2014-01-1004

Published 04/01/2014
Copyright © 2014 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2014-01-1004
saematman.saejournals.org

Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-

Intensive Vehicle Design
Sujit Das
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

ABSTRACT
Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance
performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To
assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials,
this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and
aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America.

LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production (“Baseline”), an advanced
high strength steel and aluminum design (“LWSV”), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV). This study focuses on
body-in-white and closures since these are the largest automotive systems by weight accounting for approximately 40% of
total curb weight of a typical passenger vehicle. Secondary mass savings resulting from body lightweighting are
considered for the vehicles' engine, driveline and suspension.

A “cradle-to-cradle” life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted for these three vehicle material alternatives. LCA
methodology for this study included material production, mill semi-fabrication, vehicle use phase operation, and end-of-life
recycling. This study followed international standards ISO 14040:2006 [1] and ISO 14044:2006 [2], consistent with the
automotive LCA guidance document currently being developed [3].

Vehicle use phase mass reduction was found to account for over 90% of total vehicle life cycle energy and CO2e
emissions. The AIV design achieved mass reduction of 25% (versus baseline) resulting in reductions in total life cycle
primary energy consumption by 20% and CO2e emissions by 17%. Overall, the AIV design showed the best breakeven
vehicle mileage from both primary energy consumption and climate change perspectives.

CITATION: Das, S., "Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design," SAE Int. J.
Mater. Manf. 7(3):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-1004.

INTRODUCTION pounds in 1995 to 343 pounds in model year 2012. That study
forecast aluminum content in new vehicles will increase to an
Federal regulations defining minimum Corporate Average Fuel
average of 550 pounds by 2025.
Economy (CAFE) and consumer demand for increased fuel
economy are encouraging OEMs to pursue weight reduction
A number of LCA studies have been conducted to quantify the
alternatives for vehicle structures. In that effort, lightweight
environmental impacts of lightweighting ground transportation
materials, which includes advanced high strength steel and
vehicles. One such study is the Magnesium Front End
aluminum, have become an increasingly important
Research and Development (MFERD) project under the
consideration in future vehicle body engineering. Industry and
sponsorship of Natural Resources Canada, Beijing University
technical experts have projected that by 2050, there is the
and the US Department of Energy [9]. In that study, a life cycle
potential to reduce the weight of light-duty vehicles by 20 to
assessment (LCA) compared the energy and potential
50% [4, 5, 6, 7].
environmental impacts of advanced magnesium- and
aluminum-based front end structures for a 2007 GM Cadillac
Latest comprehensive automotive materials study published by
CTS using the production steel structure as a baseline. The
Ducker [8] indicates use of high strength steels and aluminum
aluminum lightweight design showed the lowest life cycle
is increasing rapidly. For instance, new North American
energy and global warming potential impacts and the most
vehicles' average aluminum content increased from 202
favorable breakeven vehicle mileage.

588
 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014)
In preparing its Environmental Impact Statement for the
2017-2025 CAFE Standard, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) reviewed a number of LCA
studies evaluating environmental impacts of automotive
component light-weighting. NHTSA concluded “…reductions in
energy use and GHG emissions during the use stage of
vehicles through high strength steel and aluminum material
substitution exceed the increased energy use and GHG
emissions needed to manufacture these lightweight materials
at the vehicle production stage.” [10]
Prior LCA studies have not isolated material substitution from
other vehicle and component design changes. This study was
designed to provide a clearer understanding of LCA impact of
lightweight materials on a vehicle structure engineered to meet
OEM production requirements for NVH, stiffness, safety,
performance and durability. The proven body structure
currently in production has been used as the basic body
structure for the reduced mass body designs. Reduced mass
designs were optimized for material grade and gauge using
proven design optimization tools. Secondary mass reductions
(engine, driveline, suspension) are based on engineering
evaluation of practical mass reductions resulting from reduction
of body system mass.
Baseline vehicle is modeled after a current production mid-size
crossover sport utility vehicle based on a Toyota Venza. This
vehicle is representative of a nominal North American vehicle
based on mass (1,711 Kg). material utilization (65% steel (36
% mild steel, 29 % HSS), 9 % Aluminum), fuel economy (24
Label MPG), powertrain (V-6 FI) and performance (0-60 MPH
6.2 sec.).
Lightweight steel vehicle (LWSV) [11] and aluminum intensive
vehicle (AIV) bodies were designed and optimized by EDAG
Engineering. EDAG is a widely recognized and respected
automotive design services organization supporting automotive
OEM and Tier 1 suppliers globally. Optimized LWSV body
utilized 85% HSS and AHSS for body-in-white (BIW) with
aluminum fenders, hood and lift gate. Optimized AIV body
design [12] was developed by EDAG using the same structural
optimization models used for the LWSV.
LCA FRAMEWORK
Goal of this LCA study is to compare environmental
performance of three mid-size crossover sport utility vehicle
designs based on a popular vehicle driven today in North
America. The three vehicle designs are: current production
(Baseline) and two alternative lightweight material designs: an
advanced high strength steel design (LWSV) and an aluminum-
intensive design (AIV). Assessment is based on the recent
automotive guidance document establishing the requirements
for assessment of the environmental performance of autoparts
[3]. Guidance includes criteria for the identification of product
category and the framework for performing the underlying life
cycle assessment according to ISO 14040 series. Assumptions
utilized in this LCA framework for vehicle mileage, drive cycle,
589
mass savings effects on fuel economy, data sources and
allocation of recycling are consistent with the guidance
document.
The functional unit is the transportation service provided by the
three SUV versions built and driven for 250,000 km in North
America. The 250,000 Km useful life assumption is consistent
with latest NHTSA average vehicle lifetimes studies [13].
The reduced mass body design alternatives were engineered
to meet all NHTSA and IIHS 5-star safety criteria and to match
stiffness; noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) performance;
and durability of the baseline vehicle. Reduced mass body
alternatives retained the proven fundamental architecture of
the baseline production vehicle. Body of the Light Weight Steel
Vehicle (LWSV) was optimized making maximum practical use
of high strength (HSS) and advanced high strength steels
(AHSS) and aluminum. The Aluminum Intensive Vehicle (AIV)
body is optimized utilizing currently available automotive
aluminum alloys.
Scope of the study is limited to North America. Latest North
America life cycle inventory (LCI) data are used for both steel
and aluminum. The Steel LCI data [14] contained ferrous scrap
input with varying amount for four different types of
conventional steel, but no LCA distinctions were made between
conventional steels and high strength steels such as advanced
high strength steel and ultrahigh strength steels.
Aluminum LCI data is based on primary aluminum production
for North America from the International Aluminum Institute and
semi-fabrication of aluminum rolled sheet and extrusions from
the latest Aluminum Association LCI study [15]. It was assumed
that the impacts of different aluminum alloys have minimal
impacts from an overall life cycle perspective. Primary
aluminum ingot production data reflects the 95:5 share of
“Pre-baked” vs. “Soderberg” electrolysis production technology
currently operating in North America and the self-generation
and contractual supply (75% hydropower) of North American
electricity consumed for primary aluminum electrolysis. Data is
representative of the production-weighted average data for
North America. All production steps associated with producing
semi-fabricated rolled, extruded, and cast aluminum have been
included such as mining of bauxite, the production of aluminum
oxide, and the smelting and casting of primary aluminum.
Environmental impacts considered are total primary energy in
terms of cumulative energy demand from Ecoinvent 1.02 and
global warming potentials based on TRACI 2.1 Version 1.00.
TRACI is the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of
Chemical and other environmental Impacts and is a midpoint-
oriented LCIA methodology developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency specifically for the US using
input parameters consistent with US locations.
590 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014)

PRODUCT SYSTEM Table 1. Description of Vehicle Designs

Baseline vehicle used in this study is a production mid-size

sport utility vehicle modeled after the Toyota Venza. This
vehicle is representative of a nominal North American vehicle
based on size, weight, fuel economy, performance, materials
and powertrain (conventional internal combustion). Body
structure of this vehicle has known durability and NVH
characteristics and proven safety performance in NHTSA (“Top
rated”) and IIHS (“5 Star”) safety testing. Baseline vehicle body
materials (Body-in-white and closures) are typical of a current
North American vehicle at 55% Mild Steel (MS), 45% High
Strength Steel (HSS).

Reduced mass body alternatives retained the proven

fundamental architecture of the baseline production vehicle.
Alternative body (body-in-white and closures) models were
engineered to meet all NHTSA and IIHS safety criteria and to
match stiffness, NVH performance and durability of the VEHICLE “IN USE” PHASE
baseline vehicle. Body of the LWSV was optimized making
Use phase is a critical aspect of the life cycle of vehicle and
maximum practical use of high strength and advanced high
generally dominates the environmental impact [16]. Nominal
strength steels for BIW and aluminum for closures (11).
lifetime for the vehicle is assumed to be 250,000 km consistent
Aluminum Intensive Vehicle (AIV) body design was developed
with the study by NHSTA [13].
utilizing currently available automotive aluminum materials
using structural optimization models developed for the LWSV
Use stage LCA impacts for LWSV and AIV are based on
(12).
mass-induced fuel consumption for a steel baseline vehicle
adjusted for mass-induced fuel savings. All assessments
Three different reference flows of total vehicle mass were
include powertrain modifications to achieve baseline vehicle
established for defining the functional unit: baseline (1711 kg),
performance. Mass-induced fuel consumption changes
LWSV (1453 kg), AIV (1290 kg). Table 1 gives an overview of
(decrease/increase) with powertrain adaptation discussed by
the different technologies and composition for the three vehicle
Koffler et al. 2010 [17] have been adopted in a recent autopart
designs.
life cycle assessment [9].
Focus of this study is LCA implications of mass optimization of
The total life cycle mass-induced fuel consumption change is
iron, steel and aluminum in vehicle design. Light weight
estimated as follows:
designs evaluated in this study resulted in shifts in iron, steel
and aluminum content. Base vehicle has a combined iron and
steel content of 1138 kg. and aluminum content of 157 kg. The
remaining 573 kg mass of other materials (glass, plastic, fiber) CA,n = the total life cycle mass-induced fuel change (decrease/
are assumed to be the same under both lightweight scenarios or increase) of new autoparts designs in liters
and not impacted by primary or secondary mass reductions of
LWSV or AIV designs. The LWSV makes extensive use of high mpart, n = mass in kg of new design autoparts(i.e., 1037 kg
strength and advanced high strength steels for BIW and LWSV, 874 kg AIV)
aluminum for closures. AIV body in white includes aluminum
sheet, extrusions and cast suspension nodes. Both the LWSV mpart, b = mass in kg of baseline autoparts (baseline, replaced
and AIV models include secondary mass reductions of with the new design), i.e., 1295 kg
aluminum engine, transmission, and wheels.
VA = mass-induced fuel consumption reduction value with
The AIV design offers 25% vehicle weight reduction through powertrain adaptation, in l/(100km·100kg) (0.38l/100km.100 kg
the use of 459 kg of aluminum, about three times more than for naturally aspirated engine [17])
the baseline vehicle. Structural optimization of body-in-white
and closures for both LWSV and AIV result in secondary mass LTDD = baseline life-time driving distance (250,000 km)
reductions in aluminum engine, driveline and wheel
components. Use of aluminum suspension towers provided a Mass of parts considered in the analysis include all primary
significantly higher level of total vehicle mass savings. Iron and other affected secondary parts such as engine,
content is estimated to be significantly reduced in LWSV and transmission and suspension. Mass-induced fuel consumption
AIV designs due predominantly to conversion of suspension reduction value is estimated based on the label values
and steering components to aluminum. established with EPA FTP-75 (55% city and 45% highway)
 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014)
driving cycle [3]. Combined fuel economy of the baseline
vehicle has been assumed to be 24 mpg. Energy use and
emission estimates during the use phase of the life cycle
include both well-to-pump and pump-to-wheel estimates using
the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use
in Transportation (GREET) model developed by Argonne
National Laboratory [18]. Well-to-pump estimates include
energy use and emissions associated with upstream fuel
production and distribution required during the vehicle use.
These estimates are based on the North American year 2010
mix of conventional and reformulated gasoline fuel containing
10% ethanol. Primary fuel energy content has been estimated
to be 40.95 MJ/l. With a 421 kg vehicle mass reduction, the AIV
design is estimated to achieve a 16.3% (3,994 l.) fuel
consumption reduction over the vehicle lifetime compared to
the baseline vehicle consumption of about 24,500 liters.
ALLOCATION PROCEDURE FOR
RECYCLING
As primary metal production can be significantly more energy-
intensive than recycling, there is an intrinsic economic and
environmental incentive to recycle. Recycling scenarios are
based on the current situation for end-of-life vehicles in North
America. This project uses the latest North America LCI data
on primary and secondary steel and aluminum production
provided respectively by the Steel Recycling Institute/World
Steel Association and Aluminum Association. Both the World
Steel Association and Aluminum Association have LCI
databases for steel and aluminum products and adopt a
“closed-loop” end-of-life recycling approach proposed in the
“Declaration by the Metals Industry on Recycling Principles”
[19].
The closed-loop recycling methodology starts with primary
production and accounts for the total weight of recovered scrap
for the automotive sector in North America. Metal that is not
effectively recycled needs to be compensated by primary
production. The recycling methodology is explained elsewhere
in detail [20]. Two different recycling scenarios were modeled:
process and post-consumer scrap. Process scrap (or prompt
scrap) is “clean” scrap, which is generated during the
manufacturing phase and can be recycled in a relatively short
time in a “closed loop.” For the post-consumer operations, the
vehicle auto parts will be either shredded or removed from the
vehicle in order to be recycled separately. Fate of carbon steel
and aluminum alloys has been assessed using current sorting
practices, recycling technologies and material and energy
flows. The current recycling practice in North America is
assumed and is applied to the recycling of aluminum and
carbon steel parts considered in vehicle lightweighting. For
both types of metal parts, it is assumed that only 94% of
vehicles will be available at the end-of-life for recycling and a
98% yield occurs in metals recycling.
591
Secondary steel from scrap (in the electric arc furnace (EAF)
route) avoids primary steel from the blast furnace/basic oxygen
furnace (BF/BOF) route. With this approach the allocation for
scrap is adjusted to take into account the scrap/steel yield of
95.3% as per the WorldSteel recycling methodology associated
with secondary steel making. Since the steel LCI data contain
a certain amount of scrap, the avoided primary steel production
due to recycling of both prompt and post-consumer is reduced
by the original scrap content.
PRODUCT SYSTEM
Ferrous Autopart
Figure 1. Schematic Material Flow diagram for 1 kg of Stamped Steel
Parts
Figure 1 shows the system boundaries of the 1 kg stamped
steel part. For four different types of steel and cast iron
considered for the analysis (as discussed earlier), the only
difference being the amount of prompt scrap generated in the
case of engineering steel and cast iron is 15%, compared to
45% for the other three steels, i.e., pickled hot rolled, electro-
galvanized, and hot-dip galvanized. As shown in Figure 1,
primary metal input of 1.82 kg is necessary for each 1 kg of
part to account for the 45% scrap rate. The North America LCI
data obtained from Steel Scrap Recycling Institute includes
primary steel types with varying amounts of scrap ranging from
6.5% to 44%. For cast iron and hot-dip galvanized steel LCI
data having similar scrap content of around 40%. Secondary
steel produced at the end-of-vehicle life provides credit to the
avoided primary metal production, the amount is estimated
after taking into account the original scrap content and 95%
recovery rate of stamped automotive steel. This LCI estimation
procedure for steel products results in reduced end-of-life
credit due to scrap content in the original part production and is
consistent with the WorldSteel LCI methodology [21]. An
average of five hundred miles transportation distance by truck
592 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014)
of the semi-finished steel products to auto parts manufacturers
is assumed. The energy requirements for the stamping process
are based on the U.S. autoparts manufacturer data during the
period 2007-2008. Based on worldsteel data a 95.3% process
yield is used for the secondary steel manufacturing process
(EAF route).
Aluminum Autopart
Aluminum autoparts are a reduced mass alternative to the
steel autoparts. The only distinction in aluminum content
between the three vehicle designs is mill product form (sheet,
cast, extruded) and not alloy composition. Figure 2 shows the
system boundary of the 1 kg of stamped aluminum autopart.
Similar procedures have been applied for the other two
aluminum forming technologies, i.e., casting and extrusion. As
mentioned earlier, the LCI data associated with the primary
production of aluminum are based on the recent North America
production facility data collected by the Aluminum Association.
As shown in Figure 2, the LCI data collection has been at a
detailed level, for example a consideration of LCI data at four
major steps for aluminum primary production.
Material flow for a stamped aluminum product is shown in
Figure 2. New scrap from the stamping process is 45% of the
input aluminum coil. This prompt scrap rate is similar to the
prompt scrap rate for steel stamped parts. Based on a 2008
publication of European Aluminum Association, a yield of 98%
is applied for the remelting process, which yields 0.80 kg of
avoided primary aluminum per kg of aluminum stamped part by
the recycling of prompt scrap [22]. The assumed scrap rates
for cast (2%) and extruded (22.5%) and prompt scrap recycling
yield an avoided primary aluminum per kg of fabricated part of
0.02 kg and 0.285 kg, respectively.
Figure 2. Schematic Material Flow diagram for 1 kg of Stamped
Aluminum parts
Similar to steel, aluminum semi-fabricated products are
transported by truck over a distance of 800 km to the autopart
manufacturer. The LCI data for stamping aluminum autoparts is
based on North American autoparts manufacturers.
Assumptions for the end-of-life (EOL) processing of aluminum
autoparts are based on the latest automotive guidance
document procedures. An EOL collection rate of 94 % is
assumed with a recovery rate of 95%, where 5% is lost in the
shredding process. The metallic yield of the aluminum refining
process, defined as the output of metal ingot to the scrap input,
is assumed to be 98%. The recycling of post consumer scrap
avoided 0.875 kg primary aluminum use for all three cases of
aluminum fabricated parts due to same assumed EOL
recycling rate.
LCA RESULTS
SimaPro, a LCA software package developed by PRé
Consultants in the Netherlands and designed for analyzing the
potential environmental impact of products and services, was
used for this life cycle assessment. LCA of three vehicle
designs were done by applying the estimated amount of
various types of steel and aluminum considered by these
designs (as shown in Table 1) to the unit (i.e., in terms of per
kg) LCA estimates of these materials as discussed before. The
cumulative energy demand method of ecoinvent v 1.02 is
applied to determine the total primary energy (TPE) use. Total
primary energy is the sum of all energy sources starting with
the extraction of natural resources directly from the earth, such
as natural gas, oil, coal, biomass, and hydropower energy. The
TPE covers the non-renewable, renewable, and feedstock
energy sources. Non-renewable energy includes all fossil and
mineral primary energy sources, such as natural gas, oil, coal
and nuclear energy. Renewable energy includes all other
primary energy sources, such as hydropower and biomass.
Feedstock energy is that part of the primary energy entering
the system which is not consumed and/or is available as fuel
energy for use outside the system boundary. Total Primary
Energy is expressed in MJ. Higher heating value (HHV) of
primary energy carriers is used to calculate the primary energy
values used in this study.
Latest U.S. EPA TRACI 2.1 Version 1.00 was used for the
calculation of the environmental impacts. Cradle-to-grave life
cycle data are rolled-up into three distinct phases: autoparts
production, vehicle use, and end-of-life recycling. The
autoparts production phase consists of the raw material
extraction, transportation, manufacturing, and prompt scrap
recycling. The use phase presents the energy use and
emission estimates during the use of the vehicle over its
250,000 km life time and includes emissions for upstream fuel
production (well-to-pump) and driving (pump-to-wheel). The
end-of-life recycling phase covers the energy and emissions
associated with the transport of the used vehicle, shredding,
sorting, melting, and refining. Because recycling reduces the
need to produce virgin metals, negative impacts (i.e., credits)
are provided for end-of-life recycling phase.
Primary energy for the three alternative vehicle designs are
summarized in Figure 3. Total primary energy across are
shown for the three autoparts life cycle phases: manufacturing,
use (fuel savings), and end-of-life (recycling). As observed in
earlier LCA studies, use phase contributes to the largest share
 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014)
of overall life cycle impacts, estimated to be in the 93-98%
range. Use phase in AIV design contributed to the maximum
decrease in fuel consumption, i.e., about 16.3% due to vehicle
lightweighitng, thereby contributing to about 20% reduction in
life cycle energy use. Lower lightweighting potential in the
LWSV results in a 13% reduction in life cycle energy use.
Figure 3. Life Cycle Primary Energy Impacts of Alternative Lightweight
Vehicle Designs
Table 2 shows the total life cycle climate change impacts of
major categories based on TRACI 1.0 Version 2.0 for the three
vehicle designs. The trend in major impact categories relating
to global climate change is similar to that estimated for the total
life cycle primary energy impacts, i.e., a 17% reduction in CO2
eq for the AIV design. The AIV and LWSV offer decreases in
other major climate change impact categories as well, with
decreases ranging from 14% to 33%. For ozone depletion, the
AIV design produces a significant increase in ozone depletion
potential, a result of the higher aluminum content and the
fluoride compounds used during the aluminum electrolysis
process.
As shown earlier in Figure 3, the manufacturing energy of the
AIV is higher than the baseline vehicle and the LWSV. The
LWSV has the lowest embodied energy at the manufacturing
stage. It is during the vehicle use phase with the fuel economy
benefits that the difference in impacts becomes lower, and after
driving some distance favorable impacts are observed. Figure
4 shows the primary use impacts over the vehicle's driving
distance for the three vehicle designs. The value of abscissa
(Y) at the origin is the primary energy required for the autoparts
manufacturing. Impact of end-of-life management, including
recycling is considered at the completion of vehicle operating
lifetime (EOL). In terms of primary energy use, AIV has net
energy benefits over the baseline vehicle after about 19,000
km; the LWSV shows net energy benefits over the baseline
vehicle at about 76,000 km. The increase in level of global
warming potential is lower (not high as primary energy) with the
increased aluminum content due to hydropower as the source
for a majority of energy for aluminum ingot production. The
breakeven driving distance for climate change impacts is
thereby estimated to be significantly lower than for the primary
energy case compared to the baseline.
593
Table 2. Total Life Cycle Climate Change Impacts of Alternative
Lightweight Vehicle Designs
Figure 4. Breakeven Distance Impacts of Alternative Lightweight
Vehicle Designs
CONCLUSIONS
Vehicle lightweighting represents one of several design
approaches automakers are currently evaluating to improve
fuel economy. Advanced high strength steel and aluminum are
the most promising near-term lightweight materials being
considered by the industry today. This ISO 14040:2006
compliant LCA study examines the life cycle energy and
environmental impacts of these two alternative lightweight
materials from an overall vehicle design perspective, based on
the substitution of major conventional steel vehicle components
such as body and affected secondary autoparts such as
engine, and transmission. Lightweight steel and aluminum
vehicle designs have a mass reduction potential of 15% and
25%, respectively.
LCA results of the lightweight vehicle designs in this study are
consistent with earlier findings. Major benefits of vehicle
lightweighting lie in the vehicle operation phase [16]. Use-
phase energy has been estimated to be in the range of 93-98%
of total lifecycle energy.
Lower LWSV production-phase environmental footprint
contributes to a lifecycle energy of 934 GJ/vehicle, 13% lower
than the baseline. Use phase LWSV energy is estimated to be
902 GJ//vehicle which exceeds AIV use phase energy of 839
GJ/vehicle, resulting in higher overall life cycle energy with the
AIV design by 9%.
594 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014)
AIV design has the largest improvement in life cycle energy
and climate change impact with CO2 emission reduction of
20% and energy reduction of 17%. Higher manufacturing
energy impacts of the aluminum part manufacturing are
compensated for by lower total mass and lower energy use
during vehicle operation resulting in a total life cycle energy of
858 GJ/vehicle. AIV energy use reduction during vehicle
operation is estimated to be 16.3% lower than the baseline
vehicle for a 25% vehicle mass reduction. Projected energy
breakeven driving distance for the AIV design is 19,000 km
(about one years of vehicle life). Life cycle global warming
potential for the AIV is estimated to be about 63 tonne CO2 eq/
vehicle and favorable because of the energy mix for aluminum
production that relies substantially on hydropower. Breakeven
driving distance for AIV global warming potential is less than
one year of vehicle life.
Both AHSS and aluminum materials can contribute to
improving automotive fuel economy and LCA energy and CO2e
emissions. Under the parameters included in this assessment,
aluminum provides a greatest potential LCA benefit. Cost
effective End-of-Life vehicle recycling is a critical factor in
offsetting higher manufacturing LCA impacts of aluminum.
Earlier reported aluminum vehicle studies limited aluminum
application to specific vehicle components. This study
illustrates the fuel economy and LCA improvement potential
when aluminum is considered during the initial vehicle design
stage of a total vehicle mass optimization initiative. It is also
important that the impacts of vehicle lightweighting be
extended to the fleet level (not considered in this analysis),
where the benefits will be impacted to a large extent by the
penetration rate and total number of lightweight vehicles.
REFERENCES
1. International Standard, “Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Principles and Framework,” ISO 14040:2006, 2006.
2. International Standard, “Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines,” ISO 14044:2006,
2006.
3. Private communications regarding draft Product Category Rule for
Autoparts - Canadian Standards Association, 2013.
4. National Research Council (NRC), “Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles,” The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC, 2011.
5. Lotus Engg. Inc. (Lotus), “An Assessment of Mass Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program,” report
submitted to the International Council on Clean Transportation,
Mar. 2010.
6. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (EPA/NHTSA), “Joint Technical
Support Document: Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy,” Washington, DC, 2010.
7. Lutsey, N., “Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related
to Automobile Mass-Reduction Technology,” Report No. UCD-
ITS-RR-10-10, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Davis, CA, May 2010.
8. Aluminum in 2012 North America Light Vehicles, Ducker
Worldwide, Sept. 2011.
9. Dubreuil, A., Bushi, L., Das, S., Tharumarajah, A. et al., “A
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Magnesium Front End
Autoparts: A Revision to 2010-01-0275,” SAE Technical Paper
2012-01-2325, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-2325.
10. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Environmental
Impact Statement CAFÉ Standards 2017-2025, Final
Environmental Statement, section 6.2.1.1 (page 6-9), Jul. 2012.
11. Singh, H. “Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles for Model Years
2017-2025,” Report No. DOT HS 811 666, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Aug. 2012.
12. EDAG, “VENZA Aluminum BIW Concept Study,” presentation to
Aluminum Association, Jan. 2013.
13. Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules, DOT HS 809
952, Jan. 2006.
14. Crawford, G.L., “LCI Data for Steel Products,” Steel Recycling
Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, Jan. 2103.
15. Wang, J. W. (2013). “LCI Data for Aluminum,” Aluminum
Association, Washington, DC, Mar. 25 and Jul. 3, 2013.
16. Kim, H.C. and Wallington, T.J., “Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse
Gas Emission Benefits of Lightweighting in Automobiles,”
Environmental Science and Technology, 47(12):6089-6097, 2013,
doi:10.1021/es3042115.
17. Koffler, C. and Rhode-Brandenburger, K., “On the Calculation of
Fuel Savings through Lightweight Design in Automotive Life Cycle
Assessments,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
15:128-135, 2010. doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0127-z.
18. Argonne National Laboratory, “The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET 2 2012
rev1), Dec. 2012.
19. Atheron, J. “Declaration by the Metals Industry on Recycling
Principles,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
12(1):59-60, 2007, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.11.283.
20. Dubreuil, A., Young, S.B., Atherton, J. Gloria, T.P. “Metals
Recycling Maps and Allocation Procedures in Life Cycle
Assessment,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
15(7):621-631, 2010.
21. World Steel Association, Life Cycle Assessment Methodology
Report, 2011.
22. European Aluminium Association “Environmental Profile Report for
the European Aluminium Industry - April 2008 - Life Cycle Inventory
Data for Aluminium Production and Transformation Processes in
Europe,” http://www.eaa.net/upl/4/default/doc/EAA_Environmental_
profile_report_May08.pdf, Sept. 2009.
23. Stodolsky, F., Vyas, A., Cuenca, R., and Gaines, L., “Life-Cycle
Energy Savings Potential from Aluminum-Intensive Vehicles,” SAE
Technical Paper 951837, 1995, doi:10.4271/951837.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Sujit Das
Tel: 1-865-946-1222
dass@ornl.gov
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Jinlong Wang of Aluminum Association, Doug Richman of
Kaiser Aluminum Co., Greg Crawford of Steel Recycling
Institute, Ken Martchek of Ken Martchek Consulting, and Clare
Broadbent of World Steel Association.
Definitions/Abbreviations
AIV - aluminum intensive vehicle design
EOL - end-of-life
GHG - greenhouse gas
HHV - higher heating value
LCA - life cycle analysis
LCI - life cycle inventory
LWSV - lightweight steel vehicle design
MFERD - Magnesium Front End Research and Development
worldsteel - World Steel Association
 Das / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 7, Issue 3 (June 2014) 595

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper.