Feasibility of Urban-Concept Vehicles:

Introduction

The NUS ECO-1 will be used as a case study for the feasibility assessment of our
project as it would be a closest gauge to the Urban Concept Vehicles that our
team intends to design. This assessment uses the Design for Environment
(DFE) tools to evaluate NUS ECO-1s impact on the environment.

The assessment factors will be discussed and determined, using the

hypothesised components of materials, with the score for each factor evaluated
in a simple life cycle analysis of the main materials used. Finally, the overall
score of NUS ECO-1 will be evaluated with regard to a similar product in the
market to generate ideas for improvement.

Assessment Factors

Assessment Factor Overall Weighting

1 Production Impacts 20%
2 Recyclability 20%
3 Usage Impacts 60%
Total 100%

The assessment factors are listed below. The 3 main assessment factors are the
Production Impacts (20%), the Recyclability (20%) and the Usage Impacts (60%).

This specific breakdown of the assessment factor weightings was utilized to

ensure that the Usage Impacts of the product was given the most consideration.
Due to the expected long term usage of vehicles, is safe to assume that the
resultant emissions from these devices will eventually develop a significantly
larger environmental footprint than its manufacturing and disposal/recycling
processes (Audi, 2011).
Production Impacts & Recyclability Factors

Components of Materials by Weight

Aluminium
Synthetic Materials (Acrylic(Outer Shell); Fibre);
and Carbon 14% 15%
Rubber (Tires); 9%

Steel (Structure/ Engine); 62%

Fig 1. Approximate material composition of NUS ECO-1

Based on previous reports of NUS ECO-1 (Tan, 2009), an approximate material

composition of is shown in figure 1. From the diagram it is fairy evident that Steel
(62%) and Aluminium (14%) make up the bulk of the metal componentry. The
synthetic materials (15%) are essentially composed on equal measures of carbon
fibre and acrylic for NUS ECO-1s internal furnishings and the external windshield
respectively.

Metal Componentry

A simple life cycle of NUS ECO-1 is shown is Figure 2 below.

Ra
w
Mat
eria
l Pro
Rec
ces
ycle
sed

Pr
Scr od
ap uc
t

Figure 2. Simplified Life Cycle of NUS ECO-1.

Steel is one of the worlds most recyclable materials, with more than 85% of
steel from major applications such as construction or automobiles sent for
recycling (Louis Brimacombe, 2005). Despite this, due to the high longevity of
steel based products, coupled with the increasing demand for steel, only 40% of
steel is composed of recycled material (Louis Brimacombe, 2005). The
remaining steel is derived from hematite ores, which undergo an extremely
energy intensive process before being converted to steel (Norgate, Jahanshahi, &
Rankin, 2006). Due to steels high recyclability, the amount of energy required
for mining and processing raw hematite into steel is fairly minimal (Louis
Brimacombe, 2005). Based on this, steel can be considered to have relatively low
production impacts and high recyclability.

Like steel, aluminium is also fully recyclable (Norgate, Jahanshahi, & Rankin,
2006). Any aluminium not derived from recycled materials is obtained from
bauxite ores. Like in the case with steel, the mining and processing of bauxite
into usable aluminium is extremely energy intensive (Norgate, Jahanshahi, &
Rankin, 2006). Based on this, aluminium can be considered to have relatively low
production impacts and high recyclability.

Synthetic Materials

Acrylic was chosen to construct the windshield due to its high durability and easy
processing, as compared to glass (Peregrine Custom Plastics, 2007). However,
acrylic cannot be easily recycled (Fresno). Conventional acrylic recycling process
necessitates huge amounts of heat, and also generates a plethora of toxins,
making it an unfeasible process (Achilias, 2012). In contrast, glass has a nontoxic
emission during recycling which seems to be a more environmentally feasible
material than acrylic (Glass Packaging Institute, 2017).

In addition, carbon fibre is used in placed of the conventional polypropylene for

the interior components. I.e. steering wheel, dashboard and floorboard (Tan,
2009). The advantage for using carbon fibre is attributed to its unique texture
and more importantly it minimised vibration during motion (Gupta & Zeltmann,
2016). Despite its perks, it is less feasibly to recycle carbon fibre as compared to
polypropylene, or other type of plastics, due to lack of technological expertise
(Marsh, 2009). Based on this, both carbon fibre and acrylic can be considered to
have high production impacts and very low recyclability.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned discussions and its overall weight
distributions, the NUS ECO-1 was awarded a score of 60% to both Production
Impacts and Recyclability factors.

Usage Impacts

NUS ECO-1 utilises the Yanmar L48AE, gas-to-liquid (GTL) diesel engine. GTL fuels
are synthetic fuels that has much lesser impact on air pollution and carbon
emissions as compared to non-GTL fuels (Cherrillo, Dahlstrom, & Coleman,
2007). Figure 3 below shows a recent study on the difference in the Nitrogen
Oxides emission, a family of poisonous and highly reactive gases, between
traditionally used CARB fuels and Shells GTL fuel.

Figure 3. Difference in the NOx emission between Shell GTL and CARB ULSD
reference fuel. (Cherrillo, Dahlstrom, & Coleman, 2007)

Therefore, based on the aforementioned discussions and its type of engine used,
the NUS ECO-1 was awarded a score of 80% to its Usage Impacts factors.

Overall Score

Assessment Factors Weighting Score Weighted Score

(NUS ECO-1)
Production Impacts 20% 60% 12%
Recyclability 20% 60% 12%
Usage Impacts 60% 80% 48%
Overall Score 72%
LCA shows a decent score is 72% which points to the fact that it does not greatly
degrades the environment. One possible improvement would be the use of
recycled polypropylene on some of the components in the interior. This way, it
reduces the reliance on the production of fresh carbon fibre and cost.

Carbon fibre has a lower energy consumption, in terms of production and

processing, as compared to aluminium (Yang, Christiansen, & Luchner, 2013).
Thus, another possible improvement would be to integrate the use of carbon
fibre on the outer shell of the vehicle. This would also decrease the net weight of
the vehicle and further improve gas mileage. (Pyper, 2012)

References
Achilias, D. S. (2012). Recent Advances in the Chemical Recycling of Polymers.
Thessaloniki: Laboratory of Organic Chemical Technology, Department of
Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Audi. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment - Audi A6. Audi. Retrieved from
http://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-
responsibility/product/audi_a6_life_cycle_assessment.pdf
Baviskar, J. (2015, November 5). Advantages & Disadvantages of 4 stroke & 2
stroke engine. Retrieved from MechStuff: http://mechstuff.com/differences-
advantages-disadvantages-of-4-stroke-2-stroke-engine/
Chemonics International Inc. (2004). The Cairo Air Improvement Project . Cairo:
United States Agency for International Development.
Cherrillo, R. A., Dahlstrom, M. A., & Coleman, A. T. (2007). Verification of Shell
GTL Fuel as CARB Alternative Diesel. US: Shell Global Solutions.
Fresno. (n.d.). The Categories of Plastics. Retrieved September 6, 2016, from
Fresno: The Categories
Glass Packaging Institute. (2017). Why Recycle Glass. Retrieved from Glass
Packaging Institute: http://www.gpi.org/recycling/why-recycle-glass
Gupta, N., & Zeltmann, S. (2016, March). The Carbon-Fiber Future: It's About
More Than Speed. Retrieved from Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/53995-carbon-fiber-may-finally-be-coming-to-
cars-everywhere.html
Karian, H. (2003). Handbook of Polypropylene and Polypropylene Composites,
Revised and Expanded. CRC Press.
Louis Brimacombe, N. C. (2005). Recycling, reuse and the sustainability of steel.
Thailand: Millennium Steel.
Marsh, G. (2009). Recycling carbon fibre composites. Retrieved from Recycling
carbon fibre composites: http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon-
fiber/features/recycling-carbon-fibre-composites/
Meredith, J., Bilson, E., Powe, R., Collings, E., & Kirwan, K. (2015). A performance
versus cost analysis of prepreg carbon fibre epoxy energy absorption
structures. Composite Structures, 212-213.
Norgate, T., Jahanshahi, S., & Rankin, W. (2006). Assessing the environmental
impact of metal production processes. South Victoria: CSIRO Minerals.
Peregrine Custom Plastics. (2007). Peregrine Custom Plastics. Retrieved from
http://www.peregrine.build/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MATERIALS-
AcrylicVsGlass.pdf
Pyper, J. (2012). To Boost Gas Mileage, Automakers Explore Lighter Cars.
ClimateWire.
Recycling of Polypropylene. (2012, 6 25). Retrieved 9 4, 2016, from AZO
Cleantech: http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?
ArticleID=240#The_Environmental_Benefits_of_Recycling
Salazar, F. (1998). Internal Combustions in Engines. Notre Dame: Department of
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering University of Notre Dame.
Tan, T. (2009). NUS ECO-1 GTL City Concept Car . HOT DRIVE, 101.
Yang, J., Christiansen, K., & Luchner, S. (2013, October). Renewable, Low-Cost
Carbon Fiber for Lightweight Vehicles. Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/carbon_fiber_summary_repo
rt.pdf