Conference PaperPDF Available

Assessing the environmental and economic performance of alternative car chassis

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the life cycle environmental and economic performance of a car multimedia chassis containing metallic parts, and compare it with new, totally plastic, chassis designs. The Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing methodologies were applied. All systems boundaries consider material and parts production, and the use and End of Life (EoL) phases of the chassis. The results showed that the former system has a higher environmental impact, the material production being the main contributor followed by the use phase, and Fossil depletion the most burdensome impact category. All total plastic scenarios enable approximately 40% weight reduction, mitigating both the Global Warming Potential and the Cumulative Energy Demand environmental impacts until the end of the use phase. However, this result is inverted including the EoL phase, as recycling the metal is more favourable than incinerating the polymer and recovering energy. All TPC scenarios present a higher cost. Although their assembly and use phases costs are lower than the corresponding BSL ones, this does not mitigate the higher material and production costs. Again, at EoL, recycling the metal is more cost favourable. The present work evidences that to make sustainable decisions environmental and economic considerations should be concurrently contemplated in product development.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the 33rd Polymer Processing Society Annual Meeting 2017 (PPS-33), Cancun, Mexico,
10 - 14 December 2017. ISBN: 978-1-5108-6330-9, Curran Associates, Inc.
Red Hook, NY 12571 USA,
Volume 1, p. 302-306 (2018)
Assessing the Environmental and Economic Performance of Alternative Car
Chassis
Carla L. Simões
b
, Carlos J. Ribeiro
b
, Pedro Bernardo
c
, António J. Pontes
a,b
, C.A.
Bernardo
a,b,*
a
Institute for Polymers and Composites - IPC/I3N, Minho University, Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
b
Innovation in Polymer Engineering - PIEP, Minho University, Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
c
Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A., Rua Max Grundig, 4705-820 Braga, Portugal
* Corresponding author: cbernardo@dep.uminho.pt
Abstract. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the life cycle environmental and economic
performance of a car multimedia chassis containing metallic parts, and compare it with new, totally plastic,
chassis designs. The Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing methodologies were applied. All systems
boundaries consider material and parts production, and the use and End of Life (EoL) phases of the chassis.
The results showed that the former system has a higher environmental impact, the material production being
the main contributor followed by the use phase, and Fossil depletion the most burdensome impact category.
All total plastic scenarios enable approximately 40% weight reduction, mitigating both the Global Warming
Potential and the Cumulative Energy Demand environmental impacts until the end of the use phase. However,
this result is inverted including the EoL phase, as recycling the metal is more favourable than incinerating the
polymer and recovering energy. All TPC scenarios present a higher cost. Although their assembly and use
phases costs are lower than the corresponding BSL ones, this does not mitigate the higher material and
production costs. Again, at EoL, recycling the metal is more cost favourable. The present work evidences that
to make sustainable decisions environmental and economic considerations should be concurrently
contemplated in product development.
Keywords: LCA; economic analysis; plastic car chassis; sustainability; automotive parts; design for environment
PACS: 81; 88
INTRODUCTION
Together with safety and performance, environmental impact reduction and cost containment
throughout the complete life cycle (LC) of a vehicle are the major issues for today's automotive
industry. Consequently, decisions on product development must involve technological
requirements as well as economic and environmental considerations [1]–[4]. Such considerations
should be assisted by adequate LC thinking-based tools, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
[5], [6] and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) [7], [8].
In this context, the main objective of this study, continuing a research programme focussed on
the same subject, is to evaluate the LC environmental and economic performance of a car
multimedia chassis containing metallic parts (thereafter called “BSL”), and compare it with new,
totally plastic, chassis designs (thereafter called “TPC”).
The present work focuses on how Life Cycle Thinking, LCA, and economic assessment
methodologies can be used to evaluate environmental and economic impacts of alternative
production systems.
METHODOLOGY
The LCA study was done according to the ISO 14040 series procedures [5], [6] and the LCC
study according to the Ciroth et al. [7] and Swarr et al. guidelines [8]. The estimation of the
polymer composite components production cost was done via a Process Based Cost Model
(PBCM) [9], [10].
LCA and LCC results
The target product of this study is a car multimedia chassis whose function is to protect the
electrical/electronic components that compose the car multimedia solution. Its main objective is
to evaluate the LC environmental and economic performance of the selected car chassis that will
constitute the baseline platform product, and compare it with a new car multimedia chassis design
(total plastic chassis). The functional unit is a car multimedia chassis unit, which meets the
mechanical, thermal and electrical requirements, as defined by the client, and has a service life of
200,000 km (maximum distance driven in the expected use life of a vehicle [11], [12]). All
solutions under study have the essential function of mechanically protecting the multimedia
contents, while guaranteeing adequate thermal and electromagnetic shielding. All systems
boundaries consider material and parts production, and the use and end of life (EoL) phases of the
chassis.
The selected LC impact assessment (LCIA) method was the ReCipe Endpoint (H/A) [13]. The
Energy consumption, according to the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) method [14], and the
Global Warming Potential (GWP) impact categories [14] were analysed. The goal and scope
steps of the LCC study were consistent with those of the LCA. Therefore, the functional unit,
system boundary and other fundamental assumptions were the same.
The new car multimedia fully polymer chassis design (TPC) is still in development by the
project team (Bosch, UM, PIEP) and, thus, not yet in real production. Therefore, its LC
characterization is not a final version, but rather a first approach that will be updated in the future.
Hence, the definition of the LC characterization of the TPC parts and product require the
formulation of some assumptions. In this study the first version, subsequently called TPC01, will
be studied. Additionally, four scenarios were developed with four possible alternative materials.
All the systems have been modelled by means of the commercial ecoinvent database [15] and,
whenever possible, using field data from the companies involved in the study, which were
ultimately summarized in the LC inventory that was performed in SimaPro 8.04 [16]. Some data
did not exist in the ecoinvent database and, hence, their inventory was collected from other
sources. The carbon fibres inventory data were collected from Schmidt and Watson [17], and the
glass fibres and waste treatment by incineration with energy recovery inventory data from the
European LC Database (ELCD) [18]. The car multimedia chassis EoL scenarios were modelled
under the following assumptions: (i) incineration, considering environmental credits due to
energy recovery; and (ii) recycling, considering that production of primary metal was avoided.
An environmental LCC was selected in the present work, which considers all direct costs of
the different actors intervening in the product LC. The system was modelled using market prices.
In the LCC inventory the data collected were adjusted, where appropriate, to Euros 2016.
Figure 1 a) compares the BSL and the 4 TPC01 possible material scenarios, on a functional
unit basis. The BSL system has a higher impact in almost all environmental impact categories,
except Climate change human health, Climate change ecosystems and Terrestrial ecotoxicity.
The TPC01A system depicts the worse performance in these impact categories, in the case of the
latter, together with TPC01C system. Considering the 4 TPC01 possible material scenarios, the
TPC01D system shows the best environmental performances in all impact categories. These
results are a consequence of the different environmental impacts of the various composites
reinforcements. The carbon fibre has the highest environmental impact of all the reinforcement
materials, followed by the stainless steel and the glass fibres. Graphite is the reinforcement that
shows the smallest environmental impact.
The LCIA normalization results of the 5 systems are shown in Figure 1b), on a functional unit
basis. The Fossil depletion, Climate change human health and Climate change ecosystems impact
categories are the most significant environmental burdens of all systems. Fossil depletion is more
significant for the BSL system, the two other ecosystems are more significant for the TPC01A
and TPC01C systems, respectively.
a)
b)
0.
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
%
BSL TPC01A TPC01B TPC01C TPC01D
0.
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
BSL TPC01A TPC01B TPC01C TPC01D
FIGURE 1. LCIA a) characterization [in %] and b) normalization results of the BSL versus TPC01 possible
material scenarios, on a functional unit basis [dimensionless: Environmental impact /European person equivalent
impact].
The single score results obtained (expressed in Eco-Indicator points (Pt)), on a functional unit
basis, were 1.19 Pt, 1.13 Pt, 1.02 Pt, 1.12 Pt and 1.01 Pt, for the BSL, TPC01A, TPC01B,
TPC01C and TPC01D, respectively. They are relatively close, in any case they show that, all
caveats considered, the TPC01B/TPC01D systems are environmentally preferable (in circa of
15%).
Figure 2a) shows the systems GWP characterization results, expressed as the differences
between the BSL and the four TPC01 possible material scenarios, throughout their LC. These
differences are presented (in the ordinate axis) as a function of the several LC phases (in the
abscissa axis), each phase being represented by a line segment. All TPC01 possible material
scenarios mitigate the GWP environmental impacts until the use phase, since the results have a
negative value until that phase. The new concept designs (TPC01) allow achieving approximately
40% weight reduction, therefore enabling these results. These results are inverted, however, when
the EoL phase is included. At EoL, recycling the metal (steel and aluminium) is more favourable
regarding GWP than incinerating with energy recovery the composite, since an increase of this
environmental impact category is observed (to overall positive values).
Figure 2 b) shows the systems CED characterization results, expressed as the differences
between the BSL and the four TPC01 possible material scenarios, throughout their LC. Again all
TPC01 possible material scenarios mitigate CED until the use phase, since the results have a
negative value until that phase. However, these results are, once more, inverted when the EoL
phase is included. The new concept designs (TPC01) allow achieving approximately 40% weight
reduction, therefore enabling these results. It should be noted that the CED of the material
production in the new designs TPC01A/TPC01C was higher than in the BSL. This was due to
the fact that polymer matrix composites are produced through a more energy intensive (by unit
weight) process than steel/aluminium, and the weight reduction doesn't mitigate this energy
increase. At the EoL phase it was again observed that recycling the metal (steel and aluminium)
is more favourable regarding CED than incinerating the composite and recovering energy, since
a significant increase of this environmental impact category is observed.
a)
b)
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Material Production Assembly Use EoL
∆ GWP (CO2 eq. kg/unit)
Life cycle phases
TPC01A TPC01B TPC01C TPC01D
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Material Production Assembly Use EoL
∆ CED (MJ/unit)
Life cycle phases
TPC01A TPC01B TPC01C TPC01D
FIGURE 2. Characterization a) GWP (CO2 eq. kg/unit) and b) CED (MJ/unit) results for the difference between
the BSL and the TPC01 possible material scenarios (two series are hidden by the data of the others).
Figure 3 shows the systems cost results, expressed as the differences between the BSL and the
TPC01 possible material scenarios, throughout their LC. Globally, the TPC01 scenarios do not
mitigate the cost impact, since their cumulative differences along the LC have a final positive
value. Although the assembly and use phases costs are lower than in the BSL, this does not
mitigate the higher material and production costs.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
∆ Cost (€/unit)
Life cycle phases
TPC01A TPC01B TPC01C TPC01D
FIGURE 3. Cost results (€/unit) for the difference between the BSL and the TPC01 possible material scenarios.
In conclusion, the new concept designs allow achieving approximately 40% weight reduction,
but not cost reduction, since the polymeric composite materials have a very high price. At EoL it
is again observed that recycling the metal (steel and aluminium) is more favourable regarding
cost than incinerating the polymer composite and recovering energy.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present work it was concluded that the metallic chassis has the highest environmental
impact of all the systems considered, the material production being the main contributor,
followed by the use phase. The TPC01B/TPC01D system shows the best environmental
performance (in circa of 15%), being, in this case, the use phase the main contributor, followed
by the material production. The Fossil depletion, Climate change human health and Climate
change ecosystems impact categories are the most significant environmental burdens in all
systems.
All TPC01 possible material scenarios, which enable approximately 40% weight reduction,
mitigate the GWP and CED environmental impacts until the use phase. However, these results
are inverted when the EoL phase is included in the assessment. It should be noted that the CED
of the material production in the new designs was higher than in the case of BSL. This is due to
the fact that polymer matrix composites are produced through a more energy intensive (by unit
weight) process than steel/aluminium, and the weight reduction doesn't mitigate this energy
increase. At EoL, it was observed that recycling the metal (steel and aluminium) is more
favourable regarding GWP and CED than incinerating the polymer composite and recovering
energy.
All TPC01 possible material scenarios present a higher assembly cost. None of these scenarios
mitigate the cost impacts, since the results have a positive value. It was observed that the TPC01
assembly and use phases costs are lower than the corresponding ones of the BSL. However, this
does not mitigate the higher material and production costs. The new concept designs allow
achieving approximately 40% weight reduction, which does not lead to a cost reduction, since the
polymeric composite materials have a very high price. Again, at EoL it was observed that
recycling the metal (steel and aluminium) is more favourable regarding cost than incinerating the
polymer composite and recovering energy
.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The present work was partially financed by the Portuguese Incentive System for Research and
Technological Development, as co-promotion Project 36265/2013 (Project HMIExcel – 2013-
2015). The authors thank the support of the Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A. company
throughout the inventory phase of the study. Two of the authors (CAB, AJP) acknowledge the
funding received from FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, through
project UID/CTM/ 50025/2013 and from the COMPETE 2020 Programme under project POCI-
01-0145-FEDER-00768.
REFERENCES
1. N. S. Ermolaeva, M. B. G. Castro, and P. V. Kandachar, “Materials selection for an automotive structure by
integrating structural optimization with environmental impact assessment,” Mater. Des. 25(8), 689–698 (2004).
2. P. Peças, I. Ribeiro, A. Silva, and E. Henriques, “Comprehensive approach for informed life cycle-based materials
selection,” Mater. Des. 43, 220–232 (2013).
3. I. Ribeiro, P. Peças, A. Silva, and E. Henriques, “Life cycle engineering methodology applied to material
selection, a fender case study,” J. Clean. Prod. 16(17), 1887–1899 (2008).
4. C. A. Ungureanu, S. Das, and I. S. Jawahir, “Subodh K. Das and Weimin Yi,n, eds., Life-cycle cost analysis:
aluminium versus steel in passenger cars,” in Aluminium alloys for transportation, packaging, aerospace, and
other applications, edited by b
Subodh K. Das, Weimin Yin, The minerals, Metals & Materials Society,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2007.
5. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “ISO 14040: 2006 - Environmental management – Life
cycle assessment Principles and framework,” in ISO 14000 International Standards Compendium, Genève,
Switzerland, 2006.
6. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “ISO 14044: 2006 - Environmental management – Life
cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines,” in ISO 14000 International Standards Compendium, Genève,
Switzerland, 2006.
7. A. Ciroth, G. Huppes, W. Klöpffer, I. Rüdenauer, B. Steen, and T. Swarr, Environmental life cycle costing, 1st ed.
Pensacola, FL: CRC Press, Publishing House Taylor and Francis, SETAC Press, 2008.
8. T. Swarr et al., Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice, 1st ed. New York, NY: Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2011.
[9. R. Kirchain, “Cost modeling of materials and manufacturing processes,” in Encyclopedia of Materials: Science
and Technology, edited by K. H. Jurgen Buschow, Robert Cahn, Merton Flemings, Bernhard Ilschner, edward
Kramer, Subhash Mahajan and Patrick Veyssiere, vol. 2, Elsevier B.V., 2001, pp. 1718–1727.
10. C. L. Simões, R. Figueirêdo de Sá, C. J. Ribeiro, P. Bernardo, A. J. Pontes, and C. A. Bernardo, “Environmental
and economic performance of a car component: assessing new materials, processes and designs,” J. Clean. Prod.
118, 105–117 (2016).
11. C. Koffler, “Life cycle assessment of automotive lightweighting through polymers under US boundary
conditions,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19(3), 538–545 (2014).
12. R. A. Witik, J. Payet, V. Michaud, C. Ludwig, and J.-A. E. Månson, “Assessing the life cycle costs and
environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications,” Compos. Part Appl. Sci. Manuf.,
42(11) 1694–1709 (2011).
13. M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. D. Schryver, J. Struijs, and R. van Zelm, ReCipe 2008: A life cycle
impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint
level - Report I Characterisation, First edition. Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment, 2009.
14. M. Goedkoop, M. Oele, and S. Effting, SimaPro Database Manual: Methods library. The Netherlands: PRé
consultants B. V., 2004.
15. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Ecoinvent database version 3.1. Zürich, Switzerland, 2013.
16. SimaPro 8.04. The Netherlands: PRé consultants B. V., 2014.
17. J. H. Schmidt and J. Watson, “Eco Island Ferry: Comparative LCA of island ferry with carbon fibre composite
based and steel based structures,” 2.0 LCA consultants, 2014.
[18. European Commission - DG Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability, ELCD v2.0
database. Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
It is well recognized that manipulating design specifications or process operating conditions has consequence not only on product performance, but also on production costs. Furthermore, these costs must be considered when evaluating any change to product or process, because, ultimately, they establish the profit margin which a firm can realize. It is no secret that a firm remains a going concern only if it can produce at a cost below the market's price. Nevertheless, the economic tools made available to technical decisionmakers are generally simpler than their physical model analogs. Interestingly, the same engineering approaches at work within physical models can be harnessed to shed light on techno-economic questions. This article describes methods, referred to collectively as process based cost modeling, which attempt to do that. Just as the former set of models has been developed to avoid undue experimentation, cost models, have been developed to avoid expensive strategic errors in product development and deployment.
Article
Full-text available
1 IntroductionSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry(SETAC) has published a code of practice for environmentallife-cycle costing (LCC), which provides a framework forevaluating decisions with consistent, but flexible systemsboundaries as a component of product sustainabilityassessments (Swarr et al. 2011). The code of practicebuilds on an earlier monograph that summarized 3 years ofeffort by the SETAC-Europe Working Group on Life-Cycle Costing (Hunkeler et al.2008).Thecodeofpracticeis grounded in a conceptual framework for life-cyclesustainability assessment (LCSA) of products that usesdistinct analyses for each of the three pillars of sustainability,environment, economy, and social equity.LCSA ¼ LCAþ LCCþ SLCA ð1ÞLife-cycle assessment (LCA) is the only pillar that has beenstandardized to date (ISO 2006a, b). UNEP (2009)haspublished guidelines for social LCAs and is currentlydeveloping methodological sheets for impact subcategories.The code of practice reviews historical development of life-cycle methods, outlines the technical requirements and guide-lines for LCC, and illustrates various methodological choiceswith a detailed case study. The objective of the code of practiceis to provide readers with a solid understanding of how to applyLCC in parallel with LCA to stimulate additional case studiesand peer-reviewed research to further refine the methodology.The ultimate goal is to build consensus for an internationalstandard that parallels the ISO 14040 standard for LCA.2 DiscussionLCC predates LCA, and distinct and different conceptualfoundations and methodological approaches can betraced to its developmental roots in systems engineering(Blanchard 1978). There has been limited integration ofthese methods, although the value of LCC for sustainabilityassessmentshasbeenrecognized(Norris2001;Hunkelerand
Article
The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the life cycle environmental and economic performance of three different car multimedia solution chassis (CMSC), comparing alternative designs (polymer solution and metal solution without screws). A Life Cycle Assessment/Life Cycle Costing (LCA/LCC) integrated analysis was used to assess and pinpoint their relative advantages (win-win, lose-lose or trade-off environmental and economic situations), and, therefore, help to identify hotspots and guide the development of new design strategies. The new designs, with lower weight and fewer parts, allow environmental and economic advantages. Other advantages are the assembly line simplification and the reduction of metal husks, minimizing the risk of malfunction of electric components, due to the decreased number of parts and screws. The present work illustrates that environmental and economical, and not only technological, perspectives should be considered in sustainable product development. The selected case studies demonstrate that it is possible to minimize the environmental impacts and cost of a product through adequate materials selection and design considerations at the development stage.
Article
In light of escalating fuel prices and the ongoing climate change discussion, sustainability considerations are currently taking a more prominent role in material selection decisions for automotive applications. This paper presents a new methodology for total life-cycle cost analysis and employs a case study involving the use of aluminum in automotive applications. This study is aimed at developing a new sustainability model to quantify the total cost encountered over the entire life-cycle of a vehicle considering all four life-cycle stages: (1) pre-manufacturing, (2) manufacturing, (3) use and (4) post-use. Also, the paper presents a quantitative evaluation of the environmental impact of using aluminum material in a vehicle. The paper compares the use of aluminum with the traditional use of steel alloys in a given automotive application by providing details of economic and environmental performance of the vehicle over the total life-cycle.
Article
Purpose In the transportation sector, reducing vehicle weight is a cornerstone strategy to improve the fuel economy and energy efficiency of road vehicles. This study investigated the environmental implications of lightweighting two automotive parts (Ford Taurus front end bolster, Chevrolet Trailblazer/GMC Envoy assist step) using glass-fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) instead of steel alloys. Methods The cradle-to-grave life cycle assessments (LCAs) for these studies consider a total service life of 150,000 miles for two applications: a 46 % lighter GFRP bolster on the 2010 Ford Taurus that replaced the 2008 steel and GFRP bolster, and a 51 % lighter GFRP running board for the 2007 Chevrolet Trailblazer/GMC Envoy that replaced the previous steel running board including its polymer fasteners. The life cycle stages in these critically reviewed and ISO-compliant LCA studies include the production of upstream materials and energy, product manufacturing, use, and the end-of-life treatment for all materials throughout the life cycle. Results and discussion The results show that the lighter GFRP products performed better than the steel products for global warming potential and primary energy demand for both case studies. In addition, the GFRP bolster performed better for acidification potential. The savings of fuel combustion and production during the use stage of a vehicle far outweigh the environmental impacts of manufacturing or end-of-life. An even greater benefit would be possible if the total weight reduction in the vehicle would be high enough to allow for the reduction of engine displacement or an elongation of gear ratio while maintaining constant vehicle dynamics. These so-called secondary measures allow the fuel savings per unit of mass to be more than doubled and are able to offset the slightly higher acidification potential of the GFRP running board which occurs when only the mass-induced fuel savings are considered. Conclusions The lightweight GFRP components are shown to outperform their steel counterparts over the full life cycle mainly due to the reduced fuel consumption of the vehicle in the use phase. To harvest the benefits of light weighting to their full extent, it is recommended that the sum of all mass reductions in the design process be monitored and, whenever feasible, invested into fuel economy by adapting the drive train while maintaining constant vehicle performance rather than leveraging the weight reduction to improve vehicle dynamics.
Article
Life cycle assessment (LCA) and manufacturing focused life cycle costing are used to evaluate the potential advantages of composites in automotive applications. The life cycle costs and environmental performance of several suitable lightweight polymer composites are quantified and compared against magnesium and steel for a representative component. The results indicate that weight reduction will not always lead to improved environmental performance. Materials offering high weight savings such as carbon fibres and magnesium have been shown to give limited or negative environmental benefits over their life cycles due to increased environmental burdens associated with their production. Lower performance materials such as sheet moulding compounds were found to perform better from a life cycle perspective despite not being recycled. Lighter weight vehicle components were found to be always more costly; however their use did lead to reduced costs for the consumer through lower fuel consumption.
Article
The choice of a particular material, for a certain product, to perform a certain function, is a task that is all too often jumped over, either because the choice looks obvious, or because habits of convergent thinking lead the engineering designer to persist in the most usual material for the application. Done in the early stages of product development, the choice of materials involves complex decision-making processes, balancing intricate functional, technological and economic criteria reflecting the function of the part/product, the manufacturing process and the production volumes and final cost. Development teams rely on some basic methods to decide on materials using engineering properties as benchmarks, but such methods seldom address the whole problem of material-function-shape-process-cost-environmental impacts. This paper starts with an overview of the existing methods for selecting materials and then moves on to propose a new selection procedure (Materials Selection Engine) that overcomes some of the limitations found in the former methods. It uses the materials engineering properties to accommodate their technical fitness, but also considers life cycle cost items and environmental impacts to create a decision space in which the best materials for the application are mapped and classified. According to the importance the design team wants to give to economics and environment issues and to upstream and downstream life phases more informed decisions can then be made. A case study is presented aiming at a better understanding of the procedure proposed.
Article
Sustainable product development of an automotive structure requires a balanced approach towards technological, economical and ecological aspects. Current paper shows the application of a structural optimization system to the optimal choice of foams as a core material for sandwiches with aluminum alloy faces, for the use as floor panels in the bottom structure of a concept car. The minimization problem for the weight of the entire bottom structure under static load conditions, including stiffness, strength and buckling constraints, is formulated and solved for each material application. In addition to optimal (minimized) mass and materials' price used for selection of foams, the assessment of an environmental impact of materials-candidates during the entire life cycle of the structure is considered.