Life Cycle Assessment of Composites A Sustainability Story Use of Composites in Building Applications Composites Innovation Centre Winnipeg, MB Canada March 27, 2012 Michael D. Lepech Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University
Outline Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment Practices Case Studies in Sustainable Composite Building Applications Value Proposition of LCA Concluding Thoughts
Life Cycle Assessment Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle ISO 14040 LCA standards are voluntary LCA Standards: 14040 Principles and Framework 14044 Requirements and Guidelines
Life Cycle Assessment Primary Materials (e.g., ores, biotic resources) Recycled Materials (open loop recycling) Primary Energy (e.g., coal) Labor Raw Material Acquisition recycling T Material Processing Retirement & Recovery remanufacture T T T Manufacture & Assembly Use T T reuse Air pollutants (e.g., Hg) Water pollutants (e.g., BOD) Solid waste (e.g., MSW) Products (e.g., goods, services) Capital Disposal Service Co products (e.g., recyclables, energy) Adapted from Center for Sustainable Systems (2003)
LCA Components
Goal and Scope Goal of the study State the intended application Identify the intended audience Scope of the study Function and functional unit System boundaries Data requirements/assumptions/limitations Critical review and report format
Case Study Application Architectural Fence (10 High, 9.2 Long) Pultruded FRP vs. Mild Steel
Process Flow Diagrams STRONGRAIL Fence Mild Steel Fence
LCA Components
Life Cycle Inventory The identification and quantification of relevant inputs and outputs for a given system throughout its life cycle Accounting for all system inputs and outputs
US Electricity Life Cycle Inventory Kim. S. and Dale, B. (2005)
US Electricity Life Cycle Inventory Kim. S. and Dale, B. (2005)
US Electricity Life Cycle Inventory Kim. S. and Dale, B. (2005)
APME LCI Database http://lca.plasticseurope.org/index.htm
APME LCI Database http://lca.plasticseurope.org/index.htm
LCA Components
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Evaluation of the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts of a product system using inventory analysis results
Life Cycle Impact Categories Input related categories abiotic resource extraction biotic resource extraction land use Output related categories global change (climate, ecosystem, etc.) stratospheric ozone depletion human toxicity ecotoxicity photo oxidant formation acidification nutrification
Impact Comparison Impact (Pt) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 STRONGRAIL Mild Steel Winter Smog Summer Smog Pesticides Carcinogens Heavy Metals Eutrophication Acidification Ozone Layer GHG
Life Cycle Interpretation Draw conclusions and recommendations from inventory analysis and/or impact assessment identify major burdens and impacts select among alternative designs or materials
Interpretation: Strategies for Improvement Reduce transportation from suppliers Reduce paint overspray Reduce resin use (significant contribution to environmental impact, particularly from styrene) Substitute bio based resins Introduce alternative to styrene Implement pultruded FRP remanufacturing
Outline Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment Practices Case Studies in Sustainable Composite Building Applications Value Proposition of LCA Concluding Thoughts
Case Study 1: Panelite Curtain Wall Honeycomb Polymer Cone of Vision The Effect Lepech et al, 2010
Application: 50 Story LA Office Building Life Cycle Assessment Materials Extraction/Production Transport Use End of Life Functional Unit 30 year life of a building in LA 200 x 200 x 600 foot 50 stories Eleven Times Square-New York (FX Fowle) Lepech et al, 2010
Inventory Analysis: Materials and Transport Material Production Emissions Emission Quantity Unit CO2 674375 lb Nox 1306 lb Sox 2153 lb PM10 568 lb PM>10 44 lb Methane 4962 lb Chloride 29740 lb Radon 222 3.16E+10 bq Krypton-85 2.18E+10 bq Energy Use 6.45E+06 MJ Honeycomb Processing Emissions Substance Total Extruder Emissions(lb) Total Furnace Emissions (lb) Total Emissions (lb) Carbon dioxide 68622 8717 77339 Carbon monoxide 13 31 44 Methane 147 23 170 Nitrogen oxides 88 123 211 Particulates, < 10 um (mobile) 0 0 0 Particulates, < 10 um (stationary) 9 1 10 Particulates, > 10 um (process) 32 0 32 Sulfur oxides 309 122 431 Lepech et al, 2010
Dynamic Solar Heat Gain Model Solar Heat Gain Coefficient 0.6 0.3 y = 7E 05x 2 0.0013x + 0.6247 R² = 0.9821 0 0 20 40 60 80 Sun Angle (Degrees) Lepech et al, 2010
Dynamic Solar Heat Gain Model SHGC November 1, 2010 based on sun angle Solar Heat Gain SHGC Coefficient 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Time (hour) Lepech et al, 2010
Building Energy Models Millions of kwh 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Total Electrical Use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.4 Month 1.2 Billions of BTU 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Standard Curtain Wall Panelite Curtain Wall Fritted Windows Total Gas Use Standard Curtain Wall Panelite Curtain Wall Fritted Windows 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Lepech et al, 2010
Impact Comparison 30 year emissions for a building in LA Standard Panelite Difference Savings) Energy (MJ) 7.01E+09 6.56E+09 4.42E+08 PM10 (lb) 1.43E+07 1.34E+07 9.01E+05 Carbon Dioxide (lb) 3.50E+09 3.28E+09 2.22E+08 Carbon Monoxide (lb) 1.40E+06 1.31E+06 8.99E+04 Sulfur Oxides (lb) 2.29E+07 2.15E+07 1.46E+06 Nitrogen Oxides (lb) 1.11E+07 1.04E+07 7.02E+05 Methane (lb) 8.67E+06 8.12E+06 5.49E+05 HCl (lb) 544777 510441 34336 HF (lb) 67729 63460 4269 Lead (lb) 1472 1380 93 Lepech et al, 2010
Panelite Panels Limit Transport Does not matter what material you use, use phase is most important (lower SHGC) Use Panelite in equatorial temperate climates Use Panelite on sun facing windows Panelite is currently wrestling market share from conventional curtain wall contractors as part of LEED requirements Lepech et al, 2010
Case Study 2: Concert Wall Panels EMPAC Bing Concert Hall Composites Innovation Centre March 23, 2012
Bing and EMPAC Panels 40 ft 40 ft EMPAC 1 ft Bing 8 ft
Panel Composition Side View Bing EMPAC Concrete- 1 FRP- 3/16 BASWAphon- 0.1 Steel Truss Concrete- 4 Steel Angle Hooks
Functional Unit 1 square foot of surface area Bing: 11,000 ft 2 for 844 seat hall EMPAC: 6,000 ft 2 for 400 seat hall Assumption Equal sound quality and aesthetics
Environmental Comparison Weighted Scores Ecoindicator 99 Points Bing Panel EMPAC Panel
Bing Panel EI99 Point Sources Plywood Steel Concrete Bing Panel Plywo Plywood od Resin Steel Concr Concrete Transp ort EMPAC Panel
Bing Concert Hall Panels Study Conclusions Bing panel system is more energy intensive Bing panel system creates more environmental impacts Composite panels create far fewer impacts compared to concrete panels Steel space truss is source of most impacts Recommendations Alternative resin (Bio based?) Reduce material in plywood forms Modified support system
Sustainable Urban Residences Project Description: Evaluate and compare the life cycle and embodied energy from production through installation - of a prototypical 500 sf Backyard Home with an equivalent sized structure built with conventional means. Project Sponsor: Daly Genik Architects (Los Angeles)
Building Facade Project Description: Examining Concrete and FRP façade solutions for the Haydar Aliyev Cultural Center in Baku, Azerbaijan Project Sponsor: Kreysler & Associates
Translucent Wall Systems Project Description: Comparing the life cycle impacts of two interior wall panel materials Project Sponsor: Panelite, Inc.
Other Recently Completed FRP LCAs Composite Aquarium Tank Composite Building Façade (2) Composite Truck Trailers Composite Telephone Poles Composite Electrical Insulators Composite Rebar Parking Deck Composite Rebar Bridge Deck Composite Material Bridge Deck Composite Acoustic Panels Architectural Handrails
Outline Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment Practices Case Studies in Sustainable Composite Building Applications Value Proposition of LCA and Concluding Thoughts
Green Competitive Environment Firms are using green as a competitive advantage in many different ways Value in Regulatory Compliance Value in Operational Efficiency Value in Risk Management Value in Capital Investment Value in Market Growth Value in Strategic Direction Competitors in the green sector are competing in a number of innovative ways
Conclusions Large business opportunities have been realized using quantitative sustainability assessment (i.e. LCA) to measure the life cycle impacts of products and systems Composites have a strong sustainability story in the building sector Need to measure the impact through rigorous life cycle assessment Need to leverage the data in product design, business operations, and marketing Participate! Industry data collection of life cycle inventories (i.e. AMCA Green Composites Committee) Completion of an LCA Sharing of your results with the broader community
Acknowledgements & Thanks Graduate Students Subhan Ali John Basbagill Kelcie Abraham CEE 226 2009 Students CEE 226 2010 Students CEE 226 2011 Students US National Science Foundation CMMI 0956523
Questions? Michael Lepech mlepech@stanford.edu 650.724.9459