Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

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

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Branker, K
Adams, D.
Jeswiet, Jack

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Taylor & Francis Group

Abstract

In this paper, an initial analysis of cost, energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) 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 CO2 from the process was found to be 4.48 kg CO2e for S1. However, using 33% recycled aluminium, an eco-benign lubricant and a remanufactured tool resulted in an embodied CO2 of 3.24 kg CO2e or a 28% CO2 savings for the same process parameters. Similarly, in S2, the embodied CO2 was found to be 4.28 kg CO2e for traditional inputs and 3.09 kg CO2e for modified inputs. Comparing S1 traditional and S2 modified, there is a reduction in energy use and CO2 by 69% and 31% accordingly. As expected, the stock material dominated the embodied CO2 and cost, but the energy consumed was the next highest contributor. Future work will consider optimal parameters for cost, energy and embodied CO2 minimisation.

Description

Citation

Source

International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2037-12-31