P 559 - The material steel in comparison to competing materials - processes, resource efficiency, recycling, environment

All analyses were carried out on the basis of a selection of relevant environmental indicators in accordance with the key environmental indicators defined by the European Environmental Agency (EEA). The indicators analysed are TMR (Total Material Requirement - a resource efficiency indicator); water consumption; CED (Cumulative Energy Expenditure); GWP 100 (Global Warming Potential - an indicator of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect). The focus of the study is on the comparison of the selected exemplary reference objects (products) and not on the comparison of materials. When comparing the supporting frames made of steel, reinforced concrete and timber (including corresponding ceiling constructions), no clearly ecologically favourable variants can be identified. When comparing the variants, the indicator values sometimes point in opposite directions or do not show a clear trend in the overall analysis. When analysing the bicycle frames, three different variants were considered: Steel frame, aluminium frame, CFRP frame. The comparison shows that the steel frame has by far the most favourable results for all indicators. This is followed at some distance by the aluminium frame and the CFRP frame. The result of the comparison between the aluminium and CFRP frames is not clear. The comparison of the bodies shows that, due to the reduced use of steel in the ULSAB-AVC body, body production is associated with lower environmental impacts across the life cycle with regard to the indicators analysed. than the traditional comparative body. The increased manufacturing costs for the ULSAB-AVC body, primarily the high power input for laser welding, reduce these savings without, however, compensating for them. Due to the lower weight of the ULSAB-AVC body and the resulting reduction in fuel consumption, the indicator values are reduced even more significantly during the utilisation phase. The indicators were selected in such a way that they reflect different environmental impacts and allow for reliable and decision-supporting statements. It can be assumed that this also applies to a large number of other products. It should be noted when analysing the individual indicators: With regard to possible combinations of different indicators, TMR should be combined with GWP, or if no suitable GWP data is available, TMR should be combined with KEA. In this way, both the predominantly climate-relevant energetic material conversions and the non-energetic inputs and the associated extraction processes (ores, etc.) can be mapped. By taking water consumption into account, a further area can be covered. The simultaneous consideration of CED and GWP, on the other hand, leads to an extensive duplication in the assessment of energy use.