QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING RECYCLABILITY POTENTIAL OF AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS (EES) IN THE DESIGN STEP.

APPLICATION EXAMPLE TO A SMART JUNCTION BOX.

Julio Rodrigo1, Francesc Castells1, Juan Carlos Alonso2, Andr Greif3, Julia Dose3, Kerstin Lichtenvort3, Sebastian Alber4 AGA-SIMPPLE, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain), 2 LEAR Automotive EED Spain, SL (Valls, Spain), 3 Institute for Environmental Engineering, Technical University Berlin (Germany) and 4CIMA (Hungary)
1

1.- Introduction
This paper presents a quantitative methodology for assessing recyclability, reusability and recoverability potential of current and new designs of automotive Electrical and Electronic Systems (EES). The need, value and effort of destructive or non-destructive dismantling of an EES product or parts of it are assessed in this methodology considering their composition and other specific design parameters. This enables more objective and practical comparisons of alternative EES designs. Application of this methodology supports design for dismantling, re-use, recycling and recovery of EES products. This methodology is closely linked to a second one - not presented in this paper - which allows the simulation of recycling and recovery end-of-life scenarios of EES by considering their input material composition and some specific product characteristics and by using a set of mathematical functions/factors which allow the prediction of mass indicators (for recycling/recovery) and the economical and environmental consequences of the selected process. With this tandem of methodologies, balances between disassembly efforts vs. the corresponding end-of-life consequences can be performed for assessing the appropriateness or expected end-of-life results due to disassembly operations. This methodology has been developed within the SEES Project (Sustainable Electrical and Electronic System for the Automotive Sector [1]) that is being developed under the EU contract TST3-CT-2003-506075 of the 6th Framework Programme. The consortium covers all actors involved from the manufacture till end-of-life of EES: TU Berlin, LEAR, FORD, Rohm & Haas, Indumetal Recycling, Mller-Guttenbrunn, GAIKER, CIMA and Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

2.- Calculation steps of the methodology

The six main calculation steps of this methodology are described in this section. This version of the methodology has been implemented in an Excel sheet which allows the calculation of all the proposed indicators and will be an essential part of a software tool -currently under development- after its testing and refinement. 2.1.- Product characterisation (step 1)

For characterising the product under study, the following info is pre-required: number and name of components or parts of the target product structure of the target product - parts and connections between them weight of components or parts of the target product detailed composition of the target product and its parts prohibited and declarable substances according to the GADSL [2]

2.2.- Recyclability & recoverability potential ISO 22628 (step 2) This calculation step is integrated by the three following calculation sub-steps. 2.2.1.- Recyclability and recoverability rates (sub-step 2.1) It is a simple adaptation of the ISO 22628:2002 method [3] for calculating recyclability and recoverability rates of automotive EES products based on their weight and composition which can be potentially recycled and recovered. The user should indicate if the product or its parts have a potential market for re-use and the methodology calculates the corresponding recyclability and recoverability rates by considering their weight, composition and proposed recyclability and recoverability percentages of proven recycling technologies. 2.2.2.- Transformation of mass indicators into costs indicators (sub-step 2.2) The previous mass rates are transformed into costs indicators by considering the market price of recyclable material flows and re-usable components and depending on chosen recycling, recovery or disposal technologies. 2.2.3.- Proven recycling technologies (sub-step 2.3) Besides mass and costs indicators, a list of available proven recycling and recovery technologies for the analysed EES product is another output. 2.3.- Necessity of a first level disassembly (step 3) In this step, the user should decide about the necessity or appropriateness of a first level disassembly step, or in other words, to extract the EES from the vehicle. This decision can be supported or motivated by several reasons and criteria. In this methodology is obligatory to consider, at least, the three following criteria: 1) legal duty to dismantle, 2) potential economic end-of-value for re-use and 3) content of heavy metals mentioned at the ELV Directive [4]. The methodology includes a table with a qualitative A/B/C assessment of the most common automotive EES components in the three mentioned criteria [5]. In each criteria the value A is given for highest relevance of component whereas C represents low relevance of component in that criteria (for heavy metals: A = high (x > 5 g), B = middle (1 g < x < 5 g) and C = low (x < 1 g)).

The user should select A, B or C in each of the obligatory three criteria for the whole product and for each component part. Based on this assessment, the methodology will guide the user to a decision whether to consider disassembly or not for the whole product and for each component part. The four possible answers of this assessment are the following: 1) disassembly necessary, 2) recommended, 3) not recommended or 4) no clear recommendation. Finally, the total content of heavy metals mentioned in the ELV Directive (Pb, Hg, Cd and Cr+6) is calculated for the whole product and for each component part. 2.4.- First level disassembly (step 4) If a first level disassembly step is chosen or required, the user of the methodology should provide some extra data and information for quantifying the effort of extracting the target product from the vehicle. The user should assign an identification number to each fastener, of the target product and of any previous part to be removed, and then (per each individual fastener) the following information should be provided: coordinates (x, y, z) for knowing its relative position type of fastener (selection from a closed list) priority (order or level in which fasteners should be disassembled) accessibility of fasteners (low, medium or high) taking-off/breaking direction (selection from a closed list)

With all previous information, the following design indicators are calculated: total number of fasteners different types of fasteners (for knowing variability and tooling) dominant accessibility of fasteners dominant taking-off/breaking direction number of different tools required distances between fasteners (transitions in xy, xz and yz) suggested best disassembly sequence

These previous indicators are transformed into estimated disassembly times and costs (expressed in ) by using proposed default values for the desired disassembly sequence: type and quantity of fasteners accessibility of fasteners tool changing (due to type and quantity of fasteners) changes in taking-off/breaking direction transitions between fasteners TOTAL estimated disassembly time

2.5.- Necessity of a second level disassembly (step 5) In this step the user should decide about the necessity or appropriateness of a second level disassembly step, or in other words, to disassemble the EES

product into its different component parts and materials. Again, this decision can be motivated by several reasons (e.g. easier recycling or recovering, more economic benefits, re-usability of component parts, etc.). The tool includes some key questions to guide the user to the right decision, for example: - are hazardous substances concentrated in a part of the product? - are valuable materials concentrated in a part of the product? - are possible recycling contaminants concentrated in a part of the product? - are single parts of the product of high value for re-use? 2.6.- Second level disassembly (step 6) Analogously to the first level disassembly step, if a second level disassembly step is chosen, the user should provide some extra data for quantifying the effort of disassembling the target product into its component parts. Information requirements, calculated design indicators and estimated disassembly times & costs are analogous to those presented in step 4 (first level disassembly). Finally, the methodology can also calculate aggregated indicators or the corresponding design indicators and the estimated disassembly times due to step 4 (first level disassembly) and step 6 (second level disassembly).

3.- Application to a Smart Junction Box (SJB)

This methodology has been preliminary tested in a Smart Junction Box (SJB), device which regulates electrical and electronic connections, manufactured at LEAR and assembled in passenger compartment of Ford Focus C-Max. The SJB has a mass of 1,328 g (57% polymers, 39% metals and 4% unknown materials). The methodology predicts a 96% of recyclability and recoverability potential and several proven recycling/recovery technologies are available for the contained polymers and metals. The remaining 4% should go to disposal. From a disassembly point of view, the methodology suggests the disassembly of the SJB due to its content of lead in solder (regulated by ELV Directive). Finally, some important influencing design aspects of the SJB, which could be improved for facilitating its disassembly, have been identified: - number of previous parts to be dismantled before reaching the SJB - joining system in those previous parts (type, quantity and accessibility) - joining system of the SJB to the vehicle (type, quantity and accessibility) - type of connector to plug the SJB to the wire-harness (non-destructive) - design of the SJB cover (intrinsic joining system) and inserted components

4.- References
[1] SEES Project (www.sees-project.net) [2] GADSL, Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (www.gadsl.org) [3] ISO 22628 (Road vehicles-Recyclability & recoverability-Calculation method) [4] End-of-Life Vehicle Directive 2000/53/EC and Comm. Decision 27/06/2002 [5] URV, TUB & LEAR, Integrated Assessment of Auto. EES (SEES Proj.), 2004