ISSN 1349-4198
IJICIC
Volume 4, Number 3, March 2008
International Journal of Innovative
Computing, Information & Control
Sponsored by National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences
Published by ICIC International
http:Ilwww.ijicic.org
‘‘
International Journal bf.Inio?)àiv
Computing Information and Control
Volume,4, lumber 3,.March2OO8
/
‘‘
L...,
.
.
,_
r
.1;
I
-—
•
‘•H’
“
ICIC International ©2008 ISSN 1349-4198
‘1—591.
‘,.
-h-..,,
‘,I1()
j
3
‘3
APPLICATION OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS TO
SUSTAINABLEPRODUCTDESIGNAN:MA’NUFAC.TU’ffl’NL
-— n
i
-—
-
—
l/
4—
Jr.-!
I I
I
:ti I :,
,KARL, R. HAAPALA,.1ULIO.L.RIYERA AND JOHNW’ SjJTHERLN]Z
‘I
•
i,.
—“.
beparrnentiof Meclanical Enginiring-Engineering Mehanics
Sustainable Futures Institute
‘(1 •31’-’I
.---Miëhigan Technological University
i j—Houghtonj-Michigan-49931--USA’
n
{‘krhaapal; jlrivera; jwsuther}©mtu.edu
Ir’ L-
-
-
-l
‘:
-
.
—-
—
-.
-
--
-
—.
-
-
Ma72007
-
.-
ii
-
‘
-
—
-
),I
I
il
Sustainable design and manufacturing must address economic, societal, and
environmental dimensions
simultaneously over the product life cycle,- e.g., manufacturing,
1.
‘3
—‘
I.
:I 1’ti
I
“3;
II
i 3 It
I
use and end-of-life. While decision support tools have been‘3(53.:
developed to.assist design-.
&rs ‘ul ‘ceatin moe .iustainable oducts, th i a dearth
tooL’
addressing ‘the
szistainobilit’ Wny3ht bf
during ‘d iiie’e”i’iig ‘desin. ‘To lre’Jond’ tO 1
this
•
‘need, this. paper ‘examineS how. desiiners’ and-’plannerá Ican’ address key ustainable! rhän
3 such as energy use, resource consumption waste production, and,
ufacturing,measu7res
nal health. As an illustration, the functional, and.life çycfr performance of sev
5
occupatio
eral alternatives for a steel component are. analyzed. A sensitivity analysiá is performed
f--I : --1’’
3’” V.131
‘3flj
.3!’,
.
3
•.‘‘I’iI,lIl
to identify the product and process, variables with the greatest effect on the overall life
c’yéle ‘imj,act. Finil1y, ‘the d’iaQsi onirs Iv ch&’nes i,’i
dei,n
“I’
‘i,iaê’tródiiction’-kc’onor,iis’ ‘a,d’ ,ri&iádi’es bflsus’tainable’ rfoiniri.ée.
Keywords: Life cycle ‘assessment ,Sustainability, Design,”Manufactu’ring Steel prbducts.3
!1’:’r.
-i
•u
.,
.
-
.
ABSTRACT.
‘,
—.
-
_
-
-
_.
•
.I•l.l_.,V,,,
-
....,_.,.
‘of’
‘
for
‘
-
t
-
-
5•)
‘‘
-
‘
,‘
••
‘
1. Introduction. Sustainability considerations are gainiñ’
xdinn’é iii c6rd±ate dè
cision making. Sustainability reports are proliferating, but implementation of sustainabil
haienge; ts,,defnition .9a,r yr d
it3ç fii9iI
ng,,9n tle
pespective
1
of.1’
the , decision maker. From a technological
perspective,
sustainability
is
“.:. the design
—“III
I I”I,
1
l
II’
1’
() “1). 1’
3
‘.(
“3
of humanJ1and
industrial
systems
to
ensure
that
humankind’s
-use
of
natural
resources
)•,f(
3.-I II’ I’) I,—
1
I 1313’
13’ 1113’)
333 I’
‘I’ III IIIIII I tllII’)IIIIJ 3,
and cycles, doI not lead
to diminished(,, quality df life
due ‘1(3either
to losses in 11111
future
eco
.1 1’’
3
3
3(3
nomic opportunities or) to) adverse
impacts
on
social
conditions,
human
health
and
the
j’’’,Il(’1l7.I
(33
13.31.
;;:-1lII’L.’’
1111 II .‘,ll)II 31 11.31
environment [lj.
-3-;!
: i- ) .1
Numerous strategies,, frameworks, and tools have been devised to reduce negative enr
1’.
I II’ .,l (
nj Ir, 1
H
‘L’3 1
Iri
1
:
‘II
vironmental impacts and avoid unsustainable
design practices.
Mpre than a1 decade ago,
the primary goals of environii’tálly repoiib1 di
r seated a.’ ‘foil s[2j:”
1
3
,‘.1{(l[—33l!f’
l—,.’
‘111 .3 ‘1-313’ 1’
3))
31,
‘l3—’l.’/
I’’’ 113)
9’ 3
1
,1 ‘1” 1J
• reduce energy and material ‘(hazardous
and 13-13’’
nonhazardous)
content,
i-i: I
‘II’)-”) ‘‘31
L 31) .v :1,
-I
• developI ,Jproducts
that can be reused by3Ifollow-on
consumers,
•I’)
I
.1’I’1.jI1I1 1l,19)IUI1O’1
I1.1’.’l’
‘sIl
I’.
‘Il’ 3
II
• create product features that promote remanufacturalility/demanufacturabthty, and
that are recyclable.
• select materials
.13,
I
) I
.(3,
II
I
iii
LI—. —-I
‘I’’ •
Today, the shift to sustainable design of,products, procespes, and sprvices,requires a
3
understanding
of intertwined
comprehensive
economic,
social,
and environmental
effects
1’_(3 III
3311)_,3’
1
‘9
‘311
‘1 II’
ii
H. (J ‘‘i’ H•’
4 II .3 3 I 1(33)11’
decision
with
any
to
prevent
the
transference
negative
associated
of.
impacts
from
one
),13’I)’3
-1333 ‘II’- 191’”’ ‘3,1333 3’
311
_I
I
1, I ‘1.
) 13
I1 I 1’’ ‘LI I I
3
•
another.
(Figure
stage
to
1).
The
life
cycle
analyst
‘must
consider
life cycle
whether
3 a
I
‘‘I’ll
)3•
)fl()I”, 3,
-il)
3
3,
J’i•’
—‘‘331
• .3 I
3
oductioi-specific,
(crd1-to-gate)
be
or
prb’duct-specific
‘stud should
(cradle-to-gr’ave).
1
I 3
I
?f1’fl
I
_3 (11(1431
I
(II
I 1,31’
1 ‘1 I’ i’3I1’1-.
I
Often, life cycle studies lave been ampered by poor data qua1iy, uncertarnties, and
sI•
-
‘
‘
,.‘
13.11,,
•;
—
‘,.
1
V
,_Vj,53
-
‘i’
—.
‘5
‘)‘.‘.S)
•
‘.
.
,
,j’
-
-
S
—
-
—
•
‘
.
V
‘
•
—
‘.3l
.
3
j
I
H
,,
‘
‘l
-
‘
.‘
‘
•‘
‘
‘
•
‘
3133,
:-
‘-
‘/331
‘
H
!‘-
•
•
-
-
_
•
‘
.
‘
V
‘
•
‘
-
‘
-
._
‘‘13’
1
j
•
-‘‘I
,‘/
II
‘.‘
“
.‘;
—.
‘‘
•
•
I
-
-
--
‘
I’’’’
‘‘
-
V
.
—
•
-
I’!
I
-4
•
I’
-
-
-
/—_
-
-
577
[)S
‘‘‘‘
-
-
li
1:
‘
IL,
I’ I
H
i
-
-
578
K. R. HAAPALA, J. L. RIVERA AND J. W. SUTHERLAND’.
.-
I’
‘,.
deficiencies in knowledge of global material and energy fiMV, vlii’cli häv& r’esultëd’ in
many simplifications in analysis.
{.
)(‘]. /J?rT,)
( I’
‘TiLl i( / il’.f .)
‘..
r,’
Raw Material
Extraction
[.. . . 1I
.
,p
ii
t
[—+1
Material
Proc
s
9
ing
‘Cradle-to-Gate
I
(
•\‘
1—+!
I I
Manufacturing
.
.
I
.FI).I
Use
TJ’j
End-of-Life
.
,‘‘
iiif.:’i:imi
rj
‘(,
‘,.
,;
‘I.
Cradle-to-Grave
Lv
Si
FIGURE
,ti
Lb
..‘i
•)‘.t
,‘
-
‘J’fli’(
I
1. Product life cycle
I..’’.
‘‘‘I,
,...
‘‘
‘I’’ ill
•,‘i
.!
I’
.,
,\.
I
.
-.
‘i—il
.
Conclusions from a U.S. ‘National Science Foundation-funded workshop on Environ
mentallBenigi Ma’nufacturing (EBM) calle’d for th incorporatioi f life cycle consider
ations in,t,h,e designprocess [3]. 1
Attendees of the EBM,,workshpp specifically, advocated for
the “quantification of resource inputs and. waste outputs from manufacturing processes.”
Currently, when making life cycle decisions, •engineers often’must choose subjectively
between competirig’design ‘alte’rnatives Ih such comparisons, usefld post-üse’stage en
vironmental burdens re’cere the most attention, since the impacts re readily’ apparent
and regulated, e g , tilip emissions ‘Certainly, life cycle assessment (LCA) represents
a key component of susthinable design and, manufacturing. The .ork presented here
focuses oni decision-making for reduced environmental impactsin. the heavy equipment
manufacturing industry and investigates the life cycle of a steel product from a design
and rnanufacturing.perspecti’e.
..,,
,,
(‘H 1
.
.
-
.
,,‘,,_
,,
‘I,,
.
‘c.
,
ii’
. .
Ii’.’,
1.1. Life cycle assessment. Life cycle assessment (LeA) is a method
used durmg design
the enviróiiñiefl1 iriat df rddct;
t
1 CAs,’aie
& rvice.
dóte
ii
—
I
III
I
J
II
on a functional unit basis, so competing candidates canII be evaluated
based
on
hours
of
Ill’
.
1 Ii’ ‘III
U
operational life or level 11of throughput, foriJiii’(
example. Rosselot and1 Allen [4] used the
térrriiöly df I’ Sàcir’
1 for Ehvr&mritäl T&colb!y ndi Cheiist.(SEA’
III!
defining the four steps of LCA:
.
.
I(
i’
ii
ii
‘i
,, Ii
c’! ‘.i ii ‘ii
cc
!., ‘icc —. !‘c’ ii
LCA iiscope and. boundaries
(1)• Define
- the functional
and limits on data
unit
collection
i
,
.11,
L—
.
L’Li’tLi
.
II I
LI
are2.’chosen
as
well
identifyingrreasons
for
as
the
study
.I,
(I
i
i’’v’,
.
.1’
I
ih
I
ILL,
1
I
.1
(2) Conduct a life cycle inventory — material/energy use, waste/emissions, and co
•!ii ‘I(i\i,Ii
. /
i’!
. .
products are accounted for at each life cycle
stage;
I
‘1,1 .1
Ic
ii. c
1 ‘i ti 11
‘I
til
Q
1.1’).’)
(3) Conduct a life cycle impact assessment’ — environmental impacts of the inputs and
.11
I I; II ‘l’’l
I
Ci Ci
I’•
11’
‘‘i 1’
11
.1 I
‘I
outputs are quantified; and
(4) Conduct an improvement analysis (or inter’jtioif) the’othidi’Iäbl cip’f ion is
. Lit
_.,Iltd:di modifitati’ons fe suggested’
‘
i’:c(’i .( 1 • fl
•( .
1.v’ic (U’
‘li’i
/,
‘‘I
.
.c C.
:c’
To conduct a comprehensive LCA fTom scratch requires designers to spend‘I’atIsigmficant
•
,‘v!i
.ii’t.Ic
iii
.‘!!lI’i
•
.iiI.’)i
,,,
)2
amount of time gathering information [5]. This time’ can be reduced considerably by
i’f?’,j, •1
j’1.,
li)’I tiI
i(II’ill,,i. 1
i_’IlJ’’’i.
.1:,:.-.,
employing LCA ,software tools. These tools have been developed primarily in Europe,
gh a nacrosl Ecorhi Inpiit/Out
4
althou
‘dvelpeã a’’ Caniegie
tool
MllOnUnii/r’sit’T in tI tJ.Sd[6].i Cb
ei1’L’C4 t
obi ii1ldé”GBi id ‘[7]; Boütd
1
Model 5.0 [8], Umberto [9), and SimaPro 7 [10]. In this work, SimaPro 7 is used to
ii,
..
‘‘‘
‘
I)
.
‘
.
..
‘
‘
n
‘
.
.
‘.
,.
i
‘
IL’
ii.’
I.
—.
II
I..
I’ i
.
.
‘
‘I’.
i.
.
.
.
‘
iI,i’i
“.
ii
“.
..
‘
ni
.
.
iv
ii
.
.(
,‘
.,
‘lvi
.
‘‘
,
L’
iV’’
‘c
‘
‘
‘
,
.
.
.
•.
.
,
j
,
.
,‘
‘
.)‘
‘
i.
‘
I
4PP1ICATION ‘OF LIFE CYCLE SSESSMENT TOOLS
579
illustrate how an LCAI tool ah’ b-uti1ized to devèlo thOréstairiable’ p’bduct.’SimaPro
incorporates invenorr-fdata frdm various source, inluding the’
The
software allows impct âSêsmeht’-*fh’ihdicatrs such as ‘Eco’indicätor 95’,’ ‘Eco4fldicalor
1 ñfa’tuicig
99, and Cumulative Energy Demahd. LCA tbols id sustainab1e’dsign and
efforts.
rn,;’ J’ I
I
•‘\
t)
1.2. Sustainable design ‘and: manufcturingz Sustainable’ design is ‘the procès
devisiñg’ jrodüct that will i)-perform;afunctionsucéssfullyin anerigineering- sense; ii) ;be
socially :cceptable;i iii uilie miñithñm etiétgycand ‘materiàli.âhd’
geriérat”e ‘profits fo
the cômàn selling it. ‘Materialsishduld beselected’ to rñiriiffiize árM toheen’ironrnent
and t’âkehölders.. Similarly
1 sustainble màfliifacturiñg crates a’ product vhileroptitñizing
enei’gy aiid r’esoiir use and,olid,liqüid;’and’gaseous wastes and en’iissions ‘The goal;for
siistairiabléthanufactiiring-includeàioidance df hazardous pollütdnt&and identifiCation of
benefiCi’aLuses for bproducs The 3rodüët should minimizerisk to’prodiIcers; use,iand
reclaimers by Co’nsideii.nig) safety rahd human ‘factors issués.i’One ‘sustainable design. ‘and
manufacturing approach is; modularity, *hich facilitates product ‘disasembly for répair
refurbishmeñt, and ‘material or energy recoveryr Anastas ‘and Zimmermani [1 1] presented
‘
a comprehensive set of consideratión’forsus’taiñabl’è design; ii-’
1
1
:,
,‘
ir)
r
•f;”
1
1.3. Sustainable enterprise. In,response to stakeholder. demands for sustainable prod
ict
ocesses, ad ‘servies, exitg/p,lanned gcyefn,mepi reguatioIjs, nd inernal ‘oiporate philpspphies, companies are estabhshing environrneptal,, social, and utainabihty
policies and prpgrams. ,‘lis i especially 1
true of large, gol companies, which are oftei
inder the international, microscope because of real, or p,erceiyed lack of ep
Øbility in
9
past. actiyities [12]. tçl sustainability picie .xary, grtly ,r,om, cofnpany to, com
pany, and 4ep,end.qn,such chracter,istics .s qrganizational,cu1tur, per,cepon of
corporate
1
responsibility, ,and the, implementability, of pptential policies ,,S,iiccesful (exterial) reg
require
the involvement
of industrial,,social,
and environmental interest
ulatory, policies
“‘I
‘‘LI
II,
II I
I I)
.I
.1
groups. As Erkman [131 noted, “A more elegant industrial sq,qety,.a rQre itel1igent,ecpn9
egers,s
poby a challçnge
e,rany
orp s
political nd econpmic, players, and ordinary citizens” Actiyities in suipç of enyiron
,st ,ailiy are discussed biiefiy below.
a soial spo,nsi]ity
,
‘‘
fr.,’
..
..c.
‘I
S
c
;.‘‘
—.
-
.11111
III
I
II
III
I
,,
— f,:
,
I
‘
‘
‘‘‘
‘
“
-
‘‘‘
1
-
‘
,
‘
S
;
‘;
1.3. 1’.”Eiiirorñntäl’ reâp’on,’ibilit’y’ The InternatiOnal OraniiatiOii for’Standardiztion
ISO)”ha published ‘ovr’ 13,700’tändafd iiichdiiigJthe i”ecñt imlêm’entibh’ f ‘en
vironirèntãl’ iuahaeiiieht tándärds ‘under’ ISO’44000’ [14]! “Environmental m’anageth’ent
stes(EMS)!a± oftéi the drivei’s’ ‘of énvirbnnieñtãl’ init’iatN’e especially f& small and
medifii-izéd’buiñesSes:’ An; EMS cthpels a cömJari’ t’o’thesur& ëomliãnce thmugh
internal audits and to develop internal performance indicators. Even though a nonISO I 14000 has become .“I
a pre-requisite
for market entry
enforceable ‘ standard
and is im
I’”
I’ “ ‘‘fl )1•
IJ
I’ ‘1) ‘fI”,if
IH (
plemented witlj existing ISO 9000,ua1ity rnanagepient systems ,
-
‘.‘
‘
‘
-
I
‘
‘1
,
,
—;;
‘
ii-
.-
‘‘‘
‘
‘
,‘‘:
13.2’ Soéial’ responsibility. In addition to environmental aCtivities, many compânies’havé
implemented socil responsibility initiatives which focus on’reas such as; health of the
workforce safety, and’ community iiivolvemenit” Health issues include exposure to’>hà±
atdous materials, ‘ergonOmic,I afid hearing protection: ‘COmpany ‘safety goals? often aim
to redu’ce inji.iries”and losttime accidents ;Sodially responsible companies spohsori com
muiIitj prograrhs and projects, andeñCdürage ;their emloyeesto;olunteêr in, the ‘local
580
K. R. HAAPALA, J. L. RIVERA AND J. W. SUTHERLAND
community. Social responsibility initiatives address diversiy, gender.and human: rights
issues. The focus in design is shifting toward appropriate
product deyelopment,which
1
takes into account cultural norms and customs. An ISO standardfor SqciaLResponsibility
(SR), ISO 26000, is expected to be published in 2008 [15].. i
ri
1.3.3. Corporate sustainability. Launched in 1999, the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes
(DJSI) assess businesses from the .perspectivet that’ sustainable cptporatiôns cbnfroñt eco
ndmic, ‘environmental and soäiaL-challenge to create long-terih;valüe [16]. Thej United
Natiohsr(.UN) Extended.rPrdducer.;Rësponsibility (ERR)r and the European Unioi EU)
Integrated Product Polidy(IPP initiatives also are idriving supo’rt forrsutainab1erdesign
[17]. However, the absence of reporting guidelines led to inconsistehcies,. and iii 1.999, or
ganizations tepresénting business, the envirohmerit,hriinäii rights, and labor’tobk the lead
in establishingsi.istainabilit’ .repotting guidelines. The number Of reports. folloring the
guidelines rose from 20 in’J 999 to iover 850 in 2006: The ;third generatioh: of the guidelines,
“G3,”r ia released in 2006.by. the Global Reporting Initiative, (GRI) 1which envisions sus
tainability rej5orting-1o become as :rbutineä.iid’ comparable, as financial’ :repbrting’ [r18f.
This work démonstratesr how design’to’ols can support corporate sustâinability. éffort in
the production of steel components fOt the heavy equipment: manufacturing industry.
2. Manufacturing Overview. In the U.S., manufacturing is the second largest industry
next o .rhdlele Yd[19]. Mnufurih accorint’fdi aikiiffit’
tiah ‘bhiirn.
mnritalni,a, eplOh{n ‘aria ‘coin’mun’ity siièe, ana1e&ndnniid ‘iith’.’ Pèrhâps1he
most common manufacturing process, and one that is recognized for its dleterio’us effects
on the ennoni’ment is, metal casting In the U S, 90% of ll manufactu’red’ ‘goods are
metal castings and ore than 80% of conventional metal castings r’d frri [20] The
cohvèntithial s’ñ’d
t’i’ngicès fornis coripljri’s fr’Ofri rii31të’ii metal poVire’d dfretlr
into a mold made of a mixtu’r of sah’d ‘arid chè’mical resi’ns or cly and cabonØeous ma
teri’al: ‘i’6htn sting’ of
‘wFiiéh is ñe’w’et’ pross, +ibltëi tel fed diftly
bdoiil hi!iiold far’n las f él. C6ntiii{ioiis’ cin vbhim
ffdii ldi
‘t
‘I
/
‘Ii
I t
L’
castings— [21]. .1) ,{
comprise 9p%,of steel r’’’’’”
:
Steel is ‘een a axi esential’mtterial to a sustainable socity since ‘its major’cmjonent
i’ ikon,’ 6I1’ of tliñost alnirida4t ,elé’ririts oriEahh Steel lilenibdiés the, most ahi
of’àh’ conhirdiál eri’1’, inia’té’d jR exce brf $20O’ bi’l1il6bal1y’ 2]:
properties can be tailored using a variety of alloying elements and heat treatments. Steel
products are used i every ector of.theieconomy. ,anysustainability ;challenges face th
steel, industryhowey, which inçlud iprpving. cooperation with goyrm,et to address
international trade, issues,
,improving’:’resourceand: enegy fficiençy in stcelmaking,.,and
1
changingthe stiuctWe of ,the ‘industry. ,to ensure financial) st.ability. In patic,ul, steel
comparnes.re,,fragmente, 1
which inhibits standar,dization and owldge’ taIwf [2j.
.
‘‘
.
—
‘
..
I.;
.;
2 1 Heavy equiJmeLt manufacturing An importt a grwirkg sctor ‘ithin the
U.S. manufacturing industiy i oi.st’uctiOri’ Raàhiny, .g., ‘cävatöis,
s,’ aI ‘offhighway trucks, with nearly a million shipments valued over $22 billion in 2005, a 20%
increase from 2004[23]. With; xapid: grow,th in the ; c’onstructipmi’ndustry fueled by de
velopingr ‘countries, attention’ must be’ paid to the life, cycle impacts of construction.rna
chiriery, which’ often runs continuously seeing downtime only formaintenance and repair..
COnstructiOn machinery rcan h’ave a fuelr capacity’ of 4000.L’ 1000 gal..), which
1 may; be
consumed ii an: eight-hour shift.’-’It Ou1d.take two years for an average U.S. driver to
use an equivalent volume.of.fuel ‘[24]Large: offhighway trucks .cn weigh over 200 ‘tons,
&PPLIc’IoN’ OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMEr’T TOOLS
581
which Is r’ough1y’uiva1ent
100 cr .25.26]. Mäteri1 .rocessing hd new omporint
‘pro’ducio’n for;’thi equipmentplaee ‘biirdens on ‘globa1’iitetia1 and ‘éty resóuráe’
I
!.II
•I’
‘‘“
i
.y’
)
‘‘
‘‘..
)i’’’
C
).:
J’.’’
‘
‘C ‘C i’
I
2.2. Manufacturing processes. Heavy equipment is becoming more technologically
advanced and comfort options are increasing, but the equipment remains primarily com
posed of steel components. Steelrñakinis• highly ener and resource intensive, since
iron and steel crap must be melted ánd the’ chemistryadjusted with fiixing anaaloy
ina’&litionst Subsequent casting pioduce hazardous and non-hazardous wases.rd air
enTisi6. Ii sand casting, bindersAecomppse
form hazarusir pollutänts.(HAPs)
and liloranic compohiicis-(W
{s’).. Tyjclly, the sand (reimed.fr futii uEe.
6
Ferrous astings ‘provide a, itiveTrn
?önmentaI ‘benefit —utilizing-about 85% scrap
4
metal, which iivts 13.3 niillion tons of metal from US. annuallyj [20,27]? Somecompo
nents mayi.require cutting frdIdtinudisly cst teel plate. Lae’r cutting’ has bec’othe
a popular alternative to oxy-fuelcu’ttiri. For’ carb6ñ dioxide (C®;)iasers, which are the
most common, Powell [28] reports that widths of cut ‘are typically 0.1 to 1.0mm. The
process uses oxygen as an agent to oxidize the molten iron-ir,on pxide mixture on the
melt froht áhd t6”pr&hi’cè heat: The o*’géh jet’ ald diiVs the’
molten iãtrial out of
1
the cutting zone, which represents material waste and can result in’h.imfi’il’Thètal oxide
fumes.
Steel components äften are
1 jOined using ‘*ldihg ptocsses; whicha’re rñ.ny and varied.
The m’ajO’r’prOcsSe,• shielde
d ‘Metal
1
‘ldin (SMAW) axid gã ‘niéfal’ ät welding
(GMAW) ü 45% and’ 34% Ofallel’ding èlëtOde, répectivël [29] ‘SMAW,’o stick
welding, is one öfth’eoldet, ‘simpl’est, ahd’ most ersatile’joii’iing ptöcèsës. The eléëtrodé
is a rOd’ iöohté’d ith a. fii’ix tlht ‘d’eoxidiés 1
to fOrmrã sla.g, v.hih prôtcts’the’ weld as it
is’fdrmed. ‘GMIAW us’es’a shielding gas’siich’as ar’on hëliun ot’carbon dio*ide in ‘place
of an eléëtrOde coätiñg ‘The elero&i ontin’uduly féd inelted;’änd dëosited’iflto the
weld zone, and is twice as productive as-SMAW [30].
‘In balancing environmental, techni’cal, and finàiicial goals, as global competition in
creases, heavy equipment manufacturers must develop new ways of analyzing/improving
their products and processes efficientl and’ in’an ffective manner. The use of traditional
design analysis in conjunction with current life cycle analysis tools is illustrated below to
lead toward a more sustainable product and process design.
,
‘
‘1’’’
.
(C
—
3. Problem Definition:’ LCA Goal and Scope. LCA techniques have been applied to
reduce the environmental impats’ asociated with the mañüfacturing of steel products. In
prior work, LCA tools were used to analy
z .ye’i’y, simfile stel prduct, add t.vo different
1
process plans were investigated [31]. In the present work, an LCA will consider product
‘parameters and manufacturing process alternatives in tà
ndem 3
1
for the sustainable design
of steehproçIuct. Thej LCA. will, fo.ç.uson manuf.acturing st.ge, impacts ,of a ‘bracket. for
The functional performance ,of-the ‘component in. terms of
a-large. wheel 1qade bucket 1
operationalhours (life)’,willbe.considered.
I
— J
Whel.loa,ders,,&e used IP mining, landfill,,and{similar’;operations’to,
scoop, lift,’ and
1
transport loose materials short distances. With proper maintenance they typically have
a long operational life, and require, he rplacemit/repair of many components. The
bucket degrades over time due to abrasive war and attachment points experience multidirectional and variable loading, iladi’ng to (shorteflbd component life. “The cdnfiuratiàn
of the brackets on ‘the bucket’ of concern is sho*n in Figure 2a; the figüre’hows ‘the lifting
and’ the tilting brackets. It May’ be ‘noted that there are four’ bracketsi of ‘each type’ along
the’ lenth:of the.biicket. I The 5 m thick steel blacket is’ desi’gned;as aíhalfcircle with a
‘‘
i
‘
‘
‘I
582
K. R. HAAPALA, J .L. RIVERA AND
J:i
W. SUTHERLAND
radius of 20,,cm and ari: 8. cmhole fora pin_att_achmet.t The
1 bracicet is attached tothe
bucket ya
the brathe,t. base. ,The size of the weld
7
7 fillet,eld aroundtheperimeter of’
joining the bracket to the bucket is expected to be a critical factor in determining the
functional life of the assembly.
—f
I
•
“..
‘TiitingBacket’
—.
nI—.;
7711,
._..
:
7’
1’
•..
.
In
.‘““‘‘
.
“‘‘
7—
..
Resultant
7.
I
(I
1
F.
LiftingiBracket TE
“
“
..
a)
.
,.:s
7
.‘.;L
7
4
f
.
.
FilletWeld
..‘
,
.
1
•,
,
7’ .7,7
.I
.•‘
•.‘
-
.‘
1•
7’’
i
•!...
Ii..
.7’
,,
I
‘,
—
.
I
.
Ii
7 •I
II .
.
.
I
FIGJRE 2. ;Ahee1j1oadep bucket a) 9
pwt.
n
,,b) free body,diagr.rn;andc)
bracket forces
1 ,
.,
.
i’ H”
I
,
.
. .
‘
.,
..
• It is esired
to. characterize, the effec of,.,wel. size on ‘functionaL.and environmental
77
performanc pyera two-year period,,or 72Q,000 pyes,. i this; case, the. loader will have a
day.of. downtime for. every 6 d,q.ys in. opera,tion,.,2eeksof additional downtime per year,
and be
used 20 hours perday., large wheel
7
has loading cycle .time
pf 5 secpnds
7
7 experience aboit 60 cycles per hour Qf. pperation’.
[32]; it’i assumed that he: bucket il1
The resultant forces at the iti,r,ig(F), arid lifting ‘L) pins, were detriiped by
77
static
force analysis for
7 a range of bucket angles, B,,.frqrnjO-9Q (‘igure 2b), as follows:
‘
•
1
I
7
‘rlie’jê
I
7
.‘‘‘—
.
‘
‘FL
1
‘‘‘
—.
I
I
—:i.—i’I’
.11 ‘11
L
T
=
Fw [TLW cos
=
•‘
•
•
•
“)‘
77
71
,
I
.
‘1
‘
.‘
—
/7
‘L
‘
‘71’?
1(71.
‘II ‘,i’’’
‘(‘I
‘rTw
cos(OB
—
I’
‘.
‘
1’
‘‘‘Ii
•
,:
rTL 51fl(OB
‘
OLTW)
—
—
II’
90)]
ih(O’—9O)’
90)’
‘-‘7
‘
“i
i”
I
‘‘‘‘
°B
.
:7
./1
(3)
71.
‘I
i
“.)IHI
‘I
/
7
TLV(
0
,‘(‘,‘,Tj’,ii’
QB,—9q).- TWL)
1
rTLco
1r1(eBt
11
(7
B
8
I.
•‘
.
Fwr.Lwcos8g± ‘TrTLcos(O’
7.1’I
(2)
7
7
7
where Oi’I is the ‘angl&-formd by the ‘lihês frbrnpoint’ i td’j(rij) and j pOint to 1
k(’jk).
?) was ‘assürnéd t’oibe equivalent’to the ‘weight
1
The loa’diñg force !(F
7 of’ lo’a’d’ of.lO’dse’,
) plus the weight of the Un
3
1 radius’(rB’),”3.8 rn ldiig’bucket’(5290
dry gravel (3885 kg/rn
kg): [32]. The’ loading force lcatiOx thn Wa fOund ‘iisin entoid’ arialyis’
fdllos:
7
/•
fl
‘
7 7( 77’
I
‘‘1
,‘
R,,=
I
/1
.‘
H
•;1
‘7
“,
-
‘
7
‘,i’:.,-’
—l
(6)
where R (is the centroid,location ofthebucket ih;the.xI directibn, ‘R is. the .centroid
1
locätionof the. bucket’ nthe.y direëtion,’ Mis -the total thass. of. the
bucket’,’ and: rn
7
Iahd
1
Nec’t, the1pin
7
r, are t,he mass Iand Ientroid location. Of the nth georñetric c’ornponenV. ..
for’ces were .rè’solved’ into ft1e’normal (‘N) and shear (S) diretionsi’(Figutei2c 3).i The
APPLICATION’OF LIFE CCtJEASSESSMENT TOOLS’
shear stress
(T)
583
in the We1d ‘thën could bë’ãlcülted frôn th&for6 analysis as follows:
N Mc
j
I
1
T
I i’ ) I
(7)
+
—
-
2
T
—
;Hii,
+
‘1-
.
:‘
(8)
.,
-
(9)
2
T
where A is the weld throat aëá, ‘I ish &Sni moment-of area ‘and c is the moment
ii’’)
arm.
-,
-
150
,‘1
100
50
z
‘to
0
-j
—*—
Shear, T
—.--
Nom1, T
-50
-100
-150
0
10
20
30
40’
5
60
70
80
90
I’,
‘‘-BickeiArile (degrees fmm horizontal)
FIGURE
‘
•.‘
3. Forces acting on the brackets at selected bucket angles
;
-
A fatigue analysis was undertaken to stimate the numer of cycles to failure for a
given weld size, using the Gerber theory cif fatigue failure [33]cwhich u’ses the following
relationship:
(10)
where n is the safety factor, a the stress amplitude, am the mean stress, Se the endurance
strength, änd ‘Sthe ultimate’strength (tensile or shear).’ ‘.Using the endurancet’lithit
modification strategy proposed by Mischke and Shigley [33], the number of cycles, N, to
iqading is ,.
1
failure fpr we1ded,’jont i, fatigu
I .11 /
..
:.
‘; H
‘(i)i
‘I 1’ K,? (kakbkkS)”(’ 1
i.
‘)
,..
.,.•.,
s,
‘::
•‘
‘
-
...
‘r’
1
\‘
no-
U
SU
hji,.’
‘,
for
‘
‘ti
10<
p_’j6
(1)
‘:‘‘
;‘‘.Ii’i’ ‘1
I
i,—,
• A summary of the terms;in this .equation’is;prci,rided inSTable ,1.
Figures’ 4a; nd 4b show the numbers of cycles’ ‘iiitil tweld’ failure a.s .â function of two
variables weld size4and weldimaterial;trength, ‘for a safety factor!of 3.2. For Figure 4a,
t displays the cycles’.to failur,e as a function ‘of*éld size,t the’ultimate teñile strength
which
was fixed at 520 MPa (the valuefth”hot-iolled ‘SAEi 10401séel)!I.Fori Figure 4b, which
dislays’;cylesto’ failure;,as a function -ofstrength, weld ‘sizevwäs fixed at ‘13mm. (0.50
in’.). ‘As is’ evident ‘from: the figures, the operational ‘life is ‘highly I si’isitive ;to’ ‘weld size;
‘
—
584
K: R. HAAPALA,J L4RWERA AND JW:SUTHERLAND
Term
Kf
ka
kb
k
3.
‘e
;:TJ 1.
:-.
lcd
c,
S
n
a
Elm
8
S
1
Value
Definition
2.7
Factor for parallel fillet welds
39.9 S° Surface factor
0.700
-Size effect
0.577
Load factor
1. .
,,Temp.erature actqr
0.504 S,
Test specimen endurance limit
3.2
Safety factor
Alternating stress
Tmaz
Mean stress
0.5 Tmax
0.67
Ultimae shear.strength
-
but not as sensitive to weld material strength.Ip fact, with increasing fillet weld size the
operati&ial life incr&asesexponentially,.while for-increasingtrength, the improvemenf in
life inéreases- at -a decreasing rate.
.-:
1000
-.
800
Strength of Weld Mateiial
1
FunctionalLife-720,000cycles
-:
800
1
z
-
1000
.
‘
-.
z
-\
1
-600
.‘
FunctionaiLife-720,000cycles
1
.
. -.
600
-0(400;::
0400
200
;
Fillet Weld leg Size
z
-
.-
200
-
z
z..,
-
0
0
5
7
9
11
Weld Size (mm)
a)
—.
-
-—
-200
t
3
1
-
‘,.
.
400
600
800
1000
Ultinte Tensile Strength (MPa)
b)
.:..
j’,.
-
I
;‘
I.
- .
•FIOuRE4. Depeiidenceàf tilting-bracket life on a) -weld ‘size ahd b) material strength• n
•
,
I
-
•.
i’’
)_L•
)—
I
—
.
‘
,
—
Over a two-year period, it is predicted that
’á 9iñrri’(3/8
1
1 in.) .veld ‘vhl’fáilát iaté
requiring 6.646 new tilting brackets. A 13mm (1/2 in;) weld will resultin an equivalent
of 0.894 parts, thus one tilting bracket is expèted to list mor than twpyears. With the
welding design analysis comp1ete, it as, dsired to investigate the effects of cbanging the
manufacturihg prOcesseé on cradle-to-gate life cycle irnpacts of the biaket al’ternatives.
4. LCA Inventory Analysis. The bracket can be made either by cuthng it from con
tinuously cast steel plate dr treated .diretly as a sand casting.’ Four alternatives -td be
comared using LCA aréi shO*n,in ‘F?iguré 5. The .bracketsf produced brthe two casting
processe IareassumedIto be idhtical Leveri though the. manufacturing pro’cëssesaé Iery
different. ,While )the parts ;produced-b the :two tasting .piocesses are assumed to be :the
.
affie, the wastë prcMucëdby the l5idcèsses also differ.’iri; :
h II • U
II
•Alter.natiVesAand Bare.cüt from &continuous cast plate; resultinginmetal wastefroth
pattethlayout aid’,kerf ft-ater-ial;froh-i the cutting zone C and D are produced via sand
•
APPLICATION OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
585
2. Manufacturing process parameters fortthe design alternatives
TABLE
_,I_
Design_Alternative
.
.
.
Manufacturrng
Characteristicf
.
,
r-
‘
.
:.:‘‘
,Ste1rnass(kg)
1
ç
ptg]cjngth
(i),
:)
.We1ding-length (rn)-Sa’rs. (kg) ,
,‘i
31,.,9
,1.28
,,
•:
.
• I
.1.
•,
c
“:
-
1
A
I
.
-.
11
‘-;;:
I
—
ii
-.
4 8:1
,
38
O,
I,
,,,,
1 5.99 10.64. --‘I
f
6
lO.
‘:12:55.
,•:f
I
-.:;
•)jJ
)
I,. -i
I
casting, which assumes a ‘60% ‘ield The charcteristic’ lengtWfor eacli weld is deterxined
by calculating the number of passes required grn’the’ rire consumption’ $er unit length
The amblintdf’casting ah’d ‘is fbund giieñ the asting
‘ñietal
I
poured [34]. Inventory values11.used in the LCA are reported in Table 2.
To’ facilitate thé”LCA ‘stiidr,’ sñ’daid ‘iiâté’ii’al ‘aiidp’thCé’ss’ pr’ofils 1
(a óf’ è’aling
factors that are used to map the amount of differiit ‘iiiiit& irit uivfrdiñiènái ifiip’âct’)
pnóvidedI! With SithàPxo 7’6ftWre
uèd to’iiibdelthe
ñianufâctüring :dce This etl”rdüéèd ãflli’s’tiiiiè hvét’, f ‘düé’matétial’
and procsses, standard profiles ‘didnot ‘exist’ and ‘nwprofiles’were bontructed
Steel
‘assumed- to be produced
an electric ‘arc furnace (EAF) The -EAF process
profile’ in the ‘sOft/are COñnt fOr
érialhd éie±g’ iñ’üts &ánsdrtatidñ, nd’*aste
and ‘énissiOis The pr6fil is ‘bksed”oni EU”dat’a frOth a’ ni Of’EA’F intallti&is’áh’d
assu’mé táp’as the only iràñLbéâHngih’iW Td model sàndastihg,’a nèW p’rfil&f&r
‘möldinsañd’’á
eitihg VPr’ofiles ‘fOt ári’d’ ai!ld phèñbliê’
Th&b1ahce
of’sànd’ molding matérial was’ àéëYühted”fôr’ ‘by a ‘né’l’ ceatedredlêd’sañd’rofile. The
sand é’ásting pibfil aécoünt for s’áhd atè b.sedi ôñ r’é’orte’d’lévels ndalr eñuision
“
based’ on the-’ai’l-iOünt Of’einIusedI[35j!’I )1I,, ‘I
A ñe profile à.s creãléd’fdf làei- ittingthataccoiint -fOr en’ei:gy ‘use, cut’tin orgén
use, and vat’é steel ‘f in’thoss ‘The enérgy rcfile hsed ‘fdI ‘the lasdr’cütting dperatidn is
baséd ou S-vi exgy sply (ca 2OOO) thät”aêcOuntà’fôr trns6iatiohañd”transmission”löse and’material for’ th cönstr’üëtin’öf’thC trãhthissiOn’añ’d distribhtion’systé’m.
The oxygen for laser cutting is assumed to be fed at 1.82 m
/h, and the steel is assumed
3
to be ëut”ãt 500’mm/.ñ’iin. .Witha-0:5mm beam usiha-I5O0WL’iaser_[27].
,•.‘.
,
.-
.
—
V
V
‘)‘)
.
-‘‘
••
_‘,..
‘‘
.,
_,.
“-
V
•.
--
‘sét
*éi-e
using
was
.
•i
‘.
‘
“)‘
“•
-
-
-
-
—
l.
-
-,
11
-
,,_.,
)
‘
_,
-
-
-‘
-
--
D
--
V
1(’
-—
‘
V
VI
-
:1
—
•
—•
“
‘
‘E
I, ‘
•
V
-
V
—
-
I
-
‘;
‘
‘‘
‘‘
-
—
-
I
Coñtiiuous’Sã’i’id
t’iJ’’
Casting
Process
1
I’ I’,
I_
I
‘;
‘—
‘
,“‘
-
‘
-t
‘
V
-
-
•
‘‘‘
-‘
II
-
-‘
/
‘J:-
,
-‘
.S:,,
-
,
I
.
V
-
•-
,
1-I!’
Alternatives considered;’in the LCA study,
(I
-
-
-
V,
V
V
-
FIGURE
5V,
V
--I,
--
I
I
—
,
,;
-
•;_.
—
1
--
•
I’.
--•
-
-
V
III’
‘
-
-—‘
,l
,.•
,
JV_
‘
1’
-:
V
GMAWi utilized as the joining process. The GM-AW’ prOfile’ in’-thésoftware assumes
welding of unalloyed steel with a mix of shielding gases (argon 83%, CO
2 3% and
oxygen 4%) .and a wire consumptiOniiate of 0.0536 kg/m of weld length’. The GMAW
profile is iepresentati of Euroe; and account’s -for electricity use, ‘éléctronics’ for contrOls,
-
—
586
K. R. ‘HAAPALA,J:L.
RI’ERA AND. J; W’ SUTHERLAND
7
transportation,and air ethissionsl as wellas t)etransportation of th’e protecti’ré gas and
filler rod to the plant.
5. LCA Impact ss’iieit .dce the ilife cyc1ei-inventory was completed, i.e., the
wastes, energy,nd resburces onsumed across the life cycle were determined, an impact
assessment of ach aitrIati was ènIucted using Edb-ifldiat’Ot
99. .There is uncertainty
t
embedded within inventory data afI
d data-to-impacts mapping in ny LCA study Im
1
pact analysis cari be’$erforind from three different perspectiv, &lled the Egalitarian,
Hierarchist,
archetypes, within Eëd-indic’atbi 199 to alleviate any con
cerns associated with the effects of data uncertainty. The perspectives were developed
bsei on .rqsposç f,qgi Swss uyey,a.qd ,each places different impptance othe, ypes
of environmental ,daniage, i.e., Human, Health, Ecosystem. Quality,. andf j.eources. For
exarnple,.the Ealri pespeive weights ;E oystein.Quali.tyas 50% .ofthe tptal dam
as 4O% and idividualist, as 25% [36]. Importantly,
1
age, while the Hieracist ightgt.
de, sinii1arconc1iisions, wt) respect 4
1
if 1iffriig perspecti cs proyi
to)t1e, a1teratiyes, thexi
the cpncerns; oçiel, can e,ecl!iccd;
r
i ,Egalitaria 1
arcieype h,,a,
time. )orizon, includes all 1
possible, effects,. and
sqes prqblemsican jea to ctastrophe.
ierr,çt binc.es qt.trn
long
term effects, inclqds ,çinç e,pn Fonens.is a eernent,and .swncS problems cpi
ist, has ashort,
time horizon, re,quires .evidence
1
be avoidd with pocy Th J iv
that. las pFOefl effects, n&asimes .prolems .C8Ji be aoided with technology [3j
1 hç
Iiyia. perspective. açteris impacts irg lhe ,folowirg categors:.carcino
gens (C) , respiratory :pgariç (RO), respiratory ,inorganics. (RI), clirnatç, hange, (pC),
radiation (R), ,ozone ‘lye, (Qj.), ecotoxicity (E), acidific,atipn/eutrophic ix (AE) ; land
so. accpunt
use: (JU), and. minerals (M). The Egalitarian and H
for fossil fuels (F). .Inpaçt categories rnay, e gçopped based r the type. of. environ
mental damage (Figure 6). During a SimaPro run Eco-indicator points
1 e c4cuate,d
for. the impacts aspociated yith each catgory ,(ai .EcoTindicatorpoint i a measure of
environmental. impact quivalent. t
9 1/1000 oft .yearly en,yio nental. load ,of a person
scores ,are tptalpd .for’the,categories within cio the,three
1 Eur6pe)
livig.ip
env,irqnrnçnal damage, gouptyps, (Human, Health,,.Ecosystem Quality, and
1 Resources).
Iiii.i1
•
Hunan Health
Ecosystem Quality
R
E LAEILUI
C
,.
.
•.
.1
IR0I R1ICcI
loLl I
....
i
FIGURE
U
...J
.
—.
6. Eco-indicator 99 impact ategóies and damage types
Impact analysis compares alternatives using character-ization, normalization, and weight
ti riativeimpact of each substance in an im
ing techniques. Characterization considers
ri:’
.‘1) lJl)1l’) I
pact category; normalization shows the re1ativecontribution of the three damage types;
and weighting gives combined weights b$el’ön the damage types [37]. The SimaPro
single score results for characterization using the Individualist archetype (Figure 7) can
be used to compare’ the ‘fouF alternätive in terms of totab Eco-indicatbr points. Slightly
lower totals for each alternative were found for the other two perspectives the Egalitar
ian.archetype exhibited thëdoest”scbre: All four plans put .an énvironmëntal lOad, oh the
—
environment.’
.
,.
•.,..
,
.-
The single sOore’.indicatès where tofocus’ analysis efforts: ‘Clearly,: àlternhtives B and
D. have much lower life .cycle inipacts, indicating that a .largei weld’ dramatically.reduces
APPLICATION OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
35
I’Er
o
•LU.
L
C AE
CE
EIOL
Dl
15
El CC
LIRI
lO
El RO
Iu.,I._•
-
-
•1•I
D
Alternative
FIGURE 7. Single score: Individualist archetype
life cycle environmental impact,. Alsp, it appears that using continuous cat stee] plate
as the part hiaterial is the bettr option. A closer look t the environmental impacts is
merited Figure 8 kisplay!s a weighting of the impactsi from the Individualist perspective
‘I
•1
I
18:
16..
I
.•
-i--i
•
-.
14
0
0
;‘
.i
12
•A
-‘•
-.
•11.
‘U
—
huh,,’
CD
16
0•
Human Health
‘
1
1
.
I
,
‘f’’
•
‘)SILFiGURE8
Ecosystem Quality
..,,.,.,;,..,Dange1’y.pe .
•‘.;
:11’’
Resources
‘iI!
,
‘
‘.
SI
.
I
Ii
/
‘
1
1’
1
‘Dmage
•
‘I
7
.
iIn this case, the Human Health darnge- typehàs.the highest ‘reltive.impat and’ the
Ecosystem Quality type has the lowest relative impact. Normalized results exhibitsimilar
behavior. The-damage. assessments for. the Egalitarian’ and” Hieiaràhist ‘archétypes have
lower environmental loads’ and differ.slightly fron the’1ndividuâlist perseétiveLI The
-i ‘i,.l
damage assessment for the Hierarchistarchetypè is shown in -Figure 9.
For.’ these. .rchetyps,’ the Resources damage; tpé isi dOthinaht;. pOssibly due to the
importanée placed ion fossil’ fuels. I Thél Ecosystem’ Quality’ ‘damage type àlsois’ àssigndd
more imortnce ‘Alternative B out-perfOrms tl others-büt ‘Altrnati Dshos similar
low levelsof;impact •inter-ms of damage assèssment A’relative iompar.ison across’ alLthe
impact categories shows an obvious trend (Figure 10)..’’’’ • 1 ,
.
•,
•
-
K. R. HAAPALA, J. L. RIVERA AND 3. W. SUTHERLAND
588
18
16
l4
•
12:
•A..
-‘s--
i0,
———i
B
DD
0
Human Health
Ecosystem Quality
Resources
1.
Damage Tye
FIGURE
9. Damage assessment: Hierarchist archetype
—i
-
I -I
‘‘1
.-
._I
_..
)
...
lI(.!
1
j
jF’’• I
I,:,
:
.,
I’
F
l_
20
i
I..r
•
-
C
,RO
i
R
I
i i
OL
i
E
AE
Impact Category
FIp-E
1.
i
LU
FF
V
10. Characterization: Hierarchisl archetype
.2
II
Alternative B performs the best for each’impi”t
1 category considered. Nothing more can
be concluded about the impact categories since the relative comparison is on a categoryby-category basis...In other vçrçis,
figue makes no,at,ternpt o- prioritize the impor
tance of the categoiies.
Figure 11 displays the impact categories for alternatives B and D, which call for the
larger weld; size, with weightihs applied. o each category. based on the three-different
—
-Irfl’I’ .-.;i
arèhetypes.’i-.:
‘i.!•
It is evideiit that the. Individualist arthetypel plaôes the highest -importance on Hurriañ
Health’ and Resources inipacts;land the ,léast oniEcosysteth Quality. It ‘appears thatEAF
steelmaking is the dominant
nufacturing;piocessbecause the ratio of impact- category
values for alterhatives ‘B andD issimilar4o. thératio of--the amount of-steel; used by both
alternativés.-Comparedto alternative B; ralternativé D- has highèri carcinogenic’ (C) and
climate change (CC) aspeCts from’the Ealitar-iänperspeative than ‘from the Hierärchist
perspective;;-indicatig that thé other, manufacturing piocesses used have,environmental
. i
impacts that may be improved.
•.;•• ‘;, - i•
Il ;
.-
.
•.
•,
-
-
-
APPLICATION/OF LIFE CYCLE. ASSESSMENT. TOOLS
1
II:’
‘)1’I’.’
/
..
.
,,..‘
..,‘‘
,‘i’
.
.‘
.‘
,
,‘
‘I,’
.
),“‘
:
‘
‘
,
1
‘‘
.
. .
.,
.
:‘
.
‘GI
1
If
.1
,:‘‘I
1
I
‘
,
..!.
‘,,
,
.
.,
,,
‘:
,
,,
.
,
.,
.
‘.
II 1
1:111
I II
.
‘‘
..
,‘
,
)
I
‘
,.,
‘
‘q
‘f’
P
..
‘i’_,,,’li
.
I
.
i!jIIrJi
.
t
‘,.
Individualist,D,
‘‘I
V
.TTiJ
Ti
.
,,
• EaIitanan, B
(J ‘F1ieiârchit,B’
Iiidic,iduálist,B)!1
galitarian;D
II
Ø1—iierarchist,I
!‘
..
2.5
.,
589
1
1
—
I
I
:—
I
‘
• C.
RI
RO.
/
‘CC.,
R.
I!
‘:1
I
/
)_
II
OL
‘‘
III .i
E, 1
AE
.,
:.J)’
!‘‘i,,’(:.I,,
LU,
Ill’,
,
actatego
M
FF,
.
‘If,
.
,.
.
.
‘ff.f
f’..)iiII
“P
.
.
I
-
,,
,‘‘
11. Weighting. ofrnpacts,for altcrnatives B,,and D from the dif-,;
,.ferentperspectives . .
‘‘
‘;,H
,:
,FCU.RE.
‘.‘
‘i’’
“,‘‘
‘“
,
.
‘I
h’’’I
Considering all the damage assessment information from each perspective, alternative
•B ‘aØeâi’ t’o be the’ bést’altéinative(” Given thi’rbsült, attèñtiot ma Iô*b’êtüthéd t
o
1
usifl’ the ehviionrhefltal ‘imp’ãt a.ësri’ieht ‘t’o äid the part deign’et àd: pr’ocess’plnnér
7
II
;
.
‘. :.
in identifying opportunities for improvement.
:
‘
‘
•
6. LCA Interpretation and Impr6ve Ahlysis. The impact assessment demon
strates, that,,a larger weld 1
size, (alt, n,aives ,B and D), will result in a lqwer ,life pycle
environmental, impact,,. eyen though this will require. more welding,and’ thus increased
manufacturing .stage impacts due to’ higher material’ and. energy use and. more:’ harmful
emissions. The increase in manufacturing impacts due to more welding is more thari offset
b’l’sg
b’iackët ‘dyer the tiA’i period oñidid.’ I i alo
evident that ife cycle impacts aie’ not as secisitive o 1
th ype f castiiig pross as they
are to the weld size Therefore, if sand casting (alternatives C and D) is ultimately shown
to be a better alternative in terms,jof costor supplier ‘availability,(.improvements, to the
prdcess should ‘bepursued, eg, ‘larger ‘casting yield’ through a ilew castingdesign or ‘znore
éhvirdnmenthlly friendly bin’ders,”so à ‘to rediicethe envirdñthental irnjacts.
In addition to ecosystem and rs
urce impacts, th’e designer xnust also c&isider potential
8
1,
.,IP’’’,’.’’’
fl
I
, . ,,
,
Iii.’ (I
1
,•J
I
I.
human health impacts. Welding has been associated with shor,t-terrn hea
th,,,eects such
1
1 eyes, sometimes leading to cou
as irritation of the nose, chest, and
ghing, pneumonitis, or
1
nausea. Long-term healthi risks include emphysema,, silicosis, and lungicancer [38j. Laser
cutting produces metal fumes that”can have;:similar..effects but is. cleaner’ ;than ‘other
cutting techniques, e, lasriia ‘cutting [39];’ Lss ‘airboiñè contaminants means ‘that
worker exposure will b) reduced thus mitigating health impacts ‘For ,sitation requiring
émiibñ”è&tñl, ‘ls’ airl&r ,êoiitminhts m’y’ nhh liát’ less cajital ‘is ‘ne’e
del for
t
purchasing and maintaining’tlie eqiiiment Helth-relat’ed cost that rnust b’e considered
include pçrsonal respirators ,health’,care, litigation, and lost time.
.r u:
‘
-
)
‘‘‘‘,‘i
‘
‘
P’,
,
-
-‘
.
,‘.
IL
I’
,
‘
.
.,
,
.
P.
‘1’’
P’’
I
,
..
‘
‘
‘.
1
,‘
7.’ Summary’ and’ Conc1usio’ns ‘Ov’ei’thep’ast’ foiir’decades, frianufacturer’have been
prodded to treat, reduce, and eliminate wastes and emissions A need for sust,ainaility
principles iii, indutrial practics hs ,bee,n prbm’ulateh by the court of public opiiion .s
the implications of the rapid industrial growth over the last century have become starkly
evident. Severalifa,ctors flie. at the heart of sustainability,’,e.g., economic, succ’ess,,sccietal
harmony, and environmental-.responsibility. Decision-makers;must consider; each of these
590
K. R. HAAPALA, J. L. RIVERA AND. J W’ SUTHERLAND
factors simultaneously at all stages of the product life cycle, e.g., material acquisition,
manufacturing, use, and postuse.
9
This paper has explored how the use of life cycle analysis (LCA) in the design process
can address environmental impacts in terms of energy use, resource consumption,waste
production, ‘and human health. As an industrial case, several designsfor a prospetive
steel .pnpone1t utilizing different manufacturing processes nd with :varyin functioiial
life wèr analyzed to determine the most sustainable option. I’he finbtioial rforrnace
and P
CA study showed that a steel bracket produced from cptinuously cast steel nd
1
joined to a heèl loader bucket with a larger weld size wa
to three other design
alternatives. It was also found that environmental impats ve’re much more snsitive to
weld sie than the prdduction process, indicating that sand csting couldl*boffeLr a 1
kriable
alternative to ontindous cáting with mor enviibnmentally frindly’binders “or a better
casting design. Finally, it is conc1udd “th’at”LCA software can be a valuable tool to
reduce design time, data collection costs, and uncertainty in decision making, however,
while intrprbtini’g’ LCA
1 rësults,.th&añalyst thu’tréiit
hrptiohs’ñádé “and the
applicability of integrated material and process profiles or modél& to the ‘situation being
investigated.
.,
superVi
añr
I
)‘
..
‘
.:
•:
‘II
.‘‘
1.11-’-). .1
‘
.‘
If.
‘‘.‘
I;
.
.:
ii,
‘.
Acknowledgment. The;authors,gratefully acknowledge the,suppor from the ,Sutin
1
able utures, IGERT project spoisord’by the National ScieRce Foundation (under
1 Grant
No. DGE 0333401) and support from CaterpillarInc.
,i
.,,,
•
,
•,;.f:
1
REFERENCES
•
,
.•
,,•
.
[1] J R Mihelcic J C Critteiden M J Small D R Shonnard D R Hokanson Q Zhang 1
H Chen S
A.’ Sorby, ‘V W’. Janie’s, iJ. W. Sutherland and ‘J ‘L. Sãhnôr’ Siitaiiiability’s’cierice arid ‘engineering:
.the emergenCe of a-new’metadisciplirie;.’Environm’entizlSci. & Tech.,vol.37.; no.23;,pp.53145324,
• _2003,,.
‘ii ‘l’
I’.’. 1’ I’;:;
‘‘II I.! i’
I ‘‘if
Sutherland, Environmentally conscious, manufacturing, Proc. ofthJapan
[2] ‘sY. W. q1pn and ?
USA Symposium.on Fleribl Automation, pp.1035-1042, 1994.
‘j’’’ ., 1
‘‘.1
II
‘I
• [3] J. ‘W. Sdtlierlahd, ‘K,L. Guntr, K R. Hap’ala K. Khadke, S. J. Skeflds, 3. B. Zirnmrman, W. ‘W.
idR.!
‘Olsd
iiin Státi.s and iin fr”h ‘ftitue,
‘Tañáctibiis of WAMRI,’SME vol.XXXIpp.345.:352, 2003.’ 1.
14] ‘K. Rosselo.andD. T.’Allen, Life cycle édncepts;product ste rdshi,and green, iiineefing,’ Green
T Allen, and D. R.
1
,D.V
Engineering:,, VEnvironrnentally,,Conscious. D,esign of chemical
13, Prentice Hall, Newersey, 2Q03,.
Shonnard, (ds),
I
:1
P. Sas andI I P. Vanherck, Pro-active life cycle. engineering support tools, CIRP
[5] J. Dufiou, W. Dewulf,
I
1
P I I
if
I
Ii i’IIf
SI
I
Ii
IS
Annals, vol.49, no.2, pp.29-32, 2003.
‘1
j
(6] EIOLcA’it Cr iei Mellon GeenDih’ Intitute,’ ‘wwéiola.net, ac’c’esea ‘Dc. 18, 2006:’
(7] ‘GaBi ‘Softiliare, ‘PEfhiterñatiohal; ww.gabi-oftre.cñi,’ aC’cesëd Dec. 18 2006) “ )
(8] Boustead”Model ‘5.0; wwv’.bousteàd-consulting:cosiik, accessed Dec. 18, 2006. ‘‘;b;s’.
,[9] Umber,to, ifHamburg.GmbH,,www.umberto.de/.en,accessedDec:;18, 2006.
i:i’ I
www:pie.nh/simapro,accessed Dec..18,,2006.;
1
[10].,nao, 7, PRé;Consultants,
X’
and J. B.; Zimnerman, D,esign,thràugh the 12 principles of green engineering, Envi
1
Anastas
[1]
pp.94Al101A,
,o’hmeTitdl Scienc and Teciinlog, ‘ir’l.37,’xio.5,
2003.’
•,•l’_•
.‘I
‘.1
II’
‘
II
I’i’
I
j
I.,;
[12] The Economist, Non-financial reporting: Wood for the trees, Nov. 4, 2004.
[13] S. Erkman, Industrial ecôlbg:’ Ar ‘hitoiical vié, J.’Of ClediithProd.J’.ràl.5; ño12,’ pp.’1’-10, 1997.
[14] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), www.iso.org, accessed Dec. 21, 2006.
[15] International Organization for Standardization ,(ISO),’ Social ‘Responsibility,, ww.iso:org/sr ac
‘ces,eI,JJec. 21,, 2006,. /
•‘
I
.i’I
, •.
I
.1
J,
h•’
accessed Dec.
27, 2006.
[16] Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI), www.sustainability-indexes.com,
III
I
I I
“
J
I I
I
[17] D. Maxwell and R. van der Vorst, Developing sustainable products and services, J. of Cleaner Prod.,
‘I’
‘1
‘FI I’
::
II;
:
,;, II,,;:’
‘j
Vli1:’j:)p’883895 2003.
“ ;
[18] ‘Glbal RpOti Initiative (GRI, ‘‘‘.globai±ep’Orting:6ig,’dceised De.’ 21,2006.’”
i
;‘
[‘191 U.S; Census Bureau 1997 Econbmic- Census:. Comp’aiiy.’Statistics Series, 2001’.,,’
-:
‘•
‘V—.,.;
‘
‘‘
‘.
.
‘‘‘‘‘
•‘
Prp,cesse,
‘
V
,,V
V
V
V
V
V•’
‘
T:
‘V
V
V
•_
•
V
‘V
.
V
V
V
VVVV•
.,‘
,
V
V
:
‘
‘V
•
—
,
‘•
‘.
•
“
APPLICATION OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
[201
591
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Metalcasting Industry,
Office of Industrial Technologies, 1999.
[21] University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), Continuous Casting Overview, Continuous
Casting Consortium, ccc.me.uiuc.edu/introduction/overview.html, accessed Apr. 2006.
[22] International Iron and Steel Institute and United Nations Environment Programme (IISI), Industry
as a Partner for Sustainable Development: Iron and Steel, 2002.
[23] U.S. Census Bureau, Construction Machinery: 2005, Report MA333D(05)-1, 2006.
[24] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Household Vehicles Energy Use: Latest Data & Trends,
2005.
[25] Caterpillar Inc., www.cat.com, accessed Dec. 18, 2006.
[26] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy
Trends: 1975 through 2006, 2006.
[27] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile
of the Metal Casting Industry, EPA/310-R-97-004, 1998.
[28] J. Powel, CO
2 Laser Cutting, 2nd Ed., Springer, New York, NY, 1998.
129] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factors Metallurgical Industry, 1995.
130] S. Kalpakjian, Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials, 3rd Ed., Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Reading, MA., 1997.
[31] K. R. Haapala, J. L. Rivera and J. W. Sutherland, Environmentally responsible process selection
via life cycle analysis, Proc. of the Intl. Symposium on Flexible Automation, Osaka, Japan, 2006.
[32] H. L. Nichols, Jr., Moving the Earth: The Workbook of Excavation, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, NY, 1976.
[33] C. R. Mischke and J. E. Shigley, Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, NY, 1989.
[34] K. R. Haapala, K. N. Khadke and J. W. Sutherland, Predicting manufacturing waste and energy for
sustainable product development via WE-Fab software, Proc. of the Global Conference on Sustainable
Product Development and Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany, pp.243-250, 2004.
[35] C. E. Mosher, Calculating emission factors for pouring, cooling and shakeout, Modern Casting,
vol.84, no.10, pp.28-31, 1994.
[36] Eco-indicator, Eco-indicator 99: Manual for Designers, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2000.
[37] M. Goedkoop and R. Spriensma, The Eco-indicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment: Methodology Report, 3rd Ed., PRé Consultants, 2001.
[38j University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Welding Fumes: What You Need to Know, Labor
Occupational Safety & Health Program (LOSH), 2003.
[39] U.S. Department of Energy, Laser Cutting and Size Reduction-Deactivation and Decommissioning
Focus Area, Office of Science and Technology, 2001.
[40] Y. Ji, H. Narita, L. Chen and H. Fujimoto, Analysis of module reuse in inverse manufacturing, mt.
J. Innovative Computing, Information and Control, vol.2, no.6, pp.1381-1390, 2006.
[41] X. Sun, J. Zhao and W. Wang, Two design schemes for robust adaptive control of a class of linear
uncertain neutral delay systems, mt. J. Innovative Computing, Information and Control, vol.3, no.2,
pp.385-396, 2007.