life-cycle energy analysis of a high strength steel application1528105/fulltext01.pdf · 2021. 2....

Degree Project in Lightweight Structures, Second Cycle 30.0 hp SD241X

Life-Cycle Energy Analysis of a High StrengthSteel Application

Author: Nitish Shetye

Supervisors: Mathilda Karlsson Hagnell, Zuheir Barsoum

Reviewer: Per Wennhage

Examiner: Zuheir Barsoum

Date: 14th September, 2020

Trita Number: TRITA-SCI-GRU 2020:314

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Application: Bogie Beam of Volvo’s Articulated Hauler 3

3 Methodology: Life-Cycle Analysis 6

4 Material Extraction Phase 8

5 Steel Production Phase 9

6 Bogie Manufacturing Phase 12

7 Use Phase 15

8 End-of-Life Phase 19

9 Total Life-Cycle Energy Results 21

10 Discussion 25

11 Conclusion and Future Work 26

1 Introduction

Steel is one of the most important engineering and construction material. It is used everywhere aroundus from making tiny nuts and bolts to massive cargo ships. It is a basic component in building societiesand the development of mankind. The demand of steel is influenced by the population of the worldand the per-capita consumption.

The current population of the world in 2020 is 7.8 billion and it is estimated that by 2050 the pop-ulation will increase to 9.8 billion. [1] With the increase in population and per-capita consumption,the demand for steel is increasing significantly. It is projected that by the year 2050, 2800 Mtonnesof steel will be required as depicted in Figure 1. It is also projected that the percentage of recycledsteel would increase to 50% in 2050.

Figure 1: Steel Demand Projection, courtesy of [2]

The steel industry is one of the most energy consuming and carbon dioxide emitting industries inthe world. The steel industry alone accounts for 7% of total global CO2 emissions. [2] AlthoughSSAB’s current steel production process is relatively carbon efficient, SSAB alone accounts for 10% ofSweden’s and 7% of Finland’s CO2 emissions. [2] Due to the Paris agreement and UN’s sustainabilitygoals, it is critical to reduce these emissions which also relate to reducing the energy consumption byswitching to more energy efficient alternatives.

HYBRIT (Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology) is a joint venture between SSAB, LKABand Vattenfall for developing a fossil-free steel technology. It aims to replace coal with hydrogenduring steel production to reduce CO2 emissions.

The aim of this Master’s thesis was to compare the life-cycle energy required for Conventional Steel andHYBRIT Steel. The application chosen for this comparison was a bogie beam of Volvo’s articulatedhauler A30.

2

2 Application: Bogie Beam of Volvo’s Articulated Hauler

An articulated hauler is a heavy duty dump truck designed to transport large loads over rough terrainand sometimes even on public roads. Articulated haulers are used for mining, quarrying, tunnelingand even more versatile jobs. The articulated hauler considered for this study was Volvo’s A30 as seenin Figure 2. Volvo is one of the leading articulated hauler manufacturers in the world.

Figure 2: Volvo articulated hauler A30, courtesy of [3]

The application chosen for the life-cycle energy analysis in this project was the bogie beam of thisarticulated hauler. The bogie beam is a component of the chassis of the articulated hauler as seen inFigure 3.

Figure 3: Bogie beam of articulated hauler, courtesy of [4]

3

Two bogie beam designs were considered for the life-cycle energy analysis to study the trend throughcomparison. The two designs which were considered are the A30 Original design and the A30 Opti-mised design. The plate thicknesses and the masses of the designs can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1: Bogie beam web and flange thicknesses, courtesy of [5]A30 Original A30 Optimised

Flange Thickness [mm] 15 12

Web Thickness [mm] 10 5

Mass (mbeam) [kg] 38.8 25.6

The designs of A30 Original and A30 Optimised can be seen in Figures 4 and 5. A weight reductionof 34% was achieved in the optimised version due to the change in design and the reduction in platethicknesses. [5]

Figure 4: A30 Original schematic diagram, courtesy of [5]

4

Figure 5: A30 Optimised schematic diagram, courtesy of [5]

5

3 Methodology: Life-Cycle Analysis

Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) was the methodology used in this project. LCA is a methodology whichaims at assessing the energy requirements during the lifetime of a product including production, useand end-of-life phases of the product. Traditionally, only the production and use phases of the prod-uct were considered. LCA also includes the end-of-life phase which accounts for the recycling anddisposing energy and also the energy credits which are obtained from recycling, which completes thecircular flow of energy. A benefit of this circular economy is that the energy invested into a productcan be reinvested back into it at the end of it’s life.

In the context of this project, the life-cycle loop of a steel bogie beam was depicted by Figure 6.In order to manufacture a bogie beam, raw materials were extracted and steel was produced fromthem. The bogie beam was then put to use in the articulated hauler in the use phase. The end-of-lifephase dealt with recycling the steel.

Figure 6: Life-cycle loop for a steel application

The total life-cycle energy for a bogie beam is given by:

ELC = EME + ESP + EBM + EUP + EEOL (1)

where ELC is the life-cycle energy, EME is the material extraction energy, ESP is the steel productionenergy, EBM is the bogie manufacturing energy, EUP is the use phase energy and EEOL is the end-of-life energy.

6

Fatigue Life

If the fatigue life of the bogie beam was shorter than the life of the articulated hauler, it wouldhave to be repaired or replaced at least once. This would result in the addition of the repair phaseand the life-cycle loop would repeat itself if the bogie beam needed to be replaced during the life ofthe articulated hauler.

Since the fatigue life of bogie beam is longer than the life of the articulated hauler, the fatiguelife is not a factor in the life-cycle energy analysis. [4] The bogie beam will not need to be repairedor replaced during the life of the articulated hauler. This is true for both the A30 Original and A30Optimised bogie beam designs.

7

4 Material Extraction Phase

In this project, the material (or ore) extraction phase was the first phase involved in the life-cycleenergy analysis. As depicted in Figure 6, it was the only stage which does not have to be repeatedwhile recycling the products.

In this phase, the steps that were considered were mining the ore, screening, enrichment and pel-letizing to make iron ore pellets for steel production. Both conventional and HYBRIT Steel requirethe same steps for the material extraction phase. The material extraction processes and the energyassociated with those processes can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Energy required for the resource extraction processes, courtesy of LKAB [6]Material Extraction Steps Energy [GJ/tonne]

Mining 0.040

Screening 0.006

Enrichment 0.058

Pelletizing 0.449

Logistics and Others 0.023

Total (EMEtonne) 0.576

The energy required for the resource extraction for the bogie beam is given by Equation 2 and theactual energy consumption for the resource extraction for making the two designs of bogie beams canbe seen in Table 3.

EME = mbeamEMEtonne/1000 (2)

Table 3: Material extraction energy for the two bogie beamsA30 Original A30 OptimisedEnergy [MJ] Energy [MJ]

Conventional Steel 22.3 14.7

HYBRIT Steel 22.3 14.7

8

5 Steel Production Phase

The steel production phase is the second phase which uses the iron ore pellets made in Phase 1.Different production processes are followed for making Conventional Steel and HYBRIT Steel. Thetwo routes of steel production are depicted in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Steel Production Steps for Conventional and HYBRIT Steel, courtesy of [2]

9

Conventional Steel Production

Conventionally, steel has been produced by using a blast furnace (basic oxygen furnace). The iron orepellets are reduced to metallic iron using coke in a blast furnace.

The coal is crushed, sealed and baked for 12-16 hours in an air tight oven and removed from theoven as solid carbon fuels. The fuel and pellets come together in the blast furnace and limestone isadded to remove the impurities. A continuous blast of super heated air is blown onto the coal. Theiron ore pellets and coke react to form molten iron and CO and CO2 gases as waste products.

The recycled steel scrap is then added into the basic oxygen furnace along with the molten iron.High purity oxygen is blown into the mix and molten iron becomes molten steel. The molten steelis then poured into a ladle. Then, the hot and cold rolling processes are carried out followed by thefinishing processes.

The percentage of steel scrap in the arc furnace charge has a large influence on the amount of energyrequired for liquid steel production. If no scrap is used, the specific energy consumption (SEC) is 3.48MWH/t. [7] If the percentage of scrap in the arc furnace charge is 100%, the SEC is 0.667 MWh/t.[7]

HYBRIT Steel Production

HYBRIT Steel is made by the process of direct reduction by using an electric arc furnace. In thisprocess, natural gas replaces coal as the reducing agent. The iron ore pellets are melted by the electricarc furnace. The reduction reactions account for 85 - 90 % of CO2 emissions during ConventionalSteel production. However, the reduction reactions while making HYBRIT Steel emit hydrogen gasand water as a waste product instead of CO2.

The percentage of steel scrap in the arc furnace charge has a large influence on the amount of energyrequired in this process as well. If no scrap is used, the specific energy consumption (SEC) is 3.68MWH/t. [7] If the percentage of scrap in the arc furnace charge is 100%, the SEC is 0.753 MWh/t.[7]

10

Steel Production Results

The energy consumption for the various steps of steel production can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4: Energy required for the steel production processes, courtesy of [7], [8]

Steel Production StepsConventional Steel HYBRIT SteelEnergy [GJ/tonne] Energy [GJ/tonne]

Liquid Steel 12.5 13.2

Continuous Casting 0.1 0.1

Hot Rolling 1.8 1.8

Cold Rolling 0.4 -

Finishing 1.1 -

Total (ESPtonne) 15.9 15.1

The energy required for the steel production for the bogie beam is given by Equation 3 and the actualenergy consumption for the steel production for making the two designs of bogie beams can be seenin Table 5.

ESP = mbeamESPtonne/1000 (3)

Table 5: Steel production energy for the two bogie beamsA30 Original A30 OptimisedEnergy [MJ] Energy [MJ]



11

6 Bogie Manufacturing Phase

The bogie beam manufacturing phase is the third phase which uses the steel produced in Phase 2.This phase includes the following steps:

• Laser Cutting Plates

• Turning Sleeves

• Bending Flanges

• Manual Welding

• Robot Welding

• Final Welding and Repairs

Out of these six steps, laser cutting plates, robot welding and manual welding are the more energyintensive steps. The energy required for the rest of the steps was neglected.

Laser Cutting Plates

The laser cutter used was TRUMPF 6 kW CO2 or one with similar properties. [9] The cuttingspeed depends on the plate thickness and is given in Table 6.

Table 6: Cutting speed of TRUMPF 6 kW CO2 for various plate thicknesses, courtesy of Volvo [9]Plate Thickness [mm] 6 8 10 12 16

Cutting Speed [mm/min] 3600 2800 2200 1900 1550

12

For thicknesses in between the available thicknesses, a cubic polynomial was used for interpolatingand extrapolating values as seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Cutting speed trend for varying plate thickness

Manual Welding

A current of 370 A and voltage of 30 V was used for manual welding. [9] The distance of man-ual welding required for A30 Original and A30 Optimised was estimated from Figures 4 and 5. Therobot welding speed was taken to be 450 mm/min for both A30 Original and A30 Optimised. [9]

Robot Welding

A current of 400 A and voltage of 31 V was used for robot welding. [9] The distance of robotwelding required for A30 Original and A30 Optimised was estimated from Figures 4 and 5. The robotwelding speed was taken to be 450 mm/min and 600 mm/min for A30 Original and A30 Optimisedrespectively. [5]

13

Bogie Manufacturing Results

The energy required for the different processes in bogie beam manufacturing can be seen in Table7.

Table 7: Energy required for the bogie manufacturing processes

Bogie Manufacturing StepsA30 Original A30 OptimisedEnergy [MJ] Energy [MJ]

Laser Cutting 20.5 13.0

Robot Welding 11.0 9.9

Manual Welding 9.8 11.8

Total (EBM) 41.3 34.7

The energy required in the bogie manufacturing phase is independent of the steel production processas seen in Table 8.

Table 8: Bogie manufacturing energy for the two bogie beamsA30 Original A30 OptimisedEnergy [MJ] Energy [MJ]



14

7 Use Phase

The use phase is the fourth phase which uses the bogie beam manufactured in Phase 3.

Theory

The bogie beam’s contribution to the use phase energy is obtained by the energy required by tomove the bogie beam during one drive cycle (WT ) multiplied by the number of drive cycles (N). [10]The use phase energy is given by:

EU = NWT (4)

The total drive cycle energy (WT ) consists of 3 components: the energy needed to overcome rollingresistance (WR), the energy needed to overcome inertial resistance to acceleration (WA) and the energyneeded to overcome aerodynamic drag (WD). [10] The total drive cycle energy is given by:

WT = WR +WA +WD (5)

The energy needed to overcome rolling resistance (WR) is given by:

WR = (1 − r)gcRCRm (6)

where r is the fraction of kinetic energy regained during deceleration (assumed to be 15%), g is theacceleration due to gravity, cR is rolling resistance coefficient (assumed to be 0.20), CR is drive cycledependent given by equation 9 and m is the mass of the bogie beam.

The energy needed to overcome inertial resistance to acceleration (WA) is given by:

WA = CAm (7)

where CA is drive cycle dependent given by equation 10.

The energy needed to overcome aerodynamic drag (WD) is given by:

WD =1

2ρacDCDA (8)

where rhoa is the air density, cD is the drag coefficient, CD is drive cycle dependent given by equation11 and A is the projected area of the bogie beam contributing to air resistance (taken as 0, since thebogie is an internal component of the articulated hauler). Therefore, the energy needed to overcomeaerodynamic drag (WD) is taken as 0 regardless of the drive cycle.

15

The Drive Cycle

Since there is no standard drive cycle for articulated haulers, a drive cycle was formulated basedon the literature study and educated assumptions.

The useful life of an articulated hauler is about 10 years or up to 20,000 hours. [11] The two casesconsidered for the duration of useful life can be seen in Table 9.

Table 9: Useful life of articulated haulerCase 1 Case 2

Hours/Day 6 8

Days/Year 200 250

Years 10 10

Total Hours 12,000 20,000

It was assumed that out of the total hours of usage, the articulated hauler would be stationary for25% of the time for activities such as loading, unloading, refuelling, etc. Therefore, the articulatedhauler would be stationary for 3000 hours and 5000 hours during Case 1 and Case 2 respectively.

The maximum speed of the Volvo A30 is 52.3 km/h. [3] For the remaining 75% of the time when thearticulated hauler was in motion, a speed profile as seen in Table 10 was assumed.

Table 10: Speed profile during motionSpeed [km/h] Percentage of Time

10 40%

20 20%

30 20%

40 10%

50 10%

Total 100%

It was estimated that the articulated hauler took 2 s to reach a speed of 10 km/h (2.78 m/s). Thespeed profile for the time in motion for one drive cycle can be seen in Figure 9.

16

Figure 9: Articulated hauler drive cycle

The drive cycle dependent terms (CR, CA and CD) were calculated based on the assumed drive cycleusing Equations 9, 10 and 11 respectively.

CR =∑

∆si (9)

CA =∑

ai∆si (10)

CD =∑

v2i ∆si (11)

Results

The use phase energy consumption for the both designs of the A30 bogie beam and for both use-ful life cases can be seen in Table 11.

Table 11: Energy required for the use phase components

Use Phase ResistancesA30 Original A30 Optimised

Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2

WR [J] 76.0 50.1

WA [J] 3421.4 2258.1

WD [J] 0.0 0.0

WT [J] 3497.4 2308.3

N [] 38480 64133 38480 64133

EU [MJ] 134.6 224.3 88.8 148.0

17

The energy required in the use phase is independent of the steel production process as seen in Table12.

Table 12: Use phase energy for the two bogie beamsA30 Original A30 Optimised

Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2

Conventional Steel Energy [MJ] 134.6 224.3 88.8 148.0

HYBRIT Steel Energy [MJ] 134.6 224.3 88.8 148.0

18

8 End-of-Life Phase

The end-of-life phase is the last phase of the life-cycle loop. At the end of the bogie beam’s life, thesteel in the bogie beam was recycled. In this approach, it is assumed that the recycled material is usedto produce the same product. In order to do this, processing steps need to be carried out. Recyclingsteel saves energy by avoiding the use of virgin steel. This phase assesses the energy benefits of therecycled material and the energy burdens of the recycling processes. The end-of-life energy determineshow much energy would be saved if the loop were to be repeated as seen in Figure 6. [10]

A correction factor is introduced if the recycled material can only partially replace the input ma-terial. For example, a correction factor of 0.8 would imply that the recycled material accounts for80% of the input material and an additional 20% of virgin input material would be required.

The end-of-life energy EEOL is given by:

EEOL = EPro + ERec (12)

where EPro is the energy required for processing the recycled material and ERec is the energy gainedthrough recycling.

The processing energy (EPro) mainly included the energy required for melting energy and the steelproduction energy from scrap. Since the furnace charge consisted of 100% of scrap, the specific en-ergy consumption for producing steel is about 80% lesser for both conventional and HYBRIT Steel. [7]

The energy gained through recycling (ERec) is given by:

ERec = −CfESP (13)

where Cf is the correction factor and ESP is the energy required for steel production.

Since steel is nearly fully recyclable a correction factor of 0.95 was chosen. Therefore, only 5% ofvirgin steel would be needed in each subsequent production phase. It was assumed that the furnacecharge consisted of 100% scrap.

The end-of-life energies for both conventional and HYBRIT Steel can be seen in Table 13.

Table 13: Energy required for the end-of-life processes

End-of-Life StepsConventional Steel HYBRIT SteelEnergy [GJ/tonne] Energy [GJ/tonne]

Processing (EPro) 6.3 5.1

Recycling (ERec) -15.1 -14.4

Total (EEOLtonne) -8.8 -9.3

19

The energy required for the end-of-life phase for the bogie beam is given by Equation 14 and theactual energy for the end-of-life phase for the two designs of bogie beams can be seen in Table 14.

EEOL = mbeamEEOLtonne/1000 (14)

Table 14: End-of-life energy for the two bogie beamsA30 Original A30 OptimisedEnergy [MJ] Energy [MJ]

Conventional Steel -361.9 -238.9

HYBRIT Steel -379.4 -250.4

20

9 Total Life-Cycle Energy Results

Use Phase: Case 1 (12,000 hours)

The summary of the results for case 1 of the use phase for A30 Original and A30 Optimised canbe seen in Figures 10 and 11 respectively.

Figure 10: Results: A30 Original - 12,000 hours

Figure 11: Results: A30 Optimised - 12,000 hours

21

Key Observations:

• The energy consumption of the material extraction and bogie manufacturing phases were negli-gible as compared to the rest

• For HYBRIT Steel, the steel production process had a 4.90% reduction in energy consumptionfor both A30 Original and A30 Optimised as seen in Tables 15 and 16 respectively

• Also, during the end-of-life phase, HYBRIT Steel recovered around 4.8% more energy thanConventional Steel

• In total, HYBRIT saved 9.90% and 9.67% energy for A30 Original and A30 Optimised respec-tively

• Since, A30 Original is heavier than A30 Optimised, the steel production and the end-of-life phaseshad a larger percentage of influence on the total energy of A30 Original than A30 Optimised

Table 15: Results: A30 Original - 12,000 hoursConventional Steel HYBRIT Steel Percentage

Energy [MJ] Energy [MJ] Difference

Material Extraction 22.3 22.3 0.00%

Steel Production 617.8 587.6 4.90%

Bogie Manufacturing 41.3 41.3 0.00%

Use Phase 134.6 134.6 0.00%

End-of-Life -342.3 -358.9 -4.86%

Total 473.8 426.9 9.90%

Table 16: Results: A30 Optimised - 12,000 hoursConventional Steel HYBRIT Steel Percentage





Use Phase 88.8 88.8 0.00%

End-of-Life -225.9 -236.9 -4.86%

Total 320.1 289.2 9.67%

22

Use Phase: Case 2 (20,000 hours)

The summary of the results for case 2 of the use phase for A30 Original and A30 Optimised canbe seen in Figures 12 and 13 respectively.

Figure 12: Results: A30 Original - 20,000 hours

Figure 13: Results: A30 Optimised - 20,000 hours

23

Key Observations:

• For Case 2 of the use phase, the only energy consumption which changed was the use phaseenergy. The energy consumption for the other 4 phases remained the same.

• Since the use phase hours increased from 12,000 hours to 20,000 hours in case 2, the energyspent in the use phase increased

• The energy consumption of the material extraction and bogie manufacturing phases still remainnegligible as compared to the rest

• As seen in Tables 17 and 18, the energy saving for HYBRIT for the steel production and end-of-life phases remains the same for case 2 of the use phase

• Since the use phase had an higher influence on the total energy in case 2 than case 1, thepercentage of energy saving went down. Therefore, as the intensity of the use phase increased,the influence of the steel production process went down.

• In total, HYBRIT saved 8.32% and 8.16% energy for A30 Original and A30 Optimised respec-tively

Table 17: Results: A30 Original - 20,000 hoursConventional Steel HYBRIT Steel Percentage





Use Phase 224.3 224.3 0.00%

End-of-Life -342.3 -358.9 -4.86%

Total 563.5 516.6 8.32%

Table 18: Results: A30 Optimised - 20,000 hoursConventional Steel HYBRIT Steel Percentage





Use Phase 148.0 148.0 0.00%

End-of-Life -225.9 -236.9 -4.86%

Total 379.3 348.4 8.16%

24

10 Discussion

There were three factors which determined the energy consumption of the life-cycle of a bogie beamwhich are depicted in Figure 14. The first factor was the bogie design which has an impact on all fivephases of the life-cycle. The second one was the steel production process which impacted two out ofthe five life-cycle phases. The third factor was the drive-cycle which only impacted the use phase.

Furthermore, since the consumption of energy in the material extraction phase and the bogie manufac-turing phase was much lesser, the real impacting phases are the steel production phase, the use phaseand the end-of-life. Even amongst these three, the steel production and end-of-life phases are moredominant which shows that the steel production process had a high influence over the total energyconsumption. The use phase might become dominant if the use phase was more intensive.

Figure 14: Overview of energy influencing factors

25

11 Conclusion and Future Work

Even though the bogie design impacted all the phases of it’s life-cycle, the scope for improvement inthe design is limited because the design has already been optimised by the manufacturer. For furtherreduction in life-cycle energy, different levers need to considered. HYBRIT Steel consumed 8-10%less energy than Conventional Steel which is worth noting. For applications with less dominant usephases, the percentage of energy saved by HYBRIT Steel would be even larger.

Currently, HYBRIT Steel is more expensive than Conventional Steel. However, with the CO2 penal-ties getting stricter, it may become a more commercially viable option in the future. In addition,with the development in hydrogen based technologies, the cost of production of HYBRIT Steel mayeventually decrease, thereby further impacting it’s commercial viability.

In the future, this LCA methodology can be extended for other steel applications. The basic phasesof the life-cycle would more or less remain the same and hence, it is relatively easy to apply thismethodology to other steel applications.

For a further comprehensive comparison of the two steels, it would be interesting to co-relate thelife-cycle energy with the life-cycle emissions for both the steels.

26

References

[1] Department of Economic United Nations and Social Affairs. World population projected to reach9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html (2020/09/14).

[2] LKAB SSAB and Vattenfall. Hybrit brochure, summary of findings from hybrit pre-feasibilitystudy 2016–2017. Available at https://ssabwebsitecdn.azureedge.net/-/media/hybrit/files/hybrit_brochure.pdf?m=20180201085027 (2020/09/14).

[3] Volvo. Articulated haulers brochure. Available at https://www.volvoce.com/-/media/volvoce/global/global-site/product-archive/documents/09-articulated-haulers/

04-volvo-bm/all-common/vbm-a20toa35-2126694007-1993-05.pdf?v=ZiEyPw (2020/09/14).

[4] B. Jonsson, Z. Barsoum, and J.-O. Sperle. Weight optimization and fatigue design of a weldedbogie beam structure in a construction equipment. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2011.

[5] Julian Stemp. Fatigue assessment of a hauler bogie beam using fe analyses. Technical report,2012.

[6] Johan Siikavaara (Section Manager of process and technology development in Kiruna ore pro-cessing at LKAB). Personal conversation, April 2020.

[7] Lars J. Nilsson Valentin Vogl, Max Åhman. Assessment of hydrogen direct reduction for fossil-freesteelmaking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018.

[8] Maarten Neelis Christina Galitsky Zhou Nan Ernst Worrell, Lynn Price. World best practiceenergy intensity values for selected industrial sectors. Technical report, 2007.

[9] Erik Åstrand (Senior Welding Optimization Specialist at Volvo Construction Equipment). Per-sonal conversation, July 2020.

[10] Hamza Bouchouireb. Advancing the life cycle energy optimisation methodology. PhD thesis,Stockholm, Sweden, 2019.

[11] Equipment World. Equipment maintenance: Articulated trucks. Available at https://www.equipmentworld.com/equipment-maintenance-articulated-trucks/ (2020/09/14).

27

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.htmlhttps://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.htmlhttps://ssabwebsitecdn.azureedge.net/-/media/hybrit/files/hybrit_brochure.pdf?m=20180201085027https://ssabwebsitecdn.azureedge.net/-/media/hybrit/files/hybrit_brochure.pdf?m=20180201085027https://www.volvoce.com/-/media/volvoce/global/global-site/product-archive/documents/09-articulated-haulers/04-volvo-bm/all-common/vbm-a20toa35-2126694007-1993-05.pdf?v=ZiEyPwhttps://www.volvoce.com/-/media/volvoce/global/global-site/product-archive/documents/09-articulated-haulers/04-volvo-bm/all-common/vbm-a20toa35-2126694007-1993-05.pdf?v=ZiEyPwhttps://www.volvoce.com/-/media/volvoce/global/global-site/product-archive/documents/09-articulated-haulers/04-volvo-bm/all-common/vbm-a20toa35-2126694007-1993-05.pdf?v=ZiEyPwhttps://www.equipmentworld.com/equipment-maintenance-articulated-trucks/https://www.equipmentworld.com/equipment-maintenance-articulated-trucks/

IntroductionApplication: Bogie Beam of Volvo's Articulated HaulerMethodology: Life-Cycle AnalysisMaterial Extraction PhaseSteel Production PhaseBogie Manufacturing PhaseUse PhaseEnd-of-Life PhaseTotal Life-Cycle Energy ResultsDiscussionConclusion and Future Work

life-cycle energy analysis of a high strength steel application1528105/fulltext01.pdf · 2021. 2....

Documents