Advertisement

The Ecodesign of Complex Electromechanical Systems: Prioritizing and Balancing Performance Fields, Contributors and Solutions

  • S. EstevesEmail author
  • M. Oliveira
  • F. Almeida
  • A. Reis
  • J. Pereira
Chapter
  • 2k Downloads
Part of the Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing book series (SSAM)

Abstract

In the Product Development (PD) of complex mechanical and electromechanical systems, such as machine-tools, mapping the relationships between technical behavior, environmental and cost impacts brings new challenges. Having technological advances, cost drivers and environmental performance under surveillance, manufacturers and designers are expected to provide eco-efficient systems keeping a competitive price. This introduces a new set of design functions with increased complexity due to the new interdependent variables, requiring complementary technical, environmental and cost assessments. The redesign study of a sheet metal forming machine-tool, a press brake, is here used by the authors to present the first assessment of a proper methodology to support the main decision processes and to illustrate the technical and technological trade-offs faced by a PD team in order to achieve the global design objectives. The design process aimed to reduce the environmental footprint of the machine-tool and simultaneously to improve the bending process accuracy. A Voice of Customer (VOC) study was carried out in order to assess the receptiveness of press-brake users to the targeted product specifications and price changes sensitivity. The research effort was mainly focused in defining and testing the applicability of different assessment and measurement tools for the Ecodesign of a press-brake.

Keywords

Electromechanical System Resource Flow Design Structure Matrix Environmental Profile Product Lifetime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Azevedo M, Oliveira MI, Pereira JP Reis A (2011) Comparison of two LCA methodologies in the machine-tools environmental performance improvement process. In: Proceedings of 18th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Braunschweig, 2–4 May 2011Google Scholar
  2. Bala A, Raugei M, Benveniste G, Gazulla C, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Simplified tools for global warming potential evaluation: when ‘good enough’ is best. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chung W-H, Okudan G, Wysk RA (2011) Modular design to optimize product life cycle metrics in a closed-looped supply chain. In: Proceedings of the 2011 industrial engineering research conference, Reno 21–25 May 2011Google Scholar
  4. Devoldere T, Dewulf W, Deprez W, Duflou JR (2008) Energy related environmental impact reduction opportunities in machine design: case study of a laser cutting machine,In: Proceedings of the CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Sydney, pp 412–419Google Scholar
  5. Dietmair A, Verl A (2010) Energy consumption assessment and optimization in the design and use phase of machine tools, In: Proceedings of the 17th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Anhui, 19–21 May 2010Google Scholar
  6. Ecoinvent Centre, Ecoinvent 2.0 database. Accessed Oct 2010, www.ecoinvent.ch
  7. Erbe T, Król J, Theska R (2008). Mineral casting as material for machine base-frames of precision machines. In: Proceedings of 23rd annual meeting of the american society for precision engineering and the twelfth ICPE, Portland, 19–24 Oct 2008Google Scholar
  8. Giudice F, La Rosa G, Risitano A (2006) Product design for the environment: a life cycle approach. Taylor and Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gutowski T, Dahmus J Thiriez A (2006) Electrical energy requirements for manufacturing processes, In: Proceedings of 13th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Leuven, May 31–Jun 2, pp 623–628Google Scholar
  10. Hochschorner E, Finnveden G (2003) Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kellens K, Dewulf W, Overcash M, Hauschild M, Duflou JR (2012) Methodology for systematic analysis and improvement of manufacturing unit process life cycle inventory (UPLCI)—CO2PE! initiative (cooperative effort on process emissions in manufacturing) Part 1: methodology description. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:69–78. doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0340-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhrke B, Schrems S, Eisele C, Abele E (2010) Methodology to assess the energy consumption of cutting machine tools, In: Proceedings of the 17th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Anhui, May 19-21Google Scholar
  13. Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J LCA 6(2):118–121. doi: org/10.1007/BF02977849 Google Scholar
  14. Oliveira MI, Santos JP, Almeida FG, Reis A, Pereira JP, Rocha AB (2011) Impact of laser-based technologies in the energy-consumption of metal cutters: comparison between commercially available system, In: Proceedings of 14th international conference on sheet metal, Leuven, 18–20 Apr 2011. Published on key engineering materials, vol 473, pp 809–815, Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.473.809
  15. Peças P, Ribeiro I, Folgado R, Henriques E (2009) A life cycle engineering model for technology selection: a case study on plastic injection moulds for low production volumes. J Clean Prod 17(9):846–856. ISSN 0959-6526. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pré-consultants, Report: ‘The eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment’. http://www.pre.nl. Accessed Oct 2011
  17. Pré-consultants, Simapro 7.0 software. http://www.pre.nl. Accessed Oct 2011
  18. Pusavec F, Krajnik P, Kopac J (2010a) Transitioning to sustainable production—Part I: application on machining technologies. J Cleaner Prod 18:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pusavec F, Krajnik P, Kopac J (2010b) Transitioning to sustainable production—Part II: evaluation of sustainable machining technologies. J Cleaner Prod 18:1211–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Santos JP, Oliveira MI, Almeida FG, Reis A, Pereira JP Rocha AB (2011) Improving the environmental performance of machine-tools: influence of technology and throughput on the electrical energy consumption of a press-brake. J Cleaner Prod 19(4):356–364. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.10.009
  21. Shamsuzzoha AHM (2011) Modular product architecture for productivity enhancement. Bus Process Manag J 7:21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Todd JA, Curran MA (1999) Streamlined life-cycle assessment: a final report from the SETAC North America streamlined LCA workgroup: society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC) and SETAC foundation for environmental educationGoogle Scholar
  23. European Commission (2007), Study for preparing the first working plan for the ecodesign directive; report: ENTR/06/026; Dec 2007Google Scholar
  24. Umeda Y, Fukushige S, Tonoike K, Kondoh S (2008) Product modularity for life cycle design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:13–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vezzoli C, Manzini E (2008) Design for environmental sustainability, Springer, ISBN-13:978-1849967419Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Esteves
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Oliveira
    • 1
  • F. Almeida
    • 2
  • A. Reis
    • 2
  • J. Pereira
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Engenharia Mecânica e Gestão Industrial (INEGI)Campus FEUPPortoPortugal
  2. 2.DEMec, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do Porto Campus FEUPPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations