a handbook of life cycle design guidelines ......a handbook of life cycle design guidelines for...

A HANDBOOK OF LIFE CYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL

PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM

The Support Structure

Marco Grazia

Prof. Carlo Arnaldo VezzoliDr. Carlo Proserpio DIPARTIMENTO DI DESIGN

3

INDEX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTA.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTA.3 LIFE CYCLE DESIGN

B.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTSB.2 SMALL PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PRIORITIES

Strategic Design Priorities - SUPPORT STRUCTURE1 MINIMISE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION2 OPTIMISATION OF PRODUCT LIFESPAN3 MINIMISING TOXIC EMISSIONS4 IMPROVE LIFESPAN OF MATERIALS5 MINIMISING ENERGY CONSUMPTION6 RENEWABLE AND BIO-COMPATIBLE RESOURCES7 DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLYChecklist

05

060708

0911

151619242834374045

5

1DIS - Design and System Innovation Sustainability - Politecnico di Milano

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This handbook is the main result of “The Eco-Efficient Design of Small Photovoltaic System - A Handbook of Life Cycle Design Guidelines for Small Photovoltaic System” thesis performed by Marco Grazia during the Master of Science in Design & Engineering at the Politecnico di Milano.

The purpose is to provide the designers with a contribution in products design, in order to face the transition towards sustainability. This assessment results in identifying areas of priority when designing future, eco-efficient Small Photovoltaic System.

The handbook firstly introduces the concepts of sustainable development, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Design (LCD). This is followed by the main results of an LCA study made using SimaPro software. The main indication that emerges, looking at the environmental impact of considered life cycle phases (material production, component manufacturing, use, maintenance, distribution and disposal) is that impact of the material production, and component manufacturing (material used).

Design decisions to integrate environmental requirements in product development process are grouped in the followingstrategies. Then, for each one, a priority indicator, in relation with the other strategies, is defined with IPSA method (Strategic Design Priorities Identification, developed by DIS1), based on the potential environmental improvement.

Design for Disassembly is functional to product and components lifetime extension and to material lifetime extension and therefore it doesn’t have any priority indicator.

6

A.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The idea of sustainable development was presented by the document “Our Common Future” by the World Commission for Environment and Development about twenty years ago. Then it has been utilized as background by the United Nations in Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

This expression allude to the systemic conditions for which, at a regional and global level, human activities would not exceed biosphere and geosphere resilience limits, beyond which irreversible decay phenomena take place, and, at thesame time, they would not diminish quality of the natural capital that will be handed down to future generations, meant as the whole not renewable resources and the environment systemic skills of reproduce the renewable ones.

Moreover an ethical consideration has to be added: the principle of equity according to which it’s stated that everyone, in the sustainability context, has the right to the same environmental space, that is to say the same availability of global natural resources.

7

A.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

The most recognised method to measure how much an industrial product defines negative effects for the environment is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA, according to ISO 14040, is a technique to quantify environmental aspects and potential impacts during the whole life cycle of a product through:• inventory of significant inputs and outputs coming from

product-system life cycle processes• assessment of potential impacts related with these

inputs and outputs• interpretation of the results of the previous two steps

and evaluation, in reference to the goals of the study.

The LCA, in other words, considers the environmental impacts, in the ecologic and human wealth field as in resources depletion, in relation with the material, energy and emissions flows of different processes that characterise the product in its life cycle: pre-production (material production), production (component manufacturing), distribution (delivery, installation and packaging), use (maintenance and assembly), end of life treatment.

To define the processes that characterise the product in its life cycle, it’s assumed as a reference its function (functional unit), that is to say the service or result that it provides; the function of the small photovoltaic system is the quantity of renewable energy produced.

8

A.3 LIFE CYCLE DESIGN

Moving from the Life Cycle Assessment of a product to its design, the references are criteria, methods and tools of Life Cycle Design (LCD). The fundamental criterion is that design has to consider all life cycle stages, that is to say having a systemic approach. LCD environmental scope is then to reduce material and energy inputs, as well as all emissions and wastes impact, both in quantity than in quality, taking function or result provided by a specific product as a reference for the environmental improvement assessment. The importance of a LCD approach is to find and conjugate environmental advantages with economic and competitive advantages (eco-efficiency). Considering environmental requirements since the first phases of design is much more efficient than trying to recover the damage.

A first fundamental step for an effective LCD is the LCA study of a specific product typology product; in fact this allows to identify phases and processes that have the biggest impact and then to effectively define design intervention priorities. Design guidelines are also important LCD tools; the more these are defined specifically for product type and priority (environmental improvement potential), the more effective they are. This text shows the main design strategies and priorities related to the small photovoltaic system, a further work could lead to the definition of specific guidelines to integrate environmental requirements in the design of low environmental impact small photovoltaic system.

9

B.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS

LIFE CYCLE PHASE mPOINTSPreProduction (PP) + Production (P) 4337 mPtUse (U) 162 mPtDistribution (DT) 83 mPtDisposal (DM) 37 mPt

COMPONENT mPOINTSPhotovoltaic Module 2772 mPtInverter 1038 mPtSupport Structure 547 mPtElectric Installation 318 mPt

Small Photovoltaic System - COMPONENT

Small Photovoltaic System - TOTAL LC Phase

10

The results show us a very interesting fact: during the life cycle of a PV system, the most of environmental impact is concentrated on pre-production + production phases. It is very interesting to note that disposal phase has a minimum impact. Nowadays, in fact, almost the entire PV system can be recycled.

The single component with the highest impact is, obviously, the PV module: this is because it has cells made of silicon, that is difficult to produce and it has an high environmental impact. Furthermore there are many materials used in production, in particular aluminium and solar glass have both an high impact.

The second most impacting component is the inverter, in fact it has many electric components like capacitors, integrated circuits and printed wiring board. But it is the cooper the material most used in pre-production. Interesting is to see that in production the use of electricity is higher compared to the other processes: this is due to the fact that processing metals requires high amount of energy.

In the support structure and the electric installation we have a large quantity of metals that they represent the highest environmental impact of the components, in particular aluminium and copper.

11

B.2 SMALL PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PRIORITIES

The design guidelines for integrating environmental requirements in the development phase of the examined product are grouped into the following strategies:

Minimise Materials Consumption (high priority)

Optimisation of Product Lifespan (medium priority)

Minimising Toxic Emissions (medium priority)

Improve Lifespan of Materials (low priority)

Minimising Energy Consumption (low priority)

Renewable and Bio-Compatible Resources (low priority)

HIGH

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

LOW

IPSA

Prio

rity

LOW LOW

12

HIGH PRIORITY• Minimise Materials Consumption: design strategy

that aims at the reduction of products environmental impact by reducing the material consumption of the whole product, the single component.

MEDIUM HIGH PRIORITY• Optimisation of Product Lifespan: design strategy

that aims at the reduction of products environmental impact by extending the life span of the whole product, the single component.

• Minimising Toxic Emissions: design to facilitate the use of resources that relative to the entire life cycle minimise dangerous emissions and all the processes that characterize it

MEDIUM LOW PRIORITY• Improve Lifespan of Materials: design strategy that

aims at the reduction of products environmental impact by exploiting them in respect of landfill through recycle, energy recovery or composting.

LOW PRIORITY• Minimising Energy Consumption: design strategy

that aims at the reduction of products environmental impact by reducing energy consumption in use.

• Renewable and Bio-Compatible Resources: design strategy that aims at the reduction of products environmental impact by using renewable and not exhausting resources (material and energy), as well as bio-compatible in the disposal phase.

Each design strategy is accompanied by some graphs

13

1 Vezzoli C., Sciama D., “Life cycle design: from general methods to product type specific guidelines and checklists”, Journal of Cleaner Production, USA, 2006

indicating further intervention priority (in terms of environmental impact potential reduction). For each strategy, a guidelines and checklists set for high eco-efficient Small Photovoltaic System design has been made. The methodology, that has been used, is based on Life Cycle Design (LCD), or eco-design criteria and on a method for guidelines product specification1 adopted by DIS-Politecnico di Milano.

inverter

electric installation

SUPPORTSTRUCTURE

photovoltaicmodule

grid

sun

16

1 MINIMISE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION

Reducing resources indcates a design aimed at reducing the usage of materials for the entire product life cycle. Using less materials drops the environmental impact of a product due to minimising the resources being extracted, but also due to the reduction or diminishing of the fabrication processes and the produced waste. Apart from their environmental costs products obviously also have economical costs. Less materials means savings in both contexts.

PV ModuleInverterSupport StructureElectric Installation

HIGH

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

LOW

IPSA

Prio

rity

17

Support Structure

18

Minimise Materials ConsumptionSupport Structure Design Guidelines

Minimise material content:• Dematerialise the product or some of its components• Design the support structure integrated with the module

frame and with the the roof• Avoid over-sized dimensions • Apply ribbed to the structure to increase structural

stiffness• Avoid extra components with little functionality

Minimise scraps and discards:• Select processes that reduce scraps and discarded

materials during production • Engage simulation systems to optimise transformation

processes

Minimise or avoid packaging:• Avoid packaging • Choose efficient transport systems with minimal (or not

present) packaging • Optimise packaging for more support structures• Apply materials only where absolutely necessary

Engage more consumption-efficient systems:• Design for more efficient consumption of operational

materials• Design the structure with a shape to avoid store of dirt

or water• Design for more efficient supply of raw materials • Design for more efficient use of maintenance materials

19

2 OPTIMISATION OF PRODUCT LIFESPAN

Optimising the lifespan of a products is to design for the extending of the product and its components lifespan and for intensifying product use. A product with longer lifespan than another with the same functionality, generally determines smaller environmental impact. A product with accelerated wear will not only generate untimely waste, but will also determine further impact due to the need of replacing it. Production and distribution of a new product to replace its function involves the consumption of new resources and the further generation of emissions.


HIGH

MEDIUM

LOWLOW

IPSA

Prio

rity

20

The components that in the PP, P, DT and DM have the highest environmental impact are:

Total EcoIndicator points of current design, 25 years - compared to 37,5 years lifetime extension

Support Structure

25y37,5y

21

Optimisation of Product Lifespan Support Structure Design Guidelines

Reliability design:• Reduce overall number of components• Simplify products• Eliminate weak liaisons

Facilitate upgrading and adaptability:• Enable and facilitate hardware upgrading• Design the support structure in order to replace each

part indipendently• Design modular and dynamically configured products to

facilitate their adaptability for changing environments• Design an adaptable support structure for potential

changing of location • Design onsite upgradeable and adaptable support

structure• Design complementary tools and documentation for the

support structure upgrading and adaptation

Facilitate maintenance:• Simplify access and disassembly to components to be

maintained, in particular possible movement parts• Avoid narrow slits and holes to facilitate access for

cleaning• Prearrange and facilitate the substitution of short-lived

components• Equip the module with easily usable tools for maintenance

as windscreen wiper, water jet or air jet• Equip products with diagnostic and/or auto-diagnostic

systems for maintainable components• Design products for easy on-site maintenance: anchoring

22

system, sensor of dirt• Design complementary maintenance tools and

documentation• Design products that need less maintenance: less parts,

easy shapes, long-lived materials

Facilitate repairs:• Arrange and facilitate disassembly and re-attachment of

easily damageable components of the support structure• Design components according to standards to facilitate

substitution of damaged parts • Equip products with automatic damage diagnostics

system• Design a sensor that identify the precise broken part of

the structure, with a communication system connected directly to the technical assistance

• Design support structure for facilitated onsite repair • Design complementary repair tools, materials and

documentation

Facilitate re-use:• Increase the resistance of easily damaged and

expendable components as structure parts more exposed to the bad weather

• Arrange and facilitate access and removal of all parts of the support structure

• Design modular and replaceable module in order to replace it in different places

• Design components according to standards to facilitate replacement

• Design the re-usable packaging: replace cardboard with inflatable material

23

• Design the support structure for secondary use, not only for one kind of pv system

Facilitate re-manufacture:• Design and facilitate removal and substitution of easily

expendable components• Design structural parts that can be easily separated

from external/visible ones• Provide easier access to support structure parts to be

re-manufactured• Calculate accurate tolerance parameters for easily

expendable connections• Design for excessive use of materials in places more

subject to deterioration• Design for excessive use of material for easily

deteriorating surfaces• Design the support structure using an aluminium easy

to re-treating on the surface

24

3 MINIMISING TOXIC EMISSION

Design to facilitate the use of resources that relative to the entire life cycle minimise dangerous emissions and all the processes that characterize it. However it must be remembered that toxic or harmful emissions occur during any stage of the products life cycle and might be caused by certain additives to the material rather than the material itself.


HIGH

HIGH

LOW

MEDIUM

IPSA

Prio

rity

25

The support structure, obviously, has the lower toxicity priority respect the other components. The main material is the aluminium that it is only a bit tossic for humans especially during the production phase. Anyway this priority is low.

Support Structure

Minimising Toxic Emission

26

Minimising Toxic Emission Support Structure Design Guidelines

Select non-toxic and harmless materials:• Avoid toxic or harmful materials for product components• Minimise the hazard of toxic and harmful materials• Avoid materials that emit toxic or harmful substances

during pre-production• Avoid additives that emit toxic or harmful substances• Avoid technologies that process toxic and harmful

materials• Avoid toxic or harmful surface treatments• Design products that do not consume toxic and harmful

materials• Avoid materials that emit toxic or harmful substances

during usage• Avoid materials that emit toxic or harmful substances

during disposal

Select non toxic and harmless energy resources:• Select energy resources that reduce dangerous

emissions during pre-production and production• Select energy resources that reduce dangerous

emissions during distribution• Select energy resources that reduce dangerous

emissions during usage• Select energy resources that reduce dangerous residues

and toxic and harmful waste

27

• Design systems for consumption of passive materials (water, wind)

• Design for cascading recycling systems • Facilitate the person managing maintanance to reduce

materials consumption• Design an anchoring system to facilitate maintenance• Set the product’s default state at minimal materials

consumption

Engage systems of flexible materials consumption:• Engage digital support systems with dynamic

configuration • Design a monitoring system to identify precise dirt areas• Design dynamic materials consumption for different

operational stages• Engage sensors to adjust materials consumption

according to differentiated operational stages• Reduce resource consumption in the product’s default

state

28

A design of adding environmental value to materials (within a product) to avoid premature disposal, by reprocessing them to obtain new prime secondary materials (by recycling or composting) or burning them to recuperate their energetic content.

There is a double advantage in the process:• The environmental impact and the cost of disposal of

the materials are avoided.• The production and acquisition costs connected with

buying virgin materials are avoided.

Naturally the processes of composting, recycling and burning also have their own environmental and economic costs. In conservatory terms we can adopt a series of measures in relation with all the phases of the process of recycling to minimise such costs: collection and transportation; identification and separation; disassembly and/or fragmentation; cleaning and/or washing; pre-production of prime secondary materials.

Generally the following principle is followed: the material should be recycled as much as possible before it loses its material properties, then, at that point, the object should be incinerated to recuperate its energy content.

4 IMPROVE LIFESPAN OF MATERIALS

29


HIGH

LOW

LOWLOW

IPSA

Prio

rity

30

Support Structure

Pre-Production + Production mPOINTSPre-Production (19%) 101 mPtPre-Production (77%) 403 mPtProduction (4%) 22 mPtPre-Production + Production 526 mPtDistribution 15,7 mPtUse 0 mPtDisposal 4,9 mPt

Potential Impact Avoided

31

Improve Lifespan of Materials Support Structure Design Guidelines

Adopt the cascade approach:• Arrange and facilitate recycling of materials in

components with lower mechanical requirements• Facilitate disassembly of the aluminium from the other

materials• Arrange and facilitate energy recovery from materials

throughout combustion

Select materials with most efficient recycling technologies:• Select materials that easily recover after recycling the

original performance characteristics • Recover more aluminium that which is possible• Avoid composite materials or, when necessary, choose

easily recyclable ones• Engage geometrical solutions like ribbing to increase

polymer stiffness instead of reinforcing fibres• Prefer thermoplastic polymers to thermosetting• Design considering the secondary use of the materials

once recycled

Facilitate end-of-life collection and transportation:• Design in compliance with product retrieval system • Minimise overall weight• Minimise cluttering and improve stackability of discarded

products• Design for the compressibility of discarded products as

aluminium planks, clamps, hooks• Provide the user with information about the disposing

modalities of the product or its parts using a digital codification with recycling mode description

32

Material identification:• Codify different materials to facilitate their identification:

in particular separate metals from polymers• Provide additional information about the material’s age,

number of times recycled in the past and additives used • Define time of use of the module to give informations

about recycle• Use standardised materials identification systems • Arrange codifications in easily visible places• Avoid codifying after component production stages

Minimise the number of different incompatible materials:• Integrate functions to reduce the overall number of

materials and components: integration between frame and support structure

• Monomaterial strategy: only one material per product or per sub-assembly

• Use compatible materials (that could be recycled together) within the product or sub-assembly

• For joining use the same or compatible materials as in components (to be joined): utilize steel also where polymer is usually used

• Design removable junctions

Facilitate cleaning:• Avoid unnecessary coating procedures as stickers or

labels• Avoid irremovable coating materials• Facilitate removal of coating materials• Use coating procedures that comply with coated

materials• Avoid adhesives or choose ones that comply with

materials to be recycled

33

• Prefer the dyeing of internal polymers, rather than surface painting

• Avoid using additional materials for marking or codification

• Mark and codify materials during moulding• Codify polymers using lasers

Facilitate combustion:• Select high energy materials for products that are going

to be incinerated• Avoid materials that emit dangerous substances during

incineration• Avoid additives that emit dangerous substances during

incineration• Facilitate the separation of materials that would

compromise the efficiency of combustion (with low energy value)

34

5 MINIMISING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Each PV system, designed and installed in the right way, should have no energy consumed during use. Theoretically, no components, in standard condition, should requires a use of external energy. However the PV system has got some losses. Especially in the PV module and the inverter the produced energy waste is about 10% and 3% respectively: for this reason the PV module priority is the highest, followed by the inverter ones.


HIGH

MEDIUM

IPSA

Prio

rity

LOW LOW

35

Minimising Energy Consumption Support Structure Design Guidelines

Minimise energy consumption during pre-production and production:• Select materials with low energy intensity• Utilize recycled aluminium• Select processing technologies with the lowest energy

consumption possible

Minimise energy consumption during transportation and storage:• Design compact support structure with high storage

density• Scale down the product weight• Scale down the packaging weight• Decentralise activities to reduce transportation volumes• Select local material and energy sources

Select systems with energy-efficient operation stage:• Design attractive products for collective use• Design sharing networks, energy surplus, decentralized

systems for collective use• Design to reduce loss of the support structure due to

wear and environmental causes• Design for energy-efficient maintenance• Design manual systems for cleaning and mainenance,

manageable from final user• Use highly caulked materials and technical components• Design the module using shapes and material that allow

dispersion of the heat to maintain system efficiency• Design energy recovery systems, also to replace

batteries

36

• Design energy-saving systems• Design to avoid the stand-by, in case of an automation

system for movement

37

6 RENEWABLE & BIO-COMPATIBLE RESOURCES

Design with the target to save resources for future generations, preferring renewable resources, or at least non-exhaustible ones. It refers both to selection of renewable and bio-compatible materials and energy resources.


IPSA

Prio

rity

HIGH

LOW LOW LOW

38

This priority for the support structure is really low: in fact the main component is the aluminium and, today, is not difficult to produce and recyle it, even though it’s always important to search new solutions to use more renewable and bio-compatible resources.

Support Structure

39

Renewable and Bio-Compatible Resources Support Structure Design Guidelines

Select renewable and bio-compatible materials:• Use renewable materials• Avoid exhaustive materials• Use residual materials of production processes• Use retrieved components from disposed products• Use recycled materials, alone or combined with primary

materials• Use bio-degradable materials

Select renewable and bio-compatible energy resources:• Use renewable energy resources• Engage the cascade approach• Select energy resources with high second-order

efficiency

40

Design for Disassembly is an individual guideline not only because it’s practical for many of the strategies of environmental impact but also because here the designer can play a substantial role.

In fact, is a strategy aimed at creating easily disassembled components, this will simplify products maintenance, repair, updating and re-manufacturing. Facilitate materials separation is positive for their recycle (if they were incompatible) and for their special treatment (if they were toxic or harmful).

7 DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY

41

Design for Disassembly PV System Design Guidelines

Reduce and facilitate operations of disassembly and separation:

Overall architecture:• Prioritise the disassembly of toxic and dangerous

components or materials• Prioritise the disassembly of components or materials

with higher economic value• Prioritise the disassembly of more easily damageable

components• Engage modular structures• Divide the product into easily separable and

manipulatable sub-assemblies• Minimise overall dimensions of the product• Minimise hierarchically dependent connections between

components• Minimise different directions in the disassembly route of

components and materials• Increase the linearity of the disassembly route• Engage a sandwich system of disassembly with central

joining elements

Shape of components and parts:• Avoid difficult-to-handle components• Avoid asymmetrical components, unless required• Design leaning surfaces and grabbing features in

compliance with standards• Arrange leaning surfaces around the product’s centre of

gravity• Design for easy centring on the component base

42

Shape and accessibility of joints:• Avoid joining systems that require simultaneous

interventions for opening• Minimise the overall number of fasteners• Minimise the overall number of different fastener types

(that demand different tools)• Avoid difficult-to-handle fasteners• Design accessible and recognisable entrances for

dismantling• Design accessible and controllable dismantling points

Engage reversible joining systems:• Employ two-way snap-fit• Employ joints that are opened with common tools• Employ joints that are opened with special tools, when

opening could be dangerous• Design joints made of materials that become reversible

only in determined conditions• Use screws with hexagonal heads• Prefer removable nuts and clips to self-tapping screws• Use screws made of materials compatible with joint

components, to avoid their separation before recycling• Use self-tapping screws for polymers to avoid using

metallic inserts

Engage easily collapsible permanent joining systems:• Avoid rivets on incompatible materials• Avoid staples on incompatible materials• Avoid additional materials while welding• Weld with compatible materials• Prefer ultrasonic and vibration welding with polymers• Avoid gluing with adhesives• Employ easily removable adhesives

43

Co-design special technologies and features for crushing separation:• Design thin areas to enable the taking off of incompatible

inserts, by pressurised demolition• Co-design cutting or breaking paths with appropriate

separation technologies for incompatible materials separation

• Equip the product with a device to separate incompatible materials

• Employ joining elements that allow their chemical or physical destruction

• Make the breaking points easily accessible and recognisable

• Provide the products with information for the user about the characteristics of crushing separation

Use materials that are easily separable after being crushed.Use additional parts that are easily separable after crushing of materials.

46

YES PARTLY NO NOT APPLICABLE

Did you dematerialise the product or some of its components?

Did you design the support structure integrated with the module frame and with the the roof?

Did you avoid over-sized dimensions?

Did you apply ribbed to the structure to increase structural stiffness?

Did you avoid extra components with little functionality?

Did you select processes that reduce scraps and discarded materials during production?

Did you engage simulation systems to optimise transformation processes?

Did you avoid packaging?

Did you choose efficient transport systems with minimal (or not present) packaging?

Did you optimise packaging for more support structures?

Did you apply materials only where absolutely necessary?

Did you design for more efficient consumption of operational materials?

Did you design the structure with a shape to avoid store of dirt or water?

Did you design for more efficient supply of raw materials?

Did you design for more efficient use of maintenance materials?

Did you design systems for consumption of passive materials (water, wind)?

Did you design for cascading recycling systems?

Minimise Materials Consumption - Support Structure

47


Did you facilitate the person managing maintanance to reduce materials consumption?

Did you design an anchoring system to facilitate maintenance?

Did you set the product’s default state at minimal materials consumption?

Did you engage digital support systems with dynamic configuration?

Did you design a monitoring system to identify precise dirt areas?

Did you design dynamic materials consumption for different operational stages? Did you engage sensors to adjust materials consumption according to differentiated operational stages?

Did you reduce resource consumption in the product’s default state?

NR. OF ANSWERS

PERCENTAGE (nr. applicable checklists / nr. answers x 100)

48

Optimisation of Product Lifespan - Support Structure


Did you reduce overall number of components?

Did you simplify products?

Did you eliminate weak liaisons?

Did you enable and facilitate hardware upgrading?

Did you design the support structure in order to replace each part indipendently?Did you design modular and dynamically configured products to facilitate their adaptability for changing environments?Did you design an adaptable support structure for potential changing of location?

Did you design onsite upgradeable and adaptable support structure?

Did you design complementary tools and documentation for the support structure upgrading and adaptation?Did you simplify access and disassembly to components to be maintained, in particular possible movement parts?

Did you avoid narrow slits and holes to facilitate access for cleaning?

Did you prearrange and facilitate the substitution of short-lived components?

Did you equip the module with easily usable tools for maintenance as windscreen wiper, water jet or air jet?Did you equip products with diagnostic and/or auto-diagnostic systems for maintainable components?Did you design products for easy on-site maintenance: anchoring system, sensor of dirt?

Did you design complementary maintenance tools and documentation?

Did you design products that need less maintenance: less parts, easy shapes, long-lived materials?

49


Did you arrange and facilitate disassembly and re-attachment of easily damageable components of the support structure?Did you design components according to standards to facilitate substitution of damaged parts?

Did you equip products with automatic damage diagnostics system?

Did you design a sensor that identify the precise broken part of the structure, with a communication system connected directly to the technical assistance?

Did you design support structure for facilitated onsite repair?

Did you design complementary repair tools, materials and documentation?

Did you increase the resistance of easily damaged and expendable components as structure parts more exposed to the bad weather?Did you arrange and facilitate access and removal of all parts of the support structure?Did you design modular and replaceable structure in order to replace it in different places?

Did you design components according to standards to facilitate replacement?

Did you design the re-usable packaging: replace cardboard with inflatable material?Did you design the support structure for secondary use, not only for one kind of pv system?Did you design and facilitate removal and substitution of easily expendable components?

Did you design structural parts that can be easily separated from external/visible ones?Did you provide easier access to support structure parts to be re-manufactured?Did you calculate accurate tolerance parameters for easily expendable connections?Did you design for excessive use of materials in places more subject to deterioration?

50


Did you design for excessive use of material for easily deteriorating surfaces?

Did you design the support structure using an aluminium easy to re-treating on the surface?

NR. OF ANSWERS


51

Minimising Toxic Emission - Support Structure


Did you avoid toxic or harmful materials for product components?

Did you minimise the hazard of toxic and harmful materials?

Did you avoid materials that emit toxic or harmful substances during pre-production?

Did you avoid additives that emit toxic or harmful substances?

Did you avoid technologies that process toxic and harmful materials?

Did you avoid toxic or harmful surface treatments?

Did you design products that do not consume toxic and harmful materials?

Did you avoid materials that emit toxic or harmful substances during usage?

Did you avoid materials that emit toxic or harmful substances during disposal?

Did you select energy resources that reduce dangerous emissions during pre-production and production?

Did you select energy resources that reduce dangerous emissions during distribution?

Did you select energy resources that reduce dangerous emissions during usage?

Did you select energy resources that reduce dangerous residues and toxic and harmful waste?

NR. OF ANSWERS


52

Improve Lifespan of Materials - Support Structure


Did you arrange and facilitate recycling of materials in components with lower mechanical requirements?

Did you facilitate disassembly of the aluminium from the other materials?

Did you arrange and facilitate energy recovery from materials throughout combustion?Did you select materials that easily recover after recycling the original performance characteristics?

Did you recover more aluminium that which is possible?

Did you avoid composite materials or, when necessary, choose easily recyclable ones?Did you engage geometrical solutions like ribbing to increase polymer stiffness instead of reinforcing fibres?

Did you prefer thermoplastic polymers to thermosetting?

Did you design considering the secondary use of the materials once recycled?

Did you design in compliance with product retrieval system?

Did you minimise overall weight?

Did you minimise cluttering and improve stackability of discarded products?

Did you design for the compressibility of discarded products as aluminium planks, clamps, hooks?Did you provide the user with information about the disposing modalities of the product or its parts using a digital codification with recycling mode description?Did you codify different materials to facilitate their identification: in particular separate metals from polymers?Did you provide additional information about the material’s age, number of times recycled in the past and additives used?

Did you define time of use of the module to give informations about recycle?

53


Did you use standardised materials identification systems?

Did you arrange codifications in easily visible places?

Did you avoid codifying after component production stages?

Did you integrate functions to reduce the overall number of materials and components: integration between frame and support structure?Did you use monomaterial strategy: only one material per product or per sub-assembly?Did you use compatible materials (that could be recycled together) within the product or sub-assembly?Did you use, for joining, the same or compatible materials as in components (to be joined): utilize steel also where polymer is usually used?

Did you design removable junctions?

Did you avoid unnecessary coating procedures as stickers or labels?

Did you avoid irremovable coating materials?

Did you facilitate removal of coating materials?

Did you use coating procedures that comply with coated materials?

Did you avoid adhesives or choose ones that comply with materials to be recycled?

Did you prefer the dyeing of internal polymers, rather than surface painting?

Did you avoid using additional materials for marking or codification?

Did you mark and codify materials during moulding?

Did you codify polymers using lasers?

Did you select high energy materials for products that are going to be incinerated?

Did you avoid materials that emit dangerous substances during incineration?

Did you avoid additives that emit dangerous substances during incineration?

54


Did you facilitate the separation of materials that would compromise the efficiency of combustion (with low energy value)?

NR. OF ANSWERS


55

Minimising Energy Consumption - Support Structure


Did you select materials with low energy intensity?

Did you utilize recycled aluminium?

Did you select processing technologies with the lowest energy consumption possible?

Did you design compact support structure with high storage density?

Did you scale down the product weight?

Did you scale down the packaging weight?

Did you decentralise activities to reduce transportation volumes?

Did you select local material and energy sources?

Did you design attractive products for collective use?

Did you design sharing networks, energy surplus, decentralized systems for collective use?Did you design to reduce loss of the support structure due to wear and environmental causes?

Did you design for energy-efficient maintenance?

Did you design manual systems for cleaning and mainenance, manageable from final user?

Did you use highly caulked materials and technical components?

Did you design the module using shapes and material that allow dispersion of the heat to maintain system efficiency?

Did you design energy recovery systems, also to replace batteries?

Did you design energy-saving systems?

56


Did you design to avoid the stand-by, in case of an automation system for movement?

NR. OF ANSWERS


57

Renewable & Bio-Compatible Resources - Support Structure


Did you use renewable materials?

Did you avoid exhaustive materials?

Did you use residual materials of production processes?

Did you use retrieved components from disposed products?

Did you use recycled materials, alone or combined with primary materials?

Did you use bio-degradable materials?

Did you use renewable energy resources?

Did you engage the cascade approach?

Did you select energy resources with high second-order efficiency?

NR. OF ANSWERS


58

Design for Disassembly - Support Structure


Did you prioritise the disassembly of toxic and dangerous components or materials?Did you prioritise the disassembly of components or materials with higher economic value?

Did you prioritise the disassembly of more easily damageable components?

Did you engage modular structures?

Did you divide the product into easily separable and manipulatable sub-assemblies?

Did you minimise overall dimensions of the product?

Did you minimise hierarchically dependent connections between components?

Did you minimise different directions in the disassembly route of components and materials?

Did you increase the linearity of the disassembly route?

Did you engage a sandwich system of disassembly with central joining elements?

Did you avoid difficult-to-handle components?

Did you avoid asymmetrical components, unless required?

Did you design leaning surfaces and grabbing features in compliance with standards?

Did you arrange leaning surfaces around the product’s centre of gravity?

Did you design for easy centring on the component base?

Did you avoid joining systems that require simultaneous interventions for opening?

Did you minimise the overall number of fasteners?

59


Did you minimise the overall number of different fastener types (that demand different tools)?

Did you avoid difficult-to-handle fasteners?

Did you design accessible and recognisable entrances for dismantling?

Did you design accessible and controllable dismantling points?

Did you employ two-way snap-fit?

Did you employ joints that are opened with common tools?

Did you employ joints that are opened with special tools, when opening could be dangerous?Did you design joints made of materials that become reversible only in determined conditions?

Did you use screws with hexagonal heads?

Did you prefer removable nuts and clips to self-tapping screws?

Did you use screws made of materials compatible with joint components, to avoid their separation before recycling?

Did you use self-tapping screws for polymers to avoid using metallic inserts?

Did you avoid rivets on incompatible materials?

Did you avoid staples on incompatible materials?

Did you avoid additional materials while welding?

Did you weld with compatible materials?

Did you prefer ultrasonic and vibration welding with polymers?

60


Did you avoid gluing with adhesives?

Did you employ easily removable adhesives?

Did you design thin areas to enable the taking off of incompatible inserts, by pressurised demolition?Did you co-design cutting or breaking paths with appropriate separation technologies for incompatible materials separation?

Did you equip the product with a device to separate incompatible materials?

Did you employ joining elements that allow their chemical or physical destruction?

Did you make the breaking points easily accessible and recognisable?

Did you provide the products with information for the user about the characteristics of crushing separation?

NR. OF ANSWERS


All the graphs and tables in the list are personally designed and realized by the author.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

a handbook of life cycle design guidelines ......a handbook of life cycle design guidelines for...

Documents