Top Banner
“ A factory inside a forest” M.Pasupathy (Maintenance) S.Iliyas (Energy Cell) U.Prakash (Process maintenance)
45

A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Mar 16, 2022

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

“ A factory inside a forest”

M.Pasupathy (Maintenance) S.Iliyas (Energy Cell)U.Prakash (Process maintenance)

Page 2: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Ashok Leyland is an Indian automobile company headquartered in Chennai, India.

Founded in 1948, it is the 2ndlargest commercial vehiclemanufacturer in India.

4th largest manufacturer ofbuses and 12th largestmanufacturer of trucksglobally.

Operating nine plants, AshokLeyland also makes spareparts and engines forindustrial and marineapplications

Company Profile

Page 3: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Spread area – 234 Acres

40 % greenery

Employees – 7000

Wind Energy – 30%

Roof top Solar – 6%

Unique plant to produce vehicles of

all segments

Sanctioned demand – 4950 KVA

Catering 37% of total AL volume

“ A factory inside a forest”

Unit Profile

Page 4: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Operation Team

Operation Team

Unit CFTCFTTop

Management

Head-Operations

Plant Head-Hosur Units

Unit-1-Head

Energy Manager

Unit-2-Head

Energy Manager

Process Owners

Process owners

Process owners

Process owners

Process owners

Unit-3-Head

Energy manager

Energy Conservation – AL Way

Role of Energy Manager: Identify opportunities to save energy Promote new technologies to reduce energy Lead awareness program and monitor consumption trend Analyse critically to identify gaps with respect to aggregate wise norms and execute with actions Support Sustainable growth for the organisation

Page 5: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

2,709

2,020

1,719

1,3791,306

1,2011,0681,1771,205 1,245

1,1471,239

642610

646 647638

562

25002500

2000

1429

12901100 1100 1050

10501100 1080

1108

745704 610 610 610

581

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

ENER

GY

/ H

ECU

(kW

h)

ENERGY PER HECU -TREND

Actual kWh/HECU Target (kWh / HECU)

647638

562

610 610581

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

ENER

GY

/ H

ECU

(kW

h)

ELECTRICAL ENERGY TREND

Actual kWh/HECU Target (kWh / HECU)

13% of reduction YoY

1.561.48 1.44

1.66 1.541.40

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

GJ

/ H

ECU

(kW

h)

THERMAL ENERGY TREND

Actual GJ/HECU

11% of reduction YoY

74% of reduction YoY

1. Specific Energy Consumption (3 years)

* HECU denotes Hybrid Equivalent Chassis Unit

Page 6: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Benchmark of same unit which won

“1st Place in National Energy

Conservation Competition-2014” in

the Automobile Sector conducted by

BEE

Best among all AL units in SEC

2. Information on Competitors, National & Global benchmark

1289

1153

1301

647 638562

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Energy / Vehicle

PantNagar Unit Hosur unit-1

Ennore Unit Hosur Unit-2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

4.86 4.95 5.22

6.005.63 5.25

GJ

/ V

EHIC

LE

Energy / Vehicle

TML AL

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

30.628.8

25.224.48

28.8

6.00 5.63 5.25

GJ

/ V

EHIC

LE

Energy / Vehicle

Scania Daimler AL

Internal National International

Process differs from plant to plant &

local conditions

Difference in outsourcing level

Product of different specifications

Various levels of system buying

Page 7: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Sl.

NoProject description

Pictorial

representation

Annual Electrical

savings

Annual Thermal

savingsInvestment

in Rs.

MillionKwh

Cost

Savings

in Rs.

Million

Qty

Cost

Savings in

Rs. Million

1 Reduction of energy in cabin production process 1382400 10.71 NA NA 0

2 Waste heat recovery in compressor 950400 6.57101703

lts6.44 0.7

3Conversion of shop floor lighting with Energy

Efficient LED lighting264618 4.05 NA NA 55

4 Enhancing the compressor efficiency 186200 1.44 NA NA 0.2

5

Replacement of conventional reciprocating

compressor with Energy Efficient screw

compressor

64152 0.497 NA NA 6

6Productivity improvement in cabin paint by various

initiatives53850 3.5 6000lts 0.3 0.04

FY-18 total energy saving – 28 Lakh kWh in Electrical and 108 kL Diesel

3a. Major ENCON projects implemented in FY’18

Page 8: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Sl.

No

Project description Pictorial

representation

Annual Electrical

savings

Annual Thermal

savings

Investment

in

Rs.Million

Kwh Cost

Savings in

Rs.Million

Qty Cost

Savings in

Rs.Million

1 Exclusive compressor of lower capacity for paint

process 197000 1.52 - - 0.75

2 Energy conservation in vehicle Test Shop painting

booth 112700 0.87 - - 0.77

3 Introduce Heat pumps in place of ceramic electric

heater for washing machines112185 0.813 - - 1

4 Conservation of 150HPSV lightings into 85 Watts

CFL lamps in the exiting luminaire47001 0.329 - - 0.035

5 Selection of main pump in 5000T press with

respect to the FSM length 37719 0.293 - - NIL

3b. Major ENCON projects implemented in FY’17

FY-17 total energy saving – 5 Lakh kWh in Electrical

Page 9: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Sl.

NoProject description

Pictorial

representation

Annual Electrical

savings

Annual Thermal

savingsInvestmen

t in

Rs.MillionKwh

Cost

Savings in

Rs.Million

Qty

Cost

Savings in

Rs.Million

1Optimisation of power transformer from 1000kva

to 500Kva221818 0.68 - - NIL

2Hydraulic & Blower motor interlocking with job

presence in hood preparation fixture60606 0.4 - - NIL

3Energy conservation in weld shop cooling tower

circulation pumps49091 0.324 - - 0.23

4Waste Heat Recovery from Flue Gas in Paint

shop ED-Oven dryer zone.40000 0.264

15984

lts0.762 0.9

5Fresh water makeup to hot water generator

reduction by reconnecting the vent drain line- -

4800

lts0.23 NIL

3c. Major ENCON projects implemented in FY’16

FY-16 total energy saving – 3.7 Lakh kWh in Electrical and 21 kL Diesel

Page 10: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

610 638

0

200

400

600

800

Target Actual

Kw

h /

HECU

Energy consumption-FY17

Energy consumption =

Total energy consumed in KWh. /Hybrid Equivalent Chassis Unit(HECU)

22576 49 7

0

25

50

75

100

0

250

500

750

1000

Cabin

Assy &

Testi…

FSM

Axle

Cum

ula

tive %

kW

h/H

ECU

Aggregates

Variable Energy

113 74 5327 14

0

25

50

75

100

0

150

300

450

Ventillation

Com

prs

r

Lig

hting

Pt.

agitation

Utilities

Cum

ula

tive %

kW

h /

HECU

Aggregates

Fixed Energy

281357

Energy consumption-contribution

Fixed energy

VariableEnergy

Project linkage with Organizational Objectives: SustainabilityKey Performance Indicator : kWh/HECU

Cabin manufacturing is the highest

4. Innovative Projects implemented

Page 11: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

“Energy Guzzlers in Cabin manufacturing”

Cabin manufacturing - 115 kWh/Cab in FY17 – Most loads in Paint are semi-variable

Cabin Weld24%

Cabin Trim8%

Cabin Paint68%

Energy Distribution – Cabin manufacturing

Baking Ovens18%

PTED22%

Primer16%

Top Coating process

14%

Air Handling Units20%

Waxing5%

Sanding5%

Energy Distribution in Cabin Painting

4.1. Energy Conservation in Cabin Painting

Page 12: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Process flow

LCV LINE

MCV LINE

HCV LINE

PTED LINE

ROBOT PAINT LINE

MANUAL PAINT LINE

LCV LINE

M&HCVLINE

CHASSIS LINE 1

CHASSIS LINE 2

CHASSIS LINE 3

CABIN WELD CABIN PAINT CABIN TRIM ASSY CHASSIS ASSEMBLY

Hosur – 2 Cabin Process flow

Paint Process flow

Page 13: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Pretreated Cab getting dipped in ED Bath

Pretreated cab moving towards ED Bath

ED Bath - paint filled condition (63000 Lit)

ED coated cab moving to next stage

Cab dipped inside for ED processing

ED coated cab coming out from ED bath

Process flow – Electro deposition (ED)

Page 14: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

3.6

2.6

3.03.2

3.8

3.0

4.3

3.43.2

3.7

3.0 3.0 3.1

4.3

3.8

3.03.2

3.7

2.6

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Cyc

le t

ime

(Min

)

Stage

Takt time: 3.85 mins (231 sec) (for 90k demand)

Bottlenecks

Stage wise Cycle time Vs Takt time (PTED line)

Inference: ED Bath & ED Oven are the bottlenecks of PTED line.

Electrical energy Cost driver Thermal energy Cost driver

Page 15: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

ED Bath

Cab down time : 50 secondsCoating Time : 120 secondsCab up time :50 seconds

50 Sec.

Voltage application once cabin has come to Tank bottom

BEFORE

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-1: Reduction of NVA (Cab movement)

Voltage

50 Sec.

ED Bath

Voltage

AFTER

Cab down time : 42 secondsCoating Time : 120 secondsCab up time : 42 seconds

Voltage application once cabin Roof is dipped in ED paint

Page 16: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

# ActivityBefore (Sec)

After (Sec)

1 Previous station to ED bath 19 19

2Cab from Top to ED Bath in roof dipped condition 50

42

3 Cab Roof dipped to Tank bottom 8

4 Energizing Rectifier 120 104

5Cab from Tank bottom to Roof dipped condition

508

6Cab from Roof dipped to Top position

42

7 To next station 19 19

Total 258 242

Improvement-1: Cab movement & ED Process time made parallel activities.

Effect: ED Bath cycle time reduced to 4.03 minutes (242 sec) against set target of 3.85 minutes (231 sec)

# 3, # 5 made parallel with #4

Is it possible to reduce movement time further: No (Safety issue)

Is it possible to reduce Coating time: No (Less paint thickness (<20µ) will lead to salt spray failure)

Can we do process improvement to achieve lesser paint thickness while also meeting required salt spray hours?

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-1: Reduction of NVA (Cab movement)

Page 17: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

During our search for latest technologies in Paint processes, team learnt about a new product "New Gen Electrodeposition paint - LB 200" which has advantage of higher throwing power and lower Dry Film Thickness (DFT) requirement”.

Evaluation for introduction of New Gen ED paint in the system

One-time changeover(Replacement of old ED paint with New paint)

• Discard of 63000 lit of ED paint from ED bath

• Generation of ~ 13000 kg of paint sludge as hazardous waste

• Involves an overall cost of over Rs. 1.0 Crore

• Need to shut down operations for a minimum period of 1 week

Gradual changeover (New ED paint replenishment based on consumption)

• Change over requiring over 6 months of operation

• Co-existence of LB40LF & LB200LF paint in the system during change over period

• Uncertainty of process compatibility

• Unknown consequences

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE

Conclusion: To do risk analysis before considering Gradual changeover of ED Paint

Page 18: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Risk Analysis (Change Management actions)

Compatibilitytest

Memorandum of Understanding

MOU signed before changeover

Compatibility test before changeover

Risk analysis done and status found ok

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE

Page 19: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

The minimum DFT required with new paint is only 17µ (DFT requirement for existing paint: 20µ minimum).

Less DFT requirement gives us advantage of lesser paint consumption. DOE has been used to find the optimum settings for new paint. Fractional factorial (Resolution V) is chosen to reduce the no. of runs from 256 to 68.

DFT

Temperature

Voltage

Non Volatile %

Time

Ash Content

Total Solvent

MEQ

Anolyte Conductivity

8 factors affects

DFT

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE

Page 20: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Response Factors UOM Low Level High Level

DFT

Temperature °C 30 35

Voltage V 200 350

NV% % 18 22

Time sec 90 120

Ash Content % 20 24

Total Solvent % 1 2

MEQ - 23 31

Anolyte Conductivity Micro siemens 500 700

Factors: 8 Base Design: 8, 64 Resolution: V

Runs: 68 Replicates: 1 Fraction: 1/4

Blocks: 1 Center pts (total): 4

Screening DOEFractional Factorial design (Resolution: V) has been used for Screening.

Level values are chosen from the existing process specification.

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE

HAD

CDHBG

BCFBC

AFGACH

ACCEHCDE

BFDG

GCEFADEBDH

AFCGFG

BGHEFAGFH

EC

BDADB

35302520151050

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

3.18

A Temperature

B Voltage

C NV%

D Time

E Ash Content

F Total Solvent

G MEQ

H Anolyte Conductivity

Factor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is DFT, Alpha = 0.05, only 30 largest effects shown)

C

BD

A

D

B

6050403020100

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.00

A Temperature

B Voltage

C NV%

D Time

Factor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is DFT, Alpha = 0.05)

R.Sq : 98.77%R.Sq(pred): 98.51%R.Sq(adj) : 98.65%

Reduced Model

Inference: - Voltage, Time, Temperature,

NV% & interaction between Voltage & Time are significant on DFT.- R-sq (adj) of 98.65% indicating that the model is significant.

Page 21: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

BD

A

D

B

35302520151050

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.05

A Temperature

B Voltage

D Time

Factor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is DFT, Alpha = 0.05)

R.Sq : 98.73%R.Sq(pred) : 98.21%R.Sq(adj) : 98.54%

Full Factorial DOE for Robust design

Since the following 4 factors are found to be significant on DFT, a full factorial design is carried out.Centre point is not considered as it was proved to be insignificantin Screening DOE.

Response

Factors UOMLow Level

High Level

ReplicatesTotal Runs

DFT

Temperature °C 30 35

2 32Voltage V 300 350

NV% % 18 22

Time sec 90 120

ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE

Inference: Voltage, Time, Temperature, interaction between Voltage & Time are significant on DFT.

CurHigh

Low1.0000D

Optimal

d = 1.0000

Targ: 19.0

DFT

y = 19.0

d = 1.0000

Minimum

SD-DFT

y = 0.2827

1.0000

Desirability

Composite

90.0

120.0

18.0

22.0

300.0

350.0

30.0

35.0Voltage NV% TimeTemperat

[31.4182] [343.0955] [18.0] [108.2395]

CurHigh

Low1.0000D

Optimal

d = 1.0000

Targ: 19.0

DFT

y = 19.0

d = 1.0000

Minimum

SD-DFT

y = 0.2827

1.0000

Desirability

Composite

90.0

120.0

18.0

22.0

300.0

350.0

30.0

35.0Voltage NV% TimeTemperat

[31.4182] [343.0955] [18.0] [108.2395]

- Considering random variation of process, Mean DFT is targeted at 19µ.- Analysis of Mean & Variability of DFT are considered while finding optimum settings.

Process time can be reduced by 12 seconds [120 sec to 108 sec.]

Process capability found 2.17. Mean DFT observed is 19.0µ (Specification >17µ)

ED Bath cycle time further reduced from 4.03 min (242 sec) to 3.83 min (230 sec).

Page 22: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

3.6

2.6

3.03.2

3.8

3.0

3.8

3.43.2

3.7

3.0 3.0 3.1

4.3

3.8

3.03.2

3.7

2.6

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Cyc

le t

ime

(Min

)

Stage

Bottleneck

Takt time: 3.85 mins (231 sec) (for 90k demand)

Stage wise Cycle time Vs Takt time (PTED line)

Inference: Now the bottleneck is ED Oven. Demand (90k) cannot be met until ED Oven cycle time is reduced to 3.85 mins..

Page 23: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Conveyor

23 Mtrs (23000mm)

Exit DoorEntry Door ED Oven

ED Oven time - Before

3 Meter3 Meter

3000mm

3000mm

3000mm

3000mm

3000mm

500mm

500mm

3000mm

3000mm

1000mm

Total Baking Time, minutes 30.1

No. of Cabs in Oven 7

Throughput Time, minutes 4.3

ED Oven de-bottleneckingBefore Improvement

Page 24: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

0.3 Meter

2.7meter2.7meter

ED Oven de-bottleneckingIdea generation

After Trolley Modification

We got 0.3 M Space for

each cabin

Stopper moved

forward 1.8

Meter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Total Baking Time, minutes 30.1

No. of Cabs in Oven 8

Throughput Time, minutes 3.8

Page 25: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

After

Before

Air Suction Area

Modified Air flow ducts

Oven Duct Layout Improved for balancing Suction & Delivery

Risk mitigation plan: ED Oven air flow is rebalanced due to additional load (Skid & Cabin) by modifying Air flow ducts to achieve Effective Metal Temperature (EMT) (160⁰C @ 10min).

ED Oven de-bottleneckingRisk mitigation

Result: Effective Metal Temperature uniformly found to be desirable.

Page 26: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Lab test result & box section DFT found meeting the requirement

ED panels along with cabin taken for Salt Spray Test in Laboratory

All Quality parameters met

ED Oven de-bottleneckingDurability requirement check

Page 27: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

81

9090.9

76

80

84

88

92

Before Target Achieved

Cap

acit

y (N

os

in

00

0’s

)

PTED Capacity

4.3

3.85 3.83

3.5

4

4.5

Before Target Achieved

Min

ute

s

PTED Cycle Time in Mins

3.63

2.553.00 3.15

3.80

3.00

3.833.40 3.23

3.70

3.00 3.00 3.06

3.80 3.80

3.00 3.15

3.73

2.55

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Tran

sfer

cab

Skid

load

ing

MD

O

Cab

load

ing

toP

TED

Pre

trea

tmen

t

Pre

- D

eck

insp

ecti

on

ED B

ath

Ult

ra f

iltra

te r

inse

I (D

IP)

Ult

ra f

iltra

te r

inse

II (S

pra

y)

DM

Wat

er R

inse

(DIP

)

Fin

al In

spec

tio

n

Dra

in

Ove

n lo

adin

g

ED O

ven

Co

ole

r

ED in

spec

tio

n

ED s

and

ing

CTM

Car

rie

r tr

ansf

erto

MD

O

Cyc

le t

ime

(Min

)

Stage

Takt time: 3.85 mins (231 sec) Achieved : 3.83 mins (230 sec)

Pitch Diagram for PTED line:

Stage wise Cycle time Vs Takt time (PTED line)

Inference: Both bottlenecks eliminated

Page 28: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

“Energy reduction in Cabin manufacturing”

Cabin Weld32%

Cabin Trim11%

Cabin Paint57%

Energy Distribution – Cabin manufacturing

Baking Ovens12%

PTED12%

Primer9%

Top Coating process

22%

Air Handling Units31%

Waxing7%

Sanding7%

Energy Distribution in Cabin Painting

4.1. Energy Conservation in Cabin Painting

Cabin Weld24%

Cabin Trim8%

Cabin Paint68%

Energy Distribution – Cabin manufacturing

Baking Ovens18%

PTED22%

Primer16%

Top Coating process

14%

Air Handling Units20%

Waxing5%

Sanding5%

Energy Distribution in Cabin Painting

Page 29: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Highest yearly production: 71435 cabins

193176

202223 223

191

230254

279

249232

268 262

150

200

250

300Paint shop- Cabin Production per Day

• Highest ever monthly production in PTED 7401 Rounds In Nov’17.

• Maximum Rounds produced in a day PTED- 324 in Sep 2017.

41,61547,783

56,660

71,435

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

No

’s

Cabin Production trend

Paint shop production trend – after the project

6 Major ENCON initiatives

benefitted in 13% reduction of

specific energy consumption

Cabin manufacturing - 71 kWh/Cab in FY18 – By elimination of MUDA in process

38% reduction

in Cabin

Energy

Page 30: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Tangible Benefits:

1. Productivity improvement by 9,900 cabs per annum

2. Power Consumption reduction by 13.8 Lakh units/annum

3. Set benchmark of 108 seconds process time in Electrodeposition

(Lowest in India among all OEMs, our PNR plant is operating at 180” ED

processing time)

4. Total direct Cost saving Rs. 1.49 crore/annum

5. Onetime cost saving of ~ Rs.150 crore for avoiding new PTED line which

would have taken 18 months to complete.

6. Possibility of Horizontal deployment to Pantnagar Plant.

Intangible Benefits:

1. Reduction of carbon footprint by 10.87 lakh kgs CO2e.

2. Increased awareness of SPC tools.

3. Confidence for benchmarking the process.

Direct benefits:

A) Recurring

Rs. 1.49 crore / annum

B) One Time

Rs. 150 crore

C) Opportunity

Savings:

Rs. 45 crore / annum

Investment:

Rs. 5.0 Lakhs

ROI: < 1 month

Savings achieved by MUDA elimination - Thinking beyond established standards

Project benefits & Horizontal deployment

Page 31: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

“Air Saver” in spot weld guns

This unit will sense whether the gun is in operation or idle

If the spot welding gun is in idle condition for more than 3 min ,the main incoming air flow will cut

off”

No air to the system ,no leaks from the system

Air flow will restored once the gun triggered for operation

Shut-off Valve

(Timer)Control

Panel

Idea originated from traffic signal (Switch off engine knowing the time)

4.2 Innovative Projects implemented

Page 32: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

4.2 Innovative Projects implemented

Air leak at MDV weld shop

reduced from 87 CFM to

47

Average Energy saving of

1400units/day

Page 33: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Reduction of Heat Load in paint shop baking ovens

After the Pre-Treatment of the BIWs are baked in ovens along with the skids

These skid structure re engineered and 340kg of weight reduced to 315kg per skid

Net Skid weight reduction 25 kg

Diesel savings per skid : 0.088L/skid/cabin

Fuel cost saving per year : 4.98 lacs

Entire skid structure 70X40mm size channels benefitted in reduction of 25kg per skid

4.3 Innovative Projects implemented

Page 34: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

620 620 620

600 600 600

590 590 590575

575 575

651 652648 646 644

640

622

606

578

569

569

562

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

Apr '17 May'17 Jun'17 Jul'17 Aug'17 Sep'17 Oct'17 Nov'17 Dec '17 Jan '18 Feb'18 Mar '18

kWh

/ H

ECU

Plant Energy Consumption Trend - FY18

Target Actual

12 ENCON projects , 24 Kaizens (Just do it)

Plant Energy trend – after the project

Page 35: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Sl.noReplacement of Electrical Energy with

Renewable EnergyInstalled Capacity

Annual Energy

Generated in 2015-16

(Million kWh)

% Share

Annual Energy

Generated in 2016-17

(Million kWh)

% Share

Annual Energy

Generated in 2017-18

(Million kWh)

% Share

1 Wind Energy 3.4MW 3.54 20.56% 5.34 26.34% 6.73 29.25%

2Roof top SOLAR power plant inside

the plant1MW NA NA NA NA 1.42 6.17%

Renewable Energy

Roof Top SOLAR Energy

contribution FY18 : 6.17%

Wind Mill Energy contribution :

29.25%

Targeting to increase the green energy share from the present level of 36 % to 90 % by 2023

5. Utilization of Renewable energy sources

60

.83

61

.58

81

.44

11

1.4

3

14

0.9

6

14

8.6

3

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

GREEN ENERGY vs TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION( in Lacs units)

Non - Conventional Energy Conventional Energy

Page 36: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Disposal Methodology :

Ashokleyland, Unit-

2,Hosur

Pre-processor

M/s.GEIPL,RanipetFuel for cement Kiln

M/s.Ultratech Cements,Karur

Total heat value for 3 years – 2652 Million Kcal

6. Utilization of waste material as fuel

284

175205.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY16 FY17 FY18

Qty

. in

MT

Year Wise paint sludge disposal as Fuel

Qty. disposed in MT

Page 37: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

https://www.ashokleyland.com/investors/sustainabilityreport2018Aimed to be carbon neutral in FY20

7. GHG Inventorisation

Sustainability - Goal deploymentSl no Metrics UoM Plant

FY17 (actual)

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23

1 Electric energy consumptionkWh / HECU

AL1144 1110 1075 1041 1007 961 915

- 3% 6% 9% 12% 16% 20%

H2 638 619 600 580 561 536 510

2 Renewable source of energy %AL 26% 35% 40% 65% 75% 85% 90%

H2 30% 35% 39% 86% 91% 91% 91%

3 Water consumptionkl /

HECU

AL9.9 9.41 8.91 8.61 8.32 8.02 7.72

- 5% 10% 13% 16% 19% 22%

H2 6.30 5.99 5.67 5.48 5.29 5.10 4.91

4 Utilisation of harvested rain water %AL 0% - 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

H2 0% - 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

5 Carbon foot print - Scope 1 emissionkg /

HECU

AL182 173 164 146 127 118 109

- 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 40%

H2 292.95 278.30 263.66 234.36 205.07 190.42 175.77

6 Carbon foot print - Scope 2 emissionkg /

HECU

AL648 583 531 356 292 227 194

- 10% 18% 45% 55% 65% 70%

H2 340 306 279 187 153 119 102

7 Carbon foot print - Scope 1&2 emissionkg /

HECU

AL830 756 695 502 419 345 304

- 9% 16% 40% 50% 58% 63%

H2 633 584 542 421 358 309 278

8 Zero waste to landfill & incineratorNo of plants

AL 3/7 3/7 5/7 7/7

H2 1 1 1 1

Page 38: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Energy Awareness for the suppliers:

8. Green Supply Chain

Page 39: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Online Monitoring... Capturing in SAP

Daily•Aggregate-wise daily reports to GEMBA leaders

Weekly

•Power cost analysis with respective process owners

•Corrective actions planning

Monthly•Gap analysis review by Unit Head

Plant Head• Inter unit review by VP-Hosur units

9.5)Awarding Best ENCON Projects through Kaizens

MD interacting with team on energy conservation day

9. Team Work, Employee Involvement & Monitoring

Page 40: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Overall score achieved was 745 /1300(57%)progressively moved to 70% now

10

0

20

0

50

15

0

30

0

50

50

10

0

10

0

10

0

65

13

6

35

98

18

5

36

34

58 62

0

73

14

2

34

94

17

8

29

29

57

56

53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Wastes &Effluents

Materials Products &Services

OccupationalHealth &

Safety

Energy Society Biodiversity &general

Compliance

Water Emissions Goal Setting &Deployment

Scores Allotted 2012 GMEA Average AL-H2 Score

AL-H2 in the Green Co way

10. Implementation of ISO 50001 / Green Co / IGBC rating

Page 41: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Our focus on Environment – Factory inside Forest

Page 42: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Our focus on Environment – Afforestation in Miyawaki way

Area: 2525 sq. mtr No of trees: 8900No of species: 70

Page 43: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Our focus on Environment

Factory inside a Forest – Aerial view

Page 44: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

Our focus on Environment – Around the boundary

Rejuvenation of Kumudepalli village lake during Mar’18 – CSR initiative

Page 45: A factory inside a forest” - Green Business Centre

2013 BEE- Energy conservation - Merit Award 2013

2014BEE- National energy conservation Award 2014

Green Manufacturing Excellence Award 2013

Green Company of the Year Award

2015

2016

2017Deming Prize

Accolades