4.7 Article

Sustainability-based performance evaluation of hybrid nanofluid assisted machining

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 257, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120541

关键词

Sustainable manufacturing; Energy consumption; Alumina-graphene; Hybrid nanofluid; Cumulative energy demand; Carbon emission

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Project [2018YFB2002202]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [NP2018302]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China's industrial sector accounts for more than half of the country's total energy demand. During 2010 -2012, nearly 73% of the total hike in the global carbon emission has occurred in China alone. According to the regulations of the International Organization for Standardization, the material processing industry is required to cut down the energy consumption demand and carbon emission. It is worthwhile to consider the elimination of cutting fluids from the machining domain for reducing production cost and environmental impact. This study presents component-stage based holistic models of energy, cost, and carbon emission. The models are validated through the experimental data obtained from turning of Haynes 25 alloy conducted under nanofluid (alumina-graphene) assisted minimum quantity lubrication. The data for energy consumption, cost, and CO2 emission are obtained from the experimental work and literature. The results show that the feed rate possesses the most significant effect on energy consumption. The shares of the work material's choice in total energy consumption, carbon emission, and total cost are found to be 93.7%, 66.8%, and 56.2%. The nanoparticles share a small portion of the total cost per unit product. The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) obtained in this study reveals a strong possibility of the industrial application of nanofluids in machining. This study also preaches think green, plan green, and go green. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据