Scrap, carbon and cost savings from the adoption of flexible nested blanking

Iain P. Flint,Julian M. Allwood,André Cabrera Serrenho

doi:10.1007/s00170-019-03995-6

Iain P. Flint, Julian M. Allwood + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03995-6

Copy DOI

Abstract

Steel accounts for 6% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, most of which arises during steelmaking rather than downstream manufacturing. While improving efficiency in steelmaking has received a great deal of attention, improving material yield downstream can have a substantial impact and has received comparatively less attention. In this paper, we explore the conditions required for manufacturers to switch to a more materially efficient process, reducing demand for steel and thus reducing emissions without reducing the supply of goods to consumers. Furthermore, we present an alternative processing route where parts can be cut in flexible arrangements to take advantage of optimal nesting across multiple part geometries. For the first time, we determine the potential savings that flexible nested blanking of parts could achieve by calculating the potential for grouping orders with tolerably similar thickness, strengths, ductility and corrosion-resistance. We found that 1080 kt of CO2 and 710 kt of steel worth €430M could be saved each year if this scheme was adopted across all European flat steelmills serving the automotive sector.

Highlights

1628 Mt of crude steel was produced in 2016 [23] with an associated emission of 3.1 Gt CO2 to the atmosphere, giving it the highest climate change impact of any material and accounting for 6% of global emissions [3]
This study focuses on flat steel—sheets produced by rolling thick slabs into long, thin coils—as opposed to long products—beams and bars rolled from billets and extruded products such as rebar and wire
It is likely that a flexible nested blanking (FNB) scheme will be substantially more materially efficient due to reduced coil trimming, part spacing and more optimal part nesting, though a question remains: Would the material cost savings of such a process justify the higher price tag per tonne processed with a more expensive technology? In this paper, we explore the conditions that determine whether switching to a more materially efficient process is economically as well as environmentally viable

Summary

Introduction

1628 Mt of crude steel was produced in 2016 [23] with an associated emission of 3.1 Gt CO2 to the atmosphere, giving it the highest climate change impact of any material and accounting for 6% of global emissions [3]. Excluding the mining and beneficiation of ore and coal, the production process of goods from flat steel can be broken down into two key stages: steelmaking and manufacturing.

Results

Discussion

Conclusion