1 Applied Ecodesign: Material Application Prof. Dr. Ir. Ab Stevels, M.A.h.c. Chair of Applied EcoDesign Design for Sustainability Dept. Design Engineering, School of Industrial Design Delft University of Technology

2 Outline Why environmentally improve materials applications? Strategies to improve material application Material reduction and substitution Benchmarking material applications Material reduction in its context Conclusions

3 Energy in the use phase deserves much more attention % papers in applied EcoDesignapprox 10 approx 30 approx 1 approx 50 Figure 1. Average environmental load of an electronic product over its life cycle. (11% to tools and methods)

4 EcoDesign strategies for materials Usual strategy is dematerialization (less materials), however energy issues can lead to the opposite. Examples: fluorescent lamps versus incandescent lamps. human powered radio has higher weight compared to traditional radio. Usual strategy is reducing (life cycle) environmental load. However increasing functionality might recommend the opposite. Example: - 32 inch, 100 Hz TV and 14 inch 40 Hz TV have similar Ecovalue load cost of ownership

5 Why environmentally improve material application? Drivers Customer emotions about materials better recyclability Legislation/regulation foster sustainability material preferences NGO’s/ consumer organizations material perceptions (“natural” versus “chemical”) resources

6 Why environmentally improve material application? Enablers Science and technology better properties (lighter, stronger, smarter) processing technology (moulding, soldering) Suppliers reduction of material amounts Money, costs reduction of amounts is less costs use of recycled material is cheaper

7 Materials Reduction Analyse the function of the material applied physical properties ‘history’ Check the specification overspecification company tradition benchmark competition Check new technologies Example: the monitor case

8 The Monitor Case Electromagnetic shield was functional 10 years ago used as shield other functions added: mechanical support fragility Result: distorted functionality IC became more powerful, less power needed heavy shield not needed anymore competition showed how to do it Major redesign necessary (distorted functionality)

9 Green Flagship Monitor

10 Results of environmental benchmark – product weight (Philips, 2001) Product categoryWeight of competitors products TV +3% up to +20% Audio systems -18% up to +47% Portable audio -11% up to +25% CRT monitor+9% up to +20% LCD monitor-16% up to -4% DVD-16% up to +8% VCR-17% up to +10% (reference Philips products in category = 100%)

11 Results of environmental benchmark – product weight Product categoryplastic weight plastic + metal weight Audio Cat.1-7% up to +3% Cat.2-12% up to +5% Cat.3-8% up to +10% Cat.4-20% up to -3% DVD+2% up to +38% VCR-42% up to -18% (reference Philips products in category = 100%)

12 Material substitution, I Eco-indicator 95 (millipoints per kg) Metals Virgin100% recycled Iron 12- Steel 143 Stainless steel 98- Aluminium 531 Copper 7628 Nickel 380- Lead Zinc640- Glass40.5

13 Material substitution, II Eco-indicator 95 (millipoints per kg) plasticsVirgin 100% recycled HDPE, PP4 LDPE, PC, PET, PVC5 PVC in cables15 (HI) PS4all ABS5 PA13 PE4 PUR6 Cast epoxy 11

14 Material substitution, III Eco-indicator 95 (millipoints per kg) precious metalsVirgin Silver1500 Palladium Platinum Gold Rhodium

15 Material processing Eco-indicator 95 (millipoints per kg) Pressing/deep drawing of steel 1.0 Aluminium extrusion2.6 Cold rolling Injection moulding of plastics 1-2 Sawing/ cutting steel (m 2 )2-4 Sawing/ cutting aluminium (m 2 ) 0.5-1

16 Material surface treatment Eco-indicator 95 (millipoints per m2) Zinc plating thermal 17 electrolytic 5 Chrome plating 61 Lacquer on plastic11 Lacquer on steel 6 Nickel plating 4-14

17 Method to improve material application Do material functionality analysis, benchmark competition type, surface treatments amount compatibility (recycling) Rate a scale of environmental effects and cost common sense eco-indicator Formulate green options improvements functionality changes Check Life Cycle Perspective Set priority

18 Physical & Economic Functionality FunctionalityPerceived value/cost of materials AluminiumWoodPVC Physical Functionality Ability to carry heavy windows HighLower Wear and tear /degradation HighMediumLower Economic Functionality Price of ProductHighMediumLow Cost/yearMedium?MediumMedium? Maintenance costLowHighMedium End-of-life costLowMediumHigh

19 Intangible and Emotional Functionality FunctionalityPerceived value/cost of materials Aluminiu m WoodPVC Immaterial Functionality ConvenienceNA Health and SafetyHighMediumLow CleaningNA Emotional Functionality AestheticsHighMediumLow Quality perceptionHighMediumLow

20 Environment FunctionalityPerceived value/cost of materials Alumini um WoodPVC Environment “energy”LowHighMedium Resources / MaterialMediumHighLow Chemical contentHighMediumLow RecyclabilityHighMediumLow DurabilityHighMediumLow Looking ‘natural’MediumHighLow

21 Positioning of Material Reduction in its context, I AspectsPositiveNegative FunctionalityDrive for function integration: do more with less, lower cost Going for green can collide with feel good, quality of life Internal value chainWill lower bill of materials- External value chainAll stakeholders like itCan decrease recyclebility (recycling targets)

22 Positioning of Material Reduction in its context, II AspectsPositiveNegative Environmental dilemma’sSaves resourcesCan conflict with energy reduction, recyclebility increase EcoDesign MatrixWill benefit the PrincipalCan harm user convenience/feel good Design processEasy to quantify-

23 Conclusion Environmental impacts of materials and material processing varies widely By differences in application for the same functionality Relevance of benchmarking material application Material reduction is almost always positive in its context