Environmental Impact Assessment of Grind-Hardening Process

Konstantinos Salonitis, George Tsoukantas, Stavros Drakopoulos, Panagiotis Stavropoulos, George Chryssolouris
Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation, Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Aeronautics, University of Patras, Greece

Abstract
Conventional heat treatment methods are characterized by high energy consumption and the utilization of
polluting treatment salts. Grind-hardening is an alternative process that can be used for the simultaneous
surface hardening and grinding of metallic components. In this study, Life Cycle Assessment methods are
used for the environmental analysis of the grind-hardening process. The environmental impact of the grind-
hardening process is compared with the respective impact caused by conventional heat treatment methods
in two different pilot cases: the production of raceways and the production of tripod joints. The analysis
indicates that the utilization of grind-hardening decreases significantly the environmental impact.

Keywords
Environmental assessment, grinding, grind-hardening, heat treatment

analysis indicates that the utilization of grind-hardening

1 INTRODUCTION
The production of high precision steel parts usually
includes a hardening process for altering the surface
structure. Conventional heat treatment methods are
characterized by high energy consumption and the
utilization of polluting treatment salts. Furthermore, the
heat treatment process is usually performed in wage
hardeners that are outside the production plant and thus,
the workpieces have to be transported to and fro,
increasing as a result both the energy consumption and
the environmental impact. Additionally, the necessary
cleaning of the workpieces, before and after the heat
treatment process, requires copious amount of water.
Grind-hardening is an alternative process that can be
used for the simultaneous surface hardening and grinding
of metallic components [1, 2, 3] by eliminating all the
above steps since both the grinding and grind-hardening
processes are performed on the same grinding machine
with the same setup (Figure 1).
Conventional Production
decreases significantly the environmental impact on the
production of steel parts.
2 RACEWAY PRODUCTION
2.1 Pilot case description
The first pilot case was a metallic component of a greater
assembly, whose production phase would be
environmentally assessed. Conventionally, this product
was hardened with the use of salt baths by an external
wage hardener, outside the production facilities.
Subsequently, four grinding cycles were requested for
achieving the specifications imposed. The introduction of
grind-hardening to the process chain, has removed the
conventional heat treatment and the rough grinding cycle,
since both of these processes were performed
simultaneously.
2.2 Life Cycle Inventory
The most intensive and demanding task in performing
LCA is the Life Cycle Inventory, since it includes all data
collection. These data are required for the modelling of

Soft
START Hardening Finishing END the system under consideration.
Machining
Sequence

System boundaries
The boundaries of the analysis have been defined so as
• Turning • Induction Hard. • Grinding to provide a clear comparison of the environmental effect
• Milling • Nitriding • Honing
• Drilling • Case Hard. • Hard Turning
of the conventional and the modified process chains. In
Figure 2, the analysis boundaries are shown for both
production chains.
Integrated Production

Soft Abrasive
START END
Machining Processing
Sequence

Conventional Process Chain

Conventional Rough Grinding

• Turning Grind-Hardening Hardening

• Milling & Finish Grinding Shoulder Grinding
• Drilling

Reference side Grinding

Figure 1. Comparison of a conventional production chain
and a production chain including grind hardening [4] Raceway Grinding
LCA
boundaries
Altered Process Chain

In the present study, the environmental analysis of the Shoulder Grinding

grind-hardening process is presented. Life cycle Grind Hardening
assessment (LCA) methods are used for comparing the Reference side Grinding
environmental impact of the grind-hardening process
versus the respective impact, caused by the utilization of Raceway Grinding
LCA
boundaries
conventional heat treatment methods in two different pilot
cases: the production of raceways and tripod joints. The
Figure 2. Pilot case 1 LCA boundaries

657
Data Collection
Taking into consideration the system’s boundaries, the
required data for conducting the analysis have been
identified and collected. The energy consumption of every
process step, the tool/grinding wheel wear, the debris
from each process step and the fumes produced have
been measured or estimated. As already mentioned, the
utilization of conventional hardening was carried out
externally, at a wage hardener’s premises, located 30 km
away from the production facilities. Therefore, the energy
consumption for moving the parts to and fro has been
estimated based on the LCA tool databases available.
The energy required for the hardening of the raceways
could not be measured directly and was estimated by the
processing time, the number of parts treated and the
installed machine power of the hardening oven. The
hardening process consisted of two phases, namely that
of hardening (820 °C; 20 min.) and that of quenching and
annealing (200 °C; 20 hrs.). Measures for the calculation
of the energy consumption during the hardening process
were missing because of the external commissioning of
this process step. These values depended on the batch
size, the size of the harden oven etc. Assume having an
average sized hardening oven with an energy
consumption of approx. 45 kVA when hardening, 20 kVA
when annealing and a batch size of 200 workpieces, the
above listed process parameters would lead to an energy
consumption of 2.07 kWh/workpiece.
2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Three LCA methodologies have been used for comparing
the environmental impact of the process chain when
substituting conventional hardening and rough grinding
with grind-hardening:
• Eco-Indicator 99,
• Eco-Points 97 and
EDIP/UMIP 96.
Eco-Indicator 99
The Eco-Indicator 99 method expresses the emissions
and resource extractions in 11 different impact categories
(Carcinogenics, respiratory organics, respiratory inorga-
nics, climate change, radiation, ozone layer, ecotoxicity,
acidification/eutrophication, land use, minerals and fossil
fuels) [5]. Once the models of the conventional and the
altered process chains have been defined, the impact
assessment analysis results are obtained. In Figure 3,
the comparison between these two different process
chains is shown.
Altered production chain
Conventional production chain
Figure 3. Weighting comparison using Eco-Indicator 99
methodology
658
The relative contribution of each impact category to the
environmental effect is depicted in Figure 3, since
weighting factors have been applied. As it can be seen
the “fossil fuels” impact category (i.e. the required surplus
3
energy per extracted MJ, kg or m fossil fuel as a result of
lower quality resources), is reduced by ca. 73%. This is
justified should be taken into consideration that the
utilization of grind hardening indoors instead of heat
treatment in an external wage hardener eliminates the
need for using lorries to transport the parts from and to
the production facilities. Additionally, the impact category
of “respiratory inorganics” (i.e. the respiratory effect
resulting from winter smog due to emissions of dust,
sulphur and nitrogen oxides to air) is reduced by ca. 30%
since no heat treatment furnaces are used and therefore,
the danger of methanol or methane leak from them is
eliminated.
In order to present the above results in a more direct and
meaningful way, these rather abstract impact categories
have been combined and grouped in three damage
categories that present the different types of damage
caused by them: the “Damage to human health”, the
“Damage to ecosystem quality” and the “Damage to
resources”. In Figure 4, is shown the comparison of these
production chains, as far as damage caused is
concerned. The substitution of the conventional heat
treatment with grind-hardening results in 72% reduction in
the damage caused to the resources, 13% reduction in
the damage caused to the ecosystem quality and 25% in
the damage to resources.
Altered production chain
Conventional production chain
72 %
Ð 25 %
Ð 13 %
Human Health Ecosystem Quality Resources
Figure 4. Weighting comparison of damage categories
using Eco-Indicator 99 methodology
%
.9
61
Altered production chain Conventional production chain
Figure 5. Single Score comparison using Eco-Indicator
99 methodology
P ROCEEDINGS OF LCE2006
The relative seriousness of each damage category was levels of concern in streets and cities. Figure 7, illustrates
added afterwards for estimating the total (single) score NO2 satellite measurements, indicating that NO2
that indicated the total environmental effect each concentration on some rural areas approaches 30 µgr/m³
production chain. In Figure 5, the single score of these [9], levels pretty close to harmful level. The calculated
production chains is being compared having used the reduction by 43 % is thus considered to have been a
result of the impact categories, provided by the Eco- significant achievement.
Indicator 99 method. As it can be seen, the
environmental damage caused by the production of the
raceway rails is reduced by ca. 62% when grind
hardening is used instead of conventional heat
treatments.

Eco-Points 97
The same models were analyzed by using the Eco-Points
97 method. The Eco-Points method uses target values
rather than current ones (in comparison with the Eco-
Indicator) and it is based on policy instead of sustainability
levels [5]. In Figure 6, the comparison between the two
different production chains is depicted after the weighing
factors have been applied. As it can be seen, the major
substances that contribute to the environmental pollution
are the CO2, the SOx and the NOx. The CO2 emission is
reduced by ca. 37%, the SOx by ca. 44% and NOx by ca.
43%. Figure 7. NO2 pollution over European continent [9]

The relative seriousness of each category has been

Altered production chain
Conventional production chain
added to provide the single score that indicates the total
environmental effect on this production chain. In Figure 9
is illustrated the single score of these production chains.
As it can be seen, the relative seriousness of producing
rails is reduced by 28.1% when grind hardening is used
instead of conventional heat treatment.

%
28.1

Figure 6. Weighting comparison using Eco-Points 97

methodology

The CO2 causes between 9 and 26% of the greenhouse

effect, which is known as calendar effect [6]. Based on
measurements from Antarctic ice cores, it has been
determined that just before industrial emissions began,
the atmospheric CO2 levels were ca. 280 µL/L [7]. Since
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the
concentrations of a large amount of the greenhouse
gases have increased radically, as in the case of CO2
whose concentration was increased by 31% [8]. Thus,
the reduction in CO2 concentration is significant for
maintaining the global temperature. The 37% reduction
achieved through the utilization of grind-hardening
therefore is considered of great significance.
Nitric oxides NOx (Nitric Oxide NO and Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2) may convert into nitric acid in the air, implicated in
acid rain. Furthermore, both NO and NO2 contribute to
the ozone layer depletion. Additionally, NO2 is one of the
most prominent air pollutants. Long-term exposure to
concentration levels above 40-100 microgram/m³ causes
adverse health effects. From a health point of view, the
most important source of NO2 is road traffic, emitting
nitrogen oxides in close proximity to people and causing
Altered production chain Conventional production chain
Figure 8. Single score comparison using Eco-Points 97
methodology
EDIM/UMIP 96
Method EDIP has also been used in order to compare the
two production chains under the politically set target
emissions [5]. It was found that the “Ecotoxicity Water
Chronic” and the “Ecotoxicity Water Acute” impact
categories were the ones with greater polluting
significance. When grind-hardening has been utilized
they are reduced by 16% and 17% respectively. The
single score (Figure 9) derived by this method, has
indicated that the effect on the production of the rails with
the use of grind-hardening instead of conventional heat
treatments will be reduced by approximately 16%.

13th CIRP I NTERNATIONAL C ONFERENCE ON L IFE C YCLE E NGINEERING 659


15.9
Altered production chain
identified and collected. The energy and raw material
% consumption were measured as was done for the
raceways pilot case too. Since the heat treatment
facilities were inside the production plant, it was possible
for the energy consumption to be measured with
accuracy. Continuous furnaces were used for the heat
treatment processes (carburizing, hardening and
tempering), with “salts” used in the heat baths being
nitrogen, methanol and natural gas (methane). The
model developed for the LCA took into consideration the
production of these gases and their effect on the
environment.
Conventional production chain
Exit from warehouse

Internal & spherical LCA boundaries

turning
Figure 9. Single score comparison using EDIP/UMIP
methodology Spline broaching

Trunnions turning
2.4 Conclusions
Heat Treatment Grind Hardening
The Life Cycle Assessment Analysis of the raceway
production chain and the comparison when substituting Grinding
the conventional heat treatment and the rough grinding
process with grind-hardening has predicted: Cracks control Tumbling & washing Tripod Assembly Control

• a reduction in the overall environmental effect by 62%

(using Eco-Indicator method) Figure 10. Pilot case 2 LCA boundaries
• a reduction in the overall environmental effect by
28.1% (using Eco-Points 97 method)
• a reduction in the overall environmental effect by 16%
(using EDIP/UMIP method) 3.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Two LCA methodologies have been used for the analysis
of the environmental effect that the introduction of grind-
By averaging the above predictions, it could be claimed
hardening would have into the environment:
that the impact of the production chain on the environment
will be reduced by approximately 45%. • Eco-Indicator 99, and
• Eco-Points 97

3 TRIPOD JOINTS PRODUCTION Raw material environmental effect

3.1 Pilot case description
The second pilot case was a tripod joint produced from a
material with a carbon content > 0.3 %. The case
hardening process was conventionally used for the
hardening of the workpieces. In this case, the heat
treatment of the workpieces was conducted in-house.
The introduction of the grind-hardening process to the
production chain has resulted in the substitution of the
case hardening and trunions turning steps.
The first stage of this pilot case analysis was to assess
each process’ relevant contribution to the environmental
damage caused to producing the tripod. Additionally, for
comparison reasons the environmental effect of the raw
material production was assessed. Afterwards, the
process chain was compared with the altered process
The Eco-Indicator 99 method has been used in order to
compare the environmental effect, caused by the raw
material production, with that caused by its processing.
In Figure 11, is shown the single score of every process,
included in the analysis boundary, compared with that of
producing the raw material. As it can be seen, the
production of raw material has a more severe effect on
the environment than the processing of the workpiece in
order to be transformed into a tripod. The environmental
damage caused by the raw material production accounts
for 52% of the total damage caused, in contrast to 48% for
the processing of the workpiece.
3%
5% 5%
8%

chain that included grind-hardening instead of

conventional heat treatments. 27%
52%

3.2 Life Cycle Inventory Raw Material Finish Grinding

Heat Treatment Tr. Turning
System boundaries Sp. Broaching Int. & Sph. Turning

The boundaries of the analysis have been defined so as

to provide a clear comparison of the environmental effect
both on the conventional and the modified process chains.
In Figure 10, the analysis boundaries are shown for both Int. & Sph. Sp. Broaching Tr. Turning Heat Treatment Fin. Grinding Raw mat.
cases. Turning production

Data Collection
Figure 11. Single score of every process step and the
Taking into consideration the system boundaries, the raw material production
required data for conducting the analysis have been

660 P ROCEEDINGS OF LCE2006

Process contribution
Excluding the raw material production, each process Altered production chain
contribution to the environmental damage was considered Conventional production chain
afterwards. Once more, the Eco-Indicator 99 method was
used for the analysis. In Figure 12, the relative
contribution of each process stage is shown in the case of
the conventional process chain, whereas in the
subsequent Figure no 13, is shown the relative
contribution of the process of the altered process
sequence (including grind-hardening instead of heat
treatment). As it can be derived from these figures, the
finish grinding processes are the ones with the greatest
environmental effect.

6% 10%
10%
Figure 14. Weighting comparison using Eco-Indicator 99
methodology
57%
17%
Int. & Sph. Turning Sp. Broaching
Tr. Turning Heat Treatment

34.6%

33.9%
Fin. Grinding

30.2%
Int. & Sph. Turning Sp. Broaching Tr. Turning Heat Treatment Fin. Grinding

Figure 12. Relative seriousness of environmental damage

of each process step (Conventional process chain)
Figure 15. Weighting comparison of damage categories
using Eco-Indicator 99 methodology
9%
15%
Eco-Points 97
62% 14% The same models have been analyzed by using the Eco-
Int. & Sph. Turning Sp. Broaching Points 97 method. In Figure 16, the comparison between
Grind Hardening Finish Grinding the two different production chains is depicted after the
weighing factors have been applied. As it can be seen,
the major substances that contribute to the environmental
pollution are the CO2, the SOx and the NOx. The CO2
emission is reduced by ca. 30%, the SOx by ca. 34% and
NOx by ca. 40%. Additionally, other impact categories that
are of less significance and are reduced by an average of
35%, are dust particles, the Mercury element (Hg) and
Sp. Broaching Grind Hardening
Int. & Sph. Turning Fin. Grinding
Phosphorus (P).

Figure 13. Relative seriousness of environmental damage

EcoPoints 97
of each process step (setup including grind-hardening)
Altered production chain
Conventional production chain
Eco-Indicator 99
The Eco-Indicator 99 method has been used in order to
compare the environmental effect of the conventional
process chain with that of the modified process chain. In
Figure 14, the comparison between these two process
chains is shown. As it can be seen, the substitution of
both the turning and the heat treatment with grind
hardening, reduces significantly all impact categories, with
the major ones being the “respiratory inorganics” (reduced
by 34%) and the “fossil fuels” (reduced by 36%).
The three damage categories have been derived from the
weighted impact categories. As it can be seen in Figure
15, the damage to human health is reduced by ca. 35 %, Figure 16. Weighting comparison using Eco-Points 97
the damage caused to the eco-system quality is reduced methodology
by ca. 31 % and finally, the damage caused to the
resources is reduced by ca. 34%.

13th CIRP I NTERNATIONAL C ONFERENCE ON L IFE C YCLE E NGINEERING 661

Conclusions
The relative seriousness of each category has been
added to evaluate the total (single) score that indicate the
entire environmental effect of this production chain. In
Figure 17, the single score of these production chains is
shown referring to the impact categories’ results provided
by two assessment methods: the Eco-Indicator 99 and the
Eco-Points 97. As it can be seen, the relative seriousness
of the tripod production is reduced by an average of ca.
34% (36% using Eco-Indicator 99 and 32.2% using Eco-
Points 97) when the grind-hardening process is used
instead of the conventional heat treatments and the
turning stage.
Eco-Indicator 99 Eco-Points 97
32
.2
%
36
%
Conventional Conventional
Conventional Modified Conventional Modified
Process Sequence Process Sequence
Figure 17. Single score comparison using Eco-Indicator
99 and Eco-Points 97 methods
4 CONCLUSIONS
In the present paper the Life Cycle Assessment
methodologies have been used for comparing the
environmental damage caused from production chains
that include grind-hardening instead of conventional heat
treatment methods.
In the case of producing raceways, the substitution of the
conventional heat treatment method and rough grinding
with the grind-hardening process, has yielded an average
reduction in the environmental damage by 45%.
Similarly, the substitution of the turning and heat
treatment process with that of grind-hardening, for the
production of tripod joints, has reduced the environmental
damage by approximately 34%.
The difference in the reduction stated for the production of
the raceways and the tripod joints can be attributed to the
fact that no energy was consumed for the transportation
of the semi-finished ones, outside the production plant,
since heat treatment facilities were available on-site.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the European Social Fund (ESF), Operational
Program for Educational and Vocational Training II
662
(EPEAEK-II), and particularly the Program
PYTHAGORAS II, for funding the above work.
REFERENCES
[1] Brinksmeier, E., Brockhoff T., 1996, Utilisation of
Grinding Heat as a New Heat Treatment Process,
Annals of the CIRP, 45/1:283-286.
[2] Chryssolouris, G., Salonitis, K., 2004, Theoretical
investigation of the grinding wheel effect on grind-
hardening process, Preprints of IFAC-MIM'04
Conference on Manufacturing, Modelling,
Management and Control, Athens, Greece, (October
2004).
[3] Chryssolouris, G., Tsirbas K., Salonitis, K., 2005, An
analytical, numerical and experimental approach to
grind hardening, SME Journal of Manufacturing
Processes 7/1:1-9.
[4] Salonitis, K., Tsoukantas, G., Stavropoulos, P.,
Stouranras, A., Chryssolouris, G., 2005, An overview
of grind-hardening modeling, 1st Greek Conference
of the Greek Society of Mechanical and Electric
Engineers Association, Athens 28 -30 March 2005 - (
Available in CD - RO Μ)
[5] Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., Effting, S., 2004, Simapro 6
– Darabase Manual, Methods library, PRe
Consultants, Amersfoort, NL
[6] Kiehl, J.T., Trenerth, K.E., 1997, Earth’s annual
grobal mean energy budget, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 78/2:197–208.
[7] Wagner, F, Bohncke, S.J.P., Dilcher, D.L.,
Kürschner, W.M., van Geel, B., Visscher, H., 1999,
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric
CO2 Concentration, Science 284/5422:1971–1973.
[8] Keeling, C.D., Whorf., T.P., 2005, Atmospheric CO2
records from sites in the SIO air sampling network.
In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global
Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis
Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S.Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.,
U.S.A.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
[9] Beirle, S., Platt, U., Wagner, T., University of
Heidelberg's Institute for Environmental Physics
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservatio
n/pollution_europe_hires.jpg
CONTACT
Prof. George Chryssolouris
Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics
University of Patras, Patras 26110, Greece
E-mail: xrisol@mech.upatras.gr
P ROCEEDINGS OF LCE2006