8/3/2019 ISO22628 - Cota de Reciclagem

1/4

QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSINGRECYCLABILITY 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, JuliaDose3, Kerstin Lichtenvort3, Sebastian Alber4

1AGA-SIMPPLE, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain),2LEAR Automotive EED Spain, SL (Valls, Spain),

3Institute for Environmental Engineering, Technical University Berlin (Germany)and 4CIMA (Hungary)

1.- Introduction

This paper presents a quantitative methodology for assessing recyclability, re-usability and recoverability potential of current and new designs of automotiveElectrical and Electronic Systems (EES). The need, value and effort ofdestructive or non-destructive dismantling of an EES product or parts of it areassessed in this methodology considering their composition and other specificdesign parameters. This enables more objective and practical comparisons ofalternative EES designs. Application of this methodology supports design fordismantling, 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 productcharacteristics and by using a set of mathematical functions/factors which allowthe prediction of mass indicators (for recycling/recovery) and the economicaland environmental consequences of the selected process. With this tandem ofmethodologies, balances between disassembly efforts vs. the correspondingend-of-life consequences can be performed for assessing the appropriatenessor expected end-of-life results due to disassembly operations.

This methodology has been developed within the SEES Project (SustainableElectrical and Electronic System for the Automotive Sector [1]) that is beingdeveloped under the EU contract TST3-CT-2003-506075 of the 6th FrameworkProgramme. The consortium covers all actors involved from the manufacture tillend-of-life of EES: TU Berlin, LEAR, FORD, Rohm & Haas, IndumetalRecycling, 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 whichallows the calculation of all the proposed indicators and will be an essential partof a software tool -currently under development- after its testing and refinement.

2.1.- Product characterisation (step 1)

8/3/2019 ISO22628 - Cota de Reciclagem

2/4

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 theirweight and composition which can be potentially recycled and recovered.

The user should indicate if the product or its parts have a potential market forre-use and the methodology calculates the corresponding recyclability andrecoverability rates by considering their weight, composition and proposedrecyclability 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 consideringthe market price of recyclable material flows and re-usable components anddepending 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 andrecovery 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 afirst level disassembly step, or in other words, to extract the EES from thevehicle. This decision can be supported or motivated by several reasons andcriteria. In this methodology is obligatory to consider, at least, the threefollowing criteria: 1) legal duty to dismantle, 2) potential economic end-of-valuefor 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 themost common automotive EES components in the three mentioned criteria [5].In each criteria the value A is given for highest relevance of componentwhereas 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)).

8/3/2019 ISO22628 - Cota de Reciclagem

3/4

The user should select A, B or C in each of the obligatory three criteria for thewhole product and for each component part. Based on this assessment, themethodology will guide the user to a decision whether to consider disassemblyor not for the whole product and for each component part. The four possibleanswers 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, Cdand 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 themethodology should provide some extra data and information for quantifying theeffort 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 individualfastener) 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 timesand 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 asecond level disassembly step, or in other words, to disassemble the EES

8/3/2019 ISO22628 - Cota de Reciclagem

4/4

product into its different component parts and materials. Again, this decisioncan be motivated by several reasons (e.g. easier recycling or recovering, moreeconomic benefits, re-usability of component parts, etc.). The tool includessome 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 disassemblystep is chosen, the user should provide some extra data for quantifying theeffort of disassembling the target product into its component parts. Informationrequirements, 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 thecorresponding design indicators and the estimated disassembly times due tostep 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 atLEAR and assembled in passenger compartment of Ford Focus C-Max. TheSJB has a mass of 1,328 g (57% polymers, 39% metals and 4% unknownmaterials). The methodology predicts a 96% of recyclability and recoverabilitypotential and several proven recycling/recovery technologies are available forthe contained polymers and metals. The remaining 4% should go to disposal.

From a disassembly point of view, the methodology suggests the disassemblyof 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 beimproved 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