belled

ain-

nts

ing

ayces

ility

the

ing.ing

s to

and

s of

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 61 (2012) 463–466

mic

its

g. A

ent,

ion-

the

ner-

IRP.

Integrating sustainability within the factory planning process

Danfang Chen a, Steffen Heyer b, Gunther Seliger (1)b,*, Torsten Kjellberg (1)a

a Computer Systems for Design and Manufacturing, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Swedenb Department of Machine Tools and Factory Management (IWF), TU Berlin, Germany

1. Introduction

Sustainability has become an increasingly important topic inmanufacturing research. Environmental aspects like energy saving[1–3], resource availability and consumption [4] and economicalaspects like business opportunities [5,6] are just a few resentpublications, addressing different sustainability aspects. However,mostly financial, organizational and technological requirementsare considered when planning or redesigning a factory. Littleresearch addresses how economical, environmental and socialsustainability can be considered in the factory planning process.Safety standards and environmental regulations are taken intoaccount in their specific domain, but there is no systematicidentifying and utilizing of potentials in order to improvesustainability. Numerous different physical elements influencingeach other in a factory and unclear sustainability aspects require aholistic approach. Sustainability as a set of requirements forfactories should be integrated in the planning process ofproduction facilities.

This work attempts to identify and describe the relationshipbetween factory planning and sustainability with its economic,environmental, social dimensions in a relationship model.Factories can be seen as socio-technical systems; they are capitalintensive, complex and long-live products, operating throughcomplex relationships between material value chain and informa-tion chains, involving technical and human elements [7].

As much as possible, sustainability aspects should to beconsidered during the planning of a factory to improve thefactory’s overall sustainability. Considering sustainability aspects

elements, an impact on different sustainability aspects candescribed in a qualitative or quantitative way, using so cainterfaces.

This research suggests a general model to integrate sustability into factory planning based on the following theses:

� A factory is planned stepwise and the physical factory elemein groups and individually considered.� Physical factory elements impact on each other by influenc

their surroundings, such as the air.� Impacts of physical factory elements on their surroundings m

occur at different levels. These levels are described as interfae.g. vibration-force, specifying the character of the sustainabimpact.� The interfaces represent an impact on sustainability.

The following image summarizes these theses and showsrelationships within the developed model (Fig. 1).

The aims of this model and research are:

� To make sustainability aspects clear during the factory plann� To explicitly express the relationships related to factory plann

and sustainability aspects.� To explicitly express factory elements and their relationship

sustainability aspects.� To affect factory planning decisions for a better planned

sustainable factory.

The details of sustainability, factory planning steps, element

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

Sustainable development

Model

Factory planning

A B S T R A C T

Research activities on sustainability in manufacturing often emphasize environmental and econo

issues in specific processes. This research attempts to describe and integrate sustainability with

economic, environmental and social dimensions into the well formulated process of factory plannin

model is developed to describe relations between factory buildings, manufacturing equipm

sustainability aspects and the process of factory planning. The model provides guidance for the decis

making during the planning and design stage. By revealing different kinds of interconnections,

understanding of the complexity within factories is improved. A case study is performed on a contai

sized factory to verify the model usability.

� 2012 C

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology

journal homepage: http: / /ees.elsevier.com/cirp/default .asp

d in

in different factory planning steps directly may be hard to do due tothe complexity and the difficult nature of domains like capacityplanning vs. material consumption.

The planning steps are represented by physical elements of afactory as their planning objectives. For these physical factory

oryces

and* Corresponding author.

0007-8506/$ – see front matter � 2012 CIRP.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.067

a factory, and interfaces between factory elements are describeeach sub chapter.

2. Method and limitation

To build such a model the relationships between factplanning activities, physical factory elements with their interfaand sustainability aspects are defined. Available literature

resespecpartimpplan

Tis th

� Thou� Th

desu� Th

ofinsp

2.1.

Tdeveindiare mfor dthis

analplandimof ththe

Tpres

D. Chen et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 61 (2012) 463–466464

arch regarding sustainability in manufacturing, usually with aific focus, were used to identify relationships between the fours of the model. The model, including parts and relationships islemented as a web application and connected to the factoryning tool, is called the production pilot [8].he scale of this research is broad and this work presented heree first step, therefore some limitations are imposed:

e model takes into account things in a factory only. Issuestside of a factory are not considered at this point.e model does not support the high level organizationalcisions, such as outsourcing part of production to reachstainability.e model follows a generic approach, not being fixed to one kind

factory or instantiated for a specific process or product. Thestantiation takes place, when applying the planning tool for aecific case.

Sustainability

he UN commission’s sustainable development group hasloped a set of themes and subthemes including the respective

cators with their explanations [9]. These themes and indicatorseant to measure sustainable development and provide a basisecision-making, from a society or national perspective. Forresearch these themes, subthemes with their indicators areyzed and interpreted for factory planning. For factoryning, 32 subthemes related to the three sustainabilityensions have been developed. These subthemes form the basee sustainability aspects. Some aspects are directly taken from

UN and others are adapted to suit factory planning.he 32 final sustainability aspects for factory planning areented in Fig. 2.

These 32 sustainability aspects cannot be seen in isolation.Improving one aspect in a factory can result in changing otheraspects in a negative way. Two examples follow to illustrate howsubthemes with their indicators influence each other:

The economic subtheme energy use has the indicator name‘Annual energy consumption per capita’ [9]. For factory planningthis indicator is renamed/defined as ‘annual energy consumptionper equipment and per worker’. Different engineering solutionsduring planning may differ in energy consumption. Less con-sumption normally results in less energy production with lessenvironmental impact. On the other side, energy for air condition-ing may improve working conditions, overall quality of life andother social aspects.

The social subtheme sanitation has the indicator name ‘Percent

of the population with adequate sewage disposal facilities’ [9]. For thefactory planning this indicator is renamed/defined as ‘Percentageof people in a factory with adequate sewage disposal facilities’.During the early planning stages, different engineering solutionsare compared regarding ratio of workers plus visitors with accessto a sanitary facility. More sanitary facilities decrease availablespace for production. On the other side, a good ratio contributes togeneral hygiene and quality of life. Number of employees per toiletin a workplace may be specified in the regulation for workingconditions, e.g., in Sweden.

2.2. Factory planning

In order to breakdown the factory planning into individualactivities, a factory planning and realization pilot is utilized. Thepilot is developed by KTH in collaboration with the Swedishautomotive industry to support factory planning projects. The pilotis a tool to support development of a factory model, offering theadvantages such as:

� Individual activities are described in detail and the technologicaland organizational activity relationships are clearly specified.� As a model-based system [8], the pilot offers possibilities to

integrate sustainability aspects and their relationships to factoryelements and activities.

The pilot is a guideline for factory planning, addressing eachrequired activity with what-to-do, how-to-do and why-to-doinformation to achieve a realizable factory model. The five mainsteps within the pilot for factory planning are:

� Investigation of the feasibility of the factory planning projectwithin the given time and budget.� Define requirements and information for the planned project to

form the basis for project decisions and feasibility.� Breakdown overall requirements to specific requirements for

different subsystems of a factory and its equipment.� Detail, verify and integrate models of different constructional

building elements, media systems and production equipment toform a complete, realizable factory model.� Preparation of installation works for the building parts, media

systems and equipment.

These main steps summarize 40 detailed activities within thepilot [10]. The pilot itself does not provide in the current stage

Fig. 1. Parts and interrelations of the relationship model.

Fig. 2. Sustainability subthemes.

engineering solutions for specific tasks in factory design.

2.3. Physical elements of a factory

All the physical items within a factory both attached to thebuilding and loose are included in the term physical factoryelements. The product that a factory produces is not part of theseelements. A classification of the elements has been developed. Dueto the high number of physical items within a factory, theclassification is developed based on a variety of different sources.Various literatures are available, intending to formulate a complete

enteseThetualand

aylledeens, aects

s in

s in

andthe

can anase

ain-

ebtionical393ingr to

nceilityallyn ofain-

face.

D. Chen et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 61 (2012) 463–466 465

factory categorization, e.g. Westkamper [11] and Wiendahl et al.[12]. Another source offering a classification of factory elementsare standards, guidelines and legislation texts. In this researchstandards for the classification structure are:

� DIN 276 describes the calculation of a building with its cost-elements.� VDI 8580 about production technologies.� DIN 30781, VDI 2490 and BGR 234 for transportation and storage.

The final classification structure of physical factory elements isbased on the former mentioned sources as well as the PRODCOM-list, including inventory lists and Eurostats’ statistics of all itemsproduced within the European Union [13].

The more than 450 elements in the classification are clusteredinto the main categories of: Supply and disposal equipment,manufacturing equipment and tooling, measuring and inspectionequipment, transport and handling equipment, stock and storageequipment, organizational aids, interior, building constructionelements and building service structure element.

To reduce the complexity and amount of planning data, onlyelements required in a specific case are used for further analysis.

2.4. Interface between elements of the factory

In order to describe how physical factory elements may affecteach other and sustainability in general, qualitative and quanti-tative appraisable criteria have to be introduced. For example amachine tool produces 81 dB noise and pollutes air by sprayingsmall amounts of coolant. This is done with so-called ‘interface’.Interface that describes different ways of interaction an elementcan have with surroundings. This interface concept is adopted frommodular factory research with its definition [14].

These interfaces are: air quality, asset flow, climate, commu-nication, energy flow, light, material flow, medium flow, personnelflow, sound-noise, space-room and vibration-force.

3. Integrating model

The four described parts of the developed model are lists andclassifications, unlike in their character regarding informationtype. Factory planning consists of activities, physical factoryelements consists of physical objects, interfaces consists ofevaluable variables and sustainability aspects consists of criteria.In the following, the major links within the integration model areoutlined.

3.1. Factory planning – sustainability aspects

When planning a factory, the planner should be enabled tocompare specific engineering solutions regarding their sustain-ability impact. For example, during block layout development, thegeneral sustainability aspect access to food and drink needs to beconsidered as e.g., required cafeterias and break rooms to matchthe number of workers in a factory. While in detail layout eachelement needs to be checked with sustainability aspects. Thedeveloped model identifies and characterizes possible impacts onsustainability in a comprehensive way for each physical factoryelement. This identification has to be dynamic due to iterative

3.3. Physical factory elements – interfaces

Physical factory elements have an impact on their environmand are affected by it. Interfaces are means to normalize thimpacts. The impact may be positive, negative or neutral.

affects are based on literature survey and analysis of e.g. acmachine tools. Fig. 3 depicts how a machine tool impacts on

from the environment.

3.4. Interfaces – sustainability aspects

Due to the fact that the impact of physical factory elements mnot always be clear or depends on a specific case, so cainterfaces are used to characterize the interaction betwelements and their respective environment. For the interfacegeneral analysis regarding possibly affected sustainability aspis made and formulated in the following criteria:

� Interface that has an impact on a sustainability aspect resulta ‘1’.� Interface that has no impact on a sustainability aspect result

a ‘0’.

A matrix with the connection between all interfaces

sustainability aspects is developed. Fig. 4 shows a part of

matrix. However, the impact an interface has on sustainabilityvary depending on the specific case. The developed matrix isoverall connection/relationship description. In a specific c(instantiated model) interfaces and their relationship to sustability aspects shall be weighted (positive to negative).

4. Result and case study

The developed relationship model was implemented as wapplication with SQL-database and data-link to the producpilot. The model consists in its generic form of >450 physfactory elements, 32 sustainability aspects and 12 interfaces. 3possible connections could be identified. The model allows addfurther connections, elements or sustainability aspects in ordeflexibly incorporate future research.

The included connections show a most complex interferestructure for social sustainability. For the three sustainabdimensions in a factory, the social dimension has the numericlargest contribution to the connections of around 40%. The ratioconnections to elements/interfaces related to one of the sustability dimensions vary between specific cases.

Fig. 3. Exemplary impact of machine tool on environment, represented as inter

Fig. 4. Exemplary interface affection on sustainability aspects.

planning steps and multiple exchanges of actually includedelements.

3.2. Factory planning – physical factory elements

When planning a factory, geometry, function and layout ofphysical objects are determined. Such objects are commonlyhandled stepwise in an iterative way. In different factory planningsteps, respective physical factory elements are considered, fromearly planning stages dealing with factory as a whole to laterplanning stages dealing with details of each element.

Istuddecedececounindecontfacto

Tcoco

� Id� Id� In

su� Id

affimfacne� Id

po

Smacvibron

Impfactoair

protT

inforesufactowhemormod

5. C

Ifactosustmeechalmakor e

Fig. 5produ

D. Chen et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 61 (2012) 463–466466

n order to verify the usability of the developed model, a casey was performed on an existing container sized factory forntralized cocoa mass production in Africa. The intention of thentralized factory is, to shift value adding to developingtries and enable locals to improve their standard of livingpendently. Engineering students had the task to design such aainer factory [15]. With reverse engineering, the designedries where analyzed with the developed model.

hese general steps were performed in this case study about thea mass factory:

entify of the technical production process for cocoa mass.entify all physical factory elements in the container factory.stantiate the relationship model with specific factory elementsch as food dryer and rolling machine.entify how interfaces of the factory elements affect and areected by the sustainability aspects, e.g. element food dryer

pacts interface sound-noise negatively and surrounding inter-e impacts food fryer with negative air quality, positive light andgative climate.entify negative impacts for each factory element as a startingint to improve the factory design.

trong interactions were found between elements: Appliedhines within the original container factory mainly generateation and tough air conditions. This results negatively impactworking conditions, a subtheme of social sustainability.rovements were achieved by adapting the original containerry through increased numbers of doors and windows to allow

circulations and introduction of a covering rooftop for sunection. The two container factories are depicted in Fig. 5.he Case Study can be seen as a proof of concept as it deliversrmation about sustainability impacts in a structured way. Thelts for the analyzed factory with a low number of physicalry elements can be achieved by a skilled engineer. However,

n the number of elements increases, complexity increasese rapidly and makes a comprehensive tool like the developedel useful.

onclusion and future work

n this paper, a model to integrate sustainability issues intory planning activities is presented. This work contributes to

ainable development, introduced as a global strategic vision to

about sustainability and its relationships to planning activities andelements in a factory. The individual parts of the presented modelcan also be used separately for different purpose. However, thepresented model shall make factory planners aware of the impacton sustainability of their planning decisions.

The generic model can be applied to any kind of factory, limitedonly by available planning knowledge. Starting with a localperspective the model shall be extended to enterprise levelincluding multiple factories in the future. Considering the wholevalue chain in a holistic view offers the chance to improvesustainability of manufacturing on a global perspective. However,when evaluating entire value chains an enormous amount of datais required. The current structure is intended to be transferred intoan ontology system, in order to improve the model outcomeallowing the consideration of multiple factories, linked in valuechains.

Acknowledgements

This research is a joint research work between KTH and TUBerlin, within CIRP research affiliate cross topic research:sustainable production. We thank XPRES (Initiative for excellencein production research), Sweden, DAAD (Deutscher AkademischerAustausch Dienst), Germany and DFG (German Research Founda-tion) for sponsorship. The authors sincerely thank Annelie Kanoldand Hendrik Borges for their valuable contributions to thepresented work.

References

[1] Weinert N, Chiotellis S, Seliger G (2011) Methodology for Planning andOperating Energy-Efficient Production Systems. CIRP Annals – ManufacturingTechnology 60(1):41–44.

[2] Kara S, Manmek S, Herrmann C (2010) Global Manufacturing and the Embo-died Energy of Products. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 59(1):29–32.

[3] Rahimifard S, Seow Y, Childs T (2010) Minimising Embodied Product Energy toSupport Energy Efficient Manufacturing. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technol-ogy 59(1):25–28.

[4] Allwood JM, Ashby MF, Gutowski TG, Worrell E (2011) Material Efficiency: AWhite Paper. Resources Conservation and Recycling 55:362–381. ISSN 0921-3449.

[5] Kondoh S, Mishima N (2011) Proposal of Cause–Effect Pattern Library forRealizing Sustainable Businesses. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology60(1):33–36.

[6] Schonsleben P, Vodicka M, Bunse K, Ernst FO (2010) The Changing Concept ofSustainability and Economic Opportunities for Energy-Intensive Industries.CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 59(1):477–480.

[7] Jovane F, Westkamper E, Williams DJ (2007) The ManuFuture Road: TowardsCompetitive and Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing, Springer Verlag,Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77012-1.

[8] Chen D, Kjellberg T, Svensson R, Sivard G (2011) Production Pilot for Co-operation in Factory Development. International Conference on Changeable,Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production, . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23860-4.

[9] 2005 World Summit Outcome, 2005, United Nations.[10] Chen, D., 2012, Information Management for the Factory Planning and Design,

Doctoral Thesis, ISBN 978-91-7501-172-1.[11] Westkamper E (2009) Wandlungsfahige Produktionsunternehmen das Stuttgar-

ter Unternehmensmodell, Springer, Berlin u.a..[12] Wiendahl H-P, ElMaraghy HA, Nyhuis P, Zah MF, Wiendahl H-H, Duffie N,

Brieke M (2007) Changeable Manufacturing – Classification, Design andOperation. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 56(2):783–809.

[13] Prodcom – Statistics by Product Database – Eurostat, 2012.[14] Wiendahl H-P, Denkena B (2005) Planung modularer Fabriken Vorgehen und

Beispiele aus der Praxis, Hanser Verlag, Munchen.[15] Postawa AB, Seliger G, Siewert M (2011) Mini Factories for Cacao Paste

Production. 9th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing: 183–189

. Student concept of a container sized factory for decentralized cocoa mass

ction (a), improved and implemented factory design (b) [15].

t the economic, social, environmental and technologicallenges [16]. The model provides guidance for the decision-ing during the planning and design stage of single workplacesntire production facilities by providing explicit knowledge

Springer Verlag, Berlin, ISBN: 978-3-7983-2375-9.[16] Jovane F, Yoshikawa H, Alting L, Boer CR, Westkamper E, Williams D, Tseng M,

Seliger G, Paci AM (2008) The Incoming Global Technological and IndustrialRevolution Towards Competitive Sustainable Manufacturing. CIRP Annals –Manufacturing Technology 57:641–659.