LCA Automotive Case Study

1
 Background

Based on:
“Environmental impact analysis of composite
use in car manufacturing”
Duflou, De Moor, Verpoest , Dewulf, 2009 (copy on Blackboard)

 Conducted an LCA of a steel “body-in-white” compared to one

made of carbon-fibre composite.

Used Simapro software, Ecoinvent database and various

impact assessment methods.
 Background

Design based on a study “TECABS” looking at using carbon-

fibre composites in small cars; based on a VW Lupo design.

Steel design is manufactured, composite one is not, so maybe

not completely accurate.
 Background
Assumption 1: lower weight requires
smaller engine

 Steel BIW version has a 1.4 litre

engine.

 It is assumed that the lighter

Composite BIW can get similar
performance with a 1.2 litre engine

This saves a further 31 kg of engine

weight (equal mix of cast iron, steel,
aluminium).
 Background
Scope
 A total functional life span corresponding to 200,000 km was
simulated.
 An average use by 1.2 passengers at 71.2 kg/person.
 A luggage load of 7 kg/person.
 A 55% filled fuel tank were assumed.

 Excluded from the study were possible differences in maintenance

and functional life time that might be caused by the BIW replacement
by a CFRP structure.
The aerodynamic profile of the car and the driving style were
assumed not to be affected by the redesign.
 Background
Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
 55% weight fraction carbon fibre in an epoxy matrix.

Steel
 200kg low alloyed steel, with a 3kg zinc coating

Transport
 CF production in Japan was assumed, since a significant fraction of the
installed production capacity is located there. Long distance transport by
sea freight is consequently covered.
 For all other supplies local transport by truck to a production facility in
Europe was included in the analysis.
 Assumption 2

7
 Assumption 2: Lower weight &
smaller engine = less fuel

Fuel consumption (l/100km) = 3.359 x weight(T) +

1.186 x engine size (l) + 1.19
 Fuel Use – Composite BIW

 Composite BIW Lupo has a mass of 757 kg, 79 kg of which is

the BIW.

 Using the formula, uses 5.156 litres / 100km

 Of this, 5.156 x (0.079/0.757) = 0.538 litres / 100km is due

to composite BIW.

Assume a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km.

Fuel consumption (l/100km) = 3.359 x weight(T) + 1.186 x

engine size (l) + 1.19
 Fuel Use – Steel BIW

 Ecoinvent database has detailed study of a “typical” passenger

car, which uses 8.8 litres / 100km – can use this per litre of fuel

 Steel BIW Lupo has a mass of 912 kg, 203 kg of which is the BIW,
31 kg of which is the heavier engine.
 Using the formula, uses 5.914 litres / 100km

 Of this, 5.914 x ((0.203 + 0.031)/0.912) = 1.517 litres / 100km is

due to steel BIW.

Fuel consumption (l/100km) = 3.359 x weight(T) + 1.186 x

engine size (l) + 1.19
Manufacturing Impacts: Steel Production

11
 Manufacturing Impacts:
Steel Production

Mining Coking Blast furnace:

Iron ore, coal, Production of Production of
limestone coke from coal “pig-iron”

Forming Steelmaking
Production of
Profiles, strip,
steel from pig-iron
coated strip, wire
and scrap
 Steel Production

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-steel
 Steelmaking
Basic Oxygen Furnace.
 The iron is combined with varying
amounts of steel scrap (less than 30%)
and small amounts of flux.
 A lance is introduced in the vessel and
blows 99% pure oxygen causing a
temperature rise to 1700°C. The scrap
melts, impurities are oxidised, and the
carbon content is reduced by 90%,
resulting in liquid steel.
 Basic Oxygen Furnaces currently
produce about 70% of the world’s steel. A
further 29% of steel is produced in
Electric Arc Furnaces.
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-steel
 Steel Production

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-steel
 Materials Usage

For each tonne of steel produced:

 1.5 tonnes of iron ore
 400 - 600 kg of coke (from ~600-770 kg coal)
 250 kg of limestone
 250 kg slag produced
 1400 kg CO2 produced directly
 Environmental Concerns

 CO2 generation (direct & from electricity)

 NOx, SOx generation
 HCl generation
 Possible dioxin generation
 Ammonia generation
 Airborne particulates (slag, iron, organics)
 Environmental Concerns

 Slag production
 Land contamination
 Water contamination
 Noise pollution
With no Controls
With Controls
 Manufacturing Impacts: Carbon Fibre
Composite Production

21
 Manufacturing Impacts:
Carbon Fibre Composite Production
• Very complex processing
• Manufactured from Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) C3H3N,
which is highly flammable and toxic.
• PAN undergoes explosive polymerization. The
burning material releases fumes of hydrogen
cyanide and oxides of nitrogen.
• PAN is converted to carbon using thermal
pyrolysis, a time- and energy-consuming process
that must in addition be combined with stretching
to align the microstructure to achieve the desired
physical properties.
 Manufacturing Impacts:
Carbon Fibre Composite Production
 Manufacturing Impacts:
Carbon Fibre Composite Production
• Very complex processing
Material Greenhouse gas Overall
(per kg) emissions Environmental
Impact
Carbon fibre 100 100
Glass fibre 5.1 4.7
Epoxy resin 13.6 11.9
Steel 3.6 3.1
Aluminium 14.3 15.2
 Carbon Fibre Composite Impacts

• Considerable impacts of manufacturing

consumables
• Hard to recycle
– Thermoset-based composites can’t be recycled
– Can be ground and used as filler, but this gives large
degradation in properties
– Controlled heat treatments can remove resin from
carbon fibres
– Pyrolysis / incineration can be used to generate useful
fuels, feedstocks and electricity
Carbon Fibre Composite End Use
 Carbon Dioxide Flows

27
Carbon-dioxide flows: Steel
 Carbon-
dioxide
flows:
Composite
 Inventory

30
Inventory – resources used
Inventory – air emissions
Inventory – water emissions
 Impact Analysis

34
Impact categories – scaled to 100%
 Normalised
(divided by impacts of average
European)
 Normalised
(divided by Worldwide average)

Why is land transformation low?

 Impact Assessment
Characterisation

38
 Impact end-points
(normalised by European average)
End-point comparison
 Conclusions

41
 Conclusions

 LCA shows that composite BIW has lower lifetime impacts

than steel BIW
 Steel is heavier and so has higher use impacts
 Composite has higher manufacturing impacts

 Composite is more expensive, slower in manufacture and is

currently not favoured by recycling legislation (End-of-life
Vehicle Directive)
 Conclusions – Recycling?

 Composite has complete separation of production impacts

and incineration – assumes all is incinerated

Steel recycling is “included” in production, at an average rate

of about 60%.

In fact, automotive steel recycling is higher, about 90%.

This should also be factored in

 Questions

 What are the limitations of normalisation?

 Is depletion fossil fuel reserves a bad thing?