EPA/600/R-01/059
Life Cycle Design of
Air Intake Manifolds
David V. Spitzley and Gregory A. Keoleian
Center for Sustainable Systems
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Dana Bldg. 430 E University
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1115
Phase II: Lower Plenum of the 5.4 L F-250 Air Intake Manifold,
Including Recycling Scenarios
Mia M. Costic
Ford Motor Company
Scientific Research Laboratory
2000 Rotunda Drive
Dearborn, Ml 48121-2053
Assistance Agreement # CR 822998-01-0
Project Officer
Kenneth Stone
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
I. Notice
This publication was developed under Cooperative Agreement No. 822998-01-0 awarded by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA made comments and suggestions on the document
intended to improve the scientific analysis and technical accuracy of the document. However, the
views expressed in this document are those of the University of Michigan and EPA does not
endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.
-------
II. Abstract
This life cycle design project was a collaborative effort between the Center for Sustainable
Systems (formerly the National Pollution Prevention Center) at the University of Michigan
and a cross-functional team at Ford Motor Company. The project team applied the life cycle
design methodology to the design analysis of three alternatives for the lower plenum of the
air intake manifold for use with a 5.4L F-250 truck engine: a sand cast aluminum, a lost core
molded nylon composite, and a vibration welded nylon composite. The design analysis
included a life cycle inventory analysis, a life cycle cost analysis, a product performance
evaluation, and an environmental regulatory/policy evaluation.
The life cycle inventory indicated that the vibration welded composite consumed less life
cycle energy (1,210 MJ) compared to the lost core composite (1,330 MJ) and the sand cast
aluminum manifold (2,000 MJ). The manifold contribution to the vehicle fuel consumption
dominated the total life cycle energy consumption (71-84%). The vibration welded
composite also produced the least life cycle solid waste, 4.45 kg, compared to 5.56 kg and
12.68 kg for the lost core composite and sand cast aluminum, respectively. Waste sand from
the sand casting process accounted for a majority (92%) of the solid waste from the
aluminum manifold. End-of-life waste accounted for a significant portion (55-59%) of the
total solid waste from the composite manifolds.
Recycling scenarios for aluminum and nylon were investigated. Potential fluctuations in the
availability of secondary aluminum would have a significant effect on the life cycle energy
use of the intake manifold. A decrease in recycled aluminum content from 100% to 85% will
increase the life cycle energy by 10%. Utilizing available technology for incorporating 30%
post consumer nylon into the vibration welded composite manifold would reduce life cycle
energy use by 4%. Similar effects for both aluminum and nylon systems were shown in other
inventory categories such as CO2, solid waste and several air and water pollutant emissions.
The life cycle costs were determined for the three alternative manifolds including the
manufacturing costs, customer gasoline costs, and end-of-life management costs. Estimates
provided by Ford indicate that the vibration welded composite is the least expensive
alternative to manufacture, costing 64% less than the lost core composite, which is 20% less
expensive than the sand cast aluminum manifold. Additionally, the cost of gasoline for the
aluminum manifold is $7.31 more than for the composite manifolds, over a 150,000 mile
vehicle life. The end-of-life management cost for the composite manifolds was $0.25, while
the sand cast aluminum manifold received a $3.38 net credit due to the value of the recycled
aluminum.
This project also provided several observations on the barriers to the life cycle design process
including the availability and accessibility of necessary data and institutional barriers such as
the need for clear policy guidance.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement number
CR822998-01-0 by the National Pollution Prevention Center at the University of Michigan
under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This work covers a period
from April 14, 1997 to April 30, 1999; the life cycle design analysis was conducted between
May 12, 1997 to August 1, 1997.
11
-------
III. Table of Contents
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 PROJECT TEAM 1
1.3 PROJECT TIMELINE 2
2. METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 PRODUCT SYSTEM DEFINITION 3
2.1.1 Product Composition 4
2.1.2 Process Flow Diagrams 5
2.2 INVENTORY ANALYSIS 7
2.2.1 Modeling Assumptions 7
2.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis 9
2.3 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 12
2.4 COST ANALYSIS 12
2.4.1 Material 12
2.4.2 Manufacturing. 13
2.4.3 Use 13
2.4.4 End-of-life 13
3. RESULTS 14
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY 14
3.1.1 Base Case 14
3.1.2 Recycling Effects 15
3.2 PERFORMANCE 17
3.3 COST 18
3.4 REQUIREMENTS 19
4. LCD PROCESS OBSERVATIONS AND DECISION MAKING 21
4.1 PROCESS OBSERVATIONS 21
4.1.1 Inventory Data Collection and Modeling 21
4.1.2 Cost Data Collection and Modeling 21
4.1.3 Performance and Environmental Requirements 21
4.2 DECISION MAKING 22
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24
5.1 CONCLUSIONS 24
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE LCD 26
REFERENCES 27
APPENDIX A: COMPLETE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY A.1
APPENDIX B: INVENTORY WITH VARIATIONS IN RECYCLED CONTENT B.I
APPENDIX C: UNITS OF POLLUTED AIR C.I
APPENDIX D: LIFE CYCLE DESIGN FRAMEWORK. D.I
APPENDIX E: LIFE CYCLE DESIGN REPORTS E.I
ill
-------
IV. Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Ford and the members of the Ford life cycle design team for collaborating
with the Center for Sustainable Systems. We wish to acknowledge DuPont and Ecobalance
for providing inventory data for use in the study.
IV
-------
1. Project Description
This project examined the application of life cycle design (LCD) to the lower plenum of
the air intake manifold for a 5.4 liter, Ford F-250 truck engine. This is the second air
intake manifold project conducted with Ford Motor Company. The first, completed in
1996, examined alternatives for use with the 2.0 L, 1995 Contour engine (Keoleian and
Kar 1997). This phase II project demonstrates the application of the phase I experience to
the design analysis of a different manifold system.
In completing an initial inventory for this project, the project team indicated their interest
in examining the potential effect that recycling would have on the study results. For this
reason, additional analyses were conducted to examine the impacts that variations in
recycled content would have on the intake manifold life cycle.
This project is one of a series of life cycle design demonstration projects that have been
conducted with Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors
Corporation, United Solar and 3M Corporation. An overview of the life cycle design
framework is provided in Appendix D of this document. A list of Project Reports from
other life cycle design demonstration projects is provided in Appendix E.
1.1 Objectives
The overall objective of this project is to demonstrate the capabilities and effectiveness of
the life cycle design framework in enhancing business decisions during product planning
and development. This is further divided into the following specific objectives:
1) Demonstrate the ability to apply life cycle design tools in an efficient and timely
manner
a) measure the time and human resources required to conduct the inventory and
cost analyses
b) identify barriers and opportunities to streamline the process
2) Analyze the decision making process to understand how life cycle issues are
addressed
a) identify the major internal and external requirements that influence design
decisions and determine their relative importance in the decision making
process
b) identify the interrelationships between performance, cost and environmental
analyses
1.2 Project Team
The success of this project is due largely to the support and expertise of the project team.
The core project team was composed of representatives from the University of Michigan
as well as representatives from Ford's V-Engine Operation Environmental Engineering,
Scientific Research Laboratory, and Intake Manifold Design.
-------
Two representatives from V-Engine Operation Environmental Engineering participated as
members of the core team. A representative from V-Engine Operations was able to
provide background on Ford's environmental policies and requirements as well as some
knowledge of the environmental implications of several manufacturing processes.
Another representative from V-Engine Operations served as the project facilitator. The
responsibilities of the facilitator included establishing the core team, organizing meetings,
and contacting information sources within Ford.
The Scientific Research Laboratory team member had experience with LCD as well as a
working knowledge of the history of life cycle studies performed at Ford. This individual
also provided information from Ford's life cycle inventory databases.
The Intake Manifold Design Engineer provided the team with advanced knowledge of the
manifold system, including the materials of construction, and manufacturing processes
involved in production. Since this part is manufactured by a Tier 1 supplier, the design
engineer was responsible for interacting with the suppliers to obtain the necessary data.
Additionally, the design engineer was able to provide a complete performance evaluation
of the alternative manifold designs.
The University of Michigan team members contributed to the project by educating team
members on LCD methodology and tools, as well as developing the project plan,
providing inventory data, system modeling, and writing the project report.
Members of the core project team are indicated below:
Ford Motor Company University of Michigan
Fred Heiby, V-Engine Operation Environmental Engineer Greg Keoleian, Research Director
Greg West, Intake Manifold Design Engineer David Spitzley, Research Assistant
Mark Hall, V-Engine Operation Environmental Engineer
Mia Costic, Scientific Research Laboratory Engineer
The following Ford staff were instrumental in initiating this project:
Wayne Koppe, Environmental Engineering Supervisor
John Sullivan, Research Materials Supervisor
Jim Mazuchowski, Intake Manifold Design Supervisor
Bob Griffiths, Intake Manifold Design Supervisor
Phil Lawrence, Environmental Quality Engineer
1.3 Project Timeline
The original project timeline called for the project to run for approximately 3 months
(May 12* - July 18* ). The project ran slightly longer than originally anticipated and was
completed on August 1st. Data collection and modeling for the environmental and cost
analyses required more time than expected. However, preliminary findings were reported
to Ford management by the July deadline. Recycling scenarios were examined in a
separate study which required one additional month for completion.
-------
2. Methodology
2.1 Product System Definition
This project considered the lower plenum1 of an air intake manifold for a 5.4 L Ford F-
250 truck engine. Three types of manifolds were studied: aluminum, lost core composite,
and vibration welded composite. The lost core composite is the manifold currently used
in a majority of the 5.4L engines. The aluminum manifold is currently used in Ford's
5.4L natural gas vehicles. The vibration welded composite is not currently used in any
vehicles, however, beginning with the 1999 model year a portion of the 5.4L engines will
use this manifold. The manifolds were modeled using process data for vibration welding
obtained from Ford. All three manifold alternatives are manufactured by a Tier 1 supplier
and purchased by Ford.
The aluminum manifold, currently composed of 100% secondary aluminum, is
manufactured using a sand casting process. This manifold requires no extra fittings,
inserts or attachments of any kind. Attachment points are drilled and tapped directly into
the cast aluminum part. The first type of composite manifold studied (lost core) is
currently produced from glass fiber (33%) reinforced nylon 6,6 with no post-consumer
recycled content, through the "lost core" molding process. Inserts must be added to this
manifold after molding to allow attachment. A noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) tent
must also be added to the manifold to insure proper acoustical performance. This tent is
placed over the manifold during engine assembly. The other type of composite manifold
studied (vibration welded) is produced through a two step process. First, the composite
resin is injection molded to form the individual sections of the manifold. Then the
manifold sections are bonded together through a procedure known as vibration welding.
This manifold also requires the same inserts and NVH tent required by the lost core
composite manifold.
Inserts in the composite manifolds could be made of either brass or steel. The effects of
this material change on the manifold life cycle were considered. It was determined that
due to differences in density the brass inserts would weigh approximately 7% more than
the steel inserts. However, changing the mass of the inserts had a negligible effect on the
overall manifold life cycle inventory. A preliminary study of the effects of changing
insert material on manifold life cycle burdens indicated that manifolds with brass inserts
had slightly lower burdens than those with steel. Based on these results only manifolds
with brass inserts are examined in this report.
1 Although the product studied was the lower plenum of an intake manifold, this product is frequently
referred to as a manifold in this report.
-------
Once the base case study had been completed, scenarios for recycling of brass, aluminum
and nylon were examined. Brass and aluminum are both commonly recycled and the
current infrastructure supports the recycling of these materials from the end-of-life
manifold back to the metal market as scrap (Sundberg 1996). This scrap is a source of
secondary material for the auto industry. However, current infrastructure does not
support the recycling of the end-of-life nylon composite from manifolds. Technology
recently developed by a number of polymer manufacturers does allow recycling of post
consumer carpet into nylon for use in automotive applications (Coeyman 1995),(Keller,
Haaf, and Sylvester 1997),(Fairley 1994),(Hagberg andDickerson 1997). Successful use
of secondary nylon from carpeting has been demonstrated in the Ford Carpet to Car Parts
project. Currently, this project incorporates recycled nylon into engine air cleaner
housings for nearly 3 million Ford and Lincoln-Mercury vehicles each year (Ford 1997).
This open loop system for nylon recycling was examined for manifolds in this study.
The recycling investigation addressed two separate issues in the manifold life cycle:
The potential life cycle implications of changes in the supply of secondary metals on
the intake manifold life cycle were examined. Producers of both the sand cast
aluminum manifold and the brass inserts for the composite manifolds are known to
use as much secondary material in production as possible (up 100% for aluminum and
99% for brass). However, producers must increase their use of primary materials
when secondary sources are not available (Lessiter 1997). The recycling study
addressed the potential effects that these slight increases in primary material use
might have on the manifold life cycle.
The study addressed the potential effects of increased availability of post consumer
nylon in combination with Ford recycling requirements on the life cycle of composite
manifolds.
2.1.1 Product Composition
The manifold compositions can be classified according to their body materials:
aluminum or composite. The aluminum manifold is cast from a single material and
requires no additional parts to meet Ford's component performance standards. The
composite manifolds require both inserts and an NVH tent to perform acceptably. The
NVH tent is composed of two pieces: an outer shell made from a synthetic rubber
compound known as Multibase 8832, and an inner mat produced from polypropylene.
Detailed product composition data are provided in Table 1.
-------
Table 1. Manifold material composition
Sand Cast Aluminum Body
Total Aluminum Manifold
Nylon-Glass (33%) Composite Body
Brass Inserts
NVH Tent
Multibase 8832 Outer
Barium sulfate
Styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)
Polypropylene
Polyethylene
Polypropylene Mat Inner
Total Composite Manifold
0.374 kg
0.101kg
0.0505 kg
0.0505 kg
5.58kg
2.24 kg
0.03024 kg
0.576 kg
0.0454 kg
5.58kg
2.89 kg
2.1.2 Process Flow Diagrams
Figures 1-3 show the life cycle process steps of three manifold systems. Closed loop
recycling of metals is shown in these diagrams. The intake manifold system is a part of
the vehicle life cycle, which includes other parts and components. In this study the metal
from the shredded manifold is recycled back into a new manifold system. In practice the
manifold is part of the larger scrap metal stream. Secondary metals from other sources, in
the case of aluminum, or primary metals, in the case of brass, are required to replace a
small fraction of the metal lost in the system. Closed loop recycling is shown in these
Figures, although the percentage of closed loop recycling that takes place in the manifold
life cycle is not known.
In the base case it was assumed that the nylon required for composite material production
was produced from primary sources (natural gas, petroleum, etc.). In the second part of
the study the effects of producing nylon from post consumer carpeting were examined.
Production of nylon resin from post consumer carpeting requires several additional
processing steps not shown in Figures 2 and 3, including: carpet collection, backing
removal, and depolymerization (Keller, Haaf, and Sylvester 1997). The Ford experience
with the engine air cleaner housings indicates that significant reductions in the amount of
carpeting sent to landfill are possible using this process (Ford 1997). Based on the
material production data used here, 0.75 kg of post consumer carpeting are used in the
production of 1.0 kg of nylon-glass composite.
-------
Figure 1. Process flow diagram for the aluminum manifold (closed loop recycling steps shown)
Figure 2. Process flow diagram for the lost core composite manifold
-------
Ferrous Metal
Figure 3. Process flow diagram for the vibration welded composite manifold
2.2 Inventory Analysis
2.2A Modeling Assumptions
The assumptions made to facilitate data collection and modeling enabled the project team
to obtain results of a reasonable quality in a timely manner. Table 2 presents the
boundaries and assumptions that provided a basis for data collection and system
modeling.
-------
Table 2. Boundaries and assumptions for the LCD study
Material Secondary aluminum is assumed to come from automotive or similar sources that
Production require only limited separation and re-alloying.
In the base case brass inserts are assumed to be made from 99% secondary brass.
The effects of changing this percentage were examined in the recycling study.
The Multibase 8832 supplier considers the composition of this material to be
confidential, however it is known that this material consists of 65% barium
sulfate. It is assumed that the remaining material composition is 17.5% styrene
butadiene rubber, and 8.75% each of polypropylene and polyethylene.
The Multibase 8832 material is assumed to be a simple mixture of the
components (SBR, PP, PE, and BaSO4); impacts associated with potential
melting and mixing of these materials to form Multibase are neglected.
Manufacturing Loss of tin bismuth core in lost core casting for composite manifolds is neglected
due to a 99% recycle rate.
Start-up losses are assumed to be 2.6% for injection molding, and 5% for lost
core molding as done in the previous project (Keoleian and Kar 1997). It is
believed that these values could be less than 1% in some situations, however, no
available data support this assertion.
The Tier 1 supplier currently landfills the core sand (24 Ib.) from the sand casting
process. Accordingly, in this project the core sand is assumed to be landfilled.
Due to contamination, this sand can not be reused in casting. It is noted that core
sand at other facilities has been successfully reused in construction applications
such as cement.
Fitting the inserts in the manifold is neglected due to the relatively small amount
of resources consumed during this process.
It is assumed that due to the similarity in melting points Nylon-6 injection
molding (491° F) energy will serve as a reasonable surrogate for injection
molding of Multibase 8832 (420-440° F).
Scrap generated from NVH tent outer molding was not inventoried but is
expected to be negligible.
The fabrication (mat production) of the NVH tent inner component is neglected
due to its small mass (0.1 Ib.) and the lack of available energy and waste data.
However, material production burdens of polypropylene are inventoried.
It is assumed that there are negligible environmental impacts associated with
placing the NVH tent inner liner inside the outer cover. This procedure requires
no fasteners and is most likely done by hand.
Environmental impacts of engine assembly are assumed not to vary among
manifold systems.
Use A vehicle life of 150,000 miles (10 years) was assumed.
No warranty claims have been made against any of the manifolds considered,
therefore, repair and replacement of manifolds was not included in the analysis.
Emissions and fuel use were calculated under the assumption that these values
were linearly proportional with weight savings.
End-of-life
It is assumed that no manifolds are removed from the vehicle prior to shredding.
An overall loss of 5% of metals is assumed in shredding and separation.
All non-metal materials are assumed to be disposed of in a non-hazardous waste
landfill.
-------
2.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis
Data for the inventory and cost analyses were collected from several data sources. In
order to maintain consistent energy carrier data the Ecobalance BEAM (Data for
Environmental Analysis and Management) database was used to provide energy data for
all sources.
2.2.2.1 Material Production
Material production data from the DEAM database was used when available, however
it was necessary to supplement this data with additional sources. Whenever an additional
data source was used, the DEAM energy data was substituted for the existing energy
source data to ensure consistency of the results. A list of the product materials used in the
inventory and the corresponding data sources is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Material production data sources
Aluminum (secondary) DEAM
Barium Sulfate Ford
Brass Ingot (primary) DEAM
Brass (secondary) (Keoleian and Kar 1997)
Nylon-Glass Composite DuPont
Post Consumer Composite DuPont
Polyethylene DEAM
Polypropylene DEAM
Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) Ford
2.2.2.2 Manufacturing
Manufacturing data come mainly from the previous LCD project on intake manifolds
(Keoleian and Kar 1997) with upstream energy data supplied by the DEAM energy
carrier modules. This data was supplemented with data from Ford on manufacturing
steps unique to the systems studied here. Table 4 provides a complete list of the
manufacturing processes and the sources for data. In some cases it was necessary to
contact the Tier 1 supplier for data on a manufacturing process. In Table 4, Tier 1
information is listed with Ford as the source to preserve supplier confidentiality.
Table 4. Manufacturing process data sources
Aluminum Sand Casting (Keoleian and Kar 1997), Ford
Brass Extrusion (Keoleian and Kar 1997)
Composite Injection Molding (PPI1995)
Composite Lost Core Molding (Keoleian and Kar 1997)
Composite Vibration Welding Ford
Multibase 8832 Injection Molding (PPI 1995)
2.2.2.3 Use
EPA emission testing and fuel economy data were used to determine the contribution of
the intake manifold to the total vehicle use phase burdens. These data are presented in
Tables 5 and 6. Also included in Table 5, are deterioration factors after 50,000 and
-------
100,000 miles of travel. These data indicate an increase in vehicle emissions with
increased miles driven.
Table 5. Lincoln Navigator^ (5.4 L) EPA certification emission factors (provided by Ford)
base (g/mi.) Deterioration Factors}
4,000 mi. 50,000 mi. 100,000 mi.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Total Hydrocarbon (THC)
Non Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC)
0.990 1.062 1.123
0.030 1.130 1.329
0.082 1.000 1.102
0.078 1.056 1.144
e Navigator and the F-250 are in the same engine family, data for the
Navigator is used as a surrogate for F-250 emissions data.
{Emissions at 50,000 and 100,000 miles are determined by multiplying the base
emission factor (g/mi) by the deterioration factor (dimensionless)
Table 6. F-250 (5.4 L) Fuel economy (provided by Ford)
City (mi./gal) 13
Highway (mi./gal) 17
In order to determine the vehicle life time fuel consumption and emissions that should be
allocated to the manifold, the relationship of fuel economy to changes in vehicle weight
had to be calculated as follows.
AFE
r = eq. 2-1
AM
where,
AFE percentage change in vehicle fuel economy
AM specified percentage change in vehicle mass (e.g. 10%)
r is dimensionless
Ford determined that for a 10% change in the mass of the F-250 a 4.9% change in the fuel
economy could be observed. Therefore, an r value of 0.49 was used in this project.
Using this value, the amount of vehicle fuel consumption which is attributed to the
manifold can be calculated using equation 2-2.
0.45 0.55 mm
FC = r( + )L eq. 2-2
FEh FEC M
where,
FC Fuel consumption attributed to the manifold (gal)
FEh Vehicle highway fuel economy (17 mi./gal)
FEC Vehicle city fuel economy (13 mi./gal)
L Total miles traveled over the vehicle lifetime (150,000 mi.)
mm Manifold mass, including all necessary inserts and parts (kg) (see Table 1 for values)
M Vehicle Test Mass (2291 kg)
The lifetime vehicle emissions that were allocated to the manifold were calculated using
the data in Table 5 and equations 2-3 and 2-4, below.
10
-------
ev,i = (1+DF5o,i + DFIOO,,) e(l-2-3
where,
i Emission type (CO, NOX, THC, or NMHC)
ev,i weighted vehicle emission factor for emission i (g/mi.)
DF50)1 50,000 mile deterioration factor for emission i (see Table 5 for values)
DFi 00,1 100,000 mile deterioration factor for emission i (see Table 5 for values)
e4)1 Base emission factor measured at 4,000 miles (g/mi.) (see Table 5 for values)
Values for ev are shown in Table 7, below. In equation 2-3 the three vehicle emission
factors (64, DFso, and DFioo) were weighted equally (1/3 each) to arrive at the total
vehicle emission factors shown in Table 7. This was done to reflect the selected 150,000-
mile vehicle life.
Table 7. Weighted vehicle emission factors (g/mi.)
Emission type (i) Emission Factor (ev) (g/mi.)
CO 1.051
NOX 0.035
THC 0.085
NMHC 0.083
These values were used in equation 2-4 to calculate the lifetime vehicle emissions that
could be attributed to the manifold.
ei = rev,iLT7 e(i-2-4
M
where,
e; Lifetime vehicle emissions that are allocated to the manifold (g)
Carbon dioxide (62) emissions are the only vehicle emissions that were not determined
using the above equation. These emissions are not tracked by the EPA testing system;
however, they can be calculated based on the vehicle fuel consumption. Using the result
of the vehicle fuel consumption calculation (eq. 2-2), shown above, the carbon dioxide
emissions are determined using equation 2-5.
44 12 12
eCOo = (2408FC - eco - - e^p) eq. 2-5
cu v UJ im,'
where,
eco2 Lifetime vehicle carbon dioxide emissions that are allocated to the manifold (g)
The constants in equation 2-5 are for unit conversion. These values are based on
molecular weight, the density of regular gasoline (0.74 kg/L), and the carbon content of
gasoline (86%) (DeLuchi 1991).
11
-------
Fuel use information was also connected to BEAM data for fuel production in order to
account for the upstream burdens of gasoline production and distribution. No other
impacts or costs, such as off-cycle emissions or manifold maintenance were accounted for
in the use phase.
2.2.2.4 End-of-life
The manifold end-of-life was modeled as a two-stage process. The two stages considered
were manifold shredding and material separation. In the shredding stage the manifold is
considered part of the vehicle hulk as it is fed through the shredder. The burdens from
shredding are allocated to the manifold on a mass basis. The second stage, separation, is
included only for the metal fraction of the manifold. Impacts associated with separation
and recovery of a metal from mixed non-ferrous shredder product are allocated to the
manifold in this stage. When applicable, closed loop recycling of metals is considered.
The maximum percentage of manifold raw material that could, under the conditions of
this study, be supplied by end-of-life manifolds is 81% for aluminum and 90% for Brass.
However, no data is available on the percentage of manifold material that actually returns
to the manifold system. These values include only end-of-life material and do not take
into account other recyclable scrap generated throughout the life cycle.
In the current automotive retirement infrastructure, plastic materials are not recovered,
but rather disposed of in landfills as part of the auto shredder residue (ASR) fraction.
Hence, the nylon component of the composite manifold was considered waste at end-of-
life.
2.3 Performance Analysis
Ford designers evaluate the performance of alternative products using a system similar to
Kepner-Tregoe analysis (a full discussion of the Kepner-Tregoe decision making process
can be found in (Kepner and Tregoe 1965)). In the Ford system each performance
requirement category is assigned a weighting factor from 1 to 10. Then the alternative
products are given a ranking, also 1 to 10, for each of the categories. Once an alternative
has been given a ranking in a particular category, the ranking is multiplied by the
corresponding weighting factor to determine the score for that category. Finally all scores
for an alternative are summed to give a total score.
2.4 Cost Analysis
The costs to stakeholders at every stage of the life cycle were considered.
2.4.1 Material
Material cost is the cost for the raw materials used in manifold production. Generally,
resin prices were found in Plastics Technology (Plastics Technology 1997) and metals
prices come from the American Metal Market (American Metals Market 1997). The
material costs are provided to indicate the relative contribution to the total life cycle cost.
12
-------
2.4.2 Manufacturing
Manufacturing costs are proprietary and are not publicly available, however, estimates of
the relative costs to Ford (for both the manifold and tent) were provided by Ford for use
in this study. The manufacturing costs include the cost of materials in addition to labor
and other fixed and variable manufacturing costs.
2.4.3 Use
The cost of gasoline was the only use phase cost evaluated. Lifetime cost of fuel was
determined based on the national average price of gasoline for April 1997 (1.23 $/gal.)
(EIA 1997) and the lifetime fuel consumption attributed to the manifold.
2.4.4 End-of-life
Five end-of-life costs were evaluated. Three of these were determined based on data
from the American Plastics Council (APC)(APC 1994): transportation of hulks (i.e.
scrapped vehicles) to a shredding facility, transportation of materials to a recovery
facility, and landfill disposal cost. The remaining two costs, shredder and recovery
facility operation, were determined from data published in the previous manifold study
(Keoleian and Kar 1997). The value of material recovered at the end-of-life was also
evaluated. Based on current infrastructure conditions metals are the only materials with a
salvage value.
A total life cycle cost was calculated by subtracting the end-of-life value from the sum of
the manufacturing, use and end-of-life costs of the manifold. This life cycle cost analysis
does not account for externalities such as NOx, CO and HC emissions in the use phase or
in other life cycle stages.
13
-------
3. Results
3.1 Environmental Inventory
3.1.1 Base Case
The results of the base case inventory analysis for the total life cycle of the three manifold
alternatives is shown in Table 8. Twelve inventory items were selected for this Table, the
complete inventories for each manifold are available in Appendix A. The inventory
analysis indicated that the aluminum manifold generally incurred greater burdens than the
composite manifolds. This is due to the significantly heavier weight of the aluminum
manifold and the effect this has on the use phase inventory, specifically emissions related
to greater fuel consumption. On the other hand, the aluminum manifold produced fewer
airborne emissions of lead and sulfur oxides than either of the composite manifolds.
Differences in the energy sources used throughout the life cycle account for the observed
differences in emissions. Over 60% of the energy used in the production of the aluminum
manifold comes from natural gas, while both of the composite manifolds rely heavily on
electrical energy from coal.
Table 8. Life cycle inventory profiles for alternative manifolds (select inventory items)
Manifold Material Aluminum Composite
Manufacturing Process Sand Casting Lost Core Vibration
Molding Welding
Airborne Emissions
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
g
g
g
g
g
139,000
215
0.0002
90.8
79.6
82,100
135
0.0063
96.6
129
73,300
132
0.0035
71.3
93.5
Waterborne Emissions
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) g
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) g
Dissolved Solids g
Suspended Solids g
Total Solid Waste kg
Energy Use MJ
23.4
198
1442
108
12.68
2,000
15.2
132
752
223
5.56
1,330
15.1
131
748
219
4.45
1,210
Figures 4 and 5, below show how the energy and solid waste values, from Table 8, are
distributed across the life cycle. In Figure 5 the effect of the scrapped mold sand from the
sand casting process can be seen in the high relative contribution of manufacturing to the
total solid waste.
14
-------
H Aluminum
D Lost Core Composite
rj Vibration Weld Composite
material production
and manufacturing
Figure 4. Distribution of energy use for the life cycle of intake manifolds (MJ)
12 -r
fj Aluminum
n Lost Core Composite
D Vibration Welded Composite
material production
and manufacturing
end of life
Figure 5. Distribution of solid waste for the life cycle of intake manifolds (kg)
3.1.2 Recycling Effects
Table 9 provides selected inventory results for the analysis of alternative recycling
scenarios in the life cycle of air intake manifolds. The results of the initial life cycle
inventory of air intake manifolds, shown in Table 8, indicated that in most cases the
vibration welded manifold incurred lower burdens than the lost core molded composite.
For this reason only the vibration welded manifold was considered in the recycling
analysis. The complete inventories for the manifolds shown in Table 9 are available in
Appendix B.
15
-------
Table 9. Life cycle inventory profiles for alternative recycling scenarios (select inventory items)
Manifold Material Aluminum Composite
Recycled Content 85% 30%f
Manufacturing Process Sand Casting Vibration Welding
Airborne Emissions
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
146,000
269
0.0012
103
131
71,800
123
0.0038
64.5
87.2
Waterborne Emissions
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) g
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) g
Dissolved Solids g
Suspended Solids g
Total Solid Waste kg
Energy Use MJ
23.4
198
1440
113
13.8
2190
14.3
123
768
184
4.34
1160
T 30% of the nylon material used in the production of the composite manifold is
derived from post consumer carpeting.
The base case results can be compared to the results shown above to provide a better
understanding of the effects that changes in recycled content have on the manifold life
cycle. Base case results are combined with data from Table 9 to highlight the effects of
recycled content on life cycle energy use and solid waste in Figures 6 and 7.
2500 -T-
2000 --
0)
in
gj 1500
0)
c
LU
O 1000
500 --
85% secondary, Al
100% secondary (base case), Al
pO% secondary (base case), Comp.
rj30% secondary, Comp.
Aluminum Manifolds
Composite Manifolds
Figure 6. Life cycle energy use of manifolds with various recycled content. The secondary percentage
provided for composite manifolds refers to the recycled content in the nylon used in composite
production.
16
-------
14 n
12
"3
5 10
8 -
o
W
_, 6
O
!j
3 4
2
n
i
85% secondary, Al
100% secondary (base case), Al
Q0% secondary (base case), Comp.
Q30% secondary, Comp.
Aluminum Manifolds
Composite Manifolds
Figure 7. Life cycle solid waste of manifolds with various recycled content. The secondary
percentage provided for composite manifolds refers to the recycled content in the nylon used in
composite production.
The effects of changes in the fraction of recycled aluminum and nylon used in manifold
production are shown in the above Figures and Table. The effect of changing the amount
of recycled material in the brass inserts used in the composite manifold was also
examined. It was observed that inserts produced from recycled brass generally incurred
lower burdens than inserts produced from virgin ores. However, the net manifold life
cycle effect of this change is negligible within the accuracy of this study.
3.2 Performance
The performance requirements used to evaluate alternative manifold designs are provided
in Table 10. The rankings for each design are also indicated in this table. Performance
rankings and total scores were determined by Ford and provided for use in the study. The
individual requirement weightings used to determine the total scores were considered
proprietary and are not included in this report. These weighting factors are used to help
incorporate product objectives and priorities into the decision analysis. It is known that
these rankings often take into account the manufacturing processes involved, e.g. the
recyclability category includes the recyclability of ancillary manufacturing materials (sand
for casting) in addition to product materials.
17
-------
Table 10. Manifold performance rankings (as determined by Ford Motor Company)
Airflow Performance
Weight
Fastener Compatibility
Material: Dimensional Stability
Recycleability
NVH Structural
NVH Acoustical
Manufacturing Flexibility
Component Integration
Material Scrap Rate
Expected Tolerances
Prototype Lead Time
Production Lead Time
Weighted Total1 Score
Aluminum
Sand Cast
5
4
5
8
5
10
8
8
4
8
6
8
5
407
Composite
Lost Core*
6
9
6
5
5
5
4
4
7
8
6
4
3
415
Composite
Welded*
5
9
7
5
6
5
5
6
8
6
5
6
8
448
t-The total score is the sum of the weighted individual category scores. These scores are
proprietary and are not shown here.
^Composite manifolds are evaluated with out the NVH tent.
As seen in Table 10, above, the aluminum manifold received the highest unweighted
ranking, or tied for the highest, in 7 of the 13 performance categories. The welded
composite received the highest unweighted ranking in 5 categories, while the lost core
composite led 4 categories. In the weighted results the welded composite received the
highest overall score, followed by the other composite manifold with the aluminum
manifold receiving the lowest score.
The values shown in Table 10 were provided for the base case manifolds. No data was
available for the effects of varying recycled content on the performance of these
manifolds. It is expected that increasing the recycled content of the composite manifold
will eventually be limited by performance requirements.
3.3 Cost
The cost information for the manifolds studied is presented in Table 11. The
manufacturing costs are proprietary and can not be shown. However, relative values
based on the cost of the least expensive alternative (vibration welded composite) are
presented. In this analysis the variable x represents the least expensive alternative and the
other values are shown as factors of x. This means that in Table 11 the lost core
composite and sand cast aluminum manufacturing costs are 1.57 and 1.95 times as much
as those of the vibration welded composite manifold, respectively.
18
-------
Table 11. Life cycle costs for manifolds
End-of-life Value
Material Cost*
Manufacturing Cost*
Use Phase Cost
End-of-life Cost
Life Cycle Cost
Aluminum
($4.97)
$6.04
$1.95x
$15.16
$1.59
$11.78 +1.95x
Lost Core Vibration Welded
Composite Composite
($0.02)
$13.32
$1.57x
$7.85
$0.27
$8.10+1.57x
($0.02)
$13.02
$x
$7.85
$0.27
$8.10 + x
* Manufacturing costs are proprietary and only relative values can be provided
* Material costs are shown for reference, they are not used to calculate the life
cycle cost. Manufacturing costs include material costs.
The effect of changes in recycled content on the costs of intake manifolds was not
examined in detail. However, previous experience, using resin supplied by Wellman Inc.,
indicates that the potential for cost savings through increasing recycled content in
composites exists. The use of secondary nylon in the Windstar engine fan and shroud
assembly is estimated to save $400,000 annually (Phelan 1996). The base case aluminum
manifold, shown in Table 11, currently contains 100% secondary aluminum. The
relatively high cost of primary aluminum (American Metals Market 1997) indicates that a
cost analysis would favor maintaining the high levels of secondary aluminum currently
used.
3.4 Requirements
Several internal and external environmental requirements affect the manifold design
process. Examples of these, as published in the previous LCD report (Keoleian and Kar
1997), are given in Table 12.
Table 12. Internal and external environmental requirements (Keoleian and Kar 1997)
Internal External
Energy
Corporate citizenship
Minimize facility energy (directive
DIG If: energy planning and control)
Meet platform fuel economy targets
CAFE
Materials
Ford targets for recycled content of
plastic resin (D109f, A120f,
manufacturing environmental
leadership)
Substance use restrictions (HEX9{)
Reduce part/vehicle weight
Reduce materials used,
increase materials
recycled
Waste
Protect health and environment (policy
letter 17)
Recyclability targets (directive F-l 1 If)
Reduce manufacturing waste (A-120f)
Voluntary initiatives to
reduce greenhouse
emissions
f Ford directives and guidelines
{Ford Engineering Specifications for Materials
19
-------
This project identified some additional guidelines from the Ford Worldwide Design
Requirements for Recycling, these include:
Section 3.3.2: "30% recycled glass filled PA [nylon] in virgin PA compounds." The
effects of this requirement on the manifold life cycle inventory were investigated as
part of this study, as presented in section 3.1.2 above.
Section 3.4.5: "Reduce NVH materials by stiffening sections rather than by use of
deadeners"
Ideally one manifold would optimally meet or exceed all of these requirements, however,
none of the manifolds studied outperformed all others with regard to all of the
requirements. Due to the significantly lower weight of the composite manifolds they are
generally more suitable for addressing the issues of fuel economy, weight reduction and
greenhouse gas reductions. The aluminum manifold is produced, with high recycled
content, from a single material which is highly recyclable. This means that the aluminum
manifold addresses the material reduction and recycling requirements. The aluminum
manifold does not require any NVH materials addressing the NVH material reduction
requirement. Although much research has been conducted to eliminate NVH materials
from the composite manifold systems, no feasible solution has yet been found.
20
-------
4. LCD Process Observations and Decision Making
4.1 Process Observations
The original project goals were met in two and a half months, however, the recycling
examination required an additional month for completion. An average of 42 person-
hours/week (combined University of Michigan/Ford) were required for project
completion.
The project tasks can be divided into three areas: LCI data collection and modeling, cost
data collection and modeling, and determination of environmental and performance
requirements. Each of these areas is discussed in detail below.
4.1.1 Inventory Data Collection and Modeling
A majority of the project time was spent on data collection and model development
(estimated at 25 - 30 person hr./wk). Much of the inventory data required for this project
was available from the previous manifold study and this served as a starting point for the
data collection. The first category of data required for the inventory analysis was the
product composition. Once the design engineer fully understood the product composition
data requirements, these data were readily obtained with assistance from suppliers. Data
also had to be collected for production of some materials and several of the
manufacturing processes. A large portion of the time required (15+ hr./wk.) for the
inventory section of the project was spent developing a database and model to facilitate
future use of the data.
4.1.2 Cost Data Collection and Modeling
Cost data is often proprietary and is therefore difficult to collect in a short time period.
Ford collected the manufacturing cost data used in this project. Initial data collection
yielded data of insufficient quality for use in this study, some additional effort was
required by the design engineer to collect useable manufacturing cost data. Other cost
data were collected from published sources with little difficulty.
Cost data were incorporated into the inventory database and model to facilitate updating
data and allow evaluation of cost in conjunction with environmental concerns.
4.1.3 Performance and Environmental Reguirements
The performance requirements evaluated for this project were based on a list compiled for
the previous manifold study. The design engineer reviewed this list and selected a final
set of performance requirements.
A majority of the environmental requirements listed as part of this project came from the
previous report. Those requirements which were not part of the previous project were
retrieved from the Ford Corporate intranet by the environmental engineering
representative. This aspect of the project was completed ahead of schedule.
21
-------
4.2 Decision Making
Currently Ford does not have a procedure for incorporating LCD into the design program.
This means that there is no consistent examination of the tradeoffs between
environmental, cost and performance issues in design. When this examination is done
there is no clear guidance for how the tradeoffs should be evaluated. However, Ford
engineers are becoming more aware of life cycle tools and the tradeoffs involved in this
type of analysis. Ford unveiled an employee education course on design for the
environment (DFE) in January 1997 to address this concern. However, additional policy
measures are necessary to facilitate considerations of LCD early in the design process.
It is often useful to facilitate life cycle design data interpretation by summarizing
information for decision making. The section that follows provides some of the options
available for presenting data to decision makers. Since no single ideal method for life
cycle data aggregation is available, multiple methods are described.
Several methods for data summarization are available to designers and engineers. One
simple method for presenting results to decision makers is a summary table, such as Table
13. This table, developed using the base case results, presents a desired criteria and the
manifold which best satisfies the criteria. Using this method some of the tradeoffs
implicit in design decision making can be identified. However, the number of criteria
which can be effectively evaluated using this type of table is limited.
Table 13. Summary of manifold selection criteria
Criteria Manifold Selection
Manifold with the lowest total life cycle Vibration welded composite (1,18 MJ)
energy consumption:
Manifold with the highest recycled content: Sand cast aluminum (100%)
Manifold with the highest end-of-life Sand cast aluminum (100%)
recyclability^
Manifold with the lowest total life cycle Vibration welded composite (4.45 kg)
solid waste production:
Manifold with the lowest life cycle cost: Vibration welded composite ($8.10 + x)
t Based on current available infrastructure and technology
22
-------
Data aggregation is often useful when presenting results to decision makers. The results
of an environmental analysis of design alternatives frequently includes a large number of
speciated emissions and further aggregation often facilitates decision making. For
example the criteria air pollutants, indicated in Tables 8 and 9, can be normalized using a
number of methods (Rydberg 1995),(US EPA 1995),(Grimsted et al. 1994). One method
that has been used (Guinee, de Haes, and Huppes 1993) to aggregate airborne emissions
data is the units of polluted air analysis, also known as the critical volume approach. An
analysis of the units of polluted air (UFA) produced by each manifold further clarified
tradeoffs in atmospheric emissions. The complete UFA analysis is shown in Appendix C.
This analysis determined that the vibration welded manifold, the lost core composite
manifold and the sand cast aluminum manifold produced 2.38xl07 m3, 1.68xl07 m3, and
1.59xl07 m3 UFA, respectively. Results of this type, when combined with other life
cycle results, further clarify the tradeoffs in decision making.
Life cycle design can also facilitate decision making by identifying areas for improvement
and evaluating the potential benefits of a design change. This project identified the sand
used in the sand casting of the aluminum manifold as a source of potential life cycle
improvement. Current disposal of the casting sand results in 11 kg of solid waste per
manifold. If this sand were recycled, with 90% material efficiency, the total life cycle
solid waste of the aluminum manifold system could be reduced to 2.9 kg. Recycling the
casting sand would affect the selection criteria shown in Table 13, sand cast aluminum
would be the selected manifold for lowest total life cycle solid waste.
The results of this analysis can also be used to highlight the effects of changes in recycled
content. As discussed earlier, Ford design guidelines specify that recycled material be
used in nylon parts. Life cycle design data can be used to identify products that would
achieve substantial benefit from this change. When evaluating the potential benefits of
changes in recycled content it may be useful to first target systems for which minor
changes would result in significant life cycle improvements. Results, such as those
shown in Section 3.1.2 for the composite manifold, can be useful in identifying such
systems.
23
-------
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
This project applied the life cycle design framework to air intake manifolds.
Environmental, cost, performance, regulatory, and policy data were successfully provided
in less than three months.
The design analysis consisted of three basic components: environmental analysis, cost
analysis, and performance analysis. Life cycle inventory analysis and life cycle cost
analysis were specific tools used to evaluate design alternatives. The life cycle inventory
analysis indicated the vibration welded composite manifold incurred fewer burdens in
most categories. The aluminum manifold released fewer life cycle airborne emissions of
sulfur oxides and lead than the other manifolds.
The vibration welded manifold consumed the least total life cycle energy. The life cycle
energy consumption for the aluminum, lost core composite, and vibration welded
composite were 2000 MJ, 1,330 MJ, and 1,210 MJ per manifold, respectively. The use
phase energy accounted for a major fraction of this energy: 84% for the aluminum, 71%
for the lost core composite, and 74% for vibration welded composite; which indicates the
significance of manifold mass on life cycle energy. The life cycle energy of the vibration
welded composite manifold can be further reduced to 1,160 MJ by utilizing post
consumer recycled material in accordance with the Ford 30% recycled content guideline.
The nylon composite manifolds generated the least life cycle solid waste among
alternatives: vibration welded composite manifold (4.5 kg); lost-core composite manifold
(5.6 kg); and the aluminum manifold (12.7 kg). The solid waste profile had a different
distribution across the life cycle. The use phase solid waste originating from the gasoline
fuel cycle contributed only a small portion of the total solid waste. Material production
and end-of-life dominated the solid waste values. A majority of the aluminum manifold
life cycle solid waste (92%) resulted form the loss of sand in the casting process.
Disposal of the composite as automotive shredder residue (ASR) at end-of-life
contributed a majority of the composite manifolds' life cycle solid waste (55-59%).
The life cycle cost comparison between the manifolds indicated the vibration welded
composite manifold offered a cost advantage over the other manifolds. Much of these
cost savings can be accounted for by the low manufacturing cost of the vibration welded
manifold. Manufacturing costs for the vibration welded manifold are 64% less than for
the lost core manifold and 49% less than those of the sand cast aluminum. Manufacturing
costs were a significant factor in determining the life cycle cost, contributing between
70% and 78% of the total life cycle cost. Consumer gas costs also accounted for some of
the cost savings; the relatively lower weight of the composite manifolds offered a $7.31
savings on gasoline.
24
-------
A total of 13 performance requirements were used to evaluate each design alternative.
Each of the three manifolds satisfied basic performance requirements for manufacturing
and vehicle operation. The Ford analysis of performance requirements indicated that the
vibration welded composite manifold out performed the other manifolds.
This project revealed several organizational factors affecting the successful
implementation of life cycle design projects. One significant factor affecting the success
of this project was the level of knowledge of the project team. The experience gained on
the previous life cycle design project and in the design for environment course offered by
Ford helped increase the project team's understanding of life cycle design which
facilitated the timely completion of the project.
An air intake manifold is only one component of the powertrain system that is part of the
total vehicle system. Consequently, it makes only a relatively small contribution to the
overall environmental burdens of an automobile. More widespread application of the life
cycle design methodology to other vehicle components and systems, however, could help
identify opportunities for environmental improvement. This project served to
demonstrate the efficient application of life cycle design to an automotive component.
This will hopefully allow other parts, components, and higher level vehicle systems to be
studied.
25
-------
5.2 Recommendations
Overall, the 5.4 L vibration welded nylon composite manifold (lower plenum), for the F-
250, demonstrated the best environmental, cost, and functional performance among the
alternatives. Opportunities for improvement of this system exist in: 1) the recovery of
the nylon composite in the end-of-life management stage; 2) increasing the recycled
content of this manifold; and 3) eliminating the need for an NVH tent.
The efficiency and utility of future LCD studies will depend on the level of support for
the process provided by corporations such as Ford. There are several actions that can be
taken to facilitate LCD:
Development of a database which provides life cycle practitioners access to part
material composition data.
Development of a model and corresponding database, readily available to designers,
which includes emissions, waste, and energy factors. This inventory would have to be
available for a number of materials and processes.
Informing relevant manufacturing engineers and cost estimators of life cycle projects
and provide them the opportunity for contributing to the project.
Creation of policies that support the application of life cycle tools and methodologies
in the decision making process.
Implementation of educational activities, such as the DFE course currently offered by
Ford, that provide education on life cycle issues as well as corporate environmental
policies and guidelines.
. Providing access to expertise with in the company. It is necessary that individuals
interested in performing life cycle studies have access to both individuals and data
sets within the company.
Development of an incentive system that encourages the designer to consider life
cycle design, when applicable. This system is needed to commend individuals who
successfully apply life cycle methods in the design process.
When considering these recommendations it is important to remember that life cycle
design is only one of a number of tools available to designers and decision makers.
These recommendations are intended to facilitate use of LCD in conjunction with other
design tools.
26
-------
References
American Metals Market. 16 June 1997. American Metals Market, p. 6.
APC. 1994. Economics of Recovery and Recycling, American Plastics Council.
Coeyman, Marjorie. 1995. New Opportunities in Autos; DuPont Increases Nylon-6/6.
Chemical Week 156: 15.
DeLuchi, Mark A. 1991. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation
Fuels and Electricity - Volume 2: Appendixes A-S, Argonne National Lab, Center
for Transportation Research, Argonne, IL.
Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City
Averageftp ://ftp. eia. doe .gov/pub/energy. overview/monthly. energy/mer9-4.
Fairley, Peter. 1994. BASF Takes a Chance on Carpet Recycling. Chemical Week 155:
41.
Grimsted, Bradley A., Stefan C. Schaltegger, Christopher H. Stinson, and Christopher S.
Waldron. 1994. A Multimedia Assessment Scheme to Evaluate Chemical Effects
on the Envionment and Human Health. Pollution Prevention Review. 259-69.
Guinee, J. B., H. A. Udo de Haes, and G. Huppes. 1993. Quantitative life cycle
assessment of products 1: Goal definition and inventory. Journal of Cleaner
Production 1, no. 1: 3-13.
Hagberg, Carl G., and Jerauld L. Dickerson. 1997. Recycling Nylon Carpet via Reactive
Extrusion. Plastics Engineering 53: 41-3.
Keller, Robert A., William C. Haaf, and Robert W. Sylvester. 1997. An Allocation
Dilemma with Closed-Loop Recycling. SAE 1997 Total Life Cycle Conference -
Design for the Environment, Recycling and Environmental Impact (Part 2), 71-
6Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
Keoleian, Gregory A., and Krish Kar. 1997. Life Cycle Design of Air Intake Manifolds:
Phase I: 2.0 L Contour Air Intake Manifold, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Kepner, Charles H., and Benjamin B. Tregoe. 1965. The Rational Manager. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lessiter, Michael J. 1997. An Aluminum Scrap Gap? Experts Say No Need for Worry.
Modern Casting 87: 60-1.
27
-------
Phelan, Mark. 1996. Recycling in the Real World: Materials 1997. Automotive Industries
176, no. 9:71.
Plastics Technology. 1997. Pricing Update. Plastics Technology, no. March: 55-59.
PPL 1995. Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis: Thermoplastic Resin Fabrication Conversion
Processes, A Preliminary Study, Polymer Processing Institute at Stevens Institute
of Technology, Hoboken, NJ.
Rydberg, Tomas. 1995. Cleaner products in the Nordic countries based on the life cycle
assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 3, no. 1-2.
Sundberg, Rolf. 1996. Recycling of Copper/Brass Radiators. Automotive Engineering:
41-3.
US EPA. 1995. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: A Conceptual Framework, Key Issues,
and Summary of Existing Methods, EPA-452/R-95-002. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, NC.
28
-------
Appendix A
Complete Life Cycle Inventory
Material
Inputs
Atmospheric
Emissions
Emissions
to Soil
(r) Baryte (in ground)
(r) Bauxite (A12O3, ore)
(r) Boron (in ground)
(r) Clay (in ground)
(r) Coal (in ground)
(r) Copper (Cu, ore)
(r) Fluorspar (in ground)
(r) Iron (Fe, ore)
(r) Iron-Manganese (ore)
(r) Lead (Pb, ore)
(r) Lignite (in ground)
(r) Limestone (CaCOS, in ground)
(r) Natural Gas (in ground)
(r) Oil (in ground)
(r) Sand (in ground)
(r) Silica (in ground)
(r) Sodium Chloride (NaCl, in ground or in sea)
(r) Sulfur (in ground)
(r) Uranium (U, ore)
(r) Zinc (Zn, ore)
Argon (Ar)
Metallic Addition (unspecified)
Recovered Matter: Aluminum Scrap
Recovered Matter: Brass
Water Used (total)
(a) Alcohol (unspecified)
(a) Aldehydes
(a) Ammonia (NH3)
(a) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
(a) Arsenic (As)
(a) Barium (Ba)
(a)Benzene(C6H6)
(a) Boron (B)
(a) Cadmium (Cd)
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fossil)
(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(a) CFC 1 1 (CFC13)
(a)CFC12(CC12F2)
(a) Chromium (Cr)
(a) Copper (Cu)
(a) Ethylbenzene (C8H10)
(a) Fluorides (F-)
(a) Formaldehyde (CH2O)
(a) Halogenous Matter (unspecified)
(a)Halon!301 (CFSBr)
(a) Hydrocarbons (except methane)
(a) Hydrocarbons (total)
(a) Hydrogen (H2)
(a) Hydrogen Chloride (HC1)
(a) Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
(a) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Manganese (Mn)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Metals (unspecified)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nickel (Ni)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2)
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Organic Matter (unspecified)
(a) Particulates (unspecified)
(a) Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, unspecified)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO2)
(a) Xylene (C6H4(CH3)2)
(a) Zinc (Zn)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Chromium (Cr)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
liter
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
Sand Cast
Aluminum
-
-
1.73885
1.93283E-06
-
0.219617
0.242385
8.00409
33.6662
10.8904
-
0.00614404
5.70047E-05
-
0.00509201
0.15289
1.16521
-
9.36309
0.0205076
0.0110073
0.0114321
0.0121749
-
2.76555E-05
139105
214.873
-
-
2.78725E-05
8.26046E-05
5.70098E-07
4.98836E-05
146.185
239.262
-
0.134638
0.0790364
0.0165311
0.000230388
7.32058E-05
0.000055823
0.0428446
90.1763
0.00132807
90.83
2.04004
0.0350547
22.0899
3.49833E-05
79.56
0.000837723
0.000386112
-
-
-
Lost Core
Composite
0.38418
5.71E-05
0.162522
0.79968
4.24351
0.000250774
0.0174047
0.000360483
3.46E-10
9.79E-06
0.426625
4.87888
19.2907
0.336334
0.000881419
0.000620598
1.13E-04
6.52E-05
-
0.00278873
6.74301
0.153659
0.0239109
0.536652
-
8.04E-04
2.82E-07
0.0373966
1.16423
0.000347527
82055.7
135.373
4.30E-05
7.97E-04
0.007103
0.00329278
0.00193333
1.35954
0.00220465
-
41.5777
175.519
5.17E-05
0.517659
0.00260196
0.001046
0.00626779
0.00115953
0.00227247
0.0253861
132.365
0.00392782
96.5892
94.559
0.0486775
53.4835
0.627981
129.219
0.0069219
1.18E-05
4.66E-06
3.41E-11
2.66E-06
2.30E-07
1.23E-08
2.87E-09
Vibration Weld
Composite
0.38418
5.70681E-05
0.158728
0.781011
2.07345
0.000250649
0.0169984
0.000360483
3.4627E-10
9.78451E-06
0.419596
4.06049
19.1447
0.328482
0.000881419
0.000620598
6.01753E-05
6.51241E-05
-
0.00277261
6.5368
0.150072
0.0169692
0.523967
-
0.000785601
2.7565E-07
0.0365236
1.13705
0.000134587
73271.8
132.049
4.20366E-05
0.00077871
0.00693718
0.00321591
0.0018882
1.32776
0.00203544
-
32.2275
142.662
5.17165E-05
0.505738
0.00254485
0.001046
0.00345981
0.00113246
0.00214729
0.00188312
108.895
0.00383612
71.3088
92.0983
0.0288246
25.8852
0.61332
93.4886
0.0067603
1.1 5543 E-05
4.54822E-06
3.33077E-11
2.5957E-06
2.248 84E-07
1.20367E-08
2.80244E-09
A.1
-------
Appendix A
Complete Life Cycle Inventory
Waterborne
Emissions
Material
Outflows
Energy
Inputs
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) Acids (H+)
(w) aluminum2 (A13+)
(w) Ammonia (NH4+, NH3, as N)
(w) AOX (Adsordable Organic Halogens)
(w) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
(w) Arsenic (As3+, As5+)
(w) Barium (Ba++)
(w) Benzene (C6H6)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
(w) Cadmium (Cd++)
(w) Chlorides (C1-)
(w) Chlorinated Matter (unspecified, as Cl)
(w) Chromium (Cr III)
(w) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Cyanides (CN-)
(w) Dissolved Matter (unspecified)
(w) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
(w) Fluorides (F-)
(w) Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
(w) Inorganic Dissolved Matter (unspecified)
(w) Iron (Fe++, Fe3+)
(w) Lead (Pb++, Pb4+)
(w) Manganese (Mn II, Mn IV, Mn VII)
(w) Mercury (Hg+, Hg++)
(w) Metals (unspecified)
(w) Mobile Ions
(w) Nickel (Ni++, Ni3+)
(w) Nitrates (NO3-)
(w) Nitrogenous Matter (unspecified, as N)
(w) Oils (unspecified)
(w) Organic Dissolved Matter (unspecified)
(w) Phenol (C6H6O)
(w) Phosphates (PO4 3-, HPO4-, H2PO4-, H3PO4, as P)
(w) Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, unspecified)
(w) Salts (unspecified)
(w) Selenium (Se II, Se IV, Se VI)
(w) Sodium (Na+)
(w) Sulfates (SO4-)
(w) Sulfides (S-)
(w) Suspended Matter (organic)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspecified)
(w) TOG (Total Organic Carbon)
(w) Toluene (C7H8)
(w) Water (unspecified)
(w) Water: Chemically Polluted
(w) Zinc (Zn++)
Recovered Matter (total)
Recovered Matter (unspecified)
Recovered Matter: Non Ferrous Metals
Waste (FGD Sludge)
Waste (hazardous)
Waste (municipal and industrial)
Waste (total)
Waste (unspecified)
Waste: Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR, Non Metallic Materials)
Waste: Mineral (inert)
Waste: Non Mineral (inert)
Waste: Non Toxic Chemicals (unspecified)
Waste: Slags and Ash (unspecified)
E Feedstock Energy
E Fuel Energy
E Non Renewable Energy
E Renewable Energy
E Total Primary Energy
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
liter
liter
g
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
Sand Cast
Aluminum
-
0.00101102
-
3.43987
0.000036279
0.0100415
0.000706145
0.0537059
-
23.4289
3.07076E-05
464.101
1.90465E-05
6.28312E-06
0.00360846
198.238
0.00174269
5.56494E-05
1441.62
0.00958802
0.0053057
0.0293424
6.27108
0.459978
0.00211196
-
2.68205E-06
1.00871
1.2016
0.00177508
0.01609
0.0114862
11.9435
-
80.4359
0.0207308
0.000136046
-
-
587.365
3.98083
0.000334933
-
108.151
0.00134103
-
0.00103032
0.00358255
0.331046
-
0.331046
0.055391
0.0761766
2.97358E-06
12.6848
0.561681
0.139481
0.0604631
3.86566E-05
0.0914176
1489.43
508.38
1992.86
4.68109
1997.54
Lost Core
Composite
4.66E-10
3.10E-05
3.27E-06
0.0160693
2.03E-07
1.93336
-
0.00486861
0.00486861
0.00820844
15.1902
4.89E-05
237.285
2.05E-06
0.000384717
0.00755044
132.127
0.036691
3.04E-07
751.595
0.0170349
0.051559
0.0414626
4.55E-05
3.68E-05
7.27E-08
1.13E-09
0.5166
0.622292
1.87E-04
0.00636402
0.00155905
7.77127
0.00415073
41.6573
0.00237523
-
163.463
1.96E-07
305.433
0.00411705
1.60E-05
0.02597
222.782
0.376318
-
275.182
0.0630869
0.0376318
1.69E-05
1.69E-05
0.0734538
0.0395586
0.00746792
5.55875
1.33605
2.85993
0.00341528
0.000934474
0.857346
774.632
556.534
1325.02
6.14299
1331.16
Vibration Weld
Composite
4.54822E-10
3.03214E-05
3.19294E-06
0.0159973
-
1.9227
-
0.00475495
0.00475495
0.00801681
15.0728
4.77793E-05
236.36
2.00076E-06
2.02915E-05
0.00737418
131.05
0.0358344
2.971 56E-07
748.392
0.00907704
0.0515442
0.0414626
2.72623E-05
3.59843E-05
7.09798E-08
1.10719E-09
0.5166
0.622292
0.000182618
0.00448244
0.00155905
7.68615
0.00415073
41.6572
0.00237432
-
159.647
1.91576E-07
304.24
0.00243549
1.60321E-05
0.02597
219.468
0.367533
-
268.758
0.00332745
0.0367533
1.68551E-05
1.68551E-05
0.0306857
0.039462
0.00746792
4.44801
0.405271
2.85993
0.00341487
0.000934474
0.838457
770.231
438.929
1206.6
2.42876
1209.03
A.2
-------
Appendix B
Complete Life Cycle Inventory for Manifolds with Variations in Recycled Content
Material
Inputs
Atmospheric
Emissions
(r) Baryte (in ground)
(r) Bauxite (A12O3, ore)
(r) Boron (in ground)
(r) Clay (in ground)
(r) Coal (in ground)
(r) Copper (Cu, ore)
(r) Fluorspar (in ground)
(r) Iron (Fe, ore)
(r) Iron-Manganese (ore)
(r) Lead (Pb, ore)
(r) Lignite (in ground)
(r) Limestone (CaCO3, in ground)
(r) Natural Gas (in ground)
(r) Oil (in ground)
(r) Sand (in ground)
(r) Silica (in ground)
(r) Sodium Chloride (NaCl, in ground or in sea)
(r) Sulfur (in ground)
(r) Uranium (U, ore)
(r) Zinc (Zn, ore)
Argon (Ar)
Calcium Fluoride (CaF2)
Metallic Addition (unspecified)
Recovered Matter: Aluminum Scrap
Recovered Matter: Brass
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Water Used (total)
(a) Alcohol (unspecified)
(a) Aldehydes
(a) Ammonia (NH3)
(a) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
(a) Arsenic (As)
(a) Barium (Ba)
(a) Benzene (C6H6)
(a) Boron (B)
(a) Cadmium (Cd)
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fossil)
(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(a)CFC 11(CFC13)
(a) CFC 12 (CC12F2)
(a) Chromium (Cr)
(a) Copper (Cu)
(a) Ethylbenzene (C8H10)
(a) Fluorides (F-)
(a) Formaldehyde (CH2O)
(a) Halogenous Matter (unspecified)
(a)Halon!301(CF3Br)
(a) Hydrocarbons (except methane)
(a) Hydrocarbons (total)
(a) Hydrogen (H2)
(a) Hydrogen Chloride (HC1)
(a) Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
(a) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Manganese (Mn)
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
liter
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
Sand Cast
85% secondary
Aluminum
-
3.60522
-
-
3.21266
-
-
1.6429E-06
-
-
0.304258
0.411357
8.18724
34.8448
10.8904
-
0.0581833
-
0.000126985
-
0.00432821
0.0246827
0.129957
0.173629
-
0.0190465
-
-
0.020472
0.0238653
0.0630325
-
-
0.0272372
-
0.000279623
146110
268.618
-
-
-
-
-
0.800757
8.25693E-05
2.3698E-06
0.000332957
155.698
285.875
-
0.793701
0.137828
0.0165311
0.0012038
0.000365414
Vibration Weld
30 % secondary
Composite
0.38418
5.70681E-05
0.158707
0.780715
2.16335
0.000250649
0.0169929
0.000360483
3.4627E-10
9.7845 1E-06
-
0.419728
3.3786
18.6918
-
0.328543
0.000881419
0.000620598
6.33751E-05
6.51241E-05
-
-
-
-
0.00277261
-
13.583
0.10505
0.0171531
0.368979
-
0.000741497
1.92955E-07
0.0255665
1.13705
0.000097694
71766.5
123.238
2.94256E-05
0.000545097
0.00632868
0.00282656
0.00132174
1.32742
0.00143932
-
-
32.0613
135.781
5.17165E-05
0.379579
0.00263099
0.001046
0.00378338
0.000792722
B.1
-------
Appendix B
Complete Life Cycle Inventory for Manifolds with Variations in Recycled Content
Emissions
to Soil
Waterborne
Emissions
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Metals (unspecified)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nickel (Ni)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2)
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Organic Matter (unspecified)
(a) Particulates (unspecified)
(a) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, unspecified)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO2)
(a) Xylene (C6H4(CH3)2)
(a) Zinc (Zn)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Chromium (Cr)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) Acids (H+)
(w) aluminum2 (A13+)
(w) Ammonia (NH4+, NH3, as N)
(w) AOX (Adsordable Organic Halogens)
(w) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
(w) Arsenic (As3+, As5+)
(w) Barium (Ba++)
(w) Benzene (C6H6)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
(w) Cadmium (Cd++)
(w) Chlorides (C1-)
(w) Chlorinated Matter (unspecified, as Cl)
(w) Chromium (Cr III)
(w) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Cyanides (CN-)
(w) Dissolved Matter (unspecified)
(w) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
(w) Fluorides (F-)
(w) Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
(w) Inorganic Dissolved Matter (unspecified)
(w) Iron (Fe++, Fe3+)
(w) Lead (Pb++, Pb4+)
(w) Manganese (Mn II, Mn IV, Mn VII)
(w) Mercury (Hg+, Hg++)
(w) Metals (unspecified)
(w) Mobile Ions
(w) Nickel (Ni++, Ni3+)
(w) Nitrates (NO3-)
(w) Nitrogenous Matter (unspecified, as N)
(w) Oils (unspecified)
(w) Organic Dissolved Matter (unspecified)
(w) Phenol (C6H6O)
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
Sand Cast
85% secondary
Aluminum
0.000151619
0.250266
105.567
0.00926248
103.081
2.07807
0.0350395
42.5497
0.0388029
131.11
0.000837723
0.00244663
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.000859365
-
3.51087
0.000241709
0.0607187
0.00540071
0.385765
-
23.4218
0.000217538
512.558
7.32317E-05
6.283 12E-06
0.0271668
198.231
0.0133367
0.000327168
1440.99
0.0117842
0.0079369
0.0293295
37.3985
1.28014
0.0149139
-
6.59435E-06
1.61698
1.20107
0.0135586
0.103169
0.0766494
13.5063
0.00165199
80.4093
Vibration Weld
30 % secondary
Composite
0.00230716
0.00188035
86.6743
0.00329654
64.4775
64.6888
0.0289343
22.795
0.716319
87.1588
0.00473221
8.08802E-06
3.18375E-06
2.33154E-11
1.81699E-06
1.57419E-07
8.42569E-09
1.96171E-09
3.18375E-10
0.000021225
2.23506E-06
0.0153164
-
1.8832
-
-
0.00356001
0.00356001
0.00584676
14.297
3.34455E-05
237.934
1.40053E-06
2.02486E-05
0.00772288
123.468
0.0396274
2.13772E-07
767.674
-
0.00955967
0.0515375
0.0414626
2.81948E-05
2.52339E-05
4.18443E-06
7.75035E-10
0.516394
0.622019
0.000127832
0.00482397
0.00155905
7.53348
0.011452
41.6386
B.2
-------
Appendix B
Complete Life Cycle Inventory for Manifolds with Variations in Recycled Content
Material
Outflows
Energy
Inputs
(w) Phosphates (PO4 3-, HPO4-, H2PO4-, H3PO4, as P)
(w) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, unspecified)
(w) Salts (unspecified)
(w) Selenium (Se II, Se IV, Se VI)
(w) Sodium (Na+)
(w) Sulfates (SO4-)
(w) Sulfides (S-)
(w) Suspended Matter (organic)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspecified)
(w) TOC (Total Organic Carbon)
(w) Toluene (C7H8)
(w) Water (unspecified)
(w) Water: Chemically Polluted
(w) Zinc (Zn++)
Recovered Matter (total)
Recovered Matter (unspecified)
Recovered Matter: Non Ferrous Metals
Waste (FGD Sludge)
Waste (hazardous)
Waste (municipal and industrial)
Waste (total)
Waste (unspecified)
Waste: Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR, Non Metallic Materials)
Waste: Mineral (inert)
Waste: Non Mineral (inert)
Waste: Non Toxic Chemicals (unspecified)
Waste: Slags and Ash (unspecified)
E Feedstock Energy
E Fuel Energy
E Non Renewable Energy
E Renewable Energy
E Total Primary Energy
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
liter
liter
g
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
Sand Cast
85% secondary
Aluminum
0.158526
0.0175101
-
-
587.106
20.3896
0.00218934
-
112.554
0.722017
0.00837947
-
1.73076
0.0273391
0.315109
0.0220589
0.281389
0.055367
0.10996
0.00105203
13.8482
0.561449
0.139481
-
-
-
-
1518.91
672.142
2140.01
50.7751
2190.79
Vibration Weld
30 % secondary
Composite
0.00236288
-
111.753
1.34103E-07
305.179
0.00272906
1.60321E-05
0.02597
183.934
0.257273
-
188.131
0.00332042
0.040498
0.00054531
1.68551E-05
-
0.03072
0.0394489
0.0151365
4.33545
0.407912
2.85993
0.173866
-
0.000934474
0.622598
782.363
376.856
1156.25
2.8344
1159.09
B.3
-------
Appendix C
Units of Polluted Air
Units of polluted air were calculated using the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) shown in Table C-l.
Table C-l. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)f for US EPA criteria air pollutants
Air Pollutant
carbon monoxide
lead
nitrogen oxides
sulfur oxides
particulates
NAAQS (ng/m3)
10
1.5
100
80
50
Type of Average
8-hour
maximum quarterly average
annual arithmetic mean
annual arithmetic mean
annual arithmetic mean
T Source: (US EPA 1996)
1 As defined by the Clean Air Act, not including ozone.
The values in Table C-l were used to calculate units of polluted air as follows.
UFA =
where,
UFA Units of Polluted Air (m3)
Si NAAQS for emission i (mg/m3)
E; Total life cycle emissions of species i (mg)
Table C-2 presents the results of the units of polluted air analysis for the base case
manifolds.
(eq. C-l)
Table C-2. Total life cycle emissions and units of polluted air for alternative manifolds.
CO
Pb
A/Ox
Particulates
Total UFA
(m3)
Sand Cast Aluminum
emissions (g) UFA (m3)
215 21,500,000
0.0002 133
90.8 908,000
79.6 995,000
22 442,000
23,800,000
Lost Core Composite
emissions (g) UFA (m3)
135 13,500,000
0.0063 4,200
96.6 966,000
129.2 1,615,000
36 720,000
16,800,000
Vibration Welded Composite
emissions (g) UFA (m3)
132 13,500,000
0.0035 2,333
71.3 713,000
93.5 1,168,750
40 800,000
15,900,000
References
US EPA. 1996. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995, EPA 454/R-
96-005. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
C.I
-------
Appendix D. Life Cycle Design Framework
Primary elements of the life cycle design framework are (Keoleian, Koch, and Menerey 1995):
Product life cycle system
Goals
Principles
Life cycle management
Development process
Product Life Cycle System
Life cycle design and management requires an accurate definition of the product system, including
both spatial and temporal boundaries. The product system can be organized by life cycle stages and product
system components. Life cycle stages include materials production, manufacturing and assembly, use and
service, and end-of-life management as shown in Figure D-l.
Material Production
ir
Manufacturing
ir
Use
ir
End-of-Life Management
Material Recycling
Part Reuse/Remanufacture
Product Remanufacture
Product Reuse
Figure D-1. Product Life Cycle System
Product, process and distribution components further characterize the product system for each life
cycle stage as shown in Figures D-2 and D-3. This organization in contrast to LCA convention can better
accommodate product and process design functions. The time frame for a design project ranges between a
short term horizon that may emphasize incremental improvements in the product system or a long range view
that explores next generation designs.
D.I
-------
Process Materials
Open loop
Recycle
Remanufacture
Reuse
Closed
loop
Labor
Energy
Product Materials
By-product
Primary Product
Waste
Open loop
Recycle
Remanufacture
Reuse
Waste
(gaseuus, liquid, solid)
Figure D-2. Flow Diagram Template for Life Cycle Subsystem
Process Materials Process Materials
Product
Materials
retired vehicle
materials & waste from
energy for operation
operation
Figure D-3. Distribution Component Flow Diagram
Goals
The broad goal of life cycle design is to design and management products that are ecologically and
economically sustainable. Necessary conditions for sustainability include: sustainable resource use (conserve
resources, minimize depletion of non-renewable resources, use sustainable practices for managing renewable
resources), pollution prevention, maintenance of ecosystem structure and function, and environmental equity.
All of these conditions are interrelated and highly complementary. Economic sustainability requires that the
product system meet basic cost, performance, legal and cultural criteria.
The specific environmental goal of life cycle design is to minimize the aggregate life cycle
environmental burdens and impacts associated with a product system. Environmental burden include resource
inputs and waste outputs which can be classified into impact categories according to life cycle impact
D.2
-------
assessment methods. (Guinee et al. 1993; SETAC 1993a; Weitz and Warren 1993) General impact categories
include resource depletion and ecological and human health effects. No universally accepted method for
aggregating impacts is available.
Principles
There are three main themes for guiding environmental improvement of product systems in life cycle
design: systems analysis of the product life cycle; multicriteria analysis of environmental, performance, cost,
and legal requirements and issues (see specification of requirements section); and multistakeholder
participation and cross-functional teamwork throughout the design process. The following principles relating
to each of these themes have been derived from our empirical research. Many of these principles of life cycle
design are already considered best design practice.
Systems Analysis
Systems analysis focuses on understanding the behavior of individual components of a system and the
relationships between the collection of components that constitute the entire system. In addition the
relationships between the system under study and higher order/larger scale systems should be analyzed. Both
time and space dimensions must be addressed.
1. The product life cycle is a logical system for product management and design because it encompasses the
total physical flow of product materials through the economy.
2. Successful design initiatives should establish clear system boundaries for analysis. The scope of a design
activity can be restricted to smaller system boundaries such as individual life cycle stages or process
steps, but this will inherently limit the opportunities for improvement.
3. Studying the relationship between product materials and related process/distribution components -
systems that transform/transport the product material along the life cycle - is critical towards improving
the product system design.
4. The breadth of system boundaries depends on the vision of the organization; less responsible firms do not
address environmental issues much beyond the manufacturing domain whereas more ecologically
responsible corporations will address the full product life cycle. The broader perspective may not yield
immediate economic benefits but should lead to long term success.
Multiobjective Analysis
A successful design will satisfy multiple objectives including performance, cost, legal and
environmental requirements. Many design requirements will overlap and reinforce each other while others
conflict and limit design possibilities.
1. Specifying design requirements for both guiding improvement and evaluating alternatives is a critical to
efficient product design and management. Clearly defined requirements that are both internal and
external to an organization reduce uncertainty in decision making.
2. Understanding the interactions and conflicts between performance, cost, legal, and environmental
requirements serves to highlight opportunities as well as vulnerabilities. In some cases, environmentally
preferable designs may not be adopted because they do not show a direct cost advantage to the
manufacturer, are not supported by regulations, or do not demonstrate performance advantages.
3. Unless more specific guidance can be offered through well-established corporate environmental policies
and goals or national environmental policies or goals design teams must rely on. their personal knowledge
and experience to make complex tradeoffs. Tradeoffs often exist among environmental criteria, such as
minimizing waste, energy and emissions as well as between environmental, cost, performance and legal
criteria. Judgment is ultimately required to weight and rank criteria.
D.3
-------
Multistakeholder Participation
The stakeholders that control the life cycle of a product can be considered part of a virtual
organization. Some stakeholders share a common goal for enhancing the overall economic success of the
product, while maximizing their own individual profit. Minimizing life cycle burdens, however, may not be a
priority. Identifying the actors that control the life cycle of a product and their interests is a first step in
achieving better life cycle management of a product.
1. Harmonizing the often diverse interests of stakeholders (suppliers, manufacturers, customers, waste
managers, regulators, investors) into a product design that is technically, economically, socially and
ecologically feasible/optimal is a fundamental challenge of design.
2. Partnerships are helpful in implementing changes that affect more than one stage or activity in the life
cycle.
3. Initiatives to reduce life cycle environmental burdens will be limited in their effectiveness by the degree
to which stakeholders recognize this a common goal for product design and management.
Life Cycle Management
Life cycle management includes all decisions and actions taken by multiple stakeholders which
ultimately determine the environmental profile and sustainability of the product system. Key stakeholders are
users and the public, policy makers/regulators, material and waste processors, suppliers, manufacturers,
investors/shareholders, the service industry, and insurers. The design and management decisions made by the
manufacturer of the end-use product may have the greatest influence over the life cycle environmental profile
of a product system. It is useful to distinguish between environmental management by internal and external
stakeholders. A major challenge for product manufacturers is responding to the diverse interests of external
stakeholder groups.
The environmental management system (EMS) within a corporation is the organizations structure of
responsibilities, policies, practices, and resources for addressing environmental issues. Several voluntary
EMS standards and guidelines have been developed (BS7750, ISO 14,001, GEMI). Although EMS activities
have emphasized proactive measures in addition to regulatory compliance, traditionally these systems have
only addressed the manufacturing domain of the corporation (Marguglio 1991) and did not cover end-of-life
management or material acquisition processing stages.
Life Cycle Development Process
The product development process varies widely depending on the type of product and company and
the design management organization within a company. In general, however, most development processes
incorporate the key activities shown in Figure D-4. For life cycle design this process takes place within the
context of sustainable development and life cycle management.
Sustainable Development
I.
Feedback for next
generation design
improvement and
strategic planning
Life Cycle Management
t
NeedsAnalysis
I
Requirements
I
Design Solutions
*
Implementation
t
Consequences
social welfare
resource depletion
ecosystem & human
health effects
Evaluation occurs
throughout the
development process
Figure D-4. Life Cycle Development Process
D.4
-------
The life cycle design framework emphasizes three important design activities: specifying
requirements to guide design improvements, selecting strategies for reducing environmental burden, and
evaluating design alternatives.
The specification of requirements to guide design and management decisions is a fundamental activity
for any design initiative (Gause and Weinberg 1989). Techniques for assisting development teams in
establishing environmental design criteria have not been widely implemented. A multilayer requirements
matrix has been developed as a tool to identify, organize, and evaluate environmental, cost, performance, legal
and cultural design criteria (Keoleian and Menerey 1993; Keoleian and Menerey 1994; Keoleian, Koch, and
Menerey 1995). DFX or Design for X strategies (Gatenby and Foo 1990) such as design for recyclability,
disassembly, and remanufacturability have been more widely promoted. Life cycle assessment tools for
evaluating product systems (Vigon et al. 1993; Heijungs et al. 1992; Guinee, de Haes, and Huppes 1993;
SETAC 1993b; SETAC 1991) have probably received the most attention in the last two decades. The
practical application of LCA tools by product development engineers, however, is limited (Keoleian and
Menerey 1994; White and Shapiro 1993). It is the refinement and application of these three types of design
and analysis tools that will lead to the most effective implementation of life cycle design and DFE.
Specification of Requirements
Specification of requirements is one of the most critical design functions. Requirements guide
designers in translating needs and environmental objectives into successful designs. Environmental
requirements should focus on minimizing natural resource consumption, energy consumption, waste
generation, and human health risks as well as promoting the sustainability of ecosystems. A primary tool of
life cycle design is the multicriteria matrices for specifying requirements shown in Figure D-5. Other tools for
guiding designers include design checklists and guidelines.
The matrices shown in Figure D-5 allow product development teams to study the interactions and
tradeoffs between environmental, cost, performance and legal requirements. Each matrix is organized by life
cycle stages and product system components. Elements can then be described and tracked in as much detail as
necessary. Requirements can include qualitative criteria as well as quantitative metrics.
f Legal ^
r~^ f Cost
Product
INPUTS
. OUTPUTS
Process
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
Distribution
INPUTS
Material
Production
Manufacture
& Assembly
Use&
Service
End-of-Life
Managemen
Figure D-5. Multicriteria Requirements Matrix
Design Strategies
Selecting and synthesizing design strategies for meeting the full spectrum of requirements is a major
challenge of life cycle design and management. General strategies for fulfilling environmental requirements
are product oriented (product life extension, remanufacturability, adaptability, serviceability, and reusability);
material oriented (recycling, substitution, dematerialization); process oriented; and distribution oriented
(optimize transportation and packaging). An explanation of each strategy is provided in the Life Cycle Design
Guidance Manual (Keoleian and Menerey 1993).
D.5
-------
Design Evaluation
Analysis and evaluation are required throughout the product development process as well as during
strategic planning by management. Approaches for design evaluation range from comprehensive analysis
tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) to the use of single environmental metrics. LCA tools can be
broadly classified as SETAC related methodologies (Vigon et al. 1993; Heijungs et al. 1992; SETAC 1993b),
semi-quantitative matrix evaluation tools (Graedel, Allenby, and Comrie 1995; Allenby 1991), and other
techniques such as the Environmental Priority Strategies (EPS) system (FSI 1993). If environmental
requirements for the product system are well specified, design alternatives can be checked directly against
these requirements. Several tools for environmental accounting and cost analysis are also emerging (US EPA
1989) (White, Becker, and Goldstein 1992) (US EPA 1995) (SNL 1993). Cost analysis for product
development is often the most influential tool guiding decision making. Key issues of environmental
accounting are: measuring environmental costs, allocating environmental costs to specific cost centers, and
internalizing environmental costs.
In principle, LCA represents the most accurate tool for design evaluation in life cycle design and
DFE. Many methodological problems, however, currently limit LCA's applicability to design (Keoleian
1994). Costs to conduct a LCA can be prohibitive, especially to small firms, and time requirements may not
be compatible with short development cycles (Sullivan and Ehrenfeld 1992) (White and Shapiro 1993).
Although significant progress has been made towards standardizing life cycle inventory analysis, (SETAC
1991) (Heijungs et al. 1992) (Vigon et al. 1993) (SETAC 1993b) results can still vary significantly (Svensson
1992) (Curran 1993). Such discrepancies can be attributed to differences in system boundaries, rules for
allocation of inputs and outputs between product systems, and data availability and quality issues.
Incommensurable data presents another major challenge to LCA and other environmental analysis
tools. A large complex set of inventory data can be overwhelming to designers and managers who often lack
environmental training and expertise. The problem of evaluating environmental data remains inherently
complicated when impacts are expressed in different measuring units (e.g., kilojoules, cancer risks, or
kilograms of solid waste). Furthermore, impact assessment models vary widely in complexity and
uncertainty.
Even if much better assessment tools existed, LCA has inherent limitations in design and
management, because the complete set of environmental effects associated with a product system can not be
evaluated until a design has been specified in detail (Keoleian 1994). This limitation indicates the importance
for requirements matrices, checklists and design guidelines which can be implemented during conceptual
design phases.
D.6
-------
References
Allenby, BradenR. 1991. Design for environment: A
tool whose time has come. SSA Journal, no.
September: 6-9.
Curran, Mary Ann. 1993. Broad-based environmental
life cycle assessment. Environmental
Science and Technology 27, no. 3: 430-436.
FSI. 1993. The Product Ecology Report:
Environmentally-Sound Product
Development Based on the EPS System,
Federation of Swedish Industries,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Gatenby, David A., and George Foo. 1990. Design
for X (DFX): Key to Competitive,
Profitable Products. AT&T Technical
Journal 69, no. 3 :2-ll.
Cause, Donald G., and Gerald M. Weinberg. 1989.
Requirements: Quality Before Design. New
York: Dorset House.
Graedel, T. E., B. R. Allenby, and P. R. Comrie.
1995. Matrix approaches to abridged life
cycle assessment. Environmental Science
and Technology 29, no. 3: 134-39.
Guinee, J. B., H. A. Udo de Haes, and G. Huppes.
1993. Quantitative life cycle assessment of
products 1: Goal definition and inventory.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1, no. 1: 3-
13.
Guinee, Jeroen. B., Reinout Heijungs, Helias. A. Udo
de Haes, and Gjalt. Huppes. 1993.
Quantitative life cycle assessment of
products 2: Classification, valuation and
improvement analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production 1, no. 2: 81-91.
Heijungs, R., J. B. Guinee, G. Huppes, R. M.
Lankreijer, H. A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener
Sleeswijk, A. M. M. Ansems, P. G. Eggels,
R. vanDuin, andH. P. de Goede. 1992.
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of
Products - Guide, Center of Environmental
Science, Leiden, Netherlands.
Keoleian, Gregory A. 1994. The application of life
cycle assessment to design. Journal of
Cleaner Production 1, no. 3-4: 143-49.
Keoleian, Gregory A., Jonathan Koch, and Dan
Menerey. 1995. Life Cycle Design
Framework and Demonstration Projects:
Profiles ofAT&TandAlliedSignal,
EPA/600/R-95/107. US Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Keoleian, Gregory A., and Dan Menerey. 1993. Life
Cycle Design Guidance Manual:
Environmental Requirements and the
Product System, US EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
. 1994. Sustainable development by design:
Review of life cycle design and related
approaches. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association 44, no. 5: 645-68.
Marguglio, B. W. 1991. Environmental Management
Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.
SET AC. 1991. Workshop Report - A Technical
Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment
Washington, DC: Society of Environmental
Toxicologists and Chemists.
. 1993a. Workshop Report - A Conceptual
Framework for Life-Cycle Impact
Assessment Pensacola, FL: Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
D.7
-------
. 1993b. Workshop Report - Guidelines for
Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice
Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry.
SNL. 1993. Life Cycle Cost Assessment: Integrating
Cost Information into LCA, Project
Summary, Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM.
Sullivan, Michael S., and JohnR. Ehrenfeld. 1992.
Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts:
An industry survey of emerging tools and
programs. Total Quality Environmental
Management 2, no. 2: 143-57.
Svensson, Goran. 1992. Experience from the
inventory phase of LCA studies. First NOH
European Conference: Design for the
Environment, 1.1.1, 1-8.
US EPA. 1989. Environmental Audit Program
Design Guidelines for Federal Agencies,
EPA/130/4-89/001. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Federal
Activities, Washington, DC.
. 1995. An Introduction to Environmental
Accounting as a Business Management
Tool: Key Concepts and Terms, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Washington, DC.
Vigon, B. W., D. A. Tolle, B. W. Cornary, H. C.
Latham, C. L. Harrison, T. L. Bouguski, R.
G. Hunt, and J. D. Sellers. 1993. Life Cycle
Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and
Principles, EPA/600/R-92/245. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Weitz, Keith A., and John L Warren. 1993. Life Cycle
Impact Assessment: Framework Issues,
Draft, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality, Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
White, Allen L., Monica Becker, and James
Goldstein. 1992. Total Cost Assessment:
Accelerating Industrial Pollution Prevention
Through Innovative Project Financial
Analysis, US EPA, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
White, Allen L., and Karen Shapiro. 1993. Life cycle
assessment: A second opinion.
Environmental Science & Technology 27,
no. 6: 1016-17.
D.8
-------
Appendix E
Life Cycle Design Reports
The following list provides reference information for other LCD reports available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS: www.ntis.gov or 800-553-6847) or the EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/ncepi or 800-490-9198).
Report Title
Report Number
Available From
Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual:
Environmental Requirements and the Product System
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design Framework and Demonstration Projects:
Profiles of AT&T and AlliedSignal
full report
Life Cycle Design of Amorphous Silicon Photovoltaic Modules
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design of Milk and Juice Packaging Systems
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design of a Fuel Tank
Life Cycle Design ofln-Mold Surfacing Films
full report
summary report
Life Cycle Design of Air Intake Manifolds:
Phase I: 2.0 L Ford Contour Air Intake Manifold
EPA/600/R-92/226
PB93-164507AS
EPA/600/SR-92/226
EPA/600/R-95/107
PB 97-193106
EPA 600/SR-97/081
PB 98-100423
EPA 600/SR-97/082
PB 98-447856INZ
EPA600/SR-97/118
full report E PA 600/R-01/058
full report EPA 600/R-99/023
EPA
NTIS
EPA
EPA
NTIS
EPA
NTIS
EPA
NTIS
EPA
EPA
EPA
Additional Information
Additional information on life cycle design publications and research can be found on our
website (http://css.snre.umich.edu) under the heading Research.
E.I
------- |