ASTM E3012-22

This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E3012 − 20 E3012 − 22
Standard Guide for
Characterizing Environmental Aspects of Manufacturing
Processes
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E3012; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide provides an approach to characterize any category of manufacturing process and to systematically capture and
describe relevant environmental information.
1.2 This guide defines the conceptual model of a unit manufacturing process (UMP) from which a formal representation can be
specified.
1.3 This guide defines the graphical representation of a UMP model that supports the systematic structuring and visualizing of
manufacturing information.
1.4 This guide defines a process characterization methodology to construct UMP models that characterize the environmental
aspects of the manufacturing processes under study.
1.5 This guide provides the necessary structure and formality for identifying and capturing key information needed to assess
manufacturing performance, yet provides no details about an actual assessment of the process performance.
1.6 This guide provides the conceptual definition for a system composed of multiple UMPs to represent a production system.
1.7 This guide may be used to complement other standards that address sustainability and the product life cycle. This guide most
closely relates to the inventory component as discussed in the ISO 14040 series (ISO 14044) standards, and resource management
as discussed in the ISO 55000 series (ISO 55001) standards.
1.8 This guide does not purport to address all of the security issues and the risks associated with manufacturing information. It
is the responsibility of the user of this standard to follow practices and establish appropriate information technology related
security measures.
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of
regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E60 on Sustainability and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E60.13 on Sustainable Manufacturing.
Current edition approved Jan. 1, 2020May 1, 2022. Published March 2020May 2022. Originally approved in 2016. Last previous edition approved in 20162020 as
E3012–16.–20. DOI: 10.1520/E3012–20.10.1520/E3012-22.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E3012 − 22
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E2114 Terminology for Sustainability Relative to the Performance of Buildings
E2986 Guide for Evaluation of Environmental Aspects of Sustainability of Manufacturing Processes
E2987/E2987M Terminology for Sustainable Manufacturing
E3096 Guide for Definition, Selection, and Organization of Key Performance Indicators for Environmental Aspects of
Manufacturing Processes
2.2 ISO Standards:
ISO 14040 Environmental management—Life cycle assess-
ment—Principles and framework
ISO 14044 Environmental management—Life cycle assess-
ment—Requirements and guidelines
ISO 55000:2014 Asset management—Overview, principles and terminology
ISO 55001:2014 Asset management—Management systems
—Requirements
2.3 UL Standard:
ULE 880 Sustainability for Manufacturing Organizations
2.4 UNECE Document:
Recommendation No. 20 Codes for Units of Measure Used in International Trade
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions For definitions of terms shall be in accordance with Terminology used in this guide, refer to Terminologies E2114
and E2987/E2987M.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 composite unit manufacturing process (UMP) model, n—a structure representation of interactions between more than one
UMP model.
UMPs store digital representations of physical manufacturing assets and systems to enable engineering analysis, for example, optimization, simulation, and life cycle
assessments.
FIG. 1 Overview of Significance and Use of this Guide
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’sstandard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
Available from International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva,
Switzerland, http://www.iso.org.
Available from Underwriters Laboratories (UL), 2600 N.W. Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, http://www.ul.com.
Available from United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland, https://www.unece.org.
E3012 − 22
3.2.1.1 Discussion—
Similar to a UMP model, a composite UMP model is defined with distinct inputs, outputs, product and process information,
transformations, and manufacturing resources.
3.2.2 manufacturing resource, n—an entity that enables a manufacturing process.
3.2.2.1 Discussion—
Manufacturing resources include (but are not limited to) manufacturing assets, such as equipment, human operators, machinery,
software, automation units, control devices, instrumentation, and tooling.
3.2.2.2 Discussion—
Manufacturing resources do not include natural resources since natural resources such as iron ore do not directly facilitate the
completion of a manufacturing process. For other uses of the term “resource,” refer to the common definition of the term.
3.2.3 model composition, n—the act of linking individual unit manufacturing process (UMP) models together to create a composite
of UMP models that can characterize the metrics of interest of a production system or product.
3.2.4 unit manufacturing process (UMP), n—the smallest element or subprocess in manufacturing that adds value through the
modification or transformation of shape, structure, or property of input material or workpiece.
3.2.4.1 Discussion—
A UMP is a clearly-scoped and well-defined manufacturing process that products a component, assembly, or product.
3.2.4 unit manufacturing process (UMP) model, n—structured reprsentation of the information associated with a UMP.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 This guide provides a systematic approach for characterizing the environmental aspects of manufacturing processes based on
well-established formal languages.
NOTE 1—In computer science, a formal language is a language designed for use in situations in which natural language is unsuitable as, for example, in
mathematics, logic, or computer programming. The symbols and formulas of such languages stand in precisely specified syntactic and semantic relations
to one another. Formal representations are derived from formal languages.
NOTE 2—A UMP model is defined using formal languages, such as eXtensible Markup Language (XML) (1), Unified Modeling Language (UML) (2),
or Systems Modeling Language (SysML) to facilitate data exchange, computability, and communication with other manufacturing and analysis
applications. These capabilities support manufacturers in evaluating, documenting, and improving performance. This guide specifically incorporates UML
and XML but does not limit implementations to these languages.
4.2 This guide provides the structure and formalism to ensure consistency in characterizing manufacturing processes in a
computer-interpretable way, thus enabling effective communication, computational analytics, and exchange of performance
information.
4.3 Fig. 1 shows how this guide is used to transition manufacturing resources, such as industrial robots, machine tools, and
auxiliary devices, from the phycical world to the digital world through graphical and formal representations. In doing so, required
information to perform engineering analysis, such as optimization, simulation, and life cycle assessment, is characterized in a
manner that is complete, standardized, and efficient.
NOTE 3—This guide will promote new tool development that can link manufacturing information and analytics for calculating the desired environmental
performance measures.
4.4 This guide also supports the development of tools to improve decision support capabilities while facilitating the development
and extension of standardized data and information bases.
NOTE 4—Data collected within manufacturing enterprises can be used to build enterprise-or-sector-specific databases that complement or extend Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases (ULE 880). This approach will improve the relevancy and completeness of the data while retaining key links to Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods.
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to a list of references at the end of this standard.
E3012 − 22
4.5 Fig. 2 presents a road map to this guide. Section 5 describes the graphical representation of the UMP. Section 6 presents a
conceptual definition of the UMP concept. Section 7 presents a step-by-step guide on how to characterize a manufacturing process
using the formal methods presented in Sections 5 and 6. Section 8 describes how to create a composed system model, or a network
of UMPs.
5. Graphical Representation of Unit Manufacturing Process
5.1 The graphical representation (Fig. 3) facilitates communication of manufacturing process information. It is comprised of five
blocks (inputs, outputs, product and process information, transformation, and manufacturing resources) to systematically structure
and visualize manufacturing information. Structured information of manufacturing processes facilitates data exchange, sharing,
and communication between people and other manufacturing applications such as modeling, simulation, and analysis tools.
FIG. 2 Systematic Illustration of Use of UMP Representation and Process Characterization Methodology to Develop a Number of
Specific UMP Models to Support Model Composition
E3012 − 22
FIG. 3 Graphical Representation of UMP Information
5.2 The contents of each of the five blocks is defined in Section 6 using UML (the Unified Modeling Language) to define a
conceptual representation. From the conceptual representation, a formal representation may be defined. An example of a formal
representation of the UMP implemented as an XSD schema (eXtensible Modeling Language Schema Definition) (3) is presented
in Appendix X1. An instantiated UMP model conforming to the example XSD schema is presented in Appendix X2 as an XML
document.
6. Conceptual Definition of Unit Manufacturing Process
6.1 Fig. 4 presents the conceptual definition of a UMP as a UML class diagram. Starting with the UnitManufacturingProcess
definition in the center, UMP concepts are described as UML classes in boxes in the figure. Concept attributes are described as
UML attributes, and are shown inside the boxes. Relationships between concepts are described as UML aggregations and
associations, and are depicted as connecting lines in the figure. In 6.2, each of the UMP concepts is defined. Italics are used to
indicate the names of UML classes and attributes that represent that concept. Examples are given for the attributes of each concept.
NOTE 5—Information described in the conceptual definition of a UMP is purposefully written to provide flexibility in implementation. For guidance
towards implementation strategies, see Appendix X1 and Appendix X2 for examples of implementation based on XML Schema. Other implementation
forms may be defined.
NOTE 6—Subsections 6.2 and 6.2.1 – 6.2.5 provide examples and semantic explanation of concepts and attributes presented in the conceptual definition.
6.2 Unit Manufacturing Process (UMP)—A model of a physical process in a manufacturing setting that adds value through the
modification or transformation of shape, structure, or property of input material or workpiece. A unit manufacturing process
(defined as UnitManufacturingProcess) accepts inputs (defined as InputOutput), generates outputs (defined as InputOutput), uses
product and process information (defined as ProductProcessInformation), uses manufacturing resources (defined as Resource), has
a transformation (defined as Transformation), includes reviews (defined as Review), and has authors (defined as Person). Some
examples of a type of a unit manufacturing process include milling, turning, die casting, injection molding, and laser powder bed
fusion. An example of the description in a UseBound is “This model is only valid when assessing the process in the state of Ohio.”
An example of a mathematicalExpression of a UseBoundEquation is “15 °C < temperature_ambient < 40 °C” and an example of
the associated description is “The model has only been validated under this range of temperature conditions.”
6.2.1 Input—All physical inputs that enter the UMP, such as material (for example, raw materials or work-in-progress),
consumables (for example, lubrication or forced air), energy, as well as external factors (such as temperature, humidity,
E3012 − 22
FIG. 4 Conceptual Definition of UMP
particulates, vibration, and shocks) that occur during the manufacture of a product. An example of a category of an input can be
material, energy, or part-in-process. An example of the symbol is “electricity_used.” An example of the code in a UOMCode is
“KWH” with the source “UNECE Recommendation No. 20 - Units of Measure used in International Trade.” An example of the
mathematicalExpression of a UseBoundEquation is “electricity_used > 0” and an example of the associated description is “For this
process to run, electricity is required.”
6.2.2 Output—All physical outputs that exit the UMP model, such as products, by-products, waste, and emissions. Output of one
UMP can be an input to another UMP. An example of the symbol is “waste_aluminum.” An example of a category of an output
can be waste, by-product, or product. An example of the code in a UOMCode is “KGM” with the source “UNECE
Recommendation No. 20 - Units of Measure used in International Trade.” An example of the mathematicalExpression of a
UseBound Equation is “waste_aluminum ≥ 0” and an example of the associated description is “It is possible that the process does
not produce any waste.”
6.2.3 Product and Process Information—Relevant information to facilitate the evaluation of the transformation (6.2.5) calculations
of material, energy, and information. This includes items such as part geometry, material properties, control programs, and process
plans. Product and process information includes control parameters (defined as Parameter, intermediate variables (defined as
Parameter), metrics of interest (defined as Parameter), fixed parameters (defined as FixedParameter), and supporting information
(defined as SupportingInformation). FixedParameter extends the concept of Parameter. The process parameters are distinguished
into the following four types. For each type of parameter, unit of measure codes, use bound equations, and descriptions are similar
to the ones provided for input (6.2.1) and output (6.2.2). For specific examples, refer to the UMP example in Appendix X2.
6.2.3.1 Control Parameter—Tunable parameters that can be adjusted to evaluate different process settings. Examples of control
parameters in machining processes include depth of cut, spindle speed, and feed rate.
6.2.3.2 Fixed Parameter—Parameters that are fixed through the evaluation of the transformation equations. Examples of fixed
parameters in machining processes include specific cutting energy and density of the workpiece material.
E3012 − 22
6.2.3.3 Intermediate Variable—Calculated variables required to complete the evaluation of the metrics of interest (6.2.3.4). An
example of an intermediate variable in a milling process is the milling time of a given surface area. Milling time must be calculated
before assessing the machining power.
6.2.3.4 Metric of Interest—Performance metrics related to the process that the UMP model is used to evaluate. Examples of
metrics of interest include cost per part and mass of CO emissions per part.
6.2.3.5 Supporting Information—All other relevant links to information regarding the manufacturing process, including
production plans, product and engineering specifications, and setup-operation-teardown instructions.
6.2.4 Manufacturing Resource—Information about process resources such as equipment, fixtures, tooling, and inspection gauges.
6.2.5 Transformation—The formal relations between inputs, outputs, and metrics of interest through the use of product and process
information and information about the manufacturing resources. A transformation is represented as some form of mathematical
representation (defined as MathematicalRepresentation).
6.2.5.1 MathematicalRepresentation—A description or a formal definition, or both, of components of a transformation. Examples
for content of a mathematical representation include an equation described as a MathML expression, a data-driven model described
as a PMML model, and an inequality constraint described as a MathML expression representing a feasibility space in a
manufacturing model.
NOTE 7—MathML is a markup language (4) developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to describe mathematical notations, capturing both
its structure and content. PMML (5) is a standard developed by the Data Mining Group (DMG) to represent predictive models in an XML format,
promoting the deployment of such models.
FIG. 5 Graphical Representation of Specific UMP for Compacting Process
E3012 − 22
6.2.6 Review—An expert review of a UMP model. A review has a reviewer (defined as Person). Examples of ways in which a
model can be reviewed include a peer-review procedure, a validation study using empirical data, and a cross-validation study using
a subset of training data in the case of data-driven models.
6.3 Tables 1-14 describe the attributes and relationships of each concept in the conceptual definition. For each attribute, a data type
and description are provided. For each relationship to the concept, the name of the related concept, the cardinality of the
relationship, and a reference providing additional inf
...