Professor Jacqueline Isaacs, Northeastern University Professor Janey Twomey, Wichita State University Professor Michael Overcash, Wichita State University Cambridge, MA August 29, 2009

 History of events – Jackie Isaacs  Implementation – Jan Twomey  Strategic Issues – Michael Overcash

Professor Jackie Isaacs Northeastern University

 Two 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…

 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
EHS Assessment, Tox Screening & EOL Impacts
with UML
Enviro & Economic Uncertainties
with Benneyan  Promote informed policymaking
Regulatory Issues in MA
with Bosso NSF NIRT  Advocate productive public discourse
Social & Ethical Issues
with Sandler NSF NIRT
Integrated Systems Approach Required for Appropriate and Efficient Commercialization

Inventory Analysis
Life Cycle Assessment Framework Goal & Scope Inventory Analysis Interpretation Impact Assessment ISO 2005
Interpretation Impact Assessment

Output Variables Input Variables Intermediate Variables
Production Vol g/yr
Total time to make required batches # of lines of Arc vessels Variable Costs
Working hours per year Building space per vessel
Square feet space input production
1) Raw Material 2) Labor 3) Energy
No of batches based on prod vol.
Vessel size
Yield Labor hours for input production Fixed Costs
Catalyst composition Cost of catalyst
Moles of helium used per batch Cost of helium over entire annual production
1) Equipment 2) Building 3) Overhead 4) Tools 5) Maintenance
Catalyst weight per batch Cost of catalyst over entire annual production
Cost of helium

Monte Carlo Simulations Cost Modeling Scenarios
Ok, Benneyan, Isaacs Journal of Industrial Ecology Special Nanotechnology Issue 2008
Worker Protection Worker Protection Worker Protection
Healy, Dahlben, Isaacs Journal of Industrial Ecology Special Nanotechnology Issue 2008
Analyses provide useful guidance for decisionmakers Distinctions among scenarios would allow more informed decisions…

 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

 Origins were process/product improvement = EBDM  Funding leadership – U.S. National Science Foundation (Dr. Delcie Durham)  Continual international participation

         2001: WTEC Study on EBM 2001: Transport. Indstr Workshop Yipsilanti, MI 2003: EBDM Workshop (Sustainable Mfg I) Birmingham, AL 2003: Green Engineering, Sandestin, FL 2004: Sustainable Mfg II: Global Conference on Sustainable Product Design and LCE, Berlin, Germany 2005: Sustainable Mfg III, Shanghai, China 2006: EBDM for Sustainable Economic Competitiveness, Arlington VA 2006: Sustainable Mfg IV, São Carlos, Brazil 2007: Sustainable Mfg V, Rochester, NY

•
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

           Bert Bras, Georgia Tech Andres Clarens, Virginia Tech Delcie Durham, University of South Florida Tim Gutowski, MIT Jackie Isaacs, Northeastern University Leon McGinnis, Georgia Tech Cynthia Murphy, University of Texas, Austin Michael Overcash, Wichita State University Matthew Realff, Georgia Tech Steve Skerlos, University of Michigan Jan Twomey, Wichita State University

 EBDM Team meetings at Northeastern University to discuss concepts and methodology   October 2007 February 2008  Draft Generic uplci methodology finalized  February 5, 2008  EBDM Team votes on name…..
  “unit process life cycle inventory” (uplci) October, 2008

Professor Janet Twomey Wichita State University

 U.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

 Selected 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

Cut Profile A Generic Sheet Metal Clip Finn Power Turret Punch Multi-CAM Router Form Bend Amada Brake Press

http://cratel.wichita.edu/uplci Taxonomy of process   Website intended for collaborative effort Operates somewhat like a Wiki   Anyone can download content you have to have permission to add content Instructions Log in to add comments, content

Expanded taxonomy New or updated content can be added with author and date only by users with log in Content is in Word format Can be down loaded by anyone

Professor Michael Overcash Wichita State University

 Heuristics – 20 – 25  Used to create process flow diagrams of entire plant and then lci outputs  700+ chemicals  Major lessons learned     Transparency is vital 90:10 rule is the focus Creates substantial power to lower cost and expand user community Not just inputs and energy, but decision-making

 Manufacturing 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

III.
• • • 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)

IV.
• • 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.
VI.
• 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 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

 Important 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

 Learn how to reduce to most important variables, but show others  Provides data beyond CO 2  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)

 Uplci principles and harmonization  Encouragement of others to write these documents (multiple per unit process can be good, but needs to be consolidated)  Taxonomy  Is substitution of similar processes reasonable?
 Allow objectives of research on improvement?

CO2PE Manufacturing Processes Shaping Non Shaping
A. Original Forming B.Transforming
C. Seperating
Both these equal to mass conserving From Allen and Todd 1. Liquid initial material state 2. Primary shaping fiber reinforced plastic 3. Pappy/mushy intial material state 4. Granular or powder intial material state 5. Scarf or steam intial material state 6. Gas intial material state 7. Prototypes from ionized state 1. Pressure forming 2. Tension compression forming 3. Tension forming 4. Bend process 5. Shear forming 1. Separting 2.Cutting with geometrically defined cutting edges 3. Cutting with non geometrically defined cutting edges 4. Non conventional machining 5. Disassembly 6. Cleaning
D. Joining
1. Assembling 2. Filling 3. Press fitting 4. Joining by primary shaping 5. Joining by forming 6. Welding 7. Soldering 8. Gluing 9. Textile Joining
E. Coating and Fininshing F. Change of material properties
1. Melt dipping 2.coating with material which is in the grain 3. Coating through welding 4. Coating through soldering 5. Coating with material which is in the gas 6. Coating with material which is in the ionized state 1. Stiffen through plastic deformation 2. Heat treatment 3. Thermo-mechanical treatment 4. sintering, burning 5. Magnetizing 6. Irradiating 7. Photo-chemical process Allen and Todd Manufacturing Processes I.Shaping
II.Non Shaping A. Mass Reducing B.Mass Conserving C. Joining D. Heat Treatment E. Surface Fininshing 1. Mechanical Reducing 2. Thermal Reducing 3. Chemical Reducing 4. Consolidation 5. Deformation 6. Mechanical Joining 7. Thermal Joining 8. Chemical Joining 9. Annealing 10. Hardening 11. Other 12. Surface Preparation 13. Surface Coating 14. Surface Modification
Kalpakjian and Schmid, 2008

1.
Can your research effort add to a.
b.
The database of unit processes?
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)?