Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Two Types of Truck Bumper Produced in the Algerian Auto Industry

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.04.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Currently, the reduction of weight in automotive is a very important topic to reduce the air pollution. In this context, the purpose of the present paper is to analyze a real case study through a comparison of the environmental impacts between a conventional steel bumper and a polyester prototype. In the first part of this work, a door-to-door life-cycle assessment methodology was used throughout the study of the component manufacturing phase. The SimaPro 7.1 software is used to evaluate the impacts of both bumpers on the environment and health. The second part is devoted to dust analysis from the polyester workshop. The obtained results have allowed us to show the company that its choice of steel substitution by the polyester is advantageous for certain impacts including the impact of climate change, but unfortunately there may be, given the working conditions of the polyester workshop, a transfer of impact, since we will end up with a risk of health (irritations, cancers) for the workers. LCA has proven to be a very useful tool for validating a redesigned automotive component from an environmental point of view; from this case study, several recommendations were made for the company to design environmentally friendly components, and ecodesign should be introduced into the company’s procedures.

Key words: eco-design, SimaPro 7.1, life cycle analysis, automotive industry, Eco-indicator 99

KEBBOUCHE Zahia, TAIRI Abdelaziz, SAFI Brahim. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Two Types of Truck Bumper Produced in the Algerian Auto Industry[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(4): 378-387.

Figures/Tables 13

References 32

1	Andure M W, S C Jirapure, L P Dhamande . 2012. Advance automobile material for light weight material future—A review. IJCA Proceedings on International Conference on Benchmarks in Engineering Science and Technology, ( 1):15-22.
2	Berzi L, Delogu M. Pierini M . 2016. Development of driving cycles for electric vehicles in the context of the city of Florence. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 47:299-322.
3	Bhattacharyya S K . 2015. Smarter-lighter-greener: Research innovations for the automotive sector. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2014.0938.
4	Boureghda M, Fegas R, Louhab K . 2012. Study of the environmental impacts of urban wastewater recycling (case of boumerdes-Algeria) by the life cycle assessment method. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 24(1):339-344.
5	Caffrey C, K Bolon, G Kolwich , et al. 2015. Cost-effectiveness of a lightweight design for 2020-2025: An assessment of a light-duty pickup truck. SAE Technical Paper. 1-3. DOI: 10.4271/-01-0559.
6	Cecchel S, Chindamo D, Collotta M . 2018. Lightweighting in light commercial vehicles: Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of a safety-relevant component. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23:2043-2054.
7	Cherifi A, Kihal N, Gardoni M , et al. 2012. The life cycle analysis applied to determine environmental impacts in the pharmaceutical industry. PICMET’12 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
8	Cischino E, Di Paolo F, Mangino E , et al. 2016. An advanced technological lightweighted solution for a body in white. Transportation Research Procedia, 14:1021-1030.
9	Delogu M, Del Pero F, Pierini M . 2016. Lightweight design solutions in the automotive field: Environmental modelling based on fuel reduction value applied to diesel turbocharged vehicles. Sustainability, 1-3. DOI: 10.3390/su8111167.
10	Dubem E . 2016. Composite materials literature review for car bumper. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1817.3683.
11	Duflou J R, De Moor J, Verpoest I , et al. 2009. Environmental impact analysis of composite use in car manufacturing. The International Academy for Production Engineering Annals, 58:9-12.
12	Ferreira1 C, Esteves C, Silva P , et al. 2013. Comparative life-cycle assessment of two car armrests produced at Cie Plasfil. Energy for Sustainability, 1-6. https://www.uc.pt/en/efs/research/EESEVS/f/ID142_Ferreira.pdf. URL PMID
13	Ghodrat M, Rhamdhani M A, Sharafi P , et al. 2017. A comparative life cycle assessment of recycling the platinum group metals from automobile catalytic converter: An Australian perspective. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions E, 4:2-4. DOI: 10.1007/s40553-017-0109.
14	Goede M, Stehlin M, Rafflenbeul L , et al. 2009. Super light car—lightweight construction thanks to a multi-material design and function integration. European Transport Research Review, 1:5. DOI: 10.1007/s12544-008-0001-2.
15	Goede M . 2006. Super light car: Sustainable production technologies of emission reduced light weight car concepts (SLC). Transport Research Arena Europe 2006, Göteborg, Sweden.
16	Goedkoop M, Spriensma R . 2000. The Ecoindicator’99: A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment: Methodology report. Product Ecology Consultants, Amersfoort: The Netherlands.
17	Huntzinger D N, Eatmon T D . 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: Comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(7):668-675.
18	International Organization for Standardization . 2006. Environmental Management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland.
19	Kelly J C 1, Sullivan1 J L, Burnham1 A , et al. 2015. Impacts of vehicle weight reduction via material substitution on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(20):12535-12542. DOI URL PMID
20	Klockea F, Kampkera A, Döbbelera B , et al. 2014. Simplified life cycle assessment of a hybrid car body part. 21st CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Elsevier, 484-489.
21	Konrad S K, Gediga J, Hesselbach M , et al. 1996. Eyerer: case studies and projects LCA in the automotive industry life cycle assessment as an engineering tool in the automotive industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1:15-21.
22	Liu Y, Nie Z R, Sun B X , et al. 2010. Development of Chinese characterization factors for land use in life cycle impact assessment. Science China Technological Sciences, 53(6):1483-1488.
23	Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Domènech X , et al. 2006. LCA case studies: Using LCA to assess eco-design in the automotive sector case study of a polyolefinic door panel. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(5):323-334.
24	Prabhakaran S, Chinnarasu K, Senthil Kumar M . 2012. Design and fabrication of composite bumper for light passenger vehicles. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 2(4):2552-2556.
25	Simboli A, Raggi A, Rosica P . 2015. Life cycle assessment of process eco- innovations in an SME automotive supply network. Sustainability, 7(10):13761-13776.
26	Song Q B, Wang Z S, Li J H , et al. 2013. Life cycle assessment of desktop PCs in Macau. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(3):553-566.
27	Sooa V K, Compston P, Doolan M . 2018. Is the Australian automotive recycling industry heading towards a global circular economy — A case study on vehicle doors. The International Academy for Production Engineering 69, Copenhagen, Denmark: 843-848.
28	Tan R B H, Khoo H . 2005. An LCA study of a primary aluminium supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13:607-618.
29	Vanalle R M, Lucato W C, Santos L B . 2011. Environmental requirements in the automotive supply chain—An evaluation of a first tier company in the Brazilian auto industry. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 10:337-343.
30	Witik R A, Payet J, Michaud V , et al. 2011. Assessing the life cycle costs and environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications. Composites: Part A, 42(11):1694-1709.
31	Younsi F, Louhab K . 2017. Using life cycle assessment methodology to assess human health and ecosystem toxicity impacts associated with milk production in Algeria. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(4):2518-2523.
32	Yusoff S, Hansen S B . 2007. Feasibility study of performing a life cycle assessment on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(1):50-58.

Part number	Subset	Nature of sheet	Metal weight (kg)	Process	Operation range
668085 (A)	-	TC	14.10	55190 8 kW 6 bar	Cut flan, punch, smash, Notching, control fold one edge R = B, fold R = 15, control
				55820 2 ch 6 bar
				55170 11 kW 6 bar
				56170, 56540, 56540
668086 (B) 668087 (C)	-	XES	0.866	55120, 56180, 56180	Cut blank, Cut out blank, Coining, Controlled
668088 (D)	668089 (D′)	XES	0.866	55120, 55820, 56180, 56180, 56540	Cut blank, Punch, Notch (4 angles), Fold, Control, Bend ends, Control
668088 (D)	663302 (D″)	XES	0.192	55190, 55820, 56180	Cut blank, Punch, Fold 2 edges, Control

Part number	Subset	Nature of sheet	Metal weight (kg)	Process	Operation range
668085 (A)	-	TC	14.10	55190 8 kW 6 bar	Cut flan, punch, smash, Notching, control fold one edge R = B, fold R = 15, control
				55820 2 ch 6 bar
				55170 11 kW 6 bar
				56170, 56540, 56540
668086 (B) 668087 (C)	-	XES	0.866	55120, 56180, 56180	Cut blank, Cut out blank, Coining, Controlled
668088 (D)	668089 (D′)	XES	0.866	55120, 55820, 56180, 56180, 56540	Cut blank, Punch, Notch (4 angles), Fold, Control, Bend ends, Control
668088 (D)	663302 (D″)	XES	0.192	55190, 55820, 56180	Cut blank, Punch, Fold 2 edges, Control

Products	Major chemical constituents	Quantity
Systoclean 2118/504 (dégraissage)	Sodium hydroxide NaOH (C>10 %)	45 g
Addistrip 2252 (décappage)	Hydrochloric acid HCL (C>25 %)	0.5 L
Neutrax n°1	Sodium nitrate NaNO₃ (C>20 %)	20 g
Systophose 4605	Phosphoric acid (C>25 %)	0.020 L
Rinspas 19	Hydrofluozirconic acid and acid Fluozirconic	0.002 L
Water	H₂O	60 L

Products	Major chemical constituents	Quantity
Systoclean 2118/504 (dégraissage)	Sodium hydroxide NaOH (C>10 %)	45 g
Addistrip 2252 (décappage)	Hydrochloric acid HCL (C>25 %)	0.5 L
Neutrax n°1	Sodium nitrate NaNO₃ (C>20 %)	20 g
Systophose 4605	Phosphoric acid (C>25 %)	0.020 L
Rinspas 19	Hydrofluozirconic acid and acid Fluozirconic	0.002 L
Water	H₂O	60 L

Products	Major chemical constituents	Quantity
Fiberglass layer	Fiberglass	1200 g m^-2
Resin	Polyester	2800 g
BUTANOX M-50	Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide PMC	56 g
Oc6	Cobalt octoate	56 g
Gel coat	Paint resin	448 g
Acetone	Diluent	Small quantity
Wax	Release fat	20 g