Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

LCA case study. Part 1: cradle-to-grave environmental footprint analysis of composites and stainless steel I-beams

  • BUILDINGS AND BUILDING MATERIALS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency (2011) CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights, 2011th edn. IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones CI, McManus MC (2010) Life-cycle assessment of 11 kV electrical overhead lines and underground cables. J Clean Prod 18:1464–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kara S, Manmek S, Herrmann C (2010) Global manufacturing & the embodied energy of products. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59:29–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khasreen M, Banfill P, Menzies G (2009) Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 1(3):674–701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kosareo L, Ries R (2007) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs. Build Environ 42(7):2606–2613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Mantia FP, Morreale M (2011) Green composites: a brief review. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 42(6):579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson B (1996) Building materials energy and the environment. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien-Bernini F (2011) Composites and sustainability—when green becomes golden. Reinf Plast 55(6):27–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh T, Ravi P, Shukla KK (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energ Build 42:1592–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simitses G, Hodges DH (2005) Fundamentals of structural stability. Butterworth-Heinemann, the United States of America

    Google Scholar 

  • Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Bernardo CA (2012) Modelling the environmental performance of composite products: Benchmark with traditional materials. Mater Des 39:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song YS, Youn JR, Gutowski TG (2009) Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 40(8):1257–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgal FP, Jalali S (2011) Eco-efficient construction and building materials. Springer, London

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suphunnika Ibbotson.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0452-5

Keywords

Navigation