Abstract
Purpose
I-beams for outdoor structures are traditionally made from conventional materials such as stainless steel due to its high strength and corrosive resistant properties. Alternatively, the I-beam can also be made from composite materials such as glass-reinforced plastics (GRP), which provide similar properties under a lighter weight and a lower cost condition. Nonetheless, their environmental footprint performance depends largely on activities involved during their life cycle. Therefore, the findings are presented in two parts: Part 1 and 2. This paper is about Part 1, which presents the environmental footprint for the cradle-to-grave of one linear metre I-beam that is made from two materials namely stainless steel (316) and GRP. Part 2, which will be submitted as a separate paper, has specifically analysed their environmental and economic impacts for the different cradle-to-gate scenarios and the potential carbon tax.
Materials and methods
Materials that were used to compare the environmental footprint of an I-beam are GRP and stainless steel (316). Their cradle-to-grave activities included raw material extraction, supplier transportation, manufacturing process, distribution, disposal transportation and process. Input data were based on data provided by a composites company in Australia, the Ecoinvent 2.2 and Australian data 2007 databases. The World ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods were used to assess the environmental footprint.
Results and discussion
The environmental footprint results for the cradle-to-grave of the I-beams are presented as a contribution percentage of the single score unit in the total and damage category levels which produced by the endpoint method. The characteristic and normalisation results were also generated for all impact categories by the midpoint method.
Conclusions
Overall, the cradle-to-grave results show that the composite I-beam produces 20 % less environmental footprint than that of the stainless steel I-beam. The human health damage category is affected the most due to the main contribution from the material stage. The cradle-to-gate results are contributed by 90 % from raw material extraction, 7 % from the manufacturing process and 3 % from the supplier transportation. In terms of the characteristic results, the composite I-beam produces less environmental impact in most of the impact categories except for the climate change, photochemical oxidant formation, terrestrial acidification, marine eutrophication, natural land transformation and fossil depletion. Therefore, the influential parameters of these impact categories are investigated further in Part 2 where the environmental footprint and economic impact are estimated for different cradle-to-gate scenarios of the I-beams.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- LCA:
-
Life Cycle Assessment
- LCI:
-
Life Cycle Inventory
- LCIA:
-
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
- GRP:
-
Glass reinforced plastics
- I:
-
Moment of inertia
- IEA:
-
International Energy Agency
- CFC:
-
Chlorofluorocarbon
- Fe:
-
Iron
References
Ashby MF (2009) Materials and the environment: eco-informed material choice. Butterworth–Heinemann, Burlington
Basbagill JP, Lepech MD, Ali SM (2012) Human health impact as a boundary selection criterion in the life cycle assessment of pultruded fiber reinforced polymer composite materials. J Ind Ecol 16(2):266–275
Belboom S, Renzoni R, Verjans B, Léonard A, Germain A (2011) A life cycle assessment of injectable drug primary packaging: comparing the traditional process in glass vials with the closed vial technology (polymer vials). Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:159–167
Bribián IZ, Usón AA, Scarpellini S (2009) Life cycle assessment in buildings: state-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Build Environ 44(12):2510–2520
Bribián IZ, Capilla AV, Usón AA (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 46:1133–1140
Dittenber DB, GangaRao HVS (2011) Critical review of recent publications on use of natural composites in infrastructure. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.11.019
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2007) Overview and methodology. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0, No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. VROM, The Hague
Google Map (2012) http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl. Accessed 27 March 2012
Grant T (2010) Australasian SimaPro Database Instructions. Life Cycle Strategies Pty., Ltd., Melbourne
Hansen K, Zenobia K (2011) Civil engineer's handbook of professional practice
International Energy Agency (2008) Electricity/Heat in 2008. www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=30. Accessed 17 October 2011
International Energy Agency (2009) Electricity/Heat in 2009. www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=30. Accessed 27 March 2012
International Energy Agency (2010) CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights, 2010th edn. IEA, Paris
International Energy Agency (2011) CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights, 2011th edn. IEA, Paris
ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Geneva
Jones CI, McManus MC (2010) Life-cycle assessment of 11 kV electrical overhead lines and underground cables. J Clean Prod 18:1464–1477
Kara S, Manmek S, Herrmann C (2010) Global manufacturing & the embodied energy of products. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59:29–32
Khasreen M, Banfill P, Menzies G (2009) Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 1(3):674–701
Kosareo L, Ries R (2007) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs. Build Environ 42(7):2606–2613
La Mantia FP, Morreale M (2011) Green composites: a brief review. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 42(6):579–588
Lawson B (1996) Building materials energy and the environment. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra
Mayyas AT, Qattawi A, Mayyas AR, Omar MA (2012) Life cycle assessment-based selection for a sustainable lightweight body-in-white design. Energy 39(1):412–425
Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener G (2006) Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings. A representative study for the German flooring industry. In J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):172–182
O'Brien-Bernini F (2011) Composites and sustainability—when green becomes golden. Reinf Plast 55(6):27–29
Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23(1):28–39
Ortiz O, Pasqualino JC, Díez G, Castells F (2010) The environmental impact of the construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(11):832–840
Portworld (2012) http://www.portworld.com/map/. Accessed 27 March 2012
Prasara J, Grant T (2011) Comparative life cycle assessment of uses of rice husk for energy purposes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:493–502
PRe Concultants BV (2008) SimaPro 7 User's Manual. PRe Consultants BV, the Netherlands
Rajendran S, Scelsi L, Hodzic A, Soutis C, Al-Maadeed MA (2012) Environmental impact assessment of composites containing recycled plastics. Resour Conserv Recycl 60:131–139
Ramesh T, Ravi P, Shukla KK (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energ Build 42:1592–1600
Recipe, Introduction (2011) http://sites.google.com/site/lciarecipe/project-definition. Accessed 17 October 2011
Sharma A, Saxena A, Sethi M, Shree V (2011) Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(1):871–875
Simitses G, Hodges DH (2005) Fundamentals of structural stability. Butterworth-Heinemann, the United States of America
Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Bernardo CA (2012) Modelling the environmental performance of composite products: Benchmark with traditional materials. Mater Des 39:121–130
Song YS, Youn JR, Gutowski TG (2009) Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 40(8):1257–1265
Tarantini M, Loprieno AD, Porta PL (2011) A life cycle approach to green public procurement of building materials and elements: a case study on windows. Energ 36(5):2473–2482
Torgal FP, Jalali S (2011) Eco-efficient construction and building materials. Springer, London
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the input data provided as part of the ‘Composites: Calculating their Embodied Energy’ study funded by the Queensland Government through the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, and the participant composites companies and institutes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Holger Wallbaum
Continuation of research presented in the 7th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Melbourne, March 2011.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ibbotson, S., Kara, S. LCA case study. Part 1: cradle-to-grave environmental footprint analysis of composites and stainless steel I-beams. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 208–217 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0452-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0452-5