The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 1734–1746 | Cite as

Integrating environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product development: a material selection case study

  • Carla L. Simões
  • Ligia M. Costa Pinto
  • Ricardo Simoes
  • C. A. Bernardo
LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

Abstract

Purpose

Achieving sustainability by rethinking products, services and strategies is an enormous challenge currently laid upon the economic sector, in which materials selection plays a critical role. In this context, the present work describes an environmental and economic life cycle analysis of a structural product, comparing two possible material alternatives. The product chosen is a storage tank, presently manufactured in stainless steel (SST) or in a glass fibre reinforced polymer composite (CST). The overall goal of the study is to identify environmental and economic strong and weak points related to the life cycle of the two material alternatives. The consequential win–win or trade-off situations will be identified via a life cycle assessment/life cycle costing (LCA/LCC) integrated model.

Methods

The LCA/LCC integrated model used consists in applying the LCA methodology to the product system, incorporating, in parallel, its results into the LCC study, namely those of the life cycle inventory and the life cycle impact assessment.

Results and discussion

In both the SST and CST systems, the most significant life cycle phase is the raw materials production, in which the most significant environmental burdens correspond to the Fossil fuels and Respiratory inorganics categories. The LCA/LCC integrated analysis shows that the CST has globally a preferable environmental and economic profile, as its impacts are lower than those of the SST in all life cycle stages. Both the internal and external costs are lower, the former resulting mainly from the composite material being significantly less expensive than stainless steel. This therefore represents a full win–win situation. As a consequence, the study clearly indicates that using a thermoset composite material to manufacture storage tanks is environmentally and economically desirable. However, it was also evident that the environmental performance of the CST could be improved by altering its end-of-life stage.

Conclusions

The results of the present work provide enlightening insights into the synergies between the environmental and the economic performance of a structural product made with alternative materials. Furthermore, they provide conclusive evidence to support the integration of environmental and economic life cycle analysis in the product development processes of a manufacturing company or, in some cases, even in its procurement practices.

Keywords

Composite materials Externalities Life cycle assessment Life cycle costing Life cycle thinking Product development Stainless steel Storage tank 

References

  1. Allacker K (2012) Environmental and economic optimisation of the floor on grade in residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:813–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves C, Ferrão PMC, Freitas M et al (2009) Sustainable design procedure: the role of composite materials to combine mechanical and environmental features for agricultural machines. Mater Des 30:4060–4068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F (2003) Life cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashby MF (2011) Materials selection in mechanical design, 4th ed. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashby MF, Jones DRH (1996) Engineering materials 1: an introduction to their properties and applications, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Asiedu Y, Gu P (1998) Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. Int J Prod Res 36:883–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhander GS, Hauschild M, McAloone T (2003) Implementing life cycle assessment in product development. Environmental Prog 22:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhardwaj V (2001) Tech brief–National Drinking Water Clearinghouse—Reservoirs, towers, and tanks drinking water storage facilities. Morgantown, National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (West Virginia University)Google Scholar
  9. Björklund A, Finnveden G (2005) Recycling revisited—life cycle comparisons of global warming impact and total energy use of waste management strategies. Resour Conserv Recy 44:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bovea MD, Vidal R (2004) Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and customer valuation. Resour Conserv Recy 41:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. BUWAL 250 database 1996. Swiss Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciroth A, Huppes G, Klöpffer W et al (2008) Environmental life cycle costing, 1st edn. CRC Press, Publishing House Taylor and Francis, SETAC Press, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  13. Ecoinvent database 2007. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Environment Agency 2011. Report on 2010 EU emissions trading system emissions data. Report-GEHO1111BVEC-E-E, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuchs ERH, Field FR, Roth R, Kirchain RE (2008) Strategic materials selection in the automobile body: economic opportunities for polymer composite design. Composites Sci Technol 68:1989–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Methodology report, 3rd edn. PRé consultants B. V, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauschild M, Jeswiet J, Alting L (2004) Design for environment—do we get the focus right? CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauschild M, Jeswiet J, Alting L (2005) From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and perspectives. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 54:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofstetter P, Braunschweig A, Mettier T et al (1999) The mixing triangle: correlation and graphical decision support for LCA based comparisons. J Indust Ecol 3:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huo L, Saito K (2009) Multidimensional life cycle assessment on various moulded pulp production systems. Packag Technol Sci 22:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IDEMAT 2001 inventory data of materials (2001) Faculty of design. Engineering and production. Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  22. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. ISO 14000 International Standards CompendiumGoogle Scholar
  23. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. ISO 14000 International Standards CompendiumGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson J, Reck BK, Wang T, Graedel TE (2008) The energy benefit of stainless steel recycling. Energ Policy 36:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz A (2004) Environmental impact of steel and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced pavements. J Compos Constr 8:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keoleian GA (1993) The application of life cycle assessment to design. J Clean Prod 1:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khanna V, Bakshi BR (2009) Carbon nanofiber polymer composites: evaluation of life cycle energy use. Environ Sci Technol 43:2078–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kicherer A, Schaltegger S, Tschochohei H, Pozo BF (2007) Eco-efficiency: combining life cycle assessment and life cycle costs via normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:537–543Google Scholar
  29. Klöpffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klöpffer W (2005) Life cycle assessment as part of sustainability assessment for chemicals. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh G (2001) Facing up to the recycling challenge. Reinf Plast 45:22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MATLAB 7.10 (2010) Software package MATLAB. The MathWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  34. Mazumdar SK (2002) Composites manufacturing: materials, product, and process engineering. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  35. Millet D, Bistagnino L, Lanzavecchia C et al (2007) Does the potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs? J Clean Prod 15:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakano K, Hirao M (2011) Collaborative activity with business partners for improvement of product environmental performance using LCA. J Clean Prod 19:1189–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:118–120Google Scholar
  38. Nunes JP, Bernardo CA, Marques AT (2003) Materiais Compósitos. In: Fortes MA, Ferreira PJ (eds) Materiais 2000. IST Press, Lisboa, pp 175–189Google Scholar
  39. Peças P, Ribeiro I, Folgado R, Henriques E (2009) A life cycle engineering model for technology selection: a case study on plastic injection moulds for low production volumes. J Clean Prod 17:846–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pickering SJ (2006) Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—current status. Compos Part A: Appl S 37:1206–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Point Carbon (2011) Volume of carbon traded in 2011 grew 19 %, bucking downturn. http://www.pointcarbon.com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1714530. Accessed 4 May 2012
  42. Rebitzer G, Hunkeler D, Jolliet O (2003) LCC - The economic pillar of sustainability: methodology and application to wastewater treatment. Environ Prog 22:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ribeiro I, Peças P, Silva A, Henriques E (2008) Life cycle engineering methodology applied to material selection, a fender case study. J Clean Prod 16:1887–1899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roes AL, Marsili E, Nieuwlaar E, Patel MK (2007) Environmental and cost assessment of a polypropylene nanocomposite. J Polymers Environ 15:212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt WP (2003) Life cycle costing as part of design for environment environmental business cases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwab-Castella P, Blanc I, Gomez Ferrer M et al (2009) Integrating life cycle costs and environmental impacts of composite rail car-bodies for a Korean train. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seo KK, Park JH, Jang DS, Wallace D (2002) Prediction of the life cycle cost using statistical and artificial neural network methods in conceptual product design. Int J Comp Integr M 15:541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SimaPro 7.3 (2011). PRé consultants B.V., The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  49. Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Bernardo CA (2012a) Modelling the economic and environmental performance of engineering products: a materials selection case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:678–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Bernardo CA (2012b) Modelling the environmental performance of composite products: benchmark with traditional materials. Mater Des 39:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Bernardo CA (2013) Environmental and economic assessment of a road safety product made with virgin and recycled HDPE: a comparative study. J Environ Manag 114:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simões CL, Xará SM, Bernardo CA (2010) Life cycle assessment of a road safety product made with virgin and recycled HDPE. Waste Manag Res 29:414–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simões CL, Xará SM, Bernardo CA (2011) Influence of the impact assessment method on the conclusions of a LCA study. Application to the case of a part made with virgin and recycled HDPE. Waste Manag Res 29:1018–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Song YS, Youn JR, Gutowski TG (2009) Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Part A: Appl S 40:1257–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swarr T, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W et al (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice, 1st edn. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Brundtland Report, Our Common FutureGoogle Scholar
  57. Watkiss P, Holland M (2000) Benefits table database: estimates of the marginal external costs of air pollution in Europe. BeTa Version E1.02a. Created for European Commission DG Environment by NetcenGoogle Scholar
  58. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2010) Vision 2050, The new agenda for businessGoogle Scholar
  59. Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla L. Simões
    • 1
  • Ligia M. Costa Pinto
    • 2
  • Ricardo Simoes
    • 1
    • 3
  • C. A. Bernardo
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Polymers and Composites–IPC/I3NMinho UniversityGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Economics/NIMAMinho UniversityBragaPortugal
  3. 3.School of TechnologyPolytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave, Campus do IPCABarcelosPortugal
  4. 4.Innovation in Polymer Engineering – PIEPUniversity of Minho, Campus de AzurémGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations