Search

Purpose: The importance of glass in the production of food packaging has stimulated the assessment of its impact. This study evaluates the environmental performance of hollow glass production in a manufacturing plant operating in Apulia (Italy), compares baseline and two alternative scenarios based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) method and proposes more environmentally friendly options. Methods: The LCA study was performed on primary data provided by a company for 2017 and secondary data retrieved from databases. The LCA was conducted according to ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2018 with product category rule (PCR) basic module CPC 37. A midpoint approach was chosen. The software selected for the analysis was GaBi thinkstep AG version 8.7.0.18. The study was performed from cradle to grave, and the functional unit considered was 1 kg of finished hollow glass. Results and discussion: A comparative analysis of the different scenarios was conducted considering seven environmental impact indicators. The results highlight major improvements in the environmental impact indicators: in particular, the replacement of raw materials with cullets would yield significant improvements if all of the cullets are recovered in the regional territory. These improvements, as confirmed by the results of Scenario 2, could be further increased both by the use of renewable energy such as photovoltaic (PV) energy and by technological improvements such as lightweighting. Conclusions: Through the LCA, the authors quantified the potential environmental impact associated with the production of hollow glass, thereby identifying solutions and formulating suggestions to reduce the environmental impacts associated with food packaging. The evaluation of the different scenarios could help managers in the decision-making process, thus improving the environmental performance of both the process and final product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Magna International Inc. (Magna), in cooperation with the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) and partners FCA US LLC (FCA US) and Grupo Antolin North America, Inc., developed a new state of the art Ultralight door design in 2017 that achieved a 40% overall mass reduction compared to the Baseline door. The purpose of this comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study is to provide quantitative information about the potential life cycle environmental performance of the new Ultralight door parts compared to the conventional door parts of the 2016 Chrysler 200C (the Baseline), built and driven for 250,000 km in North America (NA).Methods: This LCA study of Magna's Ultralight door innovation is conducted in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards 14040 series and follows the specific rules and requirements provided in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Group guidelines for conducting LCA of auto parts incorporating weight changes due to material composition, manufacturing technology, or part geometry. This guidance establishes auto-sector-specific technical parameters and LCA calculation rules and requirements for conducting comparative LCA studies for auto parts in NA.Results and discussion: Life cycle global warming potential (GWP) and total primary energy demand (TPE) of the Ultralight auto doors (with powertrain, P/T adaptation) are 6.0 g carbon dioxide, CO2 eq/km, and 86 kJ/km lower than that of the Baseline, respectively. Life cycle GWP and TPE of the Ultralight auto doors (no P/T adaptation) are 2.8 g CO2 eq/km and 40 kJ/km lower than that of the Baseline, respectively. The "vehicle strategic systems" (with P/T adaptation) lightweighting approach shows the lowest potential environmental impacts compared to the Baseline in all selected LCA indicators.Conclusions: Overall, the innovative aluminum-intensive door design architecture provides a substantial mass reduction for the driver's side door (15.2 kg), which results in a potential mass reduction of 49.5 kg for a 4-door vehicle versus its Baseline 4-door. The ISO 14040 series and CSA Group Guidance conformance LCA results of the Ultralight door designs (no P/T and with P/T adaptation) show lower potential environmental impacts due to lightweighting compared to the Baseline, both built and driven for 250,000 km in NA, in terms of all selected LCA indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Currently, the reduction of weight in automotive is a very important topic in order to lower the air pollution. In this context, the purpose of the present paper was to analyze a real case study through a comparison of the environmental sustainability between a conventional steel crossbeam for light commercial vehicles and an innovative lightweight aluminum one.Methods: For both scenarios, a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment methodology and a sensitivity analysis has been used through the study of the following phases: mineral extraction, component manufacturing, use on vehicle, and end of life. In particular, many primary data and a complete vehicle model simulation with three different European driving cycles have been used in order to reach the highest possible level of accuracy during the analysis.Results and discussion: Regarding the manufacturing phase, the aluminum component’s production gave the highest impact because of the high energy required in the mineral reduction. Anyway, this stage of the analysis had a low effect on the entire LCA, because the benefit of weight reduction during vehicle use showed a strongly higher contribution. The urban driving cycle had the most relevant impact, as a consequence of the frequent start and stop operations and the longest time with engine at idle speed, while the extra-urban cycle is the less demanding due to its higher average speed and no start and stop.Conclusions: In conclusion, the present research demonstrated the environmental importance of the lightweight for an actual case study in the commercial vehicles field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The past two decades have seen growing pressure on vehicle manufacturers to reduce the environmental impact of their vehicles. One effective way to improve fuel efficiency and lower tailpipe emissions is to use advanced high-strength steels (AHSS) that offer equal strength and crash resistance at lower mass. The present study assesses the life cycle environmental impacts of two steel grades considered for the B-pillar in the Ford Fusion: A press-hardened boron steel design as used in the previous model of the vehicle and a hydroformed component made from a mix of the molybdenum-bearing dual phase steels DP800 and DP1000. Methods: Information related to the component masses and grades was provided by Ford. Process models for the steelmaking process, finishing, forming, vehicle use and end of life were created in the GaBi LCA software tool. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the impact of the hydroforming process for the new component, for which only proxy data were available and on the mix of DP800 and DP1000 in the B-pillar. Results have been presented for the environmental impact categories deemed most relevant to vehicle use. Results and discussion: The life cycle assessment showed that the new DP800/DP1000 B-pillar design has a lower impact for the environmental impact categories assessed. Overall, the global warming potential (GWP) of the new DP800/DP1000 design was 29 % lower than the boron steel design over the full life cycle of the vehicle. The use phase was found to be the major source of environmental impacts, accounting for 93 % of the life cycle GWP impact. The 4 kg weight saving accounts for the majority of the difference in impacts between the two B-pillar designs. Impacts from manufacturing were also lower for the new design for all of the impact categories assessed despite the higher alloy content of the steel. A sensitivity analysis of the hydroforming process showed that even if impacts from forming were 100 % greater than for press hardening, the GWP from production of the new B-pillar design would still be lower than the boron steel version. Conclusions and recommendations: The molybdenum-bearing DP1000/DP800 B-pillar was found to have lower life cycle and production impacts than the previous boron steel design. The assessment indicates that significant improvements in the environmental impacts associated with the body structure of vehicles could be made through the increased use of AHSS in vehicles without compromising crash performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In the transportation sector, reducing vehicle weight is a cornerstone strategy to improve the fuel economy and energy efficiency of road vehicles. This study investigated the environmental implications of lightweighting two automotive parts (Ford Taurus front end bolster, Chevrolet Trailblazer/GMC Envoy assist step) using glass-fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) instead of steel alloys. Methods: The cradle-to-grave life cycle assessments (LCAs) for these studies consider a total service life of 150,000 miles for two applications: a 46 % lighter GFRP bolster on the 2010 Ford Taurus that replaced the 2008 steel and GFRP bolster, and a 51 % lighter GFRP running board for the 2007 Chevrolet Trailblazer/GMC Envoy that replaced the previous steel running board including its polymer fasteners. The life cycle stages in these critically reviewed and ISO-compliant LCA studies include the production of upstream materials and energy, product manufacturing, use, and the end-of-life treatment for all materials throughout the life cycle. Results and discussion: The results show that the lighter GFRP products performed better than the steel products for global warming potential and primary energy demand for both case studies. In addition, the GFRP bolster performed better for acidification potential. The savings of fuel combustion and production during the use stage of a vehicle far outweigh the environmental impacts of manufacturing or end-of-life. An even greater benefit would be possible if the total weight reduction in the vehicle would be high enough to allow for the reduction of engine displacement or an elongation of gear ratio while maintaining constant vehicle dynamics. These so-called secondary measures allow the fuel savings per unit of mass to be more than doubled and are able to offset the slightly higher acidification potential of the GFRP running board which occurs when only the mass-induced fuel savings are considered. Conclusions: The lightweight GFRP components are shown to outperform their steel counterparts over the full life cycle mainly due to the reduced fuel consumption of the vehicle in the use phase. To harvest the benefits of light weighting to their full extent, it is recommended that the sum of all mass reductions in the design process be monitored and, whenever feasible, invested into fuel economy by adapting the drive train while maintaining constant vehicle performance rather than leveraging the weight reduction to improve vehicle dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The automotive industry has a long history in improving the environmental performance of vehicles - fuel economy and emission improvements, introduction of recycled and renewable materials, etc. The European Union also aims at improving the environmental performance of products by reducing, in particular, waste resulting from End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) for example. The European Commission estimates that ELVs contribute to approximately 1 % of the total waste in Europe [9]. Other European Union strategies are considering more life cycle aspects, as well as other impacts including resource or climate change. This article is summarizing the results of a European Commission funded project (LIRECAR) that aims at identifying the environmental impacts and relevance for combinations of recycling / recovery and lightweight vehicle design options over the whole life cycle of a vehicle - i.e. manufacturing, use and recycling/recovery. Three, independent and scientific LCA experts reviewed the study according to ISO 14040. From the beginning, representatives of all Life Cycle Stakeholders have been involved (European materials & supplier associations, an environmental Non-Governmental Organization, recycler’s association). The study compared 3 sets of theoretical vehicle weight scenarios: 1000 kg reference (material range of today’s end-of-life, mid-sized vehicles produced in the early 1990’s) and 2 lightweight scenarios for 100 kg and 250 kg less weight based on reference functions (in terms of comfort, safety, etc.) and a vehicle concept. The scenarios are represented by their material range of a broad range of lightweight strategies of most European car manufacturers. In parallel, three End-of-Life (EOL) scenarios are considered: EOL today and two theoretical extreme scenarios (100% recycling, respectively, 100% recovery of shredder residue fractions that are disposed of today). The technical and economical feasibility of the studied scenarios is not taken into consideration (e.g. 100% recycling is not possible). Significant differences between the various, studied weight scenarios were determined in several scenarios for the environmental categories of global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant creation (summer smog), abiotic resource depletion, and hazardous waste. However, these improvement potentials can be only realized under well defined conditions (e.g. material compositions, specific fuel reduction values and EOL credits) based on case-by-case assessments for improvements over the course of the life cycle. Looking at the studied scenarios, the relative contribution of the EOL phase represents 5% or less of the total life cycle impact for most selected impact categories and scenarios. The EOL technology variations studied do not impact significantly the considered environmental impacts. Exceptions include total waste, as long as stockpile goods (overburden, tailings and ore/coal processing residues) and EOL credits are considered. LIRECAR focuses only on lightweight/recycling, questions whereas other measures (changes in safety or comfort standards, propulsion improvements for CO2, user behavior) are beyond the scope of the study. The conclusions are also not necessarily transferable to other vehicle concepts. However, for the question of end-of-life options, it can be concluded that LIRECAR cannot support any general recommendation and/or mandatory actions to improve recycling if lightweight is affected. Also, looking at each vehicle, no justification could be found for the general assumption that lightweight and recycling greatly influence the affected environmental dimension (Global Warming Potential or resource depletion and waste, respectively)... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]