Initial analysis of cost, energy and carbon dioxide emissions in single point incremental forming - producing an aluminium hat

• Published in: International journal of sustainable engineering Vol. 5; no. 3; pp. 188 - 198
• Main Authors: Branker, K., Adams, D., Jeswiet, J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Abingdon Taylor & Francis Group 01-09-2012; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: carbon dioxide; cost; energy; single point incremental forming
• ISSN: 1939-7038; 1939-7046
• DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2011.634033

In this paper, an initial analysis of cost, energy and carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions that occur in producing a unique aluminium hat using single point incremental forming (SPIF) for two scenarios is performed. The aluminium hat was custom designed and made from Al-3003 O and is formed using a custom steel alloy SPIF tool and vertical computer numeric control (CNC) mill. The second scenario (S2) involved doubling the feed rate and step down increment of the first scenario (S1), as well as using an eco-benign lubricant. The cost and energy used for the SPIF process without labour were found to be $4.48 and 4580 kJ (1.27 kWh) for S1 and $4.10 and 1420 kJ (0.39 kWh) for S2, respectively. The respective direct electrical energy required for making the hat was only 16% and 27% of the total required process energy for S1 and S2. Using virgin or traditional emission intensity inputs for the tool, lubricant, workpiece and energy, the embodied CO
2
from the process was found to be 4.48 kg CO
2
e for S1. However, using 33% recycled aluminium, an eco-benign lubricant and a remanufactured tool resulted in an embodied CO
2
of 3.24 kg CO
2
e or a 28% CO
2
savings for the same process parameters. Similarly, in S2, the embodied CO
2
was found to be 4.28 kg CO
2
e for traditional inputs and 3.09 kg CO
2
e for modified inputs. Comparing S1 traditional and S2 modified, there is a reduction in energy use and CO
2
by 69% and 31% accordingly. As expected, the stock material dominated the embodied CO
2
and cost, but the energy consumed was the next highest contributor. Future work will consider optimal parameters for cost, energy and embodied CO
2
minimisation.