Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2017
November 3-9, 2017, Tampa, Florida, USA

IMECE2017-72283
Energy and GHG emissions assessment in a plastic injection process at machine component
level: A case study of ABS plastic part produced in a Hybrid Injection Molding Machine

Javier Ávila * Vicente Borja* Marcelo López-Parra*

javier.avila@unam.mx vicenteb@unam.mx lopezp@unam.mx

Alejandro C. Ramírez-Reivich*
areivich@unam.mx

* Center for Mechanical Design and Technology Innovation, Faculty of Engineering

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
Cd. Universitaria, Distrito Federal, 04510, México

ABSTRACT sustainable products [5],[6],[11]. Furthermore, constantly

In this article a GHG and energy analysis for the plastic injection
process of an ABS medium sized injected part carried out in a
hybrid injection molding machine is reported. A power
consumption process pattern for an ABS medium-size part is
defined as well as the energy usage of components, the energy
used for the injection process is calculated for the injection cycle
and for the process setup. The reported study includes a hybrid
machine analysis working under an electric network that relies
mainly on thermoelectric energy generation. The GHG
emissions assessment was estimated using the 2015 emission
factor applied for Mexico. The results provide new experimental
data for ABS plastic injected parts in hybrid injection machines
This paper describes the outcomes of a GHG emissions and
energy assessment for an ABS medium-sized injected part
carried out in a HIMM at UNAM. The approach followed by the
authors in this assessment was aimed at providing information
about the energy usage and GHG emissions for the process and
the part.
The main contribution of this paper is the insight related to
energy usage indicators in the process, the energy usage and the
GHG emissions within components. The product used as a case
study and the results of its GHG emissions and energy
assessment are presented.
INTRODUCTION
The complexity of the environment, the globalization and its
associated technological challenges has led to the need of a more
efficient and sustainable industry. The market demands more
changing regulations are leading the market to implement new
structures of design, manufacture, transportation and disposal
[7].
Researchers and companies make their best to develop efficient
ways to deliver better products and prime processes to
accomplish market regulations and environmental, cultural,
social and economic requirements. Attention to environmental
aspects, social impact or resource depletion is accelerating and
different drivers are exerting pressure on companies [16], [5].
Having a product or process that works and fulfills market needs
is not enough nowadays. It is imperative to be able to implement
mechanism in industry to become more sustainable and therefore
it is very pertinent to develop measurement methodologies and
related standards to evaluate and improve sustainability of
products and manufacturing processes [9].
One illustrative example of how industry sector is producing and
establishing sustainability assessments in its processes and
products can be reviewed in Koplin [22]. Today industry uses
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess sustainability
performance (including energy performance and GHG
emissions) of a product life cycle including the manufacturing
stage [23]. Such a sustainability assessment is predominantly
based on product´s material and weight, ignoring manufacturing
factors such as part design, manufacturing equipment and
processing conditions and facilities location [8]. The electrical
energy demand of machine tools is rarely specified and known,
information is provided, for instance, in life cycle inventory
databases. This information is restricted to a selection of

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 processes and based on estimations providing aggregated and including material selection, the mold and the peripherical
averaged data about energy demand [13]. equipment [25].

In the view of the authors, the contribution of this work relies on
the information gathering and the emissions and energy analyses
performed on a hybrid injection molding machine (HIMM). The
energy consumption pattern obtained for ABS parts, the energy
distribution for a number of machine components and finally the
GHG emissions, calculated for machine components and per
injection cycle, integrate a wide group of data that expands
current research work published on these themes.
BACKGROUND
Regarding GHG analysis, an approach that somehow provides
the basis for the study of interactions between process and
environment is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) process [21]
LCA is used to estimate the global impacts of a product [12]. The
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry defines the
LCA process as a process to evaluate the environmental burdens
associated with a product, process or activity by identifying and
quantifying energy and material usage as well as the
environmental releases. The stages of a conventional life cycle
assessment of a product are as follows (1) Pre-manufacturing (2)
Manufacturing (3) Delivery (4) Use (5) End of life.

Plastic injection molding is a cyclical process in which plastics LCA is among the most powerful tools available to date to
feed stock is melted and pressurized into the mold cavity to investigate the environmental performance of a technology, a
produce three dimensional parts [14]. The plastic industry in product or a service over the different stages of its life span, or
Mexico represents the 2% of world’s total production (5.3 MT) ‘from the cradle to the grave’ as is often said in technical jargon
[23], it is the 12th largest plastics consumer in the world, which [1].
accounts for 5.3% of the manufacturing sector and represents 1%
of Mexico’s GDP. Direct plastic consumption per capita in
Mexico is 48 kg a year [22]. The plastic injection process in ENERGY AND GHG EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT
Mexico is particularly important since it represents the 55% of
The purpose of the analysis reported in this paper is to introduce
the total plastic processing volume. 50% of the plastic injection
an assessment at component level for energy and GHG emissions
facilities are located in the central region of the country [2].
of a plastic injection process. The assessment leads to: (1) a
Power Usage Pattern for a medium sized part made of ABS, (2)
At the industry level, Fai presented an environmental impact
the specific energy consumption for the part, (3) the energy
assessment for the plastic injection molding process in Hong
distribution at machine´s component level and finally (4) a GHG
Kong [3]. Wolf made a sustainability assessment of polymer
emissions assessment at component level; methodology used
products in which authors set rules for sustainability assessment
shown in Figure 1.
and misconceptions, polymers life cycle and a description of
tools to perform the assessment [20]. Spiering elaborated a
supporting control system for design of products and processes
in manufacturing considering sustainability evaluations of
plastic products injection to predict energy consumption [15]. In
a recent work Schlüter and Rosano presented energy
consumption simulations at plant level based on realistic
processing conditions for two injection molding factories one in
Germany and the other in Australia [24].

At the machine level, Thiriez and Gutowski presented a work

with the differences in environmental performance of electric
and hydraulic injection molding machines to visualize the energy
consumption patterns comparison [17] Mattis presented a
method to link design decisions-parameters and energy
consumption [10], Godec Rujnić-Sokele, M., & Šercer,
presented a paper with the analysis of energy consumption in
injection molding systems and energy saving possibilities
Figure 1. Energy analysis methodology

2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 An experiment was performed using a Hybrid Injection Molding
Machine (HIMM) to fulfill the objectives of the analysis; the
machine (Figure 2) and the part specifications are given in Table
1 and Table 2 respectively.
Mission, Vision and Scope
The experiment was designed to be cost-effective and was
carried out in a plastic injection facility under industrial
conditions for an ABS part of 500 cm2 projected area. The
experiment was designed taken into consideration: part, process,
data-acquisition, sample size and post-processing indicators (as
shown in Table 1).
The scope of the study is to define the energy overhead of an
injection cycle for each part, the energy consumption for the
machine set-up and to estimate the energy used in the motor,
hydraulic pumps, hopper, chiller, heated barrel, and nozzle
heating
Machine and part description
The hybrid injection machine and the part studied (Figure 2 and
3) belong to a company in the central region of Mexico. The
technical specifications of the machine are presented in Table 2.

Energy usage was measured during machine set-up and during

injection cycles, the energy usage distribution in machine
components such as: motor, pumps, hopper, chiller, heated
barrel, and nozzle heating are presented in the results and finally
a GHG emissions assessment at component level is given.

Table 1. Experiment parameters and variables

Environment Part Process Data Post-

conditions acquisition Processing
Temperature Geometry Machine Drivers Sample
Kind energy size
usage Figure 2. Energy analysis methodology

Humidity Thickness Injection Cooling Table 2. HIMM’s technical specifications

parameters energy
usage Feature Value
Surface Injection Material - Screw diameter 40 [mm]
area cycle-time drying Injection weight 195 [g]
energy Injection rate 144 [g/s]
usage
Material Drying Injection pressure 192 [MPa]
time Acquisition Plasticizing 55.44 [Kg/h]
interval capacity
Cooling Screw speed 272 rpm
time Clamping force 1200 [kN]
Mold
Max. Mold 450 [mm]
Height
The experiment was performed to obtain the energy consumption Hopper capacity 25 [kg]
pattern of an injection process in Mexico for a medium size ABS
part in a Hybrid Injection Molding Machine (HIMM) under The general specifications of the sample part studied are
environmental conditions of 25o C and 28% of relative humidity. presented in table 3.

The machine and the part were chosen under the following Table 3. Part features
criteria: For the injection machine election the main criteria were
Materia Weight Surface Injectio Injection
the accessibility for the data acquisition, as for the part, injection l [g] area n Cycle Pressure
cycles within 30 and 40 seconds and injection parameters [cm2] [s]
controlled and tested previously. ABS 166 500 38.75 110 psi

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 machine idle. The Specific Energy Consumption was 2.66
MJ/kg. The energy consumed during machine setup was 6,004.3
Wh in a time of 35 minutes.

As mentioned before, by analyzing the power pattern (Figure 1)

and by knowing which machine components operates during
each process operation, the energy consumption of each
component was estimated (Table 4).

The screw motor consumed an average of 32% of the total energy

usage during the injection cycle. This machine component is
linked to the injection, dwelling and plasticize operations. Pumps
and chiller represented the 35.33% of the total energy usage and
they affected the cooling stage. The hopper consumed the
12.95% of the energy and it was related to the ABS’
hydrophobic–hydrophilic properties. The barrel represented
11.59% of the total energy used and it depended on the material
used. Idle represents the 3.51% and it was determined by the
control unit of the machine.
Fig. 3 Case study: Medium sized ABS part
Table 4. Components energy usage

The measurement equipment used to gather data was a Fluke- Components Energy %
435. The protocol to collect power-data consisted in testing the (Wh)
machine set-up and measuring the 150 injection cycles of the part Chiller 15.28 12.42
Pump 28.17 22.91
with a resolution output of 0.25 s to obtain the consumption Hopper 15.93 12.95
pattern. The HIMM´s idle power consumed was also captured. Barrel 14.25 11.59
To obtain the consumption pattern with the data obtained, an Screw- 39.57 32.18
averaged cycle (power vs time) was calculated and plotted using Motor
Nozzle 5.42 4.40
the Power Log V 4.2 and Microsoft Excel. A numerical method
Idle 4.32 3.51
(trapezoidal rule) was used on the patter information to get the
amount of energy consumed during machine set up and for each GHG emissions assessment
injection cycle. The pattern of the injection cycle was analyzed
to identify the operation of the injection cycle and from them the The GHG emissions at component level were calculated using
energy of each machine component was estimated. The hopper the Mexican emission factor for the year 2015 [26], [27] and they
and the nozzle energy consumption were measured directly with are presented in table 5.
clamp-on meter.
Table 5. Components GHG emissions
RESULTS
Components GHG
By analyzing the power consumption pattern of the injection (g CO2eq)
cycles (Fig. 4) it can be stated that plasticize and cooling stages Chiller 6.93
require most of the usable energy; the cooling stage is the one Pump 12.78
Hopper 7.23
that takes the largest amount of time during the injection cycle.
Barrel 6.46
Screw-Motor 17.96
The estimated averaged energy used to produce the part was Nozzle 2.46
122.94 [Wh] during an injection cycle of 38.5 s, the energy was Idle 1.96
distributed within the following components: motor, hydraulic
pumps, hopper, chiller, heated barrel, nozzle heating and the The GHG emissions per part manufactured are 55 gCo 2eq the
GHG emissions for the process set up are 2.97 kgCO2

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4 Power Usage Pattern
RESULTS DISCUSSION
About the Power Usage Pattern
The power usage pattern allows to visualize the energy usage
within operations, it allows to recognize opportunities to reduce
power consumption and cycle time for single operations or to
improve the performance of the process.
The pattern aid to understand the machine behavior, it provides
with critical information for producers to know the characteristic
energy usage of the parts they produce.
About the Energy Distribution in components
For component´s analysis, the screw motor consumes an average
of 26% of the total energy usage during the injection cycle. A
potential opportunity for the energy component optimization is
possible and it is linked to plasticize, injection and dwelling
stages optimization. Pumps and chiller represent the 38% of the
total energy usage and it is linked to the cool stage. Optimization
is possible specially for the chiller.
About the GHG emissions assessment in components
For GHG analysis, 55 grams of CO2 eq. are used per part
manufactured in the complete batch 11.17 kg CO2 eq taking into
consideration set-up and injection cycles, the opportunities to
reduce the GHG impact is to produce more parts to leverage the
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
emissions for the set-up, at component level the carbon footprint
can be reduced by reducing the cooling time and by optimizing
the time for the plasticize.
At plant level, there is an opportunity for plastic manufacturers
to reduce or even to eliminate the carbon footprint by using
renewable energy to supply the electricity of the process.
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND LESSONS LEARNED
An energy and GHG assessment for the injection molding
process in a hybrid machine was reported. The Power Usage
Pattern, the Specific Energy Consumption for a medium-size
part, the distribution of energy at component and the GHG
emissions at component level and for the process were presented.
The Power Usage Pattern gives an approach of machine
operations behavior and optimization opportunities can be
proposed for energy usage and cycle time, this lead us to future
work based on profiles features. The shape of the Power Usage
Pattern showed in this paper for the ABS parts, is similar to the
one reported in [17] for other materials.
The methodology considered part features, machine kind,
material, environmental conditions, sample size, data-
acquisition, and data post-processing.
 The discoveries of the methodology were related to aspects such
as: product, process, conditions, data-acquisition and data-
analysis. New experimental data for ABS plastic injected parts
in a hybrid injection machine, specifically to ABS parts of 500
cm2; design and manufacturing key linkage insights, especially
those related to process-optimization opportunities,
experimental indicators definition and the capability to scale the
indicators to metrics and strategies and finally post-processing
relevant indicators, such as the sample size and the energy usage.
There is a need to increase the amount of analysis due to the
variety of the materials existing in the market, the number of
machine types and the variability of environmental conditions.
Experimental data for ABS plastic injected parts in a hybrid
injection machine was presented, process optimization
opportunities were proposed, experiment indicators definition
were given and there is a possibility to work in the future to scale
results to metrics and strategies, ready to use industrial outputs
were reported. An opportunity for future work to compare more
power usage patterns is open to generate strategies based on the
comparison of two or more.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors recognize the collaboration of the people from the
Centro de Diseño Mecánico e Innovación Tecnológica of the
School of the Engineering, UNAM.
Work reported in this paper was sponsored by the Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México through the project support
program (UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT IT101816 ) and the
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (PHD scholarship for
the author Javier Noé Ávila Cedillo).
REFERENCES
[1] Bala A, Raugei M, Benveniste G, Gazulla C, Fullana P.
“Simplified tools for global warming potential evaluation:
When ‘good enough’ is best” Int J Life Cycle Assess (2010)
15:489–4
[2] Conde P, “Presente y futuro de la industria del plástico en
México” Presentación de Pemex Petroquímica para el Centro
Empresarial del Plástico 2012, publicado en la revista digital
Ambiente Plástico.
[3] Fai P, Hui I, Lewis W, C.W. H, “A multiple-criteria
environmental impact assessment for the plastic injection
6 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
molding process: a methodology”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Volume 11, Issue 1, February 2003, Pages 41-49.
[5] Fichter K, Pfriem R, “Leading innovations to sustainable
future markets” in Innovations towards sustainability pp 103-116
Physician-Verlag HD.
[6] Jovane F, Yoshikawa H, Alting L, Boër CR, Westkamper E,
Williams D, Tseng M, Seliger G, Paci AM, “The incoming
global technological and industrial revolution towards
competitive sustainable manufacturing”, CIRP
Annals,Manufacturing Technology, Volume 57, Issue 2, 2008.
[7] Gutowski T (2004). “Design and Manufacturing for the
Environment” for the Handbook of Mechanical Engineering,
Springer-Verlag.
[8] Madan J, Mahesh M, Jae H, Kevin W. “Energy Performance
Evaluation and Improvement of Unit-Manufacturing Processes:
Injection Molding Case Study” Journal of Cleaner Production
2014.
[9] Mani M, Madan J, Lee J, Lyons KW, Gupta S, 2014
“Sustainability characterization for manufacturing processes”.
International Journal Production Research.
[10] Mattis, J.; Sheng, P.; DiScipio, W.; Leong, K., "A framework
for analyzing energy efficient injection-molding die
design," Electronics and the Environment, 1996. ISEE-1996.,
Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Symposium ,
pp.207,212, 6-8 May 1996.
[11] OECD, Sustainable manufacturing toolkit: seven steps for
environmental excellence 2011.
[12] Taisch M, Sadr V, May G, Stahl B “Sustainability
assessment tools- state of research and gap analysis. Advances in
Production and Management Systems 2013 Part II, IFIP AICT
415 426-434, 2013.
[13] Rischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J., Doka, G.,
Dones, R., Hellweg, S., Hischier, R., Humbert, S., Margni, M.,
Nemecek, T., Spielmann, M. 2007: Implementation of Life
Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. CD-ROM No. Final report
ecoinvent v2.0 No. 3, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
Dübendorf, CH.
[14] Shelesh-Nezhad K, Siores E “An intelligent system for
plastic injection molding process design”, 1997 Journal of
Material Processing Technology (63) 458-462 1997. Elsevier
Sciences.
[15] Spiering T, Kohlitz S, Sundmaeker H “Advances in
Sustainable and Competitive Manufacturing Systems Lecture
notes of Mechanical Engineering, Advanced Product and
Process Design Through Methodological Analysis and
 Forecasting of Energy Consumption in Manufacturing”, [25] Godec, D., Rujnić-Sokele, M., & Šercer, M. (2012).
Springer International Publishing, 2013. Processing parameters influencing energy efficient injection
moulding of plastics and rubbers. Polimeri, 33.
[16] Thiede S, “Energy efficiency in manufacturing
systems”,2012 Springer-Verlag. [26] Programa GEI Méxic http://www.geimexico.org/factor.html
last access April 24th 2017.
[17] Thierez A, Gutowski T “An environmental analysis of
injection molding”. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE [27] SEMARNAT (2016) Factor de emisión eléctrico 2015
international symposium on electronics and the environment, http://www.geimexico.org/image/2015/aviso_factor_de_emisio
Scottsdale, AZ, USA, pp 195–200, 2006. n_electrico%202014%20Semarnat.pdf

[18] Quadriguasi, J, Walther G, Bloemhof J, Van Nunen, J,

Spengler T: A methodology for assessing eco-efficiency in
logistics networks. European Journal of Operational Research,
(2009) 193/3, pp. 670-682.

[19] Qureshi F, Li W, Kara S, Herrmann C. ”Unit process energy

consumption models for material addition processes a case of the
injection molding process”19th CIRP International Conference
on Life Cycle Engineering, Berkeley 2012.

[20] Wolf M, Baitz M, Kreissig J “Polymers opportunities and

risk: Assessing the sustainability of polymer products” The
handbook of environmental chemistry 2010 pp 1-53 Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heildeberg.

[21] Graedel T, Howard-Greenville J “Greening the industrial

facility; perspectives, approaches and tools” Springer 2005
ISBN 0-387-24306-2.

[22] Koplin J, Seuring S, Mesterharm M, “Incorporating

sustainability into supply management in the automotive
industry – the case of the Volkswagen AG”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Volume 15, Issues 11–12, 2007, pp. 1053-1062,
ISSN 0959-6526

[23] Chen D, Schudeleit, T, Posselt G, Thiede S, “A state of the

art review and evaluation of tolos for Factory sustainability
assessment” 2nd CIRP Global Web Conference 2013.

[24] B. Alexander Schlüter, Michele B. Rosano, A holistic

approach to energy efficiency assessment in plastic processing,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 118, 1 April 2016, Pages
19-28, ISSN 0959-6526

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use