JOM

, Volume 52, Issue 8, pp 41–44

The life-cycle impacts of aluminum body-in-white automotive material

  • Sujit Das
Research Summary Contemporary Al Issues

Abstract

In this study, life-cycle comparisons of energy usage and CO2 emission of aluminum vs. conventional steel and the ultralight steel auto body were made for body-in-white applications at both the vehicle and fleet levels. The analysis considered three major stages of the life cycle: manufacturing, use, and recycling. The analysis also studied how life-cycle energy and emission benefits are affected by changes in input parameter values, such as manufacturing energy, vehicle-sales growth rate, secondary weight savings, fuel efficiency, and a lower aluminum replacement rate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.L. Sullivan and J. Hu, “Life Cycle Energy Analysis for Automobiles,” SAE 951829 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Saur et al., Foundations for Life Cycle Analysis of Automotive Structures—The Potential of Steel, Aluminum and Composites, SAE 951844 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1995).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Martchek, S. Pomper, and J. Green, “Life Cycle Inventory Report for the North American Aluminum Industry—with Emphasis on Casting and Rolling” (Paper presented at Int. Conf. Casting and Rolling Technol., Baltimore, May 1999).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Stodolsky et al., “Life-Cycle Energy Savings Potential from Aluminum-Intensive Vehicles,” SAE Paper no. 951837 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1995).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Clark, Fleet-Based LCA: Comparative CO 2 Emission Burden of Aluminum and Steel Fleets (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Review of the Research Program of the Partnership For A New Generation of Vehicles: Fifth Report (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Kobe, “Ford P2000,” Automotive Industries, 177 (April 1997), pp. 85–86.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Preliminary Report on the Consolidation of Life Cycle Inventory Data (London: International Primary Aluminum Institute, 1999).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.L. Sullivan et al., “Life Cycle Inventory of a Generic U.S. Family Sedan: Overview of Results USCAR AMP Project,” SAE 982160 (Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1998).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.T. Chubbs, personal communication with Sujit Das (1999).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S.C. Davis, Transportation Energy Databook: Edition 18, ORNL-6941 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1998).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.-P. Miaou, Factors Associated with Aggregated Car Scrappage Rate in the United States: 1966–1992 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1995).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 1999: With Projections to 2020, DOE/EIA-0383(99) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 1999); (also available at 〈website:www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo98/homepage.html〉.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© TMS 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujit Das
    • 1
  1. 1.the Energy DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations