📋 Case Study
Aerospace Structural Component Forging Modernization
Inaccurate TCO model led to underestimation of energy, maintenance, and scrap cost shifts
🏗️ Project Overview
Transition from legacy hydraulic press to servo-electric forging press in Ohio
🎯 Challenge
Inaccurate TCO model led to underestimation of energy, maintenance, and scrap cost shifts
🔧 Design Approach
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) model integrating capital, energy, tooling wear, and NDT rework rates
📐 Design Diagram
AI-generated project design illustration
📐 Key Calculations
Energy Cost per Forged Part
(kWh/part × $/kWh)
Result: $8.21 (new) vs $14.67 (legacy)
37% reduction offsetting higher CapEx
Tool Life Extension Factor
New Tool Cycles / Legacy Tool Cycles
Result: 3.2×
Reduced amortized tooling cost by $11.40/unit
📊 Results
Payback period revised from 7.2 to 4.1 years; scrap rate dropped from 8.7% to 2.3%; validated IRR of 18.6%💡 Lessons Learned
- •Energy efficiency gains compound with yield improvements
- •Tool life modeling must include thermal fatigue cycles
- •NDT pass rate is a stronger cost predictor than scrap weight
✅ Key Takeaways
- 1Energy efficiency gains compound with yield improvements
- 2Tool life modeling must include thermal fatigue cycles
- 3NDT pass rate is a stronger cost predictor than scrap weight
📐 Prerequisites
Understand these before this topic
➡️ Next Step
Continue your engineering workflow
🔗 Engineering Applications
See how this applies across industries