Advertisement

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2140–2172 | Cite as

Comparative life cycle assessment of metal arc welding technologies by using engineering design documentation

  • Claudio FaviEmail author
  • Federico Campi
  • Michele Germani
LCA FOR MANUFACTURING AND NANOTECHNOLOGY

Abstract

Purpose

The paper aims to analyze and compare the environmental performances of metal arc welding technologies: gas metal arc welding (GMAW), shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), submerged arc welding (SAW), and flux-cored arc welding (FCAW). Welding is considered one of the most energy-intensive processes in manufacturing. This study was performed in accordance with the international standard ISO 14040/14044 by using attributional life cycle assessment (aLCA).

Methods

The functional unit is defined as the “the development of 1 metre of welding seam (qualified by ASME section IX requirements) to join 25 millimetres thick of metal plates made in carbon steel material and considering a V-bevel configuration.” Different configurations of base/filler materials and standardized bevel geometries have been analyzed as welding scenarios. The inventory considers all inputs (e.g., electric energy and filler material) and outputs (e.g., fume emissions and slags) involved in each welding process. A framework for data collection starting from available project documentation is presented as an innovative solution for the inventory phase. The impact assessment includes the human health, resources (midpoints/endpoint), and ecosystems (endpoint) categories from the ReCiPe (H) and cumulative energy demand (CED) methods.

Results and discussion

This study reveals a notable dominance in terms of the environmental burdens of GTAW and SMAW processes, as they present higher impacts in most of the impact categories. SMAW is the most energy-consuming process, and this aspect is reflected in the environmental performance. Conversely, GMAW presents the least environmental load, accounting for less than one third compared with GTAW in terms of the CED indicator and performing very well in terms of the ReCiPe endpoint indicator. Via analysis of different scenarios, the main outcomes are the following: (i) the use of V bevels significantly increases the environmental load when the metal plate thickness increases and (ii) the use of specific materials such as Inconel alloy exacerbates the environmental concerns associated with welding processes.

Conclusions

The use of project documentation allows robust analysis of welding activity. Sensitivity analysis shows how the range of values for specific parameters (e.g., volts and amps) affects each technology in a different manner. Indeed, those ranges have a limited impact on the result accuracy (up to 20%) for more automatized welding processes (e.g., GMAW, SAW, and FCAW), in which only a small number of parameters are set by the operator, and the operator skills are less influential on the quality of the weld.

Keywords

Environmental impacts LCA LCI Metal arc welding Welding technologies 

Notes

References

  1. Alkahla I, Pervaiz S (2017) Sustainability assessment of shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) process. IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, p 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M, Lo Brano V (2005) Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal collector. Renew Energy 30(7):1031–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baitz M (2016) Attributional life cycle assessment. In: Curran M (ed) Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment. LCA compendium—the complete world of life cycle assessment. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0855-3_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borsato M (2014) Bridging the gap between product lifecycle management and sustainability in manufacturing through ontology building. Comput Ind 65(2):258–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas CA, Harrison GP, Chick JP (2008) Life cycle assessment of the Seagen marine current turbine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  6. Favi C, Campi F, Germani M, Manieri S (2018) Using design information to create a data framework and tool for life cycle analysis of complex maritime vessels. J Clean Prod 192:887–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frischknecht R, Wyss F, Knöpfel SB, Lützkendorf T, Balouktsi M (2015) Cumulative energy demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:957–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) 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 - VROM–Ruimte en Milieu, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. (Retrieved from http://www.lcia-recipe.net, last accessed September 2017)
  9. Goepp V, Zwolinski P, Caillaud E (2014) Design process and data models to support the design of sustainable remanufactured products. Comput Ind 65(3):480–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heile RF, Hill DC (1975) Particulate fume generation in arc welding processes. Welding Journal, American Welding Society. Fumes and gases in the welding environment. Deposition efficiency of different welding technologies (available at: http://www.esabna.com)
  11. Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2017) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. International Aluminium Institute (2009) Global aluminium recycling: a cornerstone of sustainable developmentGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC (2007) In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (2006a) 14040:2006 - Environmental management - LCA - Principles and FrameworkGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO (2006b) 14044:2006 -Environmental management - LCA - Requirements and GuidelinesGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenney CL, O’Brien A (2001a) Welding handbook volume 1, welding science and technology. American Welding SocietyGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenney CL, O’Brien A (2001b) Welding handbook, Vol. 1: welding science and technology. American Welding Society, Miami, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jungbluth N, Frischknecht R (2010) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods—chapter 2: cumulative energy demand, Ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss Centre for LCI, Dübendorf, CH. (Retrieved from http://www.ecoinvent.org, last accessed September 2017)
  19. Lasi H, Fettke P, Kemper HG, Feld T, Hoffmann M (2014) Industry 4.0. Business Inform Syst Eng 6:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Means P, Guggemos A (2015) Framework for life cycle assessment (LCA) based environmental decision making during the conceptual design phase for commercial buildings. Procedia Engineering 118:802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peng H, Li T, Dong M, Shi J, Zhang H (2016) Life cycle assessment of a large-scale centrifugal compressor: a case study in China. J Clean Prod 139:810–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruy WS, Kim HK, Cho YJ, Ko DE (2017) Implementation of welding material quantity evaluation system combined with ship design CAD system. Int J Naval Architecture Ocean Eng 9(2):219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sangwan KS, Herrmann C, Egede P, Bhakar V, Singer J (2016) Life cycle assessment of arc welding and gas welding processes. Procedia CIRP 48:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt Rivera XC, Orias NE, Azapagic A (2014) Life cycle environmental impacts of convenience food: Comparison of ready and home-made meals. J Clean Prod 73(15):294–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shrivastava A, Krones M, Pfefferkorn F (2015) Comparison of energy consumption and environmental impact of friction stir welding and gas metal arc welding for aluminum. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 9:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sproesser G, Chang YJ, Pittner A, Finkbeiner M, Rethmeier M (2015) Life cycle assessment of welding technologies for thick metal plate welds. J Clean Prod 108:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sproesser G, Pittner A, Rethmeier M (2016) Increasing performance and energy efficiency of gas metal arc welding by a high power tandem process. Procedia CIRP 40:642–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) International energy outlook (IEO)Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1994) Development of particulate and hazardous—emission factors for electric arc welding (AP-42, Section 12.19) revised final report, May 20, 1994 (AP-42, Section 12.19)Google Scholar
  30. Weman K (2012) Welding processes handbook. Woodhead PublishingGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang L, Huang H, Hu D, Li B, Zhang C (2016) Greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions analysis of manufacturing of the hydraulic press slider within forging machine in China. J Clean Prod 113:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zheng P, Wang H, Sang Z, Zhong RY, Liu Y, Liu C, Mubarok K, Yu S, Xu X (2018) Smart manufacturing systems for industry 4.0: conceptual framework, scenarios, and future perspectives. Front Mech Eng 13(2):137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zukauskaite A, Mickeviciene R, Karnauskaite D, Turkina L (2013) Environmental and humane health issue of welding in the shipyard. Proceedings of 17th international conference. Transport MeansGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering and ArchitectureUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical SciencesUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations