Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

Evaluation and Comparison of Environmental Impacts

of Sand Casting Process using Life Cycle Assessment



D. Joshi and B. Ravi
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India

M.V.N.J. Rao and N. K. Nagar
Shri G S Institute of Technology and Science, Indore, India

Copyright 2005 American Foundry Society

ABSTRACT

Foundries are considered to be resource intensive and emitting gaseous, liquid and solid wastes. The environment impact of a
cast product during its entire life from raw material extraction to final disposal, can be evaluated in various impact categories
(global warming, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, eco-toxicity, etc.) using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
methods. The current LCA methods however, consider the casting process as a whole. In this work, a methodology for
assessment and comparative evaluation of the environment impact of a specific combination of casting alloy, melting
equipment, molding and core making process, and emission control has been developed. It covers all major hazardous air
pollutants and particulate matter emitted in ferrous foundries. The methodology has been implemented in a web-based
program, and demonstrated for a casting example. It is useful for evaluating the environmental impact of a cast product early
in its lifecycle, thereby facilitating selection of the most benign combination of casting alloy and process steps.


INTRODUCTION

Foundry industry is widely held to be resource intensive, with high environmental impact. The concern is higher for ferrous
foundries employing sand casting processes. Emissions in foundries have been identified, investigated and documented by
various environmental protection agencies as well as by researchers. This includes emissions to air and water, and solid
waste. Figure 1 shows material and energy inputs and outputs in various stages of sand casting process (Dalquist, 2004). The
melting process requires approximately 55% of the total energy and emits the maximum amount of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) and particulate matter (PM). The energy consumption and emissions in mould-making, core-making, melting (with
cupola, electric arc, induction, reverberatory, open hearth and fuel-fired furnace), refining, pouring, cooling, cleaning and
finishing operations of sand casting as well as investment casting, lost-foam casting and die-casting have been documented in
energy and environmental profile of the US metal casting industry (US Department of Energy, 1999). A comprehensive list
of criteria and toxic pollutant emission factors, for sources commonly found in iron foundries, is provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency, USA (EPA-USA, 1990). The environment impact of casting and its sub-processes have
also been presented in Emission Estimation Technique Manual (Queensland Department of Environment, 1999), and
Emission Calculation Fact Sheet (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2004).

The emissions are traditionally evaluated and compared by the amount of various pollutants emitted per ton of melt. Each
emission has a different impact on the environment, and it is necessary to quantitatively evaluate the potential impact
(damage) to human health and ecology at local, regional and global level. The impact of a product on environment during its
entire life (raw material extraction, manufacture, transportation, usage and disposal) can be evaluated by Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA). Various categories of impact include global warming, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity and
eco-toxicity.

Life Cycle Assessment involves assessing all the inputs and outputs of a product or process; assessing the associated wastes,
impact on human health and ecological burdens; and interpreting the results of the assessment. The basic steps of LCA
methods include: (1) generation of life cycle inventory (LCI) data, (2) characterization of LCI data to compute the effect of a
particular LCI data item with respect to a characterization factor identified for that LCI, (3) impact assessment corresponding
to the LCI data item by grouping it into various impact categories, and (4) normalization by comparing the results with a
reference to get a common unit for measuring the impact load. A commonly used reference is the total environment load of
that country divided by the number of inhabitants. The evaluation is aggregated in a common unit such as Person Equivalent
(PE) and disabled adjusted life years (DALY). Some methods also allow assigning weights (as per the politically determined
target for that region) to the normalized scores of impact categories, and calculating the weighted score.

































Fig. 1 Material and energy flow in sand casting process (Dalquist, 2004).


LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT METHODS

The most common LCA methods include ISO 14040-1997, EDIP-1997 (Environmental Design of Industrial Products) and
Eco-Indicator 99. The International Standards Organization (ISO) in 1997 released the ISO 14040 standard for life cycle
assessment (EPA USA, 2001). The EDIP (Environmental Design of Industrial Product) method has been developed by
Danish Environmental Protection Agency and Technical University of Denmark in 1996 (Danish EPA, 2004). These t
methods involve evaluation of emissions into various impact categories. The impact categories as per ISO 14040 are global
warming, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, ecological toxicity, ozone depletion, and resource depletion. The
impact categories as per EDIP are global warming, acidification, eutrophication, human-toxicity, eco-toxicity, persistent-
toxicity, ozone depletion, bulk waste, slag and ashes, hazardous waste, radioactive waste and resources. Theses impacts are
further normalized and aggregated into a common unit referred as Person Equivalents (PE). Eco-Indicator 99 uses the
damage-oriented approach. It involves computing (a) damage to human health, expressed as the number of year life lost and
the number of years lived disabled, expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY), (b) damage to ecosystem quality,
expressed as the loss of species over a certain area during a certain time, and (c) damage to resources, expressed as the
surplus energy needed for future extraction of minerals and fossil fuels. These three damages can be combined to get the total
score of environmental impact (Pre Consultants, 2002).

All the above methods use average values of environmental impacts in various categories for manufacturing processes. This
is useful for comparing various casting processes (for example, sand casting, investment casting, and pressure die casting) as
a whole. The methods do not permit selection and comparative evaluation of different options for materials and sub-processes
(for example, selection of cast metal, melting furnace, and molding/core making process). Such an evaluation at the product
and process design stage can help in choosing the most environmental friendly metal-process combination.

Design for Environment (DFE), which involves early prediction of the environment impact of a product and taking suitable
steps to minimize the impact by selecting more environment-friendly material and processes. The application of LCA for
DFE for various products and processes has been reported in literature. For example, using the EDIP LCA method for
washing machine, it was concluded that the use of natural gas for heating of water instead of electricity could reduce the
molten
metal
Metal
preparation
metal (scrap),
alloys, flux
Finishing
PM, NOx
HC,CO,
SO
2

acidic
wastewater
PM
PM, CO,
VOC,HAP,
NO
x

wastewater with
solvents, oils
metals extraction
cleaning solvents
scrap metal,
abrasives
Product
Input
Vapor waste
Aqueous waste
solid waste
Included in analysis
Not included in analysis
slag, dross,
spent, RM
cooling
water
cooling water

Casting
cast
metal
energy
Energy
energy
Mold
preparation

waste sand

sand collection
sand, binders
energy
environmental impacts by a factor of two or more in all impact categories except hazardous waste (Nielsen, 1999). A study of
Xerox photocopiers in Australia reported that remanufacturing could reduce the resource consumption and waste generation
by a factor of three (Kerr, 2001). Environmental impacts as global warming, acidification, photochemical smog and nutrient
enrichment were found to be lower for copper recovery from printed circuit board (PCB) as compared to the primary source
of copper extraction (Legarth, 1995). Hot dip galvanizing when compared with low VOC (volatile organic compound) paint
and standard paint produces lower global warming potential, acidification potential and photo-chemical ozone creation
potential (Cook, 2004). Campo (2003) developed DFE Workbench that performed analysis, synthesis, evaluation and
improvement of products life cycle features during the modeling of the product helping the designers to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the product at the design stage.

A few researchers have reported the application of LCA methodology in metal casting domain. Backhouse et al (2004)
compared the environmental implications of replacing a ferrous component with an aluminum component for an automobile
casting, using the Boustead model compatible with ISO 14040 (1997). It was revealed that though energy consumption and
global warming potential (GWP) are higher for aluminum during the production stage, the resulting lighter vehicle will
reduce the fuel consumption and result in lower GWP after 250,000 km of use. In the event of 50% use of secondary
material, aluminum results in lower GWP after 150,000 km of use. Dalquist (2004) suggested environmentally benign design
parameters such as minimizing the need for cores, and substituting it by increased machining for core-produced cavities.
Where cores are still needed, the environmentally conscious designer should move away from hot box processes, whose high
temperature curing requires significant energy and produces hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Instead, no-bake processes are
suggested as a more environment-friendly alternative. They expressed an immediate need for applying Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) tools to conventional manufacturing processes including casting.

The goal of this work is to evolve a methodology for assessing the environmental impact of casting material and process plan
to facilitate environment-friendly casting product-process design. This involves evaluation and comparison of various
emissions to air, water and solid emitted during various steps in casting process. The focus is on air pollutants and particulate
matter emitted during sand casting of ferrous alloys, mainly grey cast iron and cast steel.


METHODOLOGY

The methodology for evaluation and comparison of environmental impacts of sand casting process comprises three steps
generation of LCI data, inventory characterization and impact assessment and evaluation. The overall framework is shown in
figure 2, and described in detail here.

GENERATION OF LCI DATA
Emission data as per cast material and process for their various sub-processes of melting, molding, core making, pouring and
cooling and finishing needs to be collected for specified functional units. These functional units are gms per ton of molten
metal in case of emissions pertaining to melting, gms per ton of green sand for emission related to molding and gms per ton
of core sand for emissions related to core making. Also for the selected impact categories of the LCA methodologies (ISO
14040, Eco-Indicator 99 and EDIP) inventory characterization, normalization and weighting factors needs to be compiled.
The next step it to create the LCI table or process inventory table for a given combination of casting method, cast material
and its sub-processes. This is performed by multiplying the emission factors with the weight of molten metal for emission
related to melting, and similarly for emissions related with mold making and core making.

INVENTORY CHARACTERIZATION
Emission data from an LCI table is multiplied with its respective characterization factor to compute the quantitative impact of
a particular life cycle inventory item. This is done for all items in LCI data. For example cupola emissions: sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide, cause acidification. The acidification potential of sulfur dioxide is considered as reference one and others
are factors in accordance to their impact on acidification as per LCA methodology. A sample calculation of acidification
potential (AP) is given below.
Acidification Potential (AP) =

=
n
i
i i
e AP w n
1
. .

Where n = number of parts in the batch; w = molten metal required in tons per part;
i
AP = acidification factor for inventory i
i
e =emission value for inventory i. Acidification calculation for melting with cupola for gray cast iron (GCI) casting


Emission Emission value gms/ton Acidification factor AP for an inventory
SO2 600.00 1.00 600.00
NO2 45.30 0.71 32.16
Total acidification potential for one ton of melt is 632.16 (as per ISO 14040)

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
The potential impact values of all LCI data are then grouped into respective categories as per LCA methodology. This
grouping is done for all sub-processes, and total environment damage (impact) under each impact category is calculated.
These characterization tables are constructed for all impact categories of the selected LCA methodology. Impact assessment
under each impact category is displayed in tabular and graphical representations. These impact assessment values can be
normalized to get a single value for all impacts categories represented as PE (personal equivalent). The score of individual
impacts is multiplied by the normalization factors (as per LCA) and then added to get the total PE score. The impact
assessment values under each category and the PE score can be used for comparison of various process combinations and
product designs along with the impact assessment values under various categories.







































Fig. 2 Framework for evaluation and comparison of environmental impact.



Select the casting sub-process for melting,
mold and core making, pouring and cooling
and finishing

ISO 14040
EDIP
Eco-Indicator 99
Select cast material and process
Calculate emissions as per molten metal,
sand and core requirement
Generate Life Cycle Inventory data
Select LCA methodology
Inventory characterization

Database of
emissions
Emission
documentation
Impact assessment
View results
Save current project
Comparison of
process
combinations and
products
Previous project
Interpretation
Database of
projects
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

The quantitative evaluation of environmental impacts of sand casting using the above-mentioned methodology is
implemented in a web-based software program employing eXtensible Markup Language (XML) for back end database and
Java Server Pages (JSP) for front-end programming. All HAPs and PM for gray cast iron and steel are considered in the
program. Appendix I gives the list of emissions for gray cast iron and cast steel (compiled from EPA-USA, 1990, US
Department of Energy, 1999, Queensland Department of Environment, 1999, and Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, 2004) along-with their impact categories as per LCA methods. Three LCA methods ISO 14040, Eco-Indicator 99
and EDIP are considered. Table 1 presents the impact categories used in the program for the three LCA methods. Appendix II
gives the characterization factors of emissions as per their impact categories (compiled from, Pre Consultants, 2002, and
EPA-USA, 2001). The emission data is structured as per the method, material and sub-processes, and stored in XML format.
The XML is a self-describing data mark up language, and has been used to enable a modular and systematic approach to
casting emission data management and to facilitate quick searching and identification of any desired item of information. The
XML structure comprises of a tree and several data blocks. The XML tree represents the hierarchal (parent-child-grandchild)
relationship between different data blocks, represented by nodes. The sample XML tree (fig. 3) shows the child nodes for the
cupola process node.

The program multiplies the emissions data with the characterization factor to compute the quantitative impact of a particular
life cycle inventory item, and repeats this for all items of LCI data. The impacts of individual LCI data are then grouped into
impact categories as per LCA methods and then combined to calculate the impacts of all sub-processes for an impact
categories this is done for all impact categories of the chosen LCA method. Further normalization can be performed to
measure the impacts in terms of person equivalent (PE). Each casting is evaluated as a project and all information generated
is saved in XML format (fig. 3) for future reference and comparison. The program developed allows process selection that
includes various sub-processes of casting. The various sub-processes included in the program are presented in table 2.


Fig. 3 Emission and process data structure in XML.


Table 1. Impact categories used in the system with the major source of information.

LCA method Impact Categories considered Source
ISO 14040
Global warming, Acidification, Photo-chemical smog Eutrophication, Human toxicity,
Ecological toxicity
EPA-USA 2001
Eco-Indicator
99
Carcinogens, Respirated organics, Respirated inorganics, Climate change,
Acidification /Eutrophication, Eco toxicity, Ozone layer, Radiation
Simapro

demo
version
EDIP
Global warming, Acidification, Photo chemical smog, Eutrophication, Human toxicity,
Eco-toxicity
Simapro

demo
version
Table 2. Sub-process selection options and other inputs to the system.

Input Options
Number of parts to be cast
Molten metal required per part (in tons)
Mold sand required per part (in tons)
Core sand required per part (in tons)
Material Gray Cast Iron and Cast Steel
Melting process
Cupola, Cupola-scrubber, Electric arc furnace, Electric induction, Open hearth and
Reverberatory furnace
Mold Making Process Green sand mould and Sodium silicate mold
Core Making Process
Shell cores, Phenolic No-bake, Phenolic urethane, Phenolic hotbox, Core-oil, Alkyd
isocyanate, Low nitrogen furan, Nitrogen furan TSA catalyst, Furan hotbox.
Pouring and Cooling Process Pouring and cooling
Finishing Process Cast finishing operations, Grinding
LCA Method ISO 14040, EDIP, and Eco Indicator 99


CASE STUDY
Employing the above methodology and program, a case study for evaluating the environmental impact of a sample sand cast
part a bracket shown in figure 4 is presented. This is followed by a comparison of (1) melting processes using different
furnaces, (2) uncontrolled cupola and cupola with scrubber, (3) gray cast iron and cast steel, and (4) different core making
processes. This is carried out under various impact categories for the three LCA methods, yielding PE (EDIP) and DALY
(Eco-Indicator 99) scores.

BRACKET CASTING

Material Gray Cast Iron
Volume per casting 490867mm3
Casting layout 4 cavities per mould
Mould box size 400X300X(100+100) mm
Casting yield 62%
Metal to Sand ratio 1:1.33
Metal weight 25.00 kg (4 castings and methoding)
Batch size 160 castings (40 X 4)
Total metal weight 1000 kg
Total sand weight 1333 kg
Total core weight 880kg
Binder % 7%
Melting furnace Cupola un-controlled
Core making No bake phenolic
Mold making Green sand

Fig. 4 A sample case study: Bracket casting.

The input screen of the program is given in figure 5. Figure 6 presents the LCI for one ton of bracket casting. Figure 7
presents the impact assessment as per the impact categories of ISO14040. Melting with cupola contributes heavily to the
environmental impacts: global warming, human toxicity, photochemical smog and acidification potential. High global
warming potential is because of high CO
2
emission (309.39 kg/ton). Human toxicity is due to lead and NH
3
emissions. Both
carcinogens (cancer) and non-carcinogens toxicity is considered in human toxicity. Photochemical smog is due to
considerable amount of CO. Acidification is due to the presence of emissions as SO
2
, NO
2
and NH
3
. Pouring and cooling
results in ecological toxicity due to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Toluene emissions. Graphical representation of impact
assessment is shown in figure 8. Environmental impacts of molding and core making are found to be negligible as compared
to melting.

Impact assessment of the above bracket casting is also evaluated using EDIP and Eco-Indicator 99. Employing EDIP impact
assessment to global warming (455537.3), acidification (643.97), photo Chemical Smog (2262.93), eutrophication (67.28),
human toxicity (3.02E10), eco toxicity (109005.87) has been computed. HAPs cause eco-toxicity soil chronic, eco-toxicity
water chronic and eco-toxicity water acute. These have been added to get the eco-toxicity (total) value. Similarly, HAPs
cause human toxicity air, soil and water. All these three categories have been added to get the human toxicity (total) value.
Employing Eco-Indicator 99 impact assessment carcinogens (3.77E-5), respirated organics (1.41E-4), respirated in-organics
(1.84), climate change (0.08), acidification /eutrophication (918.80) and eco toxicity(108659.82) has been computed.
Differences in the values of assessment of same impact category but different LCA methods exist primarily due to different
assignment of emissions to impact categories and different characterization factors for the emissions. Cupola emissions cause
high global warming potential, acidification, photo chemical smog and toxicity. These were confirmed by the three LCA
methodologies.



Fig. 5 Input screen of the program.




Fig. 6 LCI inventory of bracket casting.
Emissions during casting (pouring and cooling) also result in environment impact as human toxicity, ecological toxicity,
photochemical smog and acidification. The impact is however, much lower compared to cupola melting. Environmental
impacts of mould making, core making and cast finishing are even lower. The PE (normalized) value as per EDIP is 5.1 and
the PE value after considering the weighting is 13.47. The DALY score as per Eco-Indicator 99 is 1.9. These values can be
considered as the sum total impact of all emissions for producing 160 bracket castings (total 1 ton of poured metal).



Fig. 7 Impact assessment of bracket casting using ISO 14040



























Fig. 8 Graphical representation of impact assessment of bracket casting using ISO 14040.

COMPARISION OF MELTING PROCESSES

As evident from the previous section, melting dominates the environmental impacts of casting, in this section we present the
comparison of melting with cupola, electric arc furnace, electric induction furnace and reverberatory furnace, for one ton of
gray cast iron melting. The comparison using ISO 14040 illustrates that cupola melting causes the highest global warming
potential (due to high CO2 emission) and highest human toxicity (due to lead emission). Electric arc furnace causes highest
acidification potential (due to high SO2 and NO2 emissions). Evaluation of melting furnaces using EDIP also confirmed the
above comparisons (figure 9). The reverberatory furnace causes acidification, human toxicity and eutrophication as per ISO
14040 and global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication and human toxicity as per EDIP.

Use of Eco-Indicator 99 for the above comparison revealed that reverberatory furnaces cause the highest acidification and
eutrophication potential due to higher characterization factor for NO
2
. The characterization factor for NO
2
is 5.71 in Eco-
Indicator as compared to 0.71 in EDIP and ISO14040. Considerable acidification/eutrophication potential impact is observed
for melting with electric arc furnace, while melting with cupola causes the highest eco toxicity due to lead emissions.




Fig. 9 Comparison of environmental impact of melting furnaces.

ISO 14040
3094
631
5110
6
3533
0 0
602
208
0 0 0 0 0 0
370
0 3
1841
0
342
0
5320
516
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Global Warming X
100
Acidification Photo
Chemical Smog
Eutrophication Human Toxicity E5 Ecological Toxicity
Cupola
Electric-Arc
Electric-induction
Reverberatory
EDIP
4408
598
2003
61
2995
3
5320
2615
2160
8 0 0 0 0 0
271
0
2940
1841
27
3547
0
1721
378
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Global
WarmingX100
Acidification Photo
Chemical Smog
Eutrophication Human Toxicity
X E7
Ecotoxicity
Cupola
Electric-Arc
Electric-induction
Reverbatory
Eco indicator 99
0 0
2
0
8
107
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9
0 0 0 0 0 0
13
0 0
135
150
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Carcinogens Respirated
organics
Respirated
inorganics
Climate
change
Acidification
X 100
Eco toxicity
X1000
Radiation Ozone layer
Cupola
Electric-Arc
Electric-induction
Reverberatory
Table 3. PE and DALY scores for melting processes.

FURNACE / PE, DALY Cupola Electric Arc Electric Induction Reverberatory
PE (EDIP) 8.468 0.082 0.756 0.079
DALY (Eco- Indicator 99) 1.646 0.262 0.064 0.200

On comparing the PE scores cupola melting is found to be eight times more impacting than any other furnace. Reverberatory
and electric induction furnace are more damaging as compared to electric arc furnace primarily due to high characterization
factor of lead (1.1E8) that causes human toxicity and because lead emissions are not reported for electric arc furnace. DALY
scores also confirm cupola to be the most environmental impacting melting process followed by electric arc, reverberatory
and induction furnace (Table 3).

EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CUPOLA SCRUBBER

Various control technologies are used in melting for reducing the emissions. In this section evaluation of the effectiveness of
cupola scrubber is presented. Figure 10 presents the effect of cupola scrubber on various impact categories. It is observed
that global warming potential and human toxicity reduces to zero and 50% reduction in acidification is possible by the use of
cupola scrubber as per ISO14040. Using EDIP 67% reduction is observed in global warming, as CO is not controlled by
scrubber but considered under EDIP for global warming. Reduction in acidification and human toxicity are similar to ISO
14040. Both ISO14040 and EDIP confirm that scrubber does not control the emissions causing photochemical smog. Eco-
Indicator 99 reveals the possibility of 100% reduction in eco toxicity and 65% reduction in acidification/eutrophication. The
PE score as per EDIP for cupola uncontrolled is 8.46, and cupola with scrubber is 0.138, indicating 60 times reduction in
impacts. The DALY score reduces from 1.642 to 0.162 indicating ten times reduction in environmental impacts on
application of scrubber.




Fig. 10 Comparison of uncontrolled cupola and cupola with scrubber.
Eco indicator 99
0 2 0
883
107
0 0 0 0 0 0
312
0 0 0 0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Carcinogens Respirated
organics
Respirated
inorganics
Climate
change
Acidification Eco toxicity
X1000
Radiation Ozone layer
Cupola
Cupola-scrubber
ISO 14040
3094
631
3533
0 0 0 0 0
5110
6
5110
300
0
1500
3000
4500
Global Warming X
100
Acidification Photo
ChemicalSmog
Eutrophication Human Toxicity E5 Ecological Toxicity
Cupola
Cupola-scrubber
EDIP
4408
61
2995
3
1460
2003
0 6 0
598
2003
300
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Global
WarmingX100
Acidification Photo
ChemicalSmog
Eutrophication Human Toxicity
XE7
Ecotoxicity
Cupola
Cupola-scrubber
COMPARISION OF GRAY CAST IRON AND CAST STEEL

Eco-friendliness of gray cast iron with cast steel is compared in this section with melting using electric arc furnace. The
evaluation of impacts using ISO14040 show that gray cast iron melting cause higher or equal impact on all categories except
acidification. Using EDIP, it is observed that gray cast iron melting causes higher or equal impact on all categories except
acidification and human toxicity. Cast steel causes four times more impact on acidification as compared to gray cast iron
(SO
2
and NO
2
emissions) and gray cast iron causes 17 times more impact on eutrophication as confirmed by both ISO14040
and EDIP. The Eco-Indicator 99 confirms higher (40%) acidification / eutrophication for cast steel and equal impact on eco
toxicity (figure 11). The PE values are lower for gray cast iron (1.20) as compared to cast steel (1.31). The DALY score of
cast steel is 1.6 as compared to gray cast iron score of 0.6, because of higher acidification potential of cast steel pollutants.




Fig. 11 Comparison of gray cast iron and cast steel.


COMPARISION OF CORE MAKING PROCESSES

As compared to melting core making processes appear to have negligible impacts on environment in this section comparison
of various core making processes is presented primarily, to rate the various processes for eco-friendliness. To facilitate
comparison, the impacts are multiplied by a factor of 100 (or higher). As per ISO 14040, Hot box furan causes the highest
acidification and eutrophication (due to higher emission of NH
3
, NO
2
and SO
2
). No bake phenolic (due to Benzene), Alkyd
isocyanate (due to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Toluene) and shell (due to Benzene, Formaldehyde, Toluene and Xylene)
Eco indicator 99
13548
1571
23160
1570
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Acidification /Eutrophication Eco toxicity
Gray cast iron
Cast steel
ISO 14040
0
5332
836
209 404
0
21792
809
12
404
27 27
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Global Warming Acidification Photo Chemical
Smog
Eutrophication Human Toxicity X
E3
Ecological Toxicity
Gray cast iron
Cast steel
EDIP
173
5332
331
2166
288 192 1
21792
303 128
563
190
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Global Warming
X100
Acidification Photo
ChemicalSmog
Eutrophication Human Toxicity X
E5
Ecotoxicity
Gray cast iron
Cast steel
cause higher ecological toxicity impact as compared to other core making processes. Nitrogen furan TSA and shell process
cause higher photochemical smog (due to Toluene and Benzene emission) as compared to other processes. As per EDIP, the
hot box furan causes the highest acidification and eutrophication (due to higher emission of NH
3
, NO
2
and SO
2
). Global
warming is highest for no bake phenolic (due to CO emission). Human toxicity is the highest for no bake phenolic followed
by shell, urethane phenolic and alkyd isocyanate. Eco toxicity is the highest for shell followed by hot box furan process. As
per Eco-Indicator 99 respirated inorganics and acidification/eutrophication is the highest for hot box furan (due to NH
3
, NO
2

and SO
2
). Eco-toxicity is highest for no bake phenolic followed by urethane phenolic and shell process (due to Benzene,
Phenol and Toluene emissions). All the three LCA methods confirm that among the various furan core making processes,
nitrogen furan appears to be the cleanest core making process, and core oil process appears to be the cleanest process of all
the nine core making processes (figure 12). The PE and DALY score reveal that shell, hot box furan and no bake phenolic are
among the top three most impacting core making processes, and core oil and nitrogen furan are among the least impacting
processes (Table 4).

ISO 14040
2
0
6
3
2
8
8
3
1
5
7
59
7
5
5
0
9
2
1
7
2
2
1
3
0
7
21
7
5
4
8
5
1
8
1
1
00
5
0
01
9
102
8
8
1
5
2
7
3
1
4
3
2
9
0
7
2
969
2
2
6
3
1
1
4
2
2
1
9
5
3
0
1
5
1
8
1
5
2
5
3
6
45
5
9
1
1
3
3
2
2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Nobake-
phenolic
Ur ethane-
phenolic
Hot box-
Phenolic
Cor eoil Shell Alkyd-
isocyanate
Nit r ogen-
fur an
Nit r ogen-
f ur an-TSA
Hot box-
fur an
Acidif icat ion X E-4
Phot o Chemical Smog X E-4
Eutr ophicat ion X E-4
Human Toxicit y X E-4
Ecological Toxicit y X E-4

EDIP
5
1
7
3
8
1
6
0
1
4
2
4
8
6
5
4
5
1
6
3
3
9
4
2
7
2
4
3
5
2
8
5
5
1
5
8
52
0
8
7
5
0
5
33
95
8
9
6
5
4
8
1
4
1
4
3
6
1
,
0
8
5
2
3
2
1
1
7
2
1
5
0
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
2
5
8
1
,
3
5
3
1
,
5
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
,
4
2
6
2
4
6
4
8
3
7
8
9
4
,
4
2
7
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Nobake-
phenolic
Ur ethane-
phenolic
Hot box-
Phenolic
Cor eoil Shell Alkyd-
isocyanate
Nitr ogen-
f ur an
Nit r ogen-
f ur an-TSA
Hotbox-
f ur an
Global War ming X E-4
Acidif ication XE-4
Eutr ophication X E-4
Human Toxicity X1000
Ecotoxicit y X E-2

Eco indicator 99
2
4
0
1
1
5
2
1
5
1
4
3
1
1
4
1
4
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
5
2
1
9
4
0
1
7
5
2
5
0
9
8
1
6
7
6
8
0
1
2
9
0
7
5
8
4
8
8
4
5
3
8
5
2
3
4
9
2
7
1
3
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
5
6
1
6
9
4
1
3
6
1
8
1
4
0
4
1
6
4
7
4
2
9
7
0
3
9
3
6
6
1
0
3
4
4
2
9
2
0
0
4
4
1
8
3
2
9
1
3
5
8
5
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Nobake-
phenolic
Urethane-
phenolic
Hotbox-
Phenolic
Coreoil Shell Alkyd-
isocyanate
Nitrogen-
furan
Nitrogen-
furan-TSA
Hotbox-furan
Car cinogens X E-11
Respir at ed or ganics X E-11
Respir at ed inor ganics X E-10
Acidif icat ion XE-5
Eco t oxicit y X E-4

Fig. 12 Comparison of core making processes.



Table 4. PE and DALY scores for core making processes.

Core making process Nobake-phenolic Urethane-phenolic Hotbox-Phenolic Coreoil Shell
PE value X E4 39.769 27.469 13.222 1.795 109.625
DALY score X E8 83.618 3.697 76.248 1.794 48.566
Core making process Alkyd-isocyanate Nitrogen-furan Hotbox-furan Nitrogen furan TSA
PE value X E4 20.241 5.392 30.334 6.635
DALY score X E8 4.171 4.609 136.030 28.895


CONCLUSION

In this work, a methodology for evaluating and comparing different casting process plans has been developed and
implemented in a web based program. The methodology presently considers all major air pollutants for various sub-processes
of sand casting of ferrous alloys. Using the program, the environmental impact for a given product design can be quantified.
Various impact values including PE and DALY scores can be used to compare alternative combinations of product designs
and process plans. The melting operation was found to generate the highest emissions, dominating the total impact on
environment, as confirmed by all three LCA methods. The selection of cast material and type of melting process thus has
considerable potential in reducing the environmental impacts. In particular, electric arc and induction furnaces are found to be
eco-friendly. Gray cast iron is found to result in lower environmental impacts as compared to cast steel while melting with
electric arc furnace. Of the various core making methods, the oil cores prove to be the most eco-friendly. These conclusions
are based on currently available data from various sources, and there may be some difference in results for specific foundries.
The conclusions also differ based on the LCA method used, owing to differences in impact categories, inventory assignment
to impact categories, and varying characterization factors. Overall, the methodology and the program enable comparative
evaluation of different product-process designs in a quantitative manner. The use of Internet technology allows collaboration
between designers, foundry engineers and environment specialists for arriving at the best solution for meeting the
environmental objectives. The methodology and program can be easily expanded to consider liquid as well as solid
emissions, and extended to other cast materials and processes.

REFERENCES

Backhouse, C. J ., Clegg, A.J ., Staikos, T., Reducing the environmental impacts of metal castings through life-cycle
management, Progress in Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2/3, p271-285 (2004)
Cook M, Vares S., Young S., Life Cycle Assessment Paint and Hot Dip Galvanizing compared, Technical Update, Hot Dip
Galvanizing magazine, Vol. 4/4, 2004, http://www.galvanizeit.org/resources/files/AGA_root/pdf_files/press/LCA.pdf
(2004)
Dalquist, S., Gutowski, T., Life cycle analysis of conventional manufacturing techniques: Sand casting, Proceedings of
IMECE2004: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Anaheim, California. (Nov. 13-19,
2004)
Danish EPA, Introduction to Environmental Design of Industrial Products, http://www.mst.dk/homepage (Oct. 12, 2004)
Diez-Campo J .E., Roche T., Design for the Environment (DFE); a case study, 19th International Manufacturing
Conference, Belfast (Aug. 28-30, 2002)
Environmental Protection Agency USA, Emission Factors for Iron Foundries Criteria and Toxic Pollutants, EPA-600/2-90-
044. (Aug. 1990)
Environmental Protection Agency USA, EPA/600/R-00/095, Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision making
(FRED): Using Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate Preferability of Products, http://lcacenter.org/pdf/fred.pdf (Oct. 2001)
Kerr, W., and Ryan C., 2001, Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at
Fuji Xerox Australia, J ournal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9 p7581 (2001)
Legarth, J .B., Alting, L., Baldo, G.L., Sustainability issues in circuit board recycling, 0-7803-2137-5/95, IEEE,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/3945/11421/00514963.pdf?isnumber=&arnumber=514963 (1995)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality- Environmental Science and Services Division, FACT SHEET #9841 (Rev.
11/04), Emission calculation fact sheet Foundries, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-caap-maers-
EmissionCalculation-foundries.pdf (Nov. 2004)
Nielsen, P.H. and Wenzel, H., Integration of environmental aspects in product development: a stepwise procedure based on
quantitative life cycle assessment, J ournal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10, p247257 (2002)
Pre Consultants, Simapro-6 Database Manual Methods Library,
http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf (J une 2004)
Queensland Department of Environment, Australia, Emission estimation technique manual for foundries-National Pollutant
Inventory, http://www.npi.gov.au/handbooks/approved_handbooks/pubs/f2nonfer.pdf (J uly, 1999)
US Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies, Energy and environmental profile of the US Metal Casting
Industry, http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/sectorstar/program_269.pdf (Sept. 1999)

APPENDIX I: EMISSION DATA FOR FERROUS FOUNDRIES

TABLE A. EMISSIONS OF MELTING AND FINISHING OPERATIONS FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES.

All emissions are in g (emission) /ton (of melt)

TABLE B. EMISSIONS OF MELTING AND FINISHING OPERATIONS FOR STEEL FOUNDRIES.

Name of Process /
Name of Emission
Open hearth
furnace
Open hearth
oxygen lance
Electric arc
furnace
Electric
induction
Grinding Castfinish
Particular matter 4983 8380 5889 45.3 770.1 2.03
Sulfur dioxide 0 0 108.72 0 0 21608.1
Nitrogen dioxide 4.53 0 90.6 0 0 0
VOC 77.01 77 158.55 0 0 498.3
Carbon monoxide 0 0 0 0 0 0
All emissions are in g (emission) /ton (of melt)

TABLE C. EMISSIONS OF MOLD MAKING, CORE MAKING, POURING, AND COOLING.

Name of Process /
Name of Emission
Sodium
silicate
Green Sand
Nobake
phenolic
Urethane
phenolic
Hotbox
phenolic
Core oil Shell
Ammonia 0.038 0.065 0.039 0.083 10.931 0.038 3.86
Hydrogen sulfide 0.197 0.832 1.462 0.057 0.009 0.057 0.094
Nitrogen oxides 0.028 0.562 0.029 0.044 0.638 0.081 0.994
Sulfur dioxide 0.244 0.253 15.107 0.061 0.036 0.115 3.509
Benzene 1.41 0.611 11.209 5.351 1.002 2.344 6.667
Formaldehyde 0.169 0.004 0.01 0.022 0.006 0.098 0.035
Hydrogen cyanide 0.179 0.118 0.029 1.053 1.184 0.086 10.526
M-xylene 0.094 0.021 0.097 0.439 0.121 0.239 0.585
Naphthalene 0.005 0.021 0.049 0.022 0.03 0.048 0.058
O-xylene 0.094 0.021 0.049 0.132 0.03 0.287 0.117
Phenol 0.273 0.131 0.975 3.904 0.203 0.057 2.456
Toluene 0.282 0.063 0.694 0.833 0.182 0.478 2.907
Total aromatic amines 0.094 0.021 0.049 0.351 1.275 0.096 2.939
Particular matter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen dioxide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carbon monoxide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Emissions are in g (emission) /ton (of mold /core sand) for mold and core making and in g (emission) /ton (of melt) for pouring and cooling
Name of Process /
Name of Emission
Cupola
Cupola-
scrubber
Electric arc
furnace
Elect. Ind.
furnace
Reverberatory
furnace
Castfinish Grinding
Particular matter 19161.9 1600 1200 797.28 1721.4 2.04 8471.1
Sulfur dioxide 600 300 4200 0 2 0 0
Nitrogen dioxide 45.31 0 1600 0 2627.4 0 0
VOC 81.54 0 81.54 0 67.95 0 0
Carbon monoxide 73000 73000 8607 0 0 0 0
Lead 271.8 0 0 24.68 34.4 0 0
Carbon dioxide 309399 0 0 0 294000 0 0
TABLE C. EMISSIONS OF MOLD MAKING, CORE MAKING, POURING, AND COOLING (continued).

Name of Process /
Name of Emission
Alkyd
isocyanate
Nitrogen
furan
Nitrogen
furan TSA
Hotbox furan
Pouring &
Cooling(GCI)
Pouring &
Cooling(CS)
Ammonia 0.037 0.04 0.202 19.579 0 0
Hydrogen sulfide 0.007 0.405 0.485 0.06 0 0
Nitrogen oxides 0.355 0.012 0.372 0.411 0 0
Sulfur dioxide 0.04 0.607 4.858 0.088 9.06 9.06*
Benzene 5.336 0.648 0.4534 0.537 23.9 23.9*
Formaldehyde 0.106 0.257 0.065 0.009 0 0
Hydrogen cyanide 0.175 0.368 0.607 3.474 0 0
M-xylene 2.522 2.227 0.243 0.032 3.075 3.075*
Naphthalene 0.037 0.04 0.04 0.032 2.95 2.95*
O-xylene 3.838 0.729 0.04 0.032 1.175 1.175*
Phenol 0.11 0.024 0.101 0.016 11.25 11.25*
Toluene 1.535 0.121 8.825 0.032 10.45 10.45
Total aromatic amines 0.037 0.081 0.364 3.032 0 0
Particular matter 0 0 0 0 3469.98 3805.2
Nitrogen dioxide 0 0 0 0 4.53 4.53
VOC 0 0 0 0 63.42 63.42
Lead 0 0 0 0 0.185 0.185*
*assumed equal to GCI; GCI Grey Cast Iron; CS Cast Steel

TABLE D. EMISSIONS AND THEIR IMPACT CATEGORIES AS PER ISO 14040, EDIP & ECO-INDICATOR-99.

ISO 14040 EDIP Eco-Indicator-99
Name of Pollutant
GW AP PS EP HT ET GW AP PS EP HT ET CA RO RIO CC OL RA ET AE
CO2
CO
NO2
Sulfur Dioxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Phenol
VOC
Ammonia
Lead
PM
Nox
HCN
H2S
M-Xylene
O-Xylene

IMPACT CATEGORIES AS PER ISO 14040: Global warming (GW) , Acidification potential (AP) , Photo-chemical smog (PS)
Eutrophication potential (AP), Human toxicity (HT) and Ecological toxicity (ET)

IMPACT CATEGORIES AS PER EDIP: Global warming (GW), Acidification potential (AP), Photo chemical smog (PS),
Eutrophication potential (EP), Human toxicity (HT), Eco toxicity (ET)

IMPACT CATEGORIES AS PER Eco-Indicator 99: Carcinogens (CA), Respirated organics (RO), Respirated inorganics (RIO),
Climate change (CC), Acidification / Eutrophication (AE), Eco toxicity (ET)
APPENDIX II: CHARACTERIZATION FACTORS

EDIP Characterization Factors
Global Warming CO
2
1
CO 2
Benzene 3
Phenol 2
Toluene 3
Formaldehyde 3
M-xylene 3
O-xylene 3
Acidification SO2 1
NO2 0.7
Ammonia 1.88
Hydrogen Sulfide 1.88
Nitrogen oxides 0.7
Photo Chemical VOC 0.4
Smog CO 0.03
Benzene 0.2
Toluene 0.6
Formaldehyde 0.4
M-Xylene 1
O-Xylene 0.7
Eutrophication NO
2
1.35
Ammonia (NH
4
) 3.64
Nitrogen oxides 1.35
Hydrogen cyanide 2.38
Human toxicity Air Water Soil
SO
2
1.30E+03 0 0
CO 8.30E+02 0 0
Lead (Pb) 1.10E+08 53 8.30E-2
Benzene 1.00E+07 2.3 14
Phenol 1.40E+06 0 0
Toluene 2.50E+03 4.00E-3 1.00E-3
Formaldehyde 1.30E+07 2.20E-5 5.80E-3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1.10E+06 8.10E-4 0.26
Nitrogen oxides 8.60E+03 0 0
Hydrogen cyanide 1.40E+05 1.50E-3 0.71
M-Xylene 6.70E+03 1.10E-3 6.70E-5
O-Xylene 6.70E+03 1.10E-3 6.70E-5
Eco Toxicity WC SC WA
Lead (Pb) 400 0.01 0
Benzene 4 3.6 0
Phenol 0 0 0
Toluene 4 0.97 0
Hydrogen cyanide 800 7.60E+03 0
M-xylene 4 0.4 0
O-xylene 4 0.4 0












ISO 14040Characterization Factors
Global Warming CO2 1
Acidification SO2 1
NO
2
0.7
Ammonia 1.9
NOx 0.71
Photochemical CO 0.07
Smog Benzene 1
Phenol 1.86
Toluene 4.19
Formaldehyde 9.12
Eutrophication NO2 0.13
Ammonia 0.33
Nitrogen oxides 0.13
Human toxicity Lead (Pb) 15
(Carcinogens) Benzene 1
Formaldehyde 0.003
Human toxicity Lead (Pb) 1,300,000
(Non-Carcinogens) Ammonia 3.2
Benzene 17
Formaldehyde 7
Phenolics 0.045
Ecological Benzene 14.6
Toxicity Formaldehyde 7.3
Toluene 3.7
M-xylene 3.7
O-xylene 3.7
Phenol* 3.1
* Phenol impact on aqueous medium
Eco indicator 99 Characterization Factors
Carcinogens Benzene 1.58E-06
Respirated Benzene 4.50E-07
organics VOC 6.00E-7
Phenol 0.0000019
Toluene 1.27E-06
Formaldehyde 1.03E-06
M-xylene 2.22E-06
O-xylene 2.14E-06
Respirated Particular matter 8.03E-05
inorganics SO2 3.90E-05
NO
2
1.19E-06
Ammonia (NH
4
) 5.10E-05
Nitrogen oxides 1.19E-06
Climate Change CO2 2.00E-07
CO 3.06E-07
Acidification SO
2
1.041
NO
2
5.713
Ammonia (NH
4
) 15.57
Eco toxicity Lead (Pb) 394
Benzene 2.75E-02
Phenol 133
Toluene 2.40E-03
Radiation Lead (Pb) 1.30E-12
WC Water chronic; SC Soil chronic; WA Water acute

S-ar putea să vă placă și