Lifecycle Trade-Offs:
A Holistic Assessment of FRPs Replacing Steel in Automotive and Construction ApplicationsProposed Focus:This review examines lifecycle trade-offs (production, use phase, and end-of-life) when Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs, all types) replace steel in automotive and construction industries. It highlights environmental, economic, and functional impacts, focusing on trade-offs across lifecycle stages.
Why Focus on Lifecycle Trade-Offs?Comprehensive Scope:Covers production, use, and end-of-life stages without excessive technical depth.Balances environmental, economic, and functional perspectives.
Unified Framework:
Direct comparisons of FRPs and steel across applications.Evaluates interdependencies, e.g., high production impacts offset by use-phase benefits.Sector Relevance:Automotive:
Lightweight FRPs improve fuel efficiency.Construction: Durable FRPs reduce maintenance and extend lifespan.Structure of the Review Paper:Introduction:Contextualizes the demand for sustainable materials.Positions FRPs as a lightweight, durable alternative to steel.States the objective: assess lifecycle trade-offs of FRPs vs. steel.
Lifecycle Stages and Trade-Offs:Production:Steel has lower energy needs but high emissions (35-50 MJ/kg).FRPs require higher energy (CFRPs ~170-200 MJ/kg) but bio-based alternatives are emerging.Trade-Off: FRPs’ production emissions are often offset by use-phase benefits.Use Phase:Automotive: Lightweight FRPs reduce fuel consumption (e.g., 10% weight reduction = 6-8% fuel savings).Construction: FRPs resist corrosion, reducing maintenance and extending lifespan.Trade-Off: FRPs lower lifecycle emissions but face structural load-bearing challenges.End-of-Life (EoL):Steel is 98% recyclable with established processes.FRPs’ recycling (mechanical, thermal, chemical) is energy-intensive, with innovations needed.Trade-Off: Steel excels in recyclability, but FRPs’ longevity mitigates waste.Sector-Specific
Analysis:Automotive:Applications: Lightweight body panels, reinforcements.Summary: High production emissions, significant use-phase benefits, recycling challenges.Construction:Applications: Bridge decks, reinforcements, facades.
Summary:
Moderate production impacts, durable use phase, limited recycling options.Comparative Metrics:Energy: Steel lower in production, FRPs lower in use.Emissions: Steel higher overall unless FRPs’ EoL improves.Cost: Steel cheaper upfront, FRPs cost-effective long-term.Durability: FRPs excel in corrosive environments.Challenges and Opportunities:Challenges: High production energy, limited recycling, cost barriers.Opportunities: Bio-based FRPs, renewable energy use, improved recycling, policy incentives.Recommendations:Automotive: Focus FRPs on weight-sensitive components; innovate recycling for CFRPs in EVs.
Construction:
Use FRPs in corrosive environments; standardize design codes for infrastructure.Conclusion:Summarizes lifecycle trade-offs, highlighting sector-specific FRP benefits and challenges.Calls for research on production efficiency and end-of-life strategies to enhance lifecycle sustainability.
