ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL HOTSPOTS OF TIRE CURING PRESS: A LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVE

The machinery manufacturing sector is thought to be in a key position to achieve sustainable manufacturing because it uses large amounts of energy and raw materials. The aim of this study is to determine the environmental hotspots of manufacturing the tire curing press (hydraulic) through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA methodology based on the ISO 14040 standard was conducted with SimaPro 8.0.4 software and the IMPACT 2002+ method. A “cradle-to-gate” approach was performed and functional unit was selected as manufacturing of one piece of product. In the scope of the sensitivity anaylsis, different impact assessment methods (ReCiPe Midpoint (H), TRACI, CML-IA, and ILCD 2011 Midpoint) were also performed to verify and compare the results. Results showed that the significant environmental impacts were respiratory inorganics, global warming, and non-renewable energy during the manufacturing of tire curing press. When the manufacturing stages were taken into account, it is important to state that raw material consumption has the highest adverse effect on environment. The study also reveals that the importance of the supply chain and lightweight design in LCA.

Keywords:

Environmental impact, environmental hotspot, life cycle assessment machinery manufacturing, tire curing press,

PDF

___

⦁ Al-Yaseri, I. (2014). Qualitative and quantitative procedure for uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment of wastewater solids treatment processes. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
⦁ Akbari J, Oyamada K, Saito Y (2001) LCA of machine tools with regard to their secondary effects on quality of machined parts. In: Ecodesign, IEEE, pp 347.
⦁ Bueno C, Hauschild MZ, Rossignolo J.A, Ometto AR, & Mendes NC (2016) Sensitivity analysis of the use of Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: a case study on building materials. J Clean Prod, 112: 2208-2220.
⦁ Brinksmeier E, Meyer D, Huesmann-Cordes AG, Herrmann C (2015) Metalworking fluids—Mechanisms and performance. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology. 64: 605–628.
⦁ Cao H, Li H, Cheng H, Luo Y, Yin R, Chen Y (2012) A carbon efficiency approach for life-cycle carbon emission characteristics of machine tools. J Clean Prod. 37: 19-28.
⦁ Carlson R, Häggström S, Pålsson AC (2003) LCA training package for users of LCA data and results. Industrial Environmental Informatics Chalmers University of Technology.
⦁ Clarens AF, Zimmerman JB, Keoleian GA, Hayes KF, Skerlos SJ (2008). Comparison of life cycle emissions and energy consumption for environmentally adapted metalworking fluid systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42.(22): 8534-8540.
⦁ Çankaya S, Pekey B (2015) Identifying environmental impacts of cement production with life cycle assessment: literature review. J. Int. Sci. Publ., 9: 251-267.
⦁ Dahmus JB, Gutowski TG (2004) An Environmental Analysis of Machining. Proceedings of IMECE2004.
⦁ De Feo G, Ferrara C, Iuliano C, Grosso A (2016) LCA of the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of source separated municipal waste: A Southern Italy case study. Sustainability, 8(11): 1084.
⦁ Du Y, Yi Q, Li C, Liao L (2015) Life cycle oriented low-carbon operation models of machinery manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod., 91: 145-157.
⦁ EMRA (Energy Market Regulatory Authorities) (2018). Turkey's energy profile and strategy. Available online:
⦁ http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkeys-energy-strategy.en.mfa (2018), Accessed 19 Aug 2019.
⦁ Fratila D. (2010) Macro-level environmental comparison of near-dry machining and flood machining. J Clean Prod., 18: 1031-1039.
⦁ Gao M, Li X, Huang H, Liu Z, Li L, Zhou D (2016) Energy-saving Methods for Hydraulic Presses Based on Energy Dissipation Analysis. Procedia CIRP, 48: 331 – 335.
⦁ Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., Leijting, J., Ponsioen, T., & Meijer, E. (2016). Introduction to LCA with SimaPro. PRé.
⦁ Goindi GS, Sarkar P (2017) Dry machining: A step towards sustainable machining - Challenges and future directions. J Clean Prod., 165: 1557-1571.
⦁ Gürsel AP (2014) Life-cycle assessment of concrete: decision-support tool and case study application. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley.
⦁ ISO (2006a) 14040: Environmental management – life cycle assessment– principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
⦁ ISO (2006b) 14044: Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
⦁ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp, 2014.
⦁ Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, & Rosenbaum R. (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Ass, 8(6): 324.
⦁ Krautzer F, Pamminger R, Diver C, Wimmer W (2015) Assessing the environmental performance of machine tools – Case studies applying the ‘LCA to go’ webtool. Procedia CIRP, 29: 502 – 507.
⦁ Landis AE, & Theis TL (2008) Comparison of life cycle impact assessment tools in the case of biofuels. In 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (pp. 1-7).
⦁ Lodhia P (2003) A Macro Level Environmental Performance Comparison: Dry machining process vs wet machining process. Dissertation, Sardar Patel University.
⦁ Monteiro H, & Freire F (2012) Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy Build, 47: 572-583.
⦁ Mosteiro-Romero M, Krogmann U, Wallbaum H, Ostermeyer Y, Senick JS, & Andrews C.J (2014) Relative importance of electricity sources and construction practices in residential buildings: A Swiss-US comparison of energy related life-cycle impacts. Energy Build, 68: 620-631.
⦁ Nakano A, Takesako K, Yamada K, Sueyoshi H (2007) Life Cycle Assessment of Manufacturing System of Lead-Free Bronze Products. Materials Transactions, 48: 1534-1537.
⦁ Narita H (2012) Environmental burden analyzer for machine tool operations and its application. In: Manufacturing System. Dr. Faieza Abdul Aziz (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0530-5, InTech, pp 247-260.
⦁ Rosen MA, Kishawy HA (2012) Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, Practices and Needs. Sustainability, 4: 154-174.
⦁ Santos JP, Oliveira M, Almeida FG, Pereira JP, Reis A (2011) Improving the environmental performance of machine-tools: influence of technology and throughput on the electrical energy consumption of a press-brake. J Clean Prod., 19: 356-364.
⦁ Song S, Cao H, Li H (2010) Evaluation Method and Application for Carbon Emissions of Machine Tools Based on LCA. International Conference on Advanced Technology of Design and Manufacture, 2010.
⦁ Strano M, Monno M, Rossi A (2013) Optimized design of press frames with respect to energy efficiency. J Clean Prod, 41: 140-149.
⦁ Yu S, Liu Y, Li L, Peng Q (2013) Study on Life Cycle Assessment of Servo Press With Comparison to Flywheel Press. Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
⦁ Zendoia J, Woy U, Ridgway N, et al (2014) Specific method for the life cycle inventory of machine tools and its demonstration with two manufacturing case studies. J Clean Prod., 78: 139-151.
⦁ Zhang L, Huang H, Hu D, Li B, Zhang C (2016) Greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions analysis of manufacturing of the hydraulic press slider within forging machine in China. J Clean Prod., 113: 565-576.

Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi-Cover

ISSN: 1304-7191
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Yayıncı: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi

Arşiv