An Environmental Impact Comparison of Distributed and Centralized Manufacturing Scenarios

Lionel Senyana; Denis Cormier

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.875-877.1449

Paper Titles

Optimization of Machining Hybrid Metal Matrix Composites Using Desirability Analysis
p.1412

Study on Temperature Influence on Lack of Fusion Formation in Spatter/Base Metal Interface
p.1421

Effect of Non-Conventional Aging Treatments on the Tensile Properties and Quality Indices of Hipped Components Made of Cast Aluminum Alloy 354
p.1429

The Actual State and Prospects of a High Power Electron Beam Technology for Metallic and Non-Metallic Compositions Used in Electric Contacts and Electrodes
p.1437

An Environmental Impact Comparison of Distributed and Centralized Manufacturing Scenarios
p.1449

Novel Anti-Caking Materials in Compound Fertiliezer Based on Waste Animal/Plant Oil
p.1454

The Synergistic Activity of the Extracts from Mango and Tamarind Gum in Cotton Fabric Finishing
p.1458

Rheological Property of the Regenerable Polyhydroxy Alcohol Fracturing Fluid System
p.1462

Nanostructured Hydrogel Dressings on Base of Crosslinked Polyvinylpyrrolidone for Biomedical Application
p.1467

HomeAdvanced Materials ResearchAdvanced Materials Research Vols. 875-877An Environmental Impact Comparison of Distributed...

An Environmental Impact Comparison of Distributed and Centralized Manufacturing Scenarios

Abstract:

Centralized manufacturing and distributed manufacturing are two fundamentally different methods for producing components. This work describes a centralized manufacturing scenario in which parts are produced via forging and finish machining at one central location and are then shipped to the end user. The distributed manufacturing model involves a scenario in which an additive manufacturing process (Electron Beam Melting) is used to produce parts to near net shape with minimal finish machining. Because the process doesn’t require molds or dies, production can take place in small production quantities “on demand” at job shops located close to the end user with little transportation. This is in stark contrast to the centralized model where large quantities of parts are produced and then distributed at a later date when needed from warehouses. The aim of this research is to compare the environmental impact of these two different production approaches under a variety of conditions. The SimaPro software has been used model both approaches with input from the user involving part size, amount of finish machining, transportation distances, mode of transportation, production quantities, etc.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 875-877)

Pages:

1449-1453

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.875-877.1449

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

February 2014

Authors:

Lionel Senyana, Denis Cormier

Keywords:

Buy-to-Fly Ratio, Centralized Manufacturing Sensitivity Analysis, Distribution Analysis, SimaPro Model for Electron Beam Melting Process, SimaPro Model for Forging Process

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions:

Request Permissions

References

[1] L. Senyana: An environmental impact comparison of distributed and centralized manufacturing scenarios, M.S. Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology (2011).

Google Scholar

[2] M.F. Ashby: Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice, Elsevier, Burlington, MA (2009).

Google Scholar

[3] S.C. Kuchi: Effect of Finite Geometry on Solidification Microstructure in Beam-Based Fabrication of Thin Wall Structures, M.S. Thesis, Wright State University (2009).

Google Scholar

[4] A. Unal: Effect of Processing Variables on Particle Size in Gas-Atomization of Rapidly Solidified Aluminum Powders, Materials Science and Technology Vol. 3 (1987), pp.1029-1039 (11).

DOI: 10.1179/mst.1987.3.12.1029

Google Scholar

[5] M. Baumers, C. Tuck, R. Hague, I. Ashcroft, and R. Wildman: A Comparative Study of Metallic Additive Manufacturing Power Consumption, Proceedings of the 2010 Solid Free Form Fabrication Symposium, Austin TX (278-288) pp.278-288.

Google Scholar