Life cycle engineering case study: Automobile fender designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Beginning with the goal and scope definition five different fender designs using steel, aluminum, PP/EPDM, PC/PBT and PPO/PA are described and the boundary conditions set. This exemplary case study demonstrates the general approach and beneficial uses of life cycle assessment and life cycle engineering. The inventory of the fenders shows that the steel design has advantages in terms of lower energy consumption during production. However, when the utilization phase of the fenders is considered, the overall energy consumption of the PP/EPDM fender is smaller due to the light weight of the this polymer design. Concerning the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), the global warming potential of the PP/EPDM design is the smallest of all the fender materials even during the production of the fenders. The inventory analysis shows that the utilization phase of automotive parts is dominated by fuel consumption and related emissions like CO2. Nevertheless the LCIA shows that some impacts are mainly determined in the production phase. For example, the global warming potential of nitrous oxide (N2O) released during PPO/PA material production cannot be compensated for by the lower energy demand (and also lower CO2 emissions) during the utilization phase. Economic considerations are also discussed. As a parameter, the cost of parts was chosen. Parts costs depend on material costs, labor costs and other variable costs. In addition, the fixed costs for machines and tools were considered. Steel fenders have the smallest production costs, followed by the PP/EPDM design. Finally, in an overall valuation of the compared fender designs the best design considering primary energy demand, global warming potential, and part costs was investigated. In terms of the specified criteria, the PP/EPDM fender is the best design, however, the results lead to a variety of different conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".