Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Environmental Analysis

and Legislation

Course Assignment 2

















Luiza Nunes Rocha - 744499






TASK A

This study aims to analyse different techniques available for end-of-life
treatments in order to change the disposal method of the manufacture of cars
to pyrolysis instead of an incineration process. Instead of that it could be done
pyrolysis that means the usage of heat without oxygen aiming to get the fibres
back to the cycle. During pyrolysis, the Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) is heated up to 450 C to 700 C in the (nearly) absence of oxygen;
the polymeric matrix is volatilised into lower-weight molecules, while the CFs
remain inert and are eventually recovered
[1]
. One advantage of this process
is that the pyrolysis can recycle carbon fibre composites, which could be used
again, or either for another process in the future. Carbon fibre is popular in the
manufacture of vehicles due to its weight-to-strength ratio and its resistance to
flame.
The environmental impacts associated to the processes are shown in
Table 1 in the next page, as well as the mid-point values for it. In favour of the
replacement of the disposal process, it was needed a study of recycling rates
of the carbon fibres after the pyrolysis process to measure and compare the
environmental impacts (per Kg). These numbers are negative once that they
are saving energy by being recycled. Some columns with rates of 100%, 75%,
50%, 10% and 5% of carbon fibre recycling were included to quantify the
environmental impact that would be reduced at these percentages. Columns
for total impacts including assembly, use, and disposal were also added to the
table.





Table 1. Life cycle for carbon fibre body-in-white - mid point categories




Disposal
Process Carbon fibre Epoxy
Injection
Moulding
Fuel used
Pyrolisis of
CFRP
Incineration
process
Units kg kg kg litre kg kg
Amount 43,45 35,55 79 1076 79 79
Impact category Unit
Climate change kg CO2 eq 2439,57221 239,04298 105,318436 2783,93363 3115,67938 3115,67938 46,7164428 121,257633 121,257633 6020,87065
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 0,00020897 2,4578E-06 6,7414E-05 0,00027885 0,00043718 0,00043718 3,8859E-07 -1,244E-06 -1,244E-06 0,00071479
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 869,734536 24,9276812 43,7977248 938,459942 119,554914 119,554914 0,50582351 -55,015926 -55,015926 1002,99893
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 4,2180511 1,51763144 0,23753508 5,97321761 8,63046945 8,63046945 0,18402648 14,8340921 14,8340921 29,4377791
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2,31407333 0,77252445 0,11756898 3,20416677 2,24268375 2,24268375 0,01073526 2,80383528 2,80383528 8,2506858
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 1011,10066 0,09341161 50,941345 1062,13542 71,3538821 71,3538821 0,53079586 -10,091883 -10,091883 1123,39742
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 7,68137358 1,37451309 0,35616409 9,41205076 6,87602292 6,87602292 0,01155178 6,6140713 6,6140713 22,902145
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 1,27800248 0,00743386 0,06430323 1,34973958 0,08899797 0,08899797 0,00062963 -0,1179669 -0,1179669 1,3207707
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 2,37717896 0,49031008 0,08039792 2,94788696 1,64816238 1,64816238 0,00570663 5,82751132 5,82751132 10,4235607
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0,15284222 0,00529634 0,00731892 0,16545748 0,42533303 0,42533303 0,00024068 -0,00691 -0,00691 0,58388047
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 18,2849531 0,25749132 0,95391535 19,4963598 2,83919583 2,83919583 0,01075754 4,16650792 4,16650792 26,5020635
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 18,6559216 0,19952654 0,95173493 19,8071831 4,56693108 4,56693108 0,01114255 4,08730913 4,08730913 28,4614233
Agricultural land occupation m2a 18,2021472 0,08218523 10,3365714 28,6209039 2,31232683 2,31232683 0,01214129 -7,4046952 -7,4046952 23,5285354
Urban land occupation m2a 4,90582819 0,03155712 0,49193319 5,42931851 5,53112155 5,53112155 0,0182454 -1,7901067 -1,7901067 9,17033339
Natural land transformation m2 0,40027018 -0,0002656 0,01693741 0,41694197 1,21953164 1,21953164 0,00079386 -0,013015 -0,013015 1,62345864
Water depletion m3 13,3714406 0,68813557 0,60380387 14,6633801 3,84619936 3,84619936 0,01012595 -0,2000171 -0,2000171 18,3095623
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 26,0245063 0,29220613 2,16798556 28,484698 14,4215057 14,4215057 0,07840384 -0,5166617 -0,5166617 42,389542
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 906,601203 102,429816 37,9869526 1047,01797 1076,85438 1076,85438 1,05210037 -79,673597 -79,673597 2044,19876
Assembly Use
Assembly
total
Use total
Disposal
Total
incineration
process
Disposal
total
Recycling Recycling
Recycling Recycling Recycling
Carbon fibre
(100%)
Carbon fibre
(75%)
Carbon fibre
(50%)
Carbon fibre
(10%)
Carbon fibre
(5%)
kg kg kg kg kg
43,45 32,5875 21,725 4,345 2,1725
-2439,5722 3506,75724 -1829,6792 4116,6503 -1219,7861 4726,54335 -243,95722 5702,37223 -121,97861 5824,35084
-0,000209 0,00050744 -0,0001567 0,00055969 -0,0001045 0,00061193 -2,09E-05 0,00069552 -1,045E-05 0,00070597
-869,73454 188,786143 -652,3009 406,219777 -434,86727 623,653411 -86,973454 971,547226 -43,486727 1015,03395
-4,2180511 10,5696624 -3,1635383 11,6241752 -2,1090255 12,678688 -0,4218051 14,3659084 -0,2109026 14,576811
-2,3140733 3,14351245 -1,735555 3,72203078 -1,1570367 4,30054912 -0,2314073 5,22617845 -0,1157037 5,34188211
-1011,1007 122,919435 -758,3255 375,694601 -505,55033 628,469767 -101,11007 1032,91003 -50,555033 1083,46507
-7,6813736 8,61825189 -5,7610302 10,5385953 -3,8406868 12,4589387 -0,7681374 15,5314881 -0,3840687 15,9155568
-1,2780025 0,1613647 -0,9585019 0,48086532 -0,6390012 0,80036594 -0,1278002 1,31156693 -0,0639001 1,37546705
-2,377179 2,22457702 -1,7828842 2,81887176 -1,1885895 3,41316649 -0,2377179 4,36403808 -0,1188589 4,48289703
-0,1528422 0,43818898 -0,1146317 0,47639953 -0,0764211 0,51461009 -0,0152842 0,57574698 -0,0076421 0,58338909
-18,284953 4,06136005 -13,713715 8,63259832 -9,1424766 13,2038366 -1,8284953 20,5178178 -0,9142477 21,4320655
-18,655922 5,7293351 -13,991941 10,3933155 -9,3279608 15,0572959 -1,8655922 22,5196645 -0,9327961 23,4524606
-18,202147 12,7432248 -13,65161 17,2937616 -9,1010736 21,8442984 -1,8202147 29,1251572 -0,9101074 30,0352646
-4,9058282 6,07285727 -3,6793711 7,29931432 -2,4529141 8,52577137 -0,4905828 10,4881026 -0,2452914 10,7333941
-0,4002702 1,23699728 -0,3002026 1,33706482 -0,2001351 1,43713237 -0,040027 1,59724044 -0,0200135 1,61725395
-13,371441 5,14826475 -10,02858 8,4911249 -6,6857203 11,8339851 -1,3371441 17,1825613 -0,668572 17,8511333
-26,024506 16,9601013 -19,51838 23,4662278 -13,012253 29,9723544 -2,6024506 40,3821569 -1,3012253 41,6833822
-906,6012 1218,32325 -679,9509 1444,97355 -453,3006 1671,62385 -90,66012 2034,26433 -45,33006 2079,59439
Total (100%
recycling)
Total (75%
recycling)
Total (50%
recycling)
Total (10%
recycling)
Total (5%
recycling)
It was noticed a large amount of data and categories to be evaluated.
Besides, it was difficult to analyse the parameters due to the large range of
values found, which did not fit in a good scale, as shown below in Figure 1.


Figure 1. Environmental impacts of different rates of recycling in mid point categories.

In order to facilitate the analysis of the data all the values were
converted to end-point and then grouped in three categories: Total Human
Health, Total Ecosystems and Total Resources. Thereby, it was possible to
see clearly the effects of the recycling rates for each one, as presented in
Table 2.

Table 2. Life cycle for carbon fibre body-in-white end-point categories


The following graphs present the outcomes of simulations considering
the recycling of the available carbon fibres after the pyrolysis process. The
last bar of them shows the total impact of the incineration process, for each
category.
For the category Total Human Health, presented in Figure 2, all the
impacts are measured in Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY). It was noticed
that the environmental impact of the incineration process was higher than the
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
O
z
o
n
e

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
H
u
m
a
n

t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y
P
h
o
t
o
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

I
o
n
i
s
i
n
g

r
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
a
r
i
n
e

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
a
r
i
n
e

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

U
r
b
a
n

l
a
n
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
a
l

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
F
o
s
s
i
l

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Total (100% recycling)
Total (75% recycling)
Total (50% recycling)
Incineration process
Impact category Unit
Climate change human health DALY 4,91E-03 5,76E-03 6,62E-03 7,98E-03 8,15E-03 8,43E-03
Ozone depletion DALY 1,32E-06 1,46E-06 1,59E-06 1,81E-06 1,84E-06 1,86E-06
Human toxicity DALY 1,32E-04 2,84E-04 4,37E-04 6,80E-04 7,11E-04 7,02E-04
Photochemical oxidant formation DALY 4,12E-07 4,53E-07 4,94E-07 5,60E-07 5,68E-07 1,15E-06
Particulate matter formation DALY 8,17E-04 9,68E-04 1,12E-03 1,36E-03 1,39E-03 2,15E-03
Ionising radiation DALY 2,02E-06 6,16E-06 1,03E-05 1,69E-05 1,78E-05 1,84E-05
TOTAL HUMAN HEALTH DALY 5,86E-03 7,02E-03 8,18E-03 1,00E-02 1,03E-02 1,13E-02
Climate change ecosystems species.yr 2,78E-05 3,26E-05 3,75E-05 4,52E-05 4,62E-05 4,77E-05
Terrestrial acidification species.yr 5,00E-08 6,11E-08 7,23E-08 9,01E-08 9,23E-08 1,33E-07
Freshwater eutrophication species.yr 7,16E-09 2,14E-08 3,55E-08 5,82E-08 6,11E-08 5,86E-08
Terrestrial ecotoxicity species.yr 5,70E-08 6,19E-08 6,69E-08 7,48E-08 7,58E-08 7,59E-08
Freshwater ecotoxicity species.yr 1,06E-09 2,24E-09 3,43E-09 5,33E-09 5,57E-09 6,89E-09
Marine ecotoxicity species.yr 4,58E-12 8,31E-12 1,20E-11 1,80E-11 1,88E-11 2,28E-11
Agricultural land occupation species.yr 1,53E-07 2,08E-07 2,62E-07 3,50E-07 3,60E-07 2,82E-07
Urban land occupation species.yr 1,17E-07 1,41E-07 1,65E-07 2,02E-07 2,07E-07 1,77E-07
Natural land transformation species.yr 1,73E-06 1,87E-06 2,01E-06 2,24E-06 2,26E-06 2,27E-06
TOTAL ECOSYSTEMS species.yr 2,99E-05 3,50E-05 4,01E-05 4,82E-05 4,93E-05 5,08E-05
Metal depletion $ 1,21E+00 1,68E+00 2,14E+00 2,89E+00 2,98E+00 3,03E+00
Fossil depletion $ 1,96E+04 2,32E+04 2,69E+04 3,27E+04 3,34E+04 3,29E+04
TOTAL RESOURCES $ 1,96E+04 2,32E+04 2,69E+04 3,27E+04 3,34E+04 3,29E+04
Total
incineration
process
Process
Total (10%
recycling)
Total (5%
recycling)
Total (100%
recycling)
Total (75%
recycling)
Total (50%
recycling)
pyrolysis with all the proposed recycling rates for the carbon fibre after it, even
for the lower percentage (5% recycling). The impact of the total incineration
process was 0.0113 DALY while the impact for the pyrolysis with 5% recycling
was 0.0103 DALY and the impact for 100% was 0.00586 DALY. Besides, the
greater the recycling rate, the lower the impact. Therefore, it would be an
advantage to change the disposal method for the pyrolysis, no matter the rate
of carbon fibre recycling.


Figure 2. Total Human Health environmental impacts (DALY)

Total Ecosystems graph is shown below in Figure 3. The impacts were
measured by species per year. It followed the same pattern as Figure 2, the
lower the rate of recycling, the greater the environmental impact. Furthermore,
the impact of the incineration process was higher than any of the pyrolysis
process with different rates of recycling. The environmental impact for the
incineration process was 0.0000508 species per day while the impact for
pyrolysis with 5% recycling was 0.0000493 species per day. The impact for
pyrolysis with 100% recycling was 0.0000299 species per day. Another
conclusion that can be taken from this graph is that the impact of incineration
process was nearly the same as the pyrolysis with a low rate of recycling. This
means that in order to make a significant reduction of impact, the recycling
rate should be around 50% or higher than this value.

0.00E+00
2.00E-03
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.20E-02
Total (100%
recycling)
Total (75%
recycling)
Total (50%
recycling)
Total (10%
recycling)
Total (5%
recycling)
Total
incineration
process
TOTAL HUMAN HEALTH

Figure 3. Total Ecosystems environmental impacts (species.yr)

Finally, Total Resources graph is shown in Figure 4. The environmental
impacts were measured by the amount of money in this section. It can be
seen that for this category, the pyrolysis process is only convenient when the
recycling rate is higher than 10%. Otherwise, the environmental impact would
be the nearly the same as the one for incineration process. For the total of 5%
recycling the total resources impact was $33,400 while the impact for the
incineration process was $32,900.


Figure 4. Total Resources environmental impacts ($)

Extra care should be taken with the recycled carbon fibres once that
their quality is not the same and they are not as strong as new fibres
[2]
.
Therefore, they may not be adequate to be used on manufacturing another
vehicle.
0.00E+00
1.00E-05
2.00E-05
3.00E-05
4.00E-05
5.00E-05
6.00E-05
Total (100%
recycling)
Total (75%
recycling)
Total (50%
recycling)
Total (10%
recycling)
Total (5%
recycling)
Total
incineration
process
TOTAL ECOSYSTEMS
0.00E+00
5.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.50E+04
2.00E+04
2.50E+04
3.00E+04
3.50E+04
4.00E+04
Total (100%
recycling)
Total (75%
recycling)
Total (50%
recycling)
Total (10%
recycling)
Total (5%
recycling)
Total
incineration
process
TOTAL RESOURCES
Despite its high initial strength-to-weight ratio, a design limitation of
CFRP is its lack of a definable fatigue endurance limit. While steel and many
other structural metals and alloys do have estimable fatigue endurance limits,
the complex failure modes of composites means that the fatigue failure
properties of CFRP are difficult to predict and design for. As a result, when
using CFRP for critical cyclic-loading applications such as cars manufacturing,
engineers may need to design in considerable strength safety margins to
provide suitable component reliability over its service life
[3]
. It is clear that
turning CFRP waste into a valuable resource and closing the loop in the
CFRP life-cycle (Fig. 2) is vital for the continued use of the material in some
applications (Pickering, 2006).
The recycled carbon fibres (rCFs) are usually fragmented into short
lengths, as a result of size-reduction of CFRP waste before reclamation and
fibre breakage during reclamation. There are some different re-manufacturing
processes such as Direct moulding, Compression moulding of non-woven
products, Compression moulding of aligned mats and Impregnation of woven.
Among them, Compression moulding of non-woven products has showed with
mechanical properties comparable to virgin structural materials and with
potential application in automotive industries
[1]
so it could be a way to
reintroduce the carbon fibre in the process.

TASK B

Normalization is a process of reorganizing data in a database so that it
avoids redundancy of data and it makes logical data dependencies.
Normalization is important once it allows databases to take up as little disk
space as possible, resulting in increased performance.
[4]

The following graphs show the normalized values for carbon fibre and
steel environmental impacts at mid and end point, considering the European
and World standards.
The normalized European values at mid point for both types of cars
Carbon fibre (CF) and Steel are shown below in Figure 5. It can be clearly
seen that the category with higher impact was Natural land transformation in
which the impact for steel was 21.297 m
2
while for CF it was less than a half
(9.663 m
2
). Other major impacts were noticed such as in Marine ecotoxicity,
Freshwater ecotoxicity and Freshwater eutrophication. For the last one, it was
observed that the environmental impact caused by the carbon fibre car is
almost twice the value for the steel car. In general, higher values for
environmental impacts were found for the steel at mid point.


Figure 5. Normalized European values for Carbon Fibre and Steel impacts at mid point

The next graph (Figure 6) shows the normalized European values for
both types of car, but at end point. This means that in this case, the weight of
factors was considered that is why the higher impacts were different from the
ones in Figure 5. The most significant impact was noticed for the category of
Fossil depletion, as expected for this LCA once that this is one of the major
concerns when manufacturing a car. The impact of steel was $1,711, which
-3
2
7
12
17
22
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

O
z
o
n
e

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

H
u
m
a
n

t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

P
h
o
t
o
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

o
x
i
d
a
n
t

f
o
r
m
a
o
n

P
a
r
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
e
r

f
o
r
m
a
o
n

I
o
n
i
s
i
n
g

r
a
d
i
a
o
n

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

a
c
i
d
i
f
i
c
a
o
n

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

e
u
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
a
o
n

M
a
r
i
n
e

e
u
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
a
o
n

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

M
a
r
i
n
e

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

o
c
c
u
p
a
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

l
a
n
d

o
c
c
u
p
a
o
n

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
o
n

W
a
t
e
r

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

M
e
t
a
l

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

F
o
s
s
i
l

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

Normalized European values for Carbon Fibre and Steel impacts at mid point
CF MID
Steel MID
was higher than the carbon fibre, with $1,074. This was also unsurprising
since the weight of cars made of steel is superior so they have a greater
consumption of fuel. Other categories have noteworthy impacts such as the
Climate change for human health, Climate change for ecosystems and
Particulate matter formation. In all three categories the impact for carbon fibre
was lower than for steel. It was also noticed that the CF impact for Human
toxicity was 0.034 DALY, which was higher than the steel impact (0.029).
Although, the difference between these values was small.



Figure 6. Normalized European values for Carbon fibre and Steel impacts at end point

Another comparison was made between the European and World
values for both types of car at mid point and it is shown below at Figure 7. It
was noticed that the major impacts accounted for the European normalization
were different from the ones for World standards. This was expected once
that the focus is different. For example, the category of Natural land
transformation has a big impact for Europe while for the World normalization it
has a small value. This result could be explained by the amount of earth
available in Europe that is short compared to the rest of the world. Another
observation is that the category of most impact in world normalization
standards is Marine ecotoxicity, followed by Freshwater eutrophication and
Human toxicity. The last two parameters have grater values of impact for the
Carbon fibre car so they should receive special attention.

0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

h
u
m
a
n

h
e
a
l
t
h

O
z
o
n
e

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

H
u
m
a
n

t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

P
h
o
t
o
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

o
x
i
d
a
n
t

f
o
r
m
a
o
n

P
a
r
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
e
r

f
o
r
m
a
o
n

I
o
n
i
s
i
n
g

r
a
d
i
a
o
n

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

a
c
i
d
i
f
i
c
a
o
n

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

e
u
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
a
o
n

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

M
a
r
i
n
e

e
c
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

o
c
c
u
p
a
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

l
a
n
d

o
c
c
u
p
a
o
n

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
o
n

M
e
t
a
l

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

F
o
s
s
i
l

d
e
p
l
e
o
n

Normalized European values for Carbon Fibre and Steel impacts at end point
CF END
Steel END

Figure 7. Normalized World and Europe values for Carbon Fibre and Steel impacts at mid point.

Even with some higher impact values for the carbon fibre, in most of
the categories it showed more environmental friendly and thus it could be a
better alternative for the manufacture of cars.


0
5
10
15
20
25
30
C
lim
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e

O
z
o
n
e
d
e
p
le
o
n

H
u
m
a
n
t
o
x
ic
it
y

P
h
o
t
o
c
h
e
m
ic
a
l o
x
id
a
n
t
f
o
r
m
a
o
n

P
a
r
c
u
la
t
e
m
a
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
o
n

I
o
n
is
in
g
r
a
d
ia
o
n

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
ia
l a
c
id
if
i
c
a
o
n

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
e
u
t
r
o
p
h
ic
a
o
n

M
a
r
in
e
e
u
t
r
o
p
h
ic
a
o
n

T
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
ia
l e
c
o
t
o
x
ic
it
y

F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
e
c
o
t
o
x
ic
it
y

M
a
r
in
e
e
c
o
t
o
x
ic
it
y

A
g
r
ic
u
lt
u
r
a
l la
n
d
o
c
c
u
p
a
o
n

U
r
b
a
n
la
n
d
o
c
c
u
p
a
o
n

N
a
t
u
r
a
l la
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
o
n

W
a
t
e
r
d
e
p
le
o
n

M
e
t
a
l d
e
p
le
o
n

F
o
s
s
il d
e
p
le
o
n

Normalized World and Europe values for Carbon Fibre and Steel impacts at mid point
CF MID World
Steel MID World
CF MID Europe
Steel MID Europe
References

[1] Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for structural
applications: Technology review and market outlook, Soraia Pimenta
and Silvestre T. Pinho. Available at:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X10004976>.

[2] Green & Clean Journal. New Research Seeks A Way to Recycle &
Reuse Carbon Fiber. Available at:
<http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/12/18/new-research-seeks-a-
way-to-recycle-reuse-carbon-fiber/ >. Acessed in 02/12/2013.

[3] Carbon fibre reinforced polymer. Available at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-fiber-reinforced_polymer> . Acessed in
02/12/2013.

[4] Techopedia Normalization. Available at:
<http://www.techopedia.com/definition/1221/normalization>.

Вам также может понравиться