Life cycle assessment of automotive lightweighting through polymers under US boundary conditions




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.


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.


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.


Automotive Design for environment Fuel economy Glass-fiber reinforced polymers Life cycle assessment Lightweighting 


  1. ACC (2012a) Life Cycle Assessment of Polymers in an Automotive Bolster. American Chemistry Council. Available online at
  2. ACC (2012b) Life Cycle Assessment of Polymers in an Automotive Assist Step. American Chemistry Council. Available online at
  3. Alcoa (2012) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Aluminum and Steel Truck Wheels. Alcoa, Inc. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  4. Atherton J (2007) Declaration by the metals industry on recycling principles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):59–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI - The Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78Google Scholar
  6. Cooper JS (2003) Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EIA (2012) Annual Energy Review 2011. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  8. EPA/NHTSA (2012) 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Federal Register (17) 199. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  9. Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2007) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Koffler C, Rohde-Brandenburger K (2010) On the calculation of fuel savings through lightweight design in automotive life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lovins AB, Datta EK, Bustnes OE, Koomey JG, Glasgow NJ (2005) Winning The Oil Endgame – Innovations for Profits, Jobs and Security. Rocky Mountain Institute. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  15. NASA (2012) Earth’s Moon: Facts & Figures. Last updated December 13, 2012. Accessed on February 5, 2013
  16. Schlegel C, Hoesl A, Diel S (2009) Detailed Loss Modeling of Vehicle Gearboxes. Proceedings of the 7th Modelica Conference, Como, Italy, Sep. 20–22, 2009. Available at
  17. SuperLIGHT-CAR (2009) Final press release. SuperLIGHT-CAR research project. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  18. ThyssenKrupp (2003) NSB® NewSteelBody—For A Lighter Automotive Future. ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  19. Transportation Research Group (2006) Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy. Special Report 286, Washington DC.
  20. U.S. Department of Transportation (2006) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules. Available at
  21. Volkswagen (2011) Vision becomes reality – Volkswagen’s “Formula XL1”. Press release. Accessed Nov 13, 2012
  22. worldsteel (2011) Life cycle assessment methodology report. World Steel Association. ISBN 978-2-930069-66-1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations


Personalised recommendations