Economics and Environmental Impact of Materials and Processes 247

Solution
The saving per piece, S p, as a result of using the jig is calculated from
Equation 8.3 as

Sp = [12 × ( ___
60 ) ( 60 )] [ ( 60 ) ( 60 )]
30 + 8 × ___
30 − 10 × ___
12 + 8 × ___
12 = 10 − 3.60 = $6.40

The total jig cost, CT, is calculated from Equation 8.4 as

(1200 × 2 × 0.12)
CT = 1200 + ________________ = $1344
2
The jig cost per part is calculated from Equation 8.5 as
1344 = $3.36
Cp = _____
400
As the cost of jig per part is less then the savings per part, the jig is economically
justifiable.
The break-even number of parts, N′, is calculated as
1344
6.40 = _____
N′
Thus,
N′ = 210 parts
This means that at least 211 parts need to be manufactured to justify the use of
the jig.

8.11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OF MATERIALS AND PROCESSES
8.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
With the increasing awareness that many of the attempts to develop society can have
a negative impact on environment, there is an increasing pressure on manufacturers
to reduce the environmental burden associated with their products. The production
of engineering materials and their processing into products can have a considerable
impact on this burden. However, assessing this impact is not always easy as there
is a large number of emissions and waste products associated with these activities.
For example, emissions to air can include CO2, CO, SO2, and NO2, and emissions
to water can include organics, metals, nitrates, and phosphates. Several aggregation
systems have been proposed to make it easy for designers to incorporate the environ-
mental impact in their design and the following two methods are examples.

8.11.2 ENERGY CONTENT OF MATERIALS

Ashby uses energy associated with the production of 1 kg of a material, Hp, as an
indication of its environmental impact. Table 8.7 gives the value of Hp for some
materials and Example 8.7 illustrates its use in design.

CRC_63081_Ch008.indd 247 11/15/2007 3:42:29 PM

 248 Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design

TABLE 8.7
Energy Content of Some Engineering Materials
Material Group Material Energy Content Hp (MJ/kg)

Ferrous metals Cast iron 16.4–18.2

Carbon steels 23.4–25.8
Stainless steels 77.2–85.3
Nonferrous alloys Aluminum alloys 184–203
Titanium alloys 885–945
Ceramics and glasses Soda-lime glass 13.0–14.4
Alumina 49.5–54.7
Silicon carbide 70.2–77.6
Polymers Polypropylene and 76.2–84.2
polyethylene
PVC 63.5–70.2
Epoxy 90–100
Polyester 84–90
Composites CFRP 258–286
GFRP 107–118

Note: Based on data reported by Ashby, M.F., Materials Selection in Mechanical Design,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2005.

Design Example 8.7: Accounting for Weight and Environmental

Impact in Selecting a Material for a Tie Bolt
Problem
Aluminum alloy 7075T6 (YS = 511 MPa, ρ = 2.7 g/cc) and titanium 6Al4V
(YS = 939 MPa, ρ = 4.5 g/cc) are being considered for making a tensile
member (tie bolt) of length 200 mm that will carry a load of 50 kN. Which of
the two materials will give a lighter member and which will have less impact on
environment?

Analysis
Taking a factor of safety of 1.5,

50000 × 1.5 × 200 × 2.7

Weight of the aluminium member = ______________________ = 79.3 g
511 × 1000

50000 × 1.5 × 200 × 4.5

Weight of the titanium member = ______________________ = 71.9 g
939 × 1000

From Table 8.7, an average energy content for aluminum and titanium alloys can
be taken as 193.5 and 915 MJ/kg, respectively.

CRC_63081_Ch008.indd 248 11/15/2007 3:42:29 PM

 Economics and Environmental Impact of Materials and Processes 249

The energy content of the aluminum member = 0.0793 × 193.5 = 15.4 MJ.
The energy content of the titanium member = 0.0719 × 915 = 65.7 MJ.

Conclusion
The titanium alloy member is lighter but has higher energy content.From the
foregoing analysis, it is seen that the weight of a tensile member is proportional to
ρ/YS, where ρ is the density and YS the yield strength. The environmental impact
of the material in the tensile member is proportional to the parameter (Hp ρ/YS),
which needs to be minimized for an environmental conscious design.

8.11.3 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Another method of aggregating the environmental impact is the use of the Eco-
Indicator 99 (EI 99). According to ISO 14001, life cycle assessment (LCA), the envi-
ronmental impact of a given product over its entire life cycle can be divided into
three main phases:

a. Production phase, including energy requirements for primary and second-

ary materials used and all the processes involved in manufacturing them
into a finished product (EIprod = EImat + EImfct)
b. Use or operation phase, including the energy, fuel, and emissions over the
entire lifetime of the product (EIuse)
c. End-of-life phase, including the energy used in disposal of the discarded
product and whatever energy is gained from its recycling (EIeol)

In this case, the total environmental impact of the product over its entire life cycle
(EILC) is given by

EILC = EImat + EImfct + EIuse + EIeol (8.6)

According to Giudice et al. (2005) the environmental impact of the production phase
can be expressed as follows:

EIprod = EImat + EImfct = EImatW + EIprss µ (8.7)

where
EImat = Eco-indicator per unit weight of material as estimated by the EI 99
method
W = Weight of the material
EIprss = Eco-indicator of process as estimated by the EI 99 method
µ = Characteristic parameter of the process or quantity of the material
processed
EIeol = EIdsp(1 − ξ)W + EIrclξW (8.8)

CRC_63081_Ch008.indd 249 11/15/2007 3:42:29 PM

 250 Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design

where
EIdsp and EIrcl = Environmental impacts of disposal and recycling processes
per unit weight of material, respectively
ξ = Recyclable fraction

Case study 8.8 illustrates the use of the above mentioned parameters in LCA. A more
detailed case study in materials substitution is discussed in Section 11.5.

Case Study 8.8: LCA for Motorcar Brake Disk

Problem
Currently, a disk brake is made of gray cast iron (GCI), and aluminum matrix
composite (AlMC) is being considered as a substitute material. Use LCA to ana-
lyze this decision.

Analysis
The following analysis is based on the case study by Giudice et al. (2005). The
main performance requirements of a disk brake include resistance to the ther-
mal and mechanical loading resulting from the braking action, light weight,
and compliance to geometric and volume constraints. The disk of the brake
is currently made from GCI processed by sand-casting. The substitute mate-
rial under consideration is AlMC processed by squeeze casting. According to
Giudice et al. (2005), for equivalent performance, the geometry and weight of
disks made of the two materials are given in Table 8.8. The table also gives
the different environmental impact components according to Equations 8.6
through 8.8.
The data in Table 8.8 show that the production of AlMC has greater envi-
ronmental impact than GCI and recovers less points at the end of its life because
of its poor recyclability. Giudice et al. (2005) calculated the EIuse component
assuming the weight of a motorcar with GCI disks to be 1000 kg, mean fuel con-
sumption to be 0.085 L/km, reduction in fuel consumption to be 4.5% for a 10%
reduction in weight, and expected traveling distance to be 150,000 km.

TABLE 8.8
Comparison of GCI and AlMC as Motorcar Brake Disk Materials
Volume Weight EIprod EIeol EIuse EILC
(dm3) (kg) (mPt) (mPt) (mPt) (mPt)

GCI 0.83 6.00 208.9 −165.4 2,729,884 2,729,927

AlMC 1.36 3.83 2293.3 −21.1 2,719,201 2,721,479

Note: Data based on case study by Giudice, F., La Rosa, G., and Risitano, A., Mater. Design, 26,
9–20, 2005.

CRC_63081_Ch008.indd 250 11/15/2007 3:42:29 PM

 Economics and Environmental Impact of Materials and Processes 251

The results in Table 8.8 show the predominant influence of EIuse compared
to the other environmental impact components. Because of its lightweight and
subsequent savings in fuel consumption, AlMC has lower EILC in spite of its
higher EIprod and lower EIeol recovery.

Conclusion
This case study illustrates the importance of including all the components of
EILC when comparing the environmental impact of materials in a product.

8.12 RECYCLING ECONOMICS

The public concern for the environment and the increasing cost of landfill fees provide
major incentives for reuse of components and recycling of materials. The process
normally starts with the last owner delivering the retired product to a dismantler who
then separates reusable components, and shreds the rest. Metals and other useful
materials are then separated from the shredded material and the remainder is sent to
the landfill. Economic incentives for those taking part in this process would ensure
that it would work. For example, the dismantler has to sell the materials salvaged at a
sufficient price to make a net profit after compensating the last owner for bringing in
the product, paying the expenses of shredding, and paying the landfill fees. This net
financial gain can also be used as a factor in selecting the most economic material
for a given component. Case study 8.9 is used to illustrate the important role played
by recycling in determining the total cost of a product and is based on studies by
Sanders et al. (1990) and Berry (1992).

Smaller lid
diameter

Smaller
dome
radius

Smaller
base

Modified design Earlier design

FIGURE 8.6 Design changes to reduce the weight of the aluminum beverage can.

CRC_63081_Ch008.indd 251 11/15/2007 3:42:30 PM