A Methodology For Process and Energy Mapping in Production Operations
A Methodology For Process and Energy Mapping in Production Operations
A Methodology For Process and Energy Mapping in Production Operations
net/publication/277309847
CITATIONS READS
2 595
3 authors:
Frances Hardiman
Limerick Institute of Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Maria-Jose Rivas Duarte on 05 October 2015.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, industry consumes almost one-half of all commercial energy used and
is responsible for roughly similar shares of greenhouse gases [1]. With a growing
energy demand and a requirement for diverse energy sources, there has been an
increase in the regulatory and legislative activity intended to minimize the
environmental impact from energy-use and energy-pricing increases. With that, for
an increasing number of companies it is imperative to have a supply chain capable
of quantifying carbon footprint and setting goals for future reductions. To stay
competitive in the 21st Century, manufacturing companies need to include
sustainability into their manufacturing optimisation schemes.
Sustainable Manufacturing (SM) is the new paradigm [3] necessary for
manufacturing companies and involves the integration of all relevant dimensions
that affect or have effects on third parties while conducting manufacturing
operations, including energy, environmental impact and life-cycle analysis. Hence,
when designing or improving a manufacturing system, which may have a tooling
strategy, material-handling methods and production methodologies, an alignment
with economic, ecological, and social goals has become an essential strategic
objective of manufacturing companies [2-5]. Hence, an isolated consideration of
traditional economic variables without evaluation of ecological and social impact is
no longer acceptable and a balance between traditional material, equipment and
personnel resources is required.
To allow for sustainability and to meet environmental legislative requirements,
manufacturing industry must be capable of understanding its energy requirements,
its energy consumption and the manner in which this is managed, particularly in
the production environment. Although, there are various sustainability assessment
tools available, these tools are complex, require vast level of data and technical
expertise to utilise [5]. Hence, this paper proposes a practical and less-complex
methodology for the assessment of energy usage in a production environment.
The methodology utilises the combination of the lean manufacturing principle of
Value Stream Mapping (VSM) with energy management and upon application
to a standard manufacturing site, outlines the process flow, energy metering
requirements, the technical utilities servicing the process and an identification of
the relevant SEUs. This methodology allows a manufacturing company to visualise
their production process from an energy perspective and determine the next steps
for improvement in energy management and consumption.
Production processes consume raw materials and transform them into products
and wanted or unwanted by-products and use a significant amount of energy to do
so. Some of this energy is used for value-added activities embodied into the form
and composition of products, while the rest of the energy is wasted in terms of heat
losses and emissions. Indeed, manufacturing processes generate a significant
environmental impact through energy consumption with related resource depletion
and GHG emissions [19]. To understand the consumption of energy in a production
environment, it is necessary to outline the energy flow within the facility along with
the classification of energy usage and its relationship to processes and production
outputs.
Imported energy in the form of electricity, gas or solid fuels, for example, coal or
peat, along with onsite renewable energy systems provide the primary energy
source for a facility. Solid fuels, oil or natural gas are mainly utilised by energy
transformation/generation systems such as boilers to generate heat for process
and space heating. Electricity (both imported and renewable) is used by energy
transformation/generation systems mainly to run electric drives to generate
mechanical energy. Typical applications include pumps, air conditioning (chill
generation, ventilation) and compressors. The energy carriers are the means by
which energy moves through the facility that include compressed air, hot/chilled
water, electricity and steam. Energy utilisation systems are the end users of both
the electrical and thermal energy. For example, equipment drives and motors use
electricity and clean-lines utilise hot water. The energy drivers are the variables
such as production volume and weather changes expressed in degree days, which
affect energy consumption. In terms of technical services, energy flows can be
represented by electricity (imported and/or wind turbine) used by a compressor
(energy generation system) to generate compressed air (an energy carrier). The
compressed air is used for a product cleaning operation and the main energy driver
is production volume, as the use of compressed air will increase as the volume of
production increases [7, 19].
Previous research on manufacturing energy consumption has focused on
developing more energy efficient machines/processes [20]. However, the energy
requirement for the active removal/joining of materials can be quite small
compared to the background functions needed for the overall operation of the
manufacturing system [21]. Drake et al. [22] showed that there are significant
amounts of energy associated with machine start-up and machine idling. As a
result, in a mass production environment, more than 85% of the energy is used for
functions that are not directly related to the production of parts [21]. This suggests
that energy saving efforts which focus solely on updating individual machines or
processes may be missing a significant and perhaps bigger opportunity. Other
studies carried out in multiple industries such as dairy, meat processing and textile
have focused on industrial energy use and energy efficiency [7]. Most of the efforts
have gone into technical services plant upgrades and less attention has focused on
the energy usage at process and equipment level. Hence a more holistic mapping
of the relationship between production and energy consumption should be applied
as research also suggests that lack of understanding between production
operations and energy usage prevents energy efficient decision making in real-time
[23, 24]
A review of methodologies that categorise energy usage and energy efficiency in
industry highlighted that industrial companies still lack appropriate methods to
effectively address energy efficiency in a comprehensive and practical manner
[6,7]. This is primarily due to:
• The complexity of production sites that due to business needs, operate more
than one production process.
• Production sites may produce various types of products, each with different
energy intensity factors.
• Specific energy consumption depends on the production rate and Significant
Energy Users (SEUs) are typically viewed in isolation from production
operations rather than in conjunction with it (i.e. cycle time and energy usage
analysed together to determine process SEUs).
• Comparing different installations (i.e. process equipment, technical services
upgrades) using energy efficiency indicators can lead to misleading
conclusions, when attempting to take all variables associated with energy
efficiency into account.
• The analysis of thermal energy is considerable more complicated in practice
than the analysis of electrical usage.
Hermann et al. [3] and Thiede et al. [5] proposed work that focused on the
optimization of the process chain with the objective of securing the best electric
energy efficiency. The study proposed a five-step approach using a simulation
model. These steps include; (1) Analysis of production process chain; (2) Energy
analysis of production and its equipment; (3) Energy analysis of technical building
services; (4) Load profile and energy cost/energy supply contract analysis; (5)
Integrated simulation and evaluation of the production system. However, the work
was not extended to an industrial facility or practical application.
Seow and Rahimifard [23, 25] provide a product perspective of energy monitoring
and attribute the energy consumed by the product to both the process and the
plant. Energy consumption in manufacturing can be categorized into Direct Energy
(DE) and Indirect Energy (IE), which constitute the embodied energy of a product.
DE is the energy required to manufacture a product in a specific process and can
be subdivided further into theoretical energy (TE), the energy necessary for actual
value creation and auxiliary energy (AE), the energy required by supporting
activities for the individual machine/process. Indirect Energy (IE) is defined as the
energy necessary to maintain the production environment (lighting, heating, or
ventilation). For the development of the proposed methodology for mapping energy
usage in production, the authors developed a more defined energy breakdown
based on the energy classification by Rahimifard et al. [24].
The energy breakdown is applicable to a large scale manufacturing company,
typically one with traditional precision manufacturing processes, where multiple
products require equipment or processes from multiple value streams or strategic
business units (SBUs). The proposed energy breakdown, outlined in Figure 1,
below, illustrates how the overall energy consumed by an industrial facility is
divided into Indirect and Direct energy. The Indirect energy consists of all energy
used to maintain the building/facility working conditions, such as lighting and
ventilation, required to enable operations to take place that are not directly used
by production. The direct energy relates to the production dependent energy. This
is subdivided into Value-added Energy and Auxiliary Energy. The Value-added
Energy consists of the energy utilised by each process to carry out an operation
that increases the value of the process (i.e. the energy used by a milling machine
to remove material from a product). The Auxiliary Energy is the energy consumed
by each process that is not necessarily contributing to the formation of a product,
e.g. idle running of the machine, supply of technical services during idle time). The
proposed energy breakdown draws particular attention to the auxiliary energy
usage and the potential areas in the factory where energy efficiency measures can
be introduced based on operational and behavioural changes in production
operations. This proposed energy breakdown allows decisions makers a more
holistic view of energy usage in an industrial facility, with the focus on the potential
for reduction through behavioural and operational change.
Figure 1.
1 Proposed Energy Breakdown Methodology
Information from an industry study [35] in Ireland established that the relative
percentage of direct versus indirect energy usage on a large manufacturing site
sit
was 57% (DE) to 43% (AE) respectively. In other words 57% of the energy
consumption went towards
towards making the products and 43% of the total energy
consumption went towards supporting the production environment. The direct
energy usage was then analysed into either the value added energy or the auxiliary
energy. In this case study, the value added energy
energy accounts for 31% of overall
energy usage and the auxiliary energy accounts for 26% of overall energy usage.
To identify this auxiliary energy within a production environment for potential
cost reductions,, this paper describes a practical methodology which is a
combination of energy management and the lean principle of Value Stream
Mapping (VSM).
3. Combining energy
nergy management and value stream mapping
Energy management
anagement focuses on the systematic use of management and
technology to improve energy performance in a selected site. It requires that
energy procurement, energy efficiency and renewable energy be integrated,
proactive and incorporated in order for it to be fully effective [26]. Value Stream
Mapping (VSM), a widely used tool of Lean Manufacturing, is a type of symbolic
model that graphically enables the end user to observe the material and
information flow as a product or service travels through a value chain
chain [13]. The
model represents the flow of resourceesource such as materials, information and
personnel along with their interactions, beginning with a sales order right through to
delivery of the product or service to the customer. It specifies activities and cycle
cy
times and also identifies value-added
value and non-value added activities
ctivities in the
process. It allows the visualisation of all the manufacturing system, rather than just
the equipment [5, 13]. Wormak and Jones [14] suggests that five principles of the
Lean thinking philosophy are required for value stream mapping. Firstly, value
must be defined; providing the customer with the right product or service, at the
right time and price, as determined in each case by the customer. Secondly, the
value stream must be determined; specifying particular activities needed to design
order and distribute a specific product from concept to launch. Thirdly, tasks must
be designed so that through progressive achievement stoppages, scrap and
backflow are eliminated. Fourthly, the “pull system”; a system designed so that
nothing is produced by the upstream supplier until the downstream customer
requires it, must be implemented. Finally, the target of complete elimination of
waste should be constantly reviewed with the aim that all activities across a value
stream create value.
The use of VSM and energy management is present in the literature and has been
trialled in certain industries in the US [13]. An example of this is the work carried
out by the US Environment Protection Agency in the development of the “Lean,
Energy and Climate Toolkit”. It provides strategies and techniques to improve
energy and environmental performance in tandem with achieving leans goals such
as quality, reduced waste and improved customer responsiveness [27]. Despite the
fact that it provides significant information in relation to lean principles, energy
monitoring and targeting and green-house emissions management, the output tool
is still quite complicated and prior knowledge of VSM is required to understand and
use it.
Based on the principle that VSMs serve as a magnifying glass to view the whole
manufacturing system, Fraizer et al. [28] has proposed the use of the “concept of
value” and the VSM tool as a means of determining energy consumption in a
current state. In particular, the work focuses on determining energy characteristics
of the process. Kayakutlu et al [29] propose the use of Bayesian Networks (BN) as
means of analysing the relationship. Bayesian networks are a kind of causal map
that represent probabilistic graphical models that use probability theory, computer
science and statistical tools. Causal maps are the representation of thoughts in
relation to a particular subject expressed in nodes and arrows. These are mainly
constructed through interviews and analysis, and represent the beliefs, values and
expertise of decision makers of the particular subject discussed [30]. Despite the
fact that BN has several advantages for making inferences, particularly for data
with missing values [13], it is a complicated technique that requires training and
knowledge in the subject.
Paju et al. [5] suggest the concept of Sustainable Manufacturing Mapping (SMM).
This is based on the combination of VSM, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
Discrete Event Simulation (DES) to provide a simple, highly visual model that
allows for the assessment of sustainability indicators in manufacturing. The main
outcomes are goal definition, identification for sustainability indicators and
modelling of current and future state process maps. Despite the robustness of
SMM work, the main challenges observed are the idea that a goal-oriented
approach can be quite complicated, as the assessment does not use the same
indicators every time to carry out an evaluation. In larger multinational companies,
where each VS or SBU operate as “small factories” it could be difficult to compare
performance against one another, or even set targets for the company as a whole
if the indicators are not shared across the board.
Due to the complexity and prior knowledge of particular techniques for the
application and implementation of the above methodologies, the process mapping
methodology proposed in this paper follows the basic principles of Value Stream
Mapping and encompasses the concept that production is multidimensional and
that system dynamics are critical to the evaluation of a production area. It also
includes both direct and indirect factors that affect energy efficiency in production
operations.
Determination of Significant Energy Users: Based on the cycle time and the
energy consumption data of each item of equipment, a list of process SEUs can be
determined. It is critical to take into account the accurate cycle times, as the
machine rating alone may not be suitable to assess the scale of the energy
consumption involved from a product perspective.
The methodology was implemented in two case studies and beneficial results are
apparent. The mapping has clearly identified these gaps in energy data and
highlighted specific equipment (SEUs) that should now be monitored. Furthermore,
the methodology illustrated where the use of VSD as energy meters could be used,
thus avoiding the need for meters and reducing the overall cost of sub-metering.
The development of a clear link between the temporal profile and/or efficiency of
the energy consumption by the specific value stream can provide full transparency
in the impacts (costs, emissions) of energy consumption and can provide positive
feedback and cost reduction to reward improved performance by the value stream.
The ability to link Production and Energy models is also a vital link in the future
application of demand side management to industry. Further work will involve
implementing the methodology in another area of the factory where no sub-
metering is available. The main purpose will be to identify the SEUs as well as to
propose a strategic metering plan. The analysis of the auxiliary energy will be
extended to quantity, prioritise and verify the potential energy savings and the most
suitable energy performance indicators developed to provide ongoing management
of the production-specific energy consumption. This will allow both Energy and
Production Managers to identify opportunities for energy reduction using a
common approach.
7. Acknowledgements
The research work is supported by Enterprise Ireland (EI), the Sustainable Energy
Authority of Ireland (SEAI), Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), and the Industrial
Development Agency (IDA Ireland) and has been carried out in collaboration with
Limerick Institute of Technology (LIT), University of Ulster (UU), Innovation
for Irelands Energy Efficiency Research Centre (i2e2) and the International Energy
Research Centre (IERC).
8. References