Is Automotive Light Weighting with Plastics A No-Brainer?

Is Automotive Light Weighting with Plastics A No-Brainer?

Margaret Zahller, PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc. Keith Christman, American Chemistry CouncilChristoph Koffler, PhD PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc.

LCA XII Conference, Tacoma, WASeptember 25, 2012

• Comparative cradle-to-grave LCA

• Polymers used to reduce part weight and fuel use in automotive parts

• ISO 14040/44 compliant, critically reviewed

2

Project OverviewCase studies

Ford Taurus Front End Bolster

Chevrolet Trailblazer / GMC Envoy Running Board

2

PE Sustainability Services

Understand Strategize Improve Succeed!

1 2

Sustainability Improvement Journey

3

Sustainability Assessment Sustainability Planning& Management

Sustainability Performance& Improvement Success Goals

3

z

420.08.2012

Model Year 201052% PP

45% glass3% steel

9 lb

Functional unit

● Providing structural and component support of a vehicle front over a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles

● Passes the Ford latch pull test to support a load of 5,340N without separation.

Ford Taurus Front End Bolster Case Study

Model Year 200852% PP

48% steel 15.1 lb

4

z

5

20.08.2012

Functional unit

● Providing a stiffness satisfying GM specification within an area of 1.761 m by 0.1275 m over a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles

● Meets GM specification for vertical deflection

Model Year 20049% TPO top cover91% steel frame + mounting brackets

28.5 lb

Model Year 200760% PP,

40% glass13.9 lb

Chevrolet Trailblazer / GMC Envoy Running Board Case Study

5

• Included production of upstream materials and energy, product manufacturing, use, and end-of-life treatment

• Design data (BOM) collected from auto industry, including scrap rates

• ACC/USLCI polypropylene (2010)

• End-of-life assumptions• 98% of steel recovered for recycling• Plastics to landfill

• Avoided burden

6

Data Collection and Modeling

6

• Calculated fuel reduction due to light weighting1

• Baseline products: zero fuel reduction• Lightweight products: negative “fuel consumption”

• Based on US driving cycle

• Results assessed with and without adaptation to the drive train

• Fuel reduction two to three times higher with adaptation

7

1Koffler C, Rohde-Brandenburger K (2010): On the calculation of fuel savings through lightweight design in automotive life cycle assessments, Int J Life Cycle Assess (2010) 15:128-135

Fuel Consumption

Primary Energy Demand

Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential

8

Ford Taurus Bolster Results

2010 bolster compared to 2008 bolster

2008 bolster is the baseline, represented by the value zero

8

Primary Energy Demand

Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential

9

Trailblazer/Envoy Running Board Results

2007 plastic running board compared to 2004 running board

2004 running board is the baseline, represented by the value zero

9

Without Drive Train Adaptation

10

Fuel Reduction Potential – Monte Carlo Results

10

With drive train adaptation

11

Fuel Reduction Potential – Monte Carlo Results

11

• Even assuming no adaptation

• Lighter products outperform the baseline for global warming potential and primary energy demand

• Bolster also performs better than the baseline for acidification potential

• With Adaptation

• Lightweight parts perform even better across all impact categories

• Increasingly likely with CAFE standards

• Greater benefit if parts recovered at end of life

12

Conclusions

12

Thank You