green production.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a integral part of green production technology.

It is the calculation and evaluation of the environmentally relevant inputs and outputs and the potential environmental impacts of the life cycle of a product, material or service.

OBSERVATIONS FROM LITERATURE SURVEY

Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10ENERGY SYSTEMS ENGINEERINGFig 1: Life Cycle Assessment of a

Product


LCA is generally an iterative process.

There are three types of study boundaries in LCA namely:

B2B / Cradle To Gate

B2C / Cradle To Consumer

Cradle To Grave

Wednesday, May 3, 2023 12Fig 2: Types of study boundaries Life Cycle

Assessment


Carbon Footprinting plays a vital role in Green Production.

The carbon dioxide emissions which are caused either directly or indirectly by any source viz. individuals, organisations, processes or products are normally termed ‘Carbon footprint’.

A Footprint could be designed for a process or a product. Furnishing a ‘carbon footprint’ for any organisation could be the primary step in an agenda to decrease the emissions they cause.

Approach to estimate carbon footprint by using DEFRA factors.CO2 EMISSION = ACTIVITY DATA X DEFRA FACTOR


There are fundamentally two major motives for the computation of the ‘carbon footprint’;

First, to handle the carbon footprint and to trim down emission over a period of time and secondly to account the footprint precisely to an arbitrator.

DEFRA factors are obtained by converting organisation's activities such as fuel consumption, electricity usage, vehicles mileage or waste generated into the equivalent carbon emissions.

The conversion factors are updated annually at the end of May.


After an extensive literature survey as explained in the earlier chapter, a systematic approach was implemented to carry out the analysis. The work carried out can be categorised in the following way:

i)Study of the industry which involves introduction to the industry, production processes involved, machinery inventory, layouts of the plant and the units as well as energy inventory.

ii) Energy consumption modelling by means of productivity key performance parameter.

iii) Estimation of carbon footprinting for the production of a leaf spring using traditional production process as well as walking beam furnace production line and their comparisons.

METHODOLOGY


COMPANY OVERVIEW Lamina Suspension Products LTD. was established in the

year 1976.

Manufacturing unit that sprawls across 2,00,000 square feet.

Products offered are automobile Leaf Spring, drum break and suspension spares & parts.

Manufacturer, supplier and dealer for domestic market as well as exporter for USA, UK, Italy, Taiwan, South Korea, France, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Finland, Greece, UAE and many other countries.

17Figure 3: Layout of The Plant

18

LEAF SPRING PRODUCTION PROCESS

Figure 4: Leaf Spring Production Process


RAW MATERIAL The leaf springs are made up of various fine grade alloy

steel , such as 55 Si 7 , 60 Si 7 , 60 Si 7 , 60 Si Cr 7 , 50 Cr V 4 , En 45 A and 65 Si Cr 7.

The flat should be free from defects like piping , seams , edge cracks , rust pitting and other rolling defects .

SHEARING Shearing is primarily used to cut sheet stock into smaller

sizes in preparation for other processes.

It shears the stock without the formation of chips or the use of burning or melting.


PUNCHING In this operation the leaves are drilled at the centre on all

the leaves and at the ends on the specific leaves for bearing wear pads and clips depending upon the design of the springs.

Drilling is done when the flat has a higher thickness , to avoid cracks and failure of the flats.

END HEATING The metal flats are heated at the ends using a traditional end heating or an induction furnace in preparation to processes such as tapering, eye rolling and end trimming.


TAPERING AND TAPER ROLLING The metal flats which are heated at the ends are tapered and the

thickness at the tip is reduced by rolling.

END TRIMMING The width of the flat is decreased using appropriate trimming dyes.

The machine used for trimming is power press.

EYE ROLLING In this operation the ends of the metal leaves are heated in an

end furnace or an induction furnace to temperature of about 950̊c and then rolled to a specific diameter for enclosing bushes for fitment.

The eye rolling machines are hydraulic as well as manual.


HARDENING It is a metallurgical and metalworking process used to

increase the hardness of a metal by placing it in a oil fired furnace or a walking beam furnace up to 960 degree Celsius.

Depending upon the cross section of the leaf ,cycle time is adjusted to ensure the total travel time in the furnace.

The cycle time is usually 45 mins.


CAMBERING Cambering is an operation which provides a desired

curvature or a bend to the metal leaf after being treated in a oil fired furnace.

It provides the spring action to the leaves.

QUENCHING It is a process which gives the desired characteristics to the leaves on sudden cooling . Leaves are

oil quenched , where the temperature suddenly drops , after the cambering process.

The temperature of the oil tank is maintained between 70 degree Celsius to 90 degree Celsius to ensure correct rate of cooling.


TEMPERING Tempering is a secondary heat treatment followed within half an

hour of quenching.

The tempering temperature varies from 400 to 500 degree Celsius according to the thickness of the leaf.

An induction furnace is used for the purpose.

SHOT PEENING Leaves are subjected to this process where steel shots strike

the tension surface to induce compressive stresses and thereby improve the fatigue life of the springs.

This stress hardens the surface and resists crack formation and propagation.

Wednesday, May 3, 2023 25

ENERGY SOURCES AND THEIR CONSUMPTION

Based on the processes the energy sources vary in different machines used in the plant. The different energy sources are furnace oil, L.P.G, Electricity, and High speed diesel.

Table 1: Different Energy Sources And Consumption

26


Figure 5: Pie Chart For Energy Consumption From Various Sources



Figure 6: Energy consumption in Various Sections of the Plant


The main objective of any energy efficiency drive in a manufacturing plant, is to focus on getting the process machineries and energy consuming utilities to function with greater efficiency and thus conserving energy. On the contrary increased energy efficiency improvement can be achieved by focussing on improving the overall productivity and the quality of the production process.

The device oriented energy efficiency improvement

can gain considerable energy savings, but higher energy savings can be obtained by enhancing the efficiency of the production process.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION MODELLING OF THE INDUSTRY


Energy modelling with help of key production factors. The unit consumption can be calculated by using the

formula UC =

By considering the baseline consumption of the plant, the unit consumption can be calculated as,

The total energy consumed in a period is given by:ET =

The minimum amount of energy theoretically required to manufacture a unit is defined as minimum unit consumption and is denoted by Ucmin and is given by the equation;U c min =


EC is the energy consumed for the process.PO is the production output of the process. A= Amount of energy required to produce one

unit.B = Baseline consumption of the process.

η is the production efficiency which is given by the ratio of production output to the maximum theoretical production output.

Overall equipment efficiency is key parameter to determine the efficiency of various processes.

OEE =


CARBON FOOTPRINT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A LEAF SPRING RAW MATERIALS According to the worlds steel association report, 1.8 tonnes

of CO2 , is emitted to produce 1 tonne of steel, and the energy utilized for production is 17.37 GJ per tonne of steel.

For the production of spring steel, about 13.8% of scrap steel is used.

Use of 13.8% of scrap steel is going to eliminate about 0.464 tonne of CO2 emission per tonne of steel.

The amount of CO2 saved for 1 tonne of steel production is (1.8 – 0.464) t CO2 e = 1.336 t of CO2 e / t of steel. For 1000 kg of steel production 1.336 x 1000kg of CO2 is emitted Thus, for 1kg of steel production (1kg x 1.336 x 1000kg of CO2) / 1000kg of steel

= 1.336 kg of CO2 per kg of steel.


The assessment is carried out for an elliptical leaf spring that has 4 leaves and weighs about 26 kgs. For the 1st Leaf Spring:

The amount of CO2 emitted is : 8x1.336 = 10.688 kg of CO2 e . ……….(i)For the 2nd Leaf Spring:

The amount of CO2 emitted is : 8x1.336 = 10.688 kg of CO2 e . ……….(ii)For the 3rd Leaf Spring:

The amount of CO2 emitted is : 6x1.336 = 8.016 kg of CO2 e . ………(iii)For the 4th Leaf Spring:

The amount of CO2 emitted is : 3x1.336 = 4.008 kg of CO2 e . ………(iv)For the Miscellaneous Components:

The amount of CO2 emitted is : 1x1.336 = 1.336 kg of CO2 e .

Therefore , the total amount of CO2 emitted in account of raw material to produce a single leaf spring = 34.736 kg of CO2 e


TRANSPORTATION TO GATE The Steel flats are transported from Bhadravati to Lamina

Suspensions Products Private Ltd . Mangalore by diesel driven Trucks. The distance the vehicle has to cover is 206.7 kms (i.e 207 kms). The average payload carried by the truck is upto 11 tonnes.

DEFRA Factor chosen for this case is 0.247313 Therefore ,for 207 kms , the amount of CO2 Emitted = 207 x

0.247313 =

51.1937 kg of CO2 for payload of 11 tonnes.

Thus, the amount of CO2 is emitted during the transportation of steel flats weighing 25 kgs is 0.11635 kg


PRODUCTION PROCESSSHEARING

PUNCHING

END HEATING

END TRIMMING

HARDENING

CAMBERING

QUENCHING

TEMPERING

PAINTING

PRODUCTION PROCESS - CARBON FOOTPRINT

PROCESSPOWER RATING OF

MACHINE (kWh) / FUEL CONSUMPTION PER HOUR

(LITRES PER HOUR)

RATE OF PROCESS (FLAT / HOUR)

ENERGY CONSUMED PER FLAT (kWh) /

QUANTITY OF FUEL PER FLAT

DEFRA FACTOR

METHOD I (kg OF CO2 PER

LEAF)

METHOD II ( kg OF CO2 PER LEAF)

kg OF CO2 PER LEAF SPRING

SHEARING 3.75 12 0.3125 0.46219 0.1443 X 0.5777

PUNCHING5.63 (POWER PRESS) 30 0.1876 0.46219 0.08673 X

0.222131.58 (DRILLING M/C) 30 0.05266 0.46219 X 0.02434

END HEATING94 (INDUCTION FURNACE) 36 2.611 0.46219 1.20677 X

6.2115

12 lts / hr(FURNACE) 16 0.75 2.53215 X 1.889

END FORMING 2.25 20 0.1125 0.46219 0.05199 X 0.2079

TAPER ROLLING 7.5 25 0.3 0.46219 0.13865 X 0.5546

END CUTTING 5.63 30 0.1876 0.46219 0.0867 X 0.346

EYE ROLLING 11.25 20 0.5625 0.46219 0.259 X 1.039

EYE GRINDING 7.58 6 1.263 0.46219 0.5839 X 2.33

HARDENING 35 lts/hr 70 0.5 2.53215 1.266 X 5.0643

CAMBERING 15 70 0.2142 0.46219 0.09904 X 0.396

QUENCHING 7.5 70 0.1071 0.46219 0.049 X 0.198

TEMPERING 104.5 70 1.49 0.46219 0.6899 X 2.7599

PAINTING 7.5 35 0.2142 0.46219 0.099 X 0.3961


Therefore, the total amount of CO2 emitted for the production of 1 leaf spring having 4 leaves is

= 20.28955 kg of CO2 e

It is assumed for this analysis that , the amount of CO2 emitted for the rivets and bolt is about 1kg.

Therefore, the total amount of CO2 emitted for the production of 1 leaf spring having 4 leaves and fixtures is

= 21.28955 kg of CO2 e


DISTRIBUTION The leaf spring is carried to the nearest depot for distribution

. For this analysis , Lamina’s Goa depot is considered . The distance between Mangalore and Goa Depot 358 kms by road .

The Mileage of the truck is about 4 to 5 kms per litre . Therefore the quantity of diesel required to cover the distance

= 358/4 = 89.5 litres By taking an average of both the calculations, about 239.86 kg of

CO2 is emitted during the journey carrying a load of 11 tonnes. Thus, the amount of CO2 emitted during the transportation of steel

flats weighing 26 kg is = (26kgx239.86)/11X103

= 0.20927 kg of CO2 e


CONSUMERSOne of the major customers of lamina is a Belgium automobile

company . The distance between Goa and Belgium is about 13,154.756 kms and the load is assumed to be 11 tonnes .

The amount of CO2 emitted for the journey is = 13154.756 x 0.02252

=29.642 kg of CO2 e

The amount of CO2 emitted for 26 kgs is = (29.642 x

26)/ 11000 =

0.07 kg of CO2 e


REUSE About 0.464 kg of Co2 is emitted for the use of 13.8 kg of steel .

Therefore the amount of CO2 per kg of steel is 0.033 kg. Thus, the amount of CO2 for 26 kg of steel is 0.858 kg

It is assumed for this analysis that , the amount of CO2 emitted for the rivets and bolt is about 1kg.

For B2B / Cradle to Grave life cycle assessment, the amount

of CO2 emitted is 56.1377 kg of CO2 e / Leaf spring.

For B2C / Cradle to Consumer life cycle assessment, the amount of CO2 emitted is 56.41702 kg of CO2 e / Leaf spring.

If recycling is considered , it is 55.55 kg of CO2 e.


It was determined that the operational effectiveness of the whole production line can be improved by the introduction and usage of a Walking Beam Furnace. The steel flats are sheared to the required size using the shearing machine in the first stage and then they are placed in the walking beam furnace.

The processes that take place in a Walking beam furnace in sequential order is as follows:

Induction End Heating End Cutting Taper Rolling Hardening Cambering

Carbon Footprint for Production Line with Walking

Beam

PRODUCTION PROCESS - CARBON FOOTPRINT

PROCESSPOWER RATING OF

MACHINE (kWh) / FUEL CONSUMPTION PER HOUR

(LITRES PER HOUR)

RATE OF PROCESS (FLAT / HOUR)

ENERGY CONSUMED PER FLAT (kWh) /

QUANTITY OF FUEL PER FLAT

DEFRA FACTOR

METHOD I (kg OF CO2 PER

LEAF)

METHOD II ( kg OF CO2 PER LEAF)

kg OF CO2 PER LEAF SPRING

END HEATING 90 (INDUCTION FURNACE) 25 3.6 0.46219 1.663 X 6.65

END CUTTING 4.5 25 0.18 0.46219 0.08319 X 0.3327

TAPER ROLLING 7 25 0.28 0.46219 0.1294 X 0.5176

HARDENING 8 lts/hr 25 0.32 2.53215 0.810 X 3.2

CAMBERING 12 25 0.48 0.46219 0.2218 X 0.8874


On considering the CO2 emissions for the processes of shearing , punching, eye forming, eye rolling , eye grinding , quenching and painting from the conventional production line , the CO2 emission value comes up to 7.73007 kg of CO2 e.

Therefore, the total amount of CO2 emitted due to the utilization of walking beam in the production process is 19.3177 kg of CO2 e

It is observed by comparison that the CO2 emission is reduced by 0.9718 kg (approximately 4.789% ≈ 5% reduction) per leaf spring if walking beam is introduced in the manufacturing.


From the analysis that was carried out, the results can be categorized as:

Significances of OEE v/s Process.Significances of Actual Energy Consumption v/s

Theoretical Energy Consumption.Comparison between Minimum Unit

Consumption and Unit Consumption.Significances of Annual Carbon Dioxide

Emission v/s Process.Recommended Measures for improving

production efficiency and reducing Carbon Footprint.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


1) Significances of OEE v/s Process

SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100

GRAPH : MACHINERY V/S OEE OEE (%)

PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

Wednesday, May 3, 2023ENERGY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING


SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

The highest operational efficiency was found for the process of

painting which is about 95.23%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

89.964%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

91.99%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

94.072%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

91.5%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

77.023%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

77.669%

46



SHEARING

PUNCHING

DRILLIN

G

INDUCTIO

N END H

EATING

SCARFING

TAPER ROLLIN

G

END CUTTIN

G

EYE ROLLIN

G

EYE GRIN

DING

HARDENING

CAMBERIN

G

QUENCHING

TEMPERIN

G

PAINTIN

G 0

20

40

60

80

100


PROCESSES

OEE

(%

)

The least operational efficiency was observed for the process of

quenching (70.11%) and tempering (70.25%).

46


2) Significance of Actual Energy Consumption v/s Theoretical Energy Consumption

SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

50010001500200025003000

18.7

5

28.1

5

6.32

658

11.2

5

30 22.5

2

45 37.9

1188

.048

270

15

1881

22.5

19.5

5

28.2

066

6.59

92 662.

202

11.7

5

31.3

5

23.5

12

47.0

25

39.5

99

1241

.44

282.

1428

0000

0002

156.

746

1964

.565

23.5

THEORETICAL POWER CONSUMPTION (kWh) / DAYACTUAL POWER CONSUMPTION (kWh) / DAY

PROCESSES

ENER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

/Day

(kW

h) The Total actual energy consumption per day is

computed to be 4,538.1876 kWh/Day.

47



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

50010001500200025003000

18.7

5

28.1

5

6.32

658

11.2

5

30 22.5

2

45 37.9

1188

.048

270

15

1881

22.5

19.5

5

28.2

066

6.59

92 662.

202

11.7

5

31.3

5

23.5

12

47.0

25

39.5

99

1241

.44

282.

1428

0000

0002

156.

746

1964

.565

23.5


PROCESSES

ENER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

/Day

(kW

h) The Total Theoretical energy consumption per

day is computed to be 4,234.438 kWh/Day.

47


SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

50010001500200025003000

18.7

5

28.1

5

6.32

658

11.2

5

30 22.5

2

45 37.9

1188

.048

270

15

1881

22.5

19.5

5

28.2

066

6.59

92 662.

202

11.7

5

31.3

5

23.5

12

47.0

25

39.5

99

1241

.44

282.

1428

0000

0002

156.

746

1964

.565

23.5


PROCESSES

ENER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

/Day

(kW

h)

The actual energy consumption exceeds by 303.707 kWh/Day by

considering baseline consumption. 47



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

50010001500200025003000

18.7

5

28.1

5

6.32

658

11.2

5

30 22.5

2

45 37.9

1188

.048

270

15

1881

22.5

19.5

5

28.2

066

6.59

92 662.

202

11.7

5

31.3

5

23.5

12

47.0

25

39.5

99

1241

.44

282.

1428

0000

0003

156.

746

1964

.565

23.5


PROCESSES

ENER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

/Day

(kW

h)

83.565 kWh/Day

47



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

50010001500200025003000

18.7

5

28.1

5

6.32

658

11.2

5

30 22.5

2

45 37.9

1188

.048

270

15

1881

22.5

19.5

5

28.2

066

6.59

92 662.

202

11.7

5

31.3

5

23.5

12

47.0

25

39.5

99

1241

.44

282.

1428

0000

0003

156.

746

1964

.565

23.5


PROCESSES

ENER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

/Day

(kW

h)

53.392 kWh/Day

47


3) Comparison between Minimum Unit Consumption and Unit Consumption.

SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

0.51

1.52

2.53

UCUC MIN

PROCESSES

UN

IT E

NER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

(k

Wh)

48



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

0.51

1.52

2.53

UCUC MIN

PROCESSES

UN

IT E

NER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

(k

Wh)

0.4048 kWh/Unit

48



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

0.51

1.52

2.53

UCUC MIN

PROCESSES

UN

IT E

NER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

(k

Wh)

0.349 kWh/Unit

48



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

DR

ILLI

NG

IND

UC

TIO

N E

ND

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

END

CU

TTIN

G

EYE

RO

LLIN

G

EYE

GR

IND

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

0.51

1.52

2.53

UCUC MIN

PROCESSES

UN

IT E

NER

GY

CO

NSU

MPT

ION

(k

Wh)

0.1643 kWh/Unit

48


4) Significances of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission v/s Process

SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

END

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000CO2 EMISSIONS

CO2 EMISSIONS (kg/year)

PROCESSES

CAR

BO

N D

IOXI

DE

EMIS

SIO

NS

(KG

/YEA

R)

The processes that utilize conventional fuel sources emit

higher quantities of CO2 than the

processes driven by electricity.

49



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

END

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000CO2 EMISSIONS

PROCESSES

PROCESSES CO2 EMISSIONS (kg/year)

SHEARING 4559.909PUNCHING 2141.043

END HEATING 21630.409SCARFING 3119.783

TAPER ROLLING 4159.71HARDENING 35245.681CAMBERING 12132.72QUENCHING 7196.01TEMPERING 5892.46PAINTING 2079.55

50



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

END

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000CO2 EMISSIONS


PROCESSES

CAR

BO

N D

IOXI

DE

EMIS

SIO

NS

(KG

/YEA

R)

The highest emission of CO2 is for the

process of hardening , which is about

35,245.681 kg/year

51



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

END

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000CO2 EMISSIONS


PROCESSES

CAR

BO

N D

IOXI

DE

EMIS

SIO

NS

(KG

/YEA

R)

The second highest emission of CO2 is for the process of end heating , which is about 21,630.409

kg/year

51



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

END

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000CO2 EMISSIONS


PROCESSES

CAR

BO

N D

IOXI

DE

EMIS

SIO

NS

(KG

/YEA

R)

The least emission of CO2 is for the process of

painting, which is about 2,079.55 kg/year

51



SHEA

RIN

G

PUN

CH

ING

END

HEA

TIN

G

SCAR

FIN

G

TAPE

R R

OLL

ING

HAR

DEN

ING

CAM

BER

ING

QU

ENC

HIN

G

TEM

PER

ING

PAIN

TIN

G 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000CO2 EMISSIONS


PROCESSES

CAR

BO

N D

IOXI

DE

EMIS

SIO

NS

(KG

/YEA

R)

The second least emission of CO2 is for the process

of punching, which is about

2,141.043 kg/year

51


Modification To The Production Layout:Two different types of production line patterns are suggested for the plant namely U Shape and L Shape manufacturing line.

The production line patterns organize the process steps in a natural flow order and links process steps to minimize cycle time and travel distance, reduce crossover points, and simulate a continuous flow process.

5) Recommended Measures for improving production efficiency and reducing Carbon Footprint

52


i) U-Configuration

53


The entry and exit of the layout are close, permitting visual control and management.

The distance between the cells of the configuration is less. Therefore, sharing of work as well as reduction of transportation is possible.

Communication among employees in the cell is easier.

The floor space utilized by this configuration is lesser compared to the stretched line configuration.

54


ii) L-Configuration

55


Energy Efficient Illumination:The sankey diagram for the energy flow in a incandescent bulb is shown in the figure below .

56


Lamina Suspension Products Limited consumes a power of 72 kWh/day for the purpose of lighting and the yearly consumption is about 22,176 kWh.

The amount of CO2 emitted only in account to lighting amounts to 10,250 kg annually and the electricity bill comes up to Rs 1,66,320 for illumination yearly.

If the lighting devices are replaced by the LED lighting system power consumed to 29 kWh/day and the yearly consumption is about 9,000 kWh.

Therefore, the amount of CO2 emitted only in account to lighting amounts to 4,160 kg annually and the electricity bill comes up to Rs 67,500 for illumination yearly.

57


The yearly energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission due to the use of different illumination system

It can be derived that, utilization of LED lighting systems has reduced carbon dioxide emission due to illumination by 60 percent annually and the energy consumption annually is reduced by 13,176 kWh.

ILLUMINATION SYSTEM

NUMBER OF LIGTHING

DEVICE

POWER RATING

LIFE SPAN (HRS)

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

(kWh/ year)

CARBON DIOXIDE

EMISSION (kg/year)

INCANDESCENT 80 50 1,200 22,176 10,250

LED 80 20 50,000 9000 4,160

58


Carbon Sequestration The process of capturing carbon dioxide and its long term storage is

defined as carbon sequestration.

The main objective of carbon capture and storage is to limit the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere and mitigate climate change due to global warming.

CCS technology can be applied to industry with high intensity flue gas emission and promises to capture up to 90% of CO2 emission .

The CO2 present in the industrial flue gas is separated by bubbling the gas through an absorber column containing liquid solvents like ammonia.

The trapped carbon dioxide is then liquefied and stored. This technology can also be adapted by the company to contribute to reduction in carbon footprint.

59


Utilization Of Photovoltaic PanelThe motive behind solar energy being a

leading non-renewable energy source is for the reason that a good amount of energy from the sun falls on the Earth in an hour such that several people could make use of this energy simultaneously.

Solar energy could be used to heat, cool, or generate electricity for the company’s building.

The annual solar energy output from a photovoltaic system can be estimated by using the equation

E = A x r x H x PR

60


The solar panel yield for the calculation is considered to be 15% and the default value for the performance ratio is considered to be 0.75. It was found that the annual average solar radiation on tilted panels for Mangalore is 2040 kWh/m2 year.

A Photovoltaic cell with a total solar panel area of 20m2 is considered Therefore, the energy output of this photovoltaic system is

E = 20 x 0.15 x 2040 x 0.75E = 4590 kWh / year

Currently, the energy requirement of the company for lighting is 22,176 kWh annually. This requirement can be fulfilled by installing 5 tilted PV solar panels of panel area 20m2. The energy payback for the panel would be 2.5 to 3 years. It was found that the carbon footprint for the generation of electricity from the PV panel is 72 grams of CO2 e / kWh generated. Whereas , the carbon footprint for the electricity from the grid is 462.19 grams of CO2 e / kWh generated. Therefore, it is observed that the carbon footprint of the solar panel is 82% lesser than the electricity from the grid.

It is determined that the carbon footprint of each panel of the specifications stated above is 330.48 kg of CO2 e / year. The amount of CO2 emitted annually due to the energy consumption for lighting is about 10,249.52 kgs. If the lighting system is driven by solar energy, then the amount of carbon dioxide emitted annually would be 1,652.12 kg.

61


Harnessing of Rainwater

Green Logistics

Implementation Of Powder Coating on Metal Substrates.

Other Recommended Measures

62


i) The sources of energy utilised by the various production processes in the plant were furnace oil, electricity, LPG and diesel. It is observed that furnace oil provides for the major energy share that is about 48% and it is followed by electricity.

ii) The actual energy consumption of various machineries used for different manufacturing process has been calculated. The actual power consumption of the plant annually is about 23, 80, 513 kWh per year.

iii) It was studied that the energy consumption of unit 2 is higher compared to unit 1 of the industry.

iv) The production process which is highly energy intense is hardening and it is followed by tempering as well as end heating process.

v) Among all the production processes, the painting process has the highest operational efficiency of about 95% (OEE) and the lowest was operational efficiency was observed for quenching process.

CONCLUSION

63


vi) The integral part of the analysis is the life cycle assessment of production of a leaf spring. This analysis helped in estimating the inventory, energy input as well as output and CO2 footprint of the manufacturing process for the production of each leaf spring.

vii) The amount of CO2 emitted annually due to electricity consumption is estimated to be about 1100.24 tonne and the amount of CO2 emitted due to furnace oil consumption is about 316.518 tonne per year and LPG contributes about 29.42 tonne of CO2 every year. The total quantity of carbon dioxide amounts to 1446.178 tonne annually.

viii) The process which is highly energy intense is hardening process and it is the process that has the highest carbon footprint among all and painting has the least carbon footprint and energy consumption.

ix) When carbon foot printing was undertaken for traditional leaf spring manufacturing process it is found that for Cradle to grave life cycle assessment, the amount of CO2 emitted is 56.1377 kg of CO2 e / Leaf spring.

x) For Cradle to Consumer life cycle assessment, the amount of CO2 emitted is 56.41702 kg of CO2 e / Leaf spring. If recycling is considered it amounts to 55.5509 kg of CO2 e per leaf spring.

64


xi) The amount of CO2 obtained from LCA computation is in agreeing terms with report from world steel association which states that the amount of CO2 emitted during the production of a steel component is twice its weight.

xii) The carbon footprint of leaf spring production process using walking beam furnace revealed that the amount of CO2 emitted is reduced by slight percentage of about 5% in comparison to the carbon footprint of traditional leaf spring production process.

xiii) The concepts of GP were implemented in order to propose a green plan. For efficient productivity, modification of the production line to U and L configuration was suggested.

xvi) It was concluded that an efficient LED illumination system would reduce the

electricity consumption by 13,176 kWh and reduces carbon foot print by 60% when compared to the conventional incandescent lightings and the payback time would be just 1.5 years.

xv) Utilization of photovoltaic panel was also suggested in the green plan. It was concluded that the carbon foot print of electricity generated from the panel is about 84% lesser than the carbon footprint of electricity generated at power plant.

65


[1] Asli Suder, “Green Productivity And Management”, PICMET Proceeding, 13th July 2009, Istanbul Technical University.

[2] H Reichi, “Strategies to Integrate Life Cycle Engineering Into Technological Developments”, IEEE JOURNAL 0- 7803-7743-5/05,2005.

[3] J Muller and L.Stobbe ,”Intelligent Green Production in Ceramic Technology”, International conference on Electronic and Mechanical engineering And Information Technology, IEEE Journal 978-1-61284- 088-8/11, 2011.

[4] K Rick, “The 3G Green book Initiative” IEEE Journal, 5th March 2003.

REFERENCES

66


[5] Haiben Deng,Zhang Hua, Zhao Gang, Jiang Zhigang, Xiao Ming,Wang Yahong and Zhang Xumei , “Research on the Application Technology of Green Planning And Optimal Operation for the Workshop Production”.

[6] Jing Huang, Zhaofu Hong, Chengbin Chu and Yugang yu, “ Optimization of Production Planning for Green Manufacturing”, IEEE journal 978-1-4673-3/12,2012.

[7] Wu Xioozhen, “ Connotation and Architecture of Green Production Logistics In Manufacturing Enterprises”, IEEE journal, International Conference on Environmental Science and Information Application Technology, 978-0-7695-8/09,2009.

[8]Liao Hongkai, Xu Chenghong , Song Jinghui and Yu Yuexi,” Green Power Generation Technology for Distributed Power Supply”, Distributed power generation and integration technology, technical session 4, CICED2008.

[9] Lifford Mclauchlan and Mehrube Mehrubeoglu, “A Survey of Green Energy Technology and Policy”, IEEE journal 978-1-4244-5275-0/10, 2010.

67


[10] Booi H Kam and Ling chen, “Contribution of Recycling and Material Reuse to Greener Production", Green manufacturing,2010.

[11] Aprad Hovrath, Yaser Soliman Qudaih, Q Yamuda , Yasunori Mitani, Zia Fawzi, Issam Alqadoumi and Yaseer el-farsi, “Anti Conflict Energy Sources For a Sustainable EnergyFuture”, IEEE journal, Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, 978-0-7695-4/12, 2012.

[12] Chris Hendrickson ,Markus Dick, Jakob Drangmeiser, Eva Kern and Stefan Nauman, “ Green Software Engineering with Agile Methods” IEEE journal,978-1-4673-2/13,2013.

[13] Deanna Mathews, Ralf Bonefield, jose Luiz Bittecourt, Giovanni di orio,and Goncalo Candido , “Energy Efficiency In Machine Tools- A Self Learning Approach,International Conference on systems, mamagement, man and cybernetics,IEEE journal ,2013.

[14] Charles Mbohwa and Biggle Ganyo , “Using life Cycle Assessment to Assess and Identify Improvements of the Environmental Impacts of the Vehicle Leaf Spring”,2008.

68


[15] Fava J, R. Denison B. Jones, M.A. Curran, B. Vigon, S. Selke, and J. Barnum, “A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessments”. Society of Environmental Toxicology “,SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc., Washington D.C,1991.

[16] Werner A.F,” Product Lifecycle Assessment: A Strategic Approach." Proceedings of the Global Pollution Prevention '91 Conference, Washington D.C, 1991.

[17] Xiaogang zhang and Edwin Basson, “World Steel Report”, ISBN 978-2-930069-67-8, 2012

[18] Chen, S., and Amelia U. Santos-Paulino, “Energy consumption and carbon emission-based productivity change and industrialization in post reform China”, Working Paper No. 78, World Institute for Development Economics Research, 2010.

69


[19] Carbon Trust, “In-depth management guide CTG008.Monitoring & targeting”, Techniques to help organisations control and manage their energy use, 2008.

[20] http://www.laminasprings.com

[21] Boyd G A, Pang, J X, “Estimating the Linkage between Energy Efficiency and Productivity”, Vol. 28, No. 5, Energy Policy, 2000.

[22] Bulent D, Tugwell P, Greatbanks R,”Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of operational improvements - A Practical Analysis” , Internal Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 12 pg 1488-1502, 2000.

70

FINAL PHASE-ALAKA

Documents

Transcript of FINAL PHASE-ALAKA