Life Cycle Costing Report From Sorbonne University PDF

Final Report
ISSF Workshop
Antoine Dusart, Hicham El-Deeb,
Nahla Jaouhari, David Ka, Lisa Ruf
Supervised by Rosalind Greenstein and Pierre Pech
18 April 2011
Document status
Internal diffusion (the above-mentioned) Limited diffusion Non
confidential
Document version
On-going Final
Number of pages: 99
Host system: Microsoft Word 2007

Introduction
Workshop objectives
The goal of this study is to look at Life Cycle Costing analysis on stainless steel and on
various objects and materials (defined in agreement with the ISSF) in order to compare their
effectiveness in terms of cost and of environmental impacts.
This should help the stainless steel industry and stakeholders to develop more environmental-
friendly practices by respecting principles of sustainable development, and to be more
competitive on the market.
The group has looked at the different phases of the life span of the objects examined in the
case studies in order to underline their strengths and weaknesses.
The study results from a contract between the Master's in Sustainable Development,
Environmental Management and GIS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, and ISSF.
The Master's degree is multidisciplinary:
Students:
Antoine Dusart, Law (Université Paris 1)
Hicham El Deeb, Economics (Université Paris 1)
David Ka, Geography (Université Paris 1)
Nahla Jaouhari, Economics (Université Paris 1)
Lisa Ruf, Geography (Université Paris 1)
We have been supervised by:

Pierre Pech, Professor of Geography (Université Paris 1)
Rosalind Greenstein, Associate Professor of English for Law (Université Paris 1)
Michel Rios, Associate Professor and Consultant (Université Paris 1 & RSE Paradigm 21)
The project involved a number of stages. We began by an overview of the steel industry today
in terms of production life cycle, companies and professional associations. To do so, we were
helped by the report done last year by the 2009-2010 group of Master’s students. It includes
valuable information about sustainable development strategies for the stainless steel sector
and other sectors.
The second part of our workshop consists in the benchmarking of various Life Cycle Costing
case studies done on various objects. This is based on available Life Cycle Costing analyses
suggested by the ISSF and some others found on the internet. It was then to be used to
propose recommendations for improvement in the stainless steel sector of Life Cycle Costing
issues and to illustrate interests of this approach.
1
However, the study has been hindered by the unavailability of case studies on certain objects
and the lack of detailed data in those which are available, and led us to reconsider our initial
objectives.
Acknowledgments
This workshop study has greatly benefited from the comments and suggestions of several
people. First of all, the authors would like to thank their professors, Ms Rosalind Greenstein,
Mr Pierre Pech and Mr Michel Rios, for their valuable comments and suggestions. The
authors also wish to express sincere thanks to Mr Pascal Payet-Gaspard, Mr Yusuke Kanno,
Mr Yasuhiro Suzuki and Mr Bernard Héritier, who are members of the International Stainless
Steel Forum. We would also like to extend our special thanks to the partners of Aperam in
Genk, and Setra, CETE Ile de France and ArcelorMittal, who contributed to this work, for
their valuable input and intellectual support.
Paris, 18 April 2011
Hicham El Deeb, Antoine Dusart, Nahla Jaouhari, David Ka and Lisa Ruf
2
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 2
Part I: ISSF and Stainless Steel market outlook ......................................................................... 5
Part II: Principles of Life Cycle Costing .................................................................................... 8
2.1 Definition ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Principle ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Process ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Economic evaluation methodology ................................................................................ 16
2.4 Comparison of various aspects of Life Cycle Costing analyses in different areas of the
world..................................................................................................................................... 19
Part III: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Information gathering ..................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Delimitation of the perimeter ......................................................................................... 24
3.3 Benchmarking of LCC already completed ..................................................................... 25
3.4 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 25
3.6 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 27
Part IV: Benchmark of LCC case studies................................................................................. 28
Case Study: Bridges .................................................................................................................
LCC & Bridges................................................................................................................. 30
Material characteristics .................................................................................................... 31
LCC .................................................................................................................................. 33
Impacts on the environment and sustainable development .............................................. 40
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 43
Reference .......................................................................................................................... 43
Case Study: Desalination Pumps..............................................................................................
LCC .................................................................................................................................. 49
Case Study: Plumbing Pipe ......................................................................................................
LCC .................................................................................................................................. 59
Impacts on the environment and sustainable development .............................................. 59
Case Study: Washing-machines ...............................................................................................
Material characteristics: ................................................................................................... 62
LCC .................................................................................................................................. 63
LCA result and impacts on the environment .................................................................... 65
Part V: Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 71
5.1 General recommendations .............................................................................................. 71
General considerations on the interest of LCC method for the stainless steel sector ...... 71
5.2 Specific recommendations ............................................................................................. 75
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 79
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix 1: Bibliography .................................................................................................... 80
Appendix 2: Glossary ........................................................................................................... 84
Appendix 3: Questionnaire................................................................................................... 90
Appendix 4: List of stainless steel bridges in the world ...................................................... 94
Appendix 5: Possible designs with several materials of a pedestrian bridge ....................... 96
Appendix 6: Tables .............................................................................................................. 97
Appendix 7: Typical Reverse Osmosis Plant Diagram ........................................................ 99
3
Table of illustrations
Figure 1: Stainless steel production market in 2010 .................................................................. 6
Figure 2: Stainless steel production market in 2020 .................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Typical inputs and outputs in LCA ............................................................................. 9
Figure 4: Cost variation over time............................................................................................ 12
Figure 5: Cost over time for three materials ............................................................................ 16
Figure 6: Example of stainless steel bridge life cycle phases and its impacts on environment in
different areas of the world ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Crude production, use in manufacturing, net addition to in-use stocks and end-of-
life flows of stainless steel appliances in various countries ..................................................... 21
Figure 8: Prototype of a spider-web graph comparing two materials ...................................... 27
Figure 9: Average prices development of stainless and carbon steel ....................................... 33
Figure 10: Comparative construction costs of miscellaneous bridges ..................................... 34
Figure 11: Comparison of the initial and maintenance costs of five materials ........................ 35
Figure 12: Influence of traffic on bridge life cycle costs ......................................................... 37
Figure 13: Comparison of life span of bridge made out of carbon steel, epoxy coated and
stainless steel ............................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 14: Comparison of several bridges’ cumulated life cycle costs.................................... 39
Figure 15: Comparison of the energy consumption of bridges made of five materials ........... 41
Figure 16: Corrosion resistance of materials according to the velocity of water ..................... 48
Figure 17: Typical life cycle cost for a medium-sized pump ................................................... 49
Figure 18: Labor time savings .................................................................................................. 56
Figure 19: Effect of water velocity on the corrosion of stainless steel and copper.................. 57
Figure 20: Typical physical properties of pipe materials ......................................................... 58
Figure 21: Comparison of pressure values ............................................................................... 58
Figure 22: Comparative cost of a range of tube sizes and fittings ........................................... 59
Figure 23: LCA data before and after dewater ......................................................................... 68
4
Part I: ISSF and Stainless Steel market outlook
The use of stainless steel, a metal employed in a wide range of technology applications, has
been characterized for 51 countries.
According to ISSF, global stainless steel melting activities increased by 24.9% to a new
record high of 30.7 million metric tons (mmt) in 2010. There are several reasons for the
strong recovery of the global stainless steel production: economic recovery, strong end-use
demand, re-stocking at service centers and fabricators and also the re-filling of the internal
supply chain in the stainless steel mills which alone can count for half a million tons.
Stainless steel melting in Asia (excluding China) increased by 20.8% to 8.6 mmt in 2010.
Even during the recent global economic crises, China has been the driving force behind
stainless crude steel production and the country added another 27.8% production growth in
2010, reaching almost 11.3 mmt. All Asian stainless steel producers now cover 65% of the
entire world’s stainless steel production. China is by far No. 1 of the stainless steel market
and 6 out of the 10 biggest markets are to be found in Asia.
The next biggest producing area, Western Europe plus Africa, has reported an increase in
stainless steel production of 22.1%, thus achieving a volume of slightly less than 7.9 million
metric tons in 2010.
The Americas increased their stainless crude steel melting by 34.4% to 2.6 mmt while Central
and Eastern Europe’s production achieved a clearly over-proportional increase of over 43.6%,
thus bringing this area to 0.3 mmt, though this is still almost negligible in global terms.
It has been forecast that the total world market will be 35 million metric tons in 2014. China
is overtaking such traditionally strong stainless steel producers and users as Japan, USA,
Germany, and South Korea to become the dominant player of the stainless steel industry.
5
Figure 1: Stainless steel production market in 2010
r : revised figures; p : preliminary figures

Source: www.worldstainless.org/Statistics/Crude/
Figure 2: Stainless steel production market in 2020
Source: Steel & Market metal research, Nov 2008
As for the sales markets, the global steel market will continue on an upward trend in 2011. In
Europe and the NAFTA region, steel market demand will continue to rise, though at a more
moderate rate. However, steel market volumes will still fall well short of the levels reached in
the pre-crisis years of 2007 and 2008. Steel consumption will also continue to expand in the
emerging economies. China will remain the key driver of the global steel market, even though
the very high double-digit growth rates of 2009 and 2010 are unlikely to continue. With
capacities in China still increasing, the country’s production output will continue to expand,
so the situation on the raw material markets is not expected to ease significantly for the time
being. Steel input costs are therefore likely to remain high.
6
Demand for stainless steel flat products will continue to recover. Following a 20% post-crisis
rise in global demand in 2010, growth is expected to normalize at around 6% in 2011. Growth
of 4% and 5% respectively is anticipated for the Western European and North American
markets. For China an increase of 8% is forecast. Demand for high-performance nickel alloy
and titanium materials is also expected to rise.
The upturn on the auto market will continue in 2011. Worldwide, production is forecast to
increase by 8% to almost 75 million cars and light trucks. The focus of production will
continue to shift to Asia. Output is expected to expand by 10% in China, 18% in India and
11% in Brazil. High replacement demand for the aging vehicle population will lead to a 10%
rise in production in the USA. A similar increase is forecast for the Japanese auto industry.
Growth in Germany and Western Europe will remain moderate at 4% and 5%, respectively.
The machinery sector will continue its growth in 2011 but will not yet return on average to
pre-crisis levels. The strong production growth in China will weaken slightly to 14%. Output
in the USA is forecast to rise by 6%. With orders improving, the German mechanical
engineering sector is expected to expand by 9%.
Construction activity will continue to show regional differences in 2011. Moderate growth in
construction output is expected in Central and Eastern Europe. In the USA, the construction
sector will recover after the sharp slumps of the prior years. In China and India, construction
activity will remain strong.
7
Part II: Principles of Life Cycle Costing
2.1 Definition
Life Cycle Costing is the cost of an asset, or its parts, throughout its life cycle, while fulfilling
the performance requirements (ISO 15686-5).
The life cycle cost is the sum of all costs related to a product incurred during the life cycle of
that product from its conception and fabrication through its operation to the end of its useful
life.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used for assessing the total economic impact associated with
a product’s manufacture, use and disposal and with all actions related to the construction and
use of a building or other structure. Societal aspects are not addressed in LCA.
Life cycle costing is the process of economic analysis to assess the life cycle cost of a product
over its life cycle or a portion of it. It seeks to optimize the cost of acquiring, owning and
operating physical assets over their useful lives by attempting to identify and quantify all the
significant costs involved in that life, using the present value technique.
Life cycle costing is thus the technique that takes into consideration all relevant economic
factors in the sense of initial capital costs and future operating costs to enable comparative
cost assessment.
Life cycle costing is therefore an economic evaluation methodology that accounts for all
relevant costs over the investor’s time horizon, adjusting for the time value of money where
appropriate.
The results of an LCC analysis can be used to assist management in the decision-making
process where there is a choice of options.
There are several different standards (ISO 15686-5/ NS3454/ ASTM/ Australian/ New
Zealand-Standard) available to guide an LCC analysis. All have different cost categories and
slightly different cost breakdown structures.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

A life cycle assessment (LCA) is the investigation and valuation of the environmental impacts
of a given product or service caused or necessitated by its existence. It is a variant of an input-
output analysis, focusing on physical rather than monetary flows.
The goal of LCA is to compare the full range of environmental damage assignable to products
and services and to be able to choose the least burdensome one.
8
The term “life cycle” refers to the major activities in the course of the product’s life span from
its manufacture, use, and maintenance, to its final disposal, including the raw material
acquisition required to manufacture the product.
The concept also can be used to optimize the environmental performance of a single product
(Eco design) or to optimize the environmental performance of a company.
Common categories of assessed damage are global warming, greenhouse gases, acidification,
ozone layer depletion, human toxicological pollutants, desertification, land-use, as well as
depletion of minerals and fossil fuels.
The following figure illustrates the typical inputs/outputs measured in an LCA:
Figure 3: Typical inputs and outputs in LCA
Process Materials, Reagents,

Solvents & Catalysts (including
reuse & recycle from another stage)
Energy
Product Material
Inputs (including
reuse & recycle from Reuse/Recycle
another stage) Single Stage or Unit
Operation
Primary Product
Useful Co-product
Fugitive &
Untreated
Waste Waste
Reuse/Recycle
s
Source: Guidelines for life cycle analysis, UNEP
According to the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, a Life Cycle Assessment is carried out in
four distinct phases: goal and scope, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment and
interpretation, as defined below.
Goal and Scope

A description of the method applied for assessing potential environmental impacts and
which impact categories are included.
Life Cycle Inventory

An objective, data-based process of quantifying energy and raw materials requirements,
9
air emissions, waterborne effluents, solid waste, and other environmental releases
incurred throughout the life cycle of a product, process, or activity.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment

An evaluative process of assessing the effects of the environmental findings identified
in the inventory component. The impact assessment should address both ecological and
human health impacts, as well as social, cultural, and economic impacts.
Life Cycle Improvement Analysis

An analysis of opportunities to reduce or mitigate the environmental impact throughout
the whole life cycle of a product, process, or activity. This analysis may include both
quantitative and qualitative measures of improvement, such as changes in product
design, raw material usage, industrial processes, consumer use, and waste management.
Interrelationship between LCC and sustainability analysis

Whilst LCC and LCA are two distinct and different processes that have developed and are
practiced as separate disciplines, there are many parallels and interrelationships between the
two.
For example, both:

- are concerned with assessing the long term impacts of decisions
- require analysis of an often diverse range of inputs
- use similar data on inputs of materials and energy
- take into account operation and maintenance
- consider opportunities for recycling vs. disposal
- provide a basis for rational decision-making, particularly in appraising options
However, the two disciplines differ in the basis of the resulting decisions:
- LCC combines all relevant costs associated with an asset into outputs expressed in
financial terms as a basis for making investment decisions.
- LCA enables decisions to be made on the basis of potential environmental impacts by
scoring and rating on environmental criteria. Whilst costs can be firmly attributed to
some environmental factors there is currently no widely agreed methodology for
others and some cannot be quantified at all in cost terms.
As a result LCC and LCA do not necessarily produce a common output. Nevertheless,
environmental impact assessment has a key place in overall long-term decision-making and
consideration should be given to how to integrate it with the LCC process at the earliest
stages.
How to integrate LCA and LCC

In LCC the primary driver in decision-making is cost and LCA informs decisions on the basis
of potential environmental impacts. The use and sequence of LCC and LCA will depend on
the priorities of the decision-maker.
The range of approaches might cover, for example:
10
- use of LCC to provide a financial/economic evaluation of those sustainability impacts
that have a widely agreed and readily calculated monetary value
- use of LCC to provide a financial/economic evaluation of alternative options
identified in an LCA assessment
- use of LCA as a means of identifying alternative options with a good environmental
performance and then carrying out an LCC analysis on those options only
- use of LCC to select cost effective options, then making a final decision in the light of
a process of LCA carried out on those options only
Thus it can be seen that LCC and LCA can either be used alongside each other in a broader
evaluation process, or either process can form an input into the other.
Benefits of Life Cycle Costing

There are 4 major benefits of LCC analysis:
- evaluation of competing options in purchasing
- improved awareness of total costs
- more accurate forecasting of cost profiles, and
- performance trade-off against cost
Option evaluation: LCC techniques allow evaluation of competing proposals on the basis of
through-life costs. LCC analysis is relevant to most service contracts and equipment-
purchasing decisions.
Improved awareness: Application of LCC techniques provides management with an

improved awareness of the factors that drive cost and the resources required by the purchase.
It is important that the cost drivers are identified so that most management effort is applied to
the most cost-effective areas of the purchase. Additionally, awareness of the cost drivers will
also highlight areas in existing items which would benefit from management involvement.
Improved forecasting: The application of LCC techniques allows the full cost associated
with a procurement to be estimated more accurately. It leads to improved decision-making at
all levels, for example major investment decisions, or the establishment of cost-effective
support policies. Additionally, LCC analysis allows more accurate forecasting of future
expenditure to be applied to long-term costing assessments.
Performance trade-off against cost: In purchasing decisions cost is not the only factor to be
considered when assessing the options. There are other factors such as the overall fit against
the requirement and the quality of the goods and the levels of service to be provided. LCC
analysis allows for a cost trade-off to be made against the varying attributes of the purchasing
options.
2.2 Principle
The cost of ownership of an asset or service is incurred throughout its whole life and does not
all occur at the point of acquisition. The figure below gives an example of a spend profile
11
showing how the costs vary with time.
Figure 4: Cost variation over time
Source: Methodology of life cycle costing, European commission
In some instances the disposal cost will be negative because the item will have a resale value
whilst for other procurements the disposal, termination or replacement cost is extremely high
and must be taken into account at the planning stage.
- Acquisition costs are those incurred between the decision to proceed with the
procurement and the entry of the goods or services to operational use.
- Operational costs are those incurred during the operational life of the asset or
service.
- End-of-life costs are those associated with the disposal, termination or replacement
of the asset or service. In the case of assets, disposal cost can be negative because
the asset has a resale value.
2.3 Process
LCC is a technique developed for identifying and quantifying all costs, initial and ongoing,
associated with a project or installation over a given period. The full cost of a project
includes projections of future interest and inflation rates, maintenance intervals and
12
costs, and the desired service life.
Materials costs are assessed taking into consideration such long- and short-term factors as
initial outlay, maintenance and its frequency, down time effects, production losses, repair,
replacement, and other operationally related costs such as manpower and energy
consumption.
LCC uses the standard accounting principle of discounted cash flow, so that total costs
incurred during a life cycle period are reduced to present day values. This allows a realistic
comparison to be made of the options available in choosing the most cost effective material.
Present value allows us to determine how much money must be committed today to account
for the entire future costs that will occur during the entire planned service life of a project.
Shown below is the formula used to calculate the total Life Cycle Cost for each material being
assessed.
Life cycle cost formula
Cost of capital
An estimate of the appropriate discount rate is essential in order to calculate Life Cycle
Costs in Present Value (PV) terms. The cost of capital to be employed should be an
opportunity cost, that is, irrespective of the source of funds (reserves, debt, etc.), but
might account for the client’s good standing (risk) in borrowing from a financial
institution.
Inflation rate
This is an estimate of the projected mean inflation rate over the intended full operational
life. It will be a subjective assessment, but should be realistically based on historic
national trends, and on future projections.
Desired life cycle duration

This input is the projected or expected full operational life in years of the plant or
equipment.
13
Downtime per maintenance/replacement event
This input informs the basis of the costs of lost production, and refers to the total
average out-of-service period of the unit or process for each planned or scheduled
maintenance (or replacement).
Value of lost production

The value of the lost production (in monetary units per day, at today’s value) refers to
the daily loss of production revenues if any as a direct or indirect result of the being out
of service.
Real interest rate

This is not an operator input.
The real rate is calculated from the formula:
r = (n – q)/(1 + q)
where n = cost of capital (‘nominal’ bank rate) and q = inflation rate
The projected mean real interest rate is the actual discount rate that will be applied in
the present value calculations.
Material costs
The material costs refer to the total cost of materials in the initial set-up before
fabrication and installation of the unit. Costs should reflect the total cost of the
independent unit being assessed.
Fabrication and initial installation costs

This requires an assessment of costs of cutting, forming, welding, and assembly for the
independent unit.
Other installation costs

Costs of surface protection (painting, epoxy coatings, linings, etc.) that are not costed
into the original material.
Special labor skills refer to any cost incurred as a result of employing or hiring
specialist personnel who may be required to assist in the installation as a result of a
material choice like certified engineers or materials’ consultants. These costs are input
as lump sums for the independent units.
Maintenance costs
Regular maintenance is often required, and may increase considerably when using
inferior materials. This input assumes regular and equally costed maintenance. If
maintenance is performed in two different ways, for example one less extensive event at
shorter time intervals, and a general overhaul at longer intervals, the input screen for
‘replacement costs’ may be used for the second type of maintenance. The cost per event
for this entry is the total costs at today’s value, typically incurred or envisaged at each
maintenance interval.
14
The following should be included:
- Labor costs
- Maintenance materials
- A consideration for possible specialized inspection equipment
- External specialist skills
The elapsed time between maintenance events (years) should be based on own experts
experience, supplier specifications, or similar industry norms, and should be regularly
spaced (e.g. every 0.5 years, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc.).
If no maintenance is planned, the time between maintenance events should be set at the
desired life cycle duration.
Replacement costs
Replacement costs are those that arise when part of the system become expensive to
repair, and must be replaced entirely. The desired life cycle period may be such that the
materials in the system require replacing several times during this time. Materials
subject to aggressive or high-risk environments (e.g. high corrosion and/or wear
applications) should be identified as potentially requiring replacement before the expiry
of the desired life cycle. These costs must be distinguished from maintenance costs, and
should be entered as lump sum costs for the independent unit at today’s value.
Annual material-related costs

This section refers to additional indirect operating costs incurred as a result of a material
choice. The entries here could take the form of relative costs between materials, and an
estimate of this annual cost should be entered for the material causing the increased
costs.
Present value allows us to determine how much money must be committed today to
account for the entire future costs that will occur during the entire planned service life
of a project. Experience has shown that the costs of both future maintenance and
associated downtime can far outweigh the initial material costs.
A full life cycle cost analysis enables the materials specifier to consider the full implications
of future costs over the life of the project both in terms of actual monetary value and
inconvenience of future maintenance and replacements.
The graph below shows that the cost of Alternate Materials A and B substantially increases
over time while the cost of stainless steel usually remains constant.
15
Figure 5: Cost over time for three materials
Source: Stainless steel information center (www.ssina.com)
2.3 Economic evaluation methodology
LCC is based on the premise that to arrive at meaningful purchasing decisions full account
must be taken of each available option.
All potential expenditures must be taken into account: explicit consideration must be given to
all relevant costs for each of the options from planning through to disposal.
The complexity of LCC will vary according to the complexity of the goods or services to be
procured. The cost of collecting necessary data can be considerable, and where the same items
are procured frequently a cost database can be developed.
The literature shows a broad variation of economic evaluation methods for LCC analysis:
Simple payback: It calculates the time required to return the initial investment. The
investment with the shortest pay-back time is the most profitable one.
Discount payback method (DPP): Basically the same as the simple payback method,
it just takes the time value into account
Net present value (NPV): NPV is the result of the application of discount factors,
based on a required rate of return to each year’s projected cash flow, both in and out, so
that the cash flows are discounted to present value. In general if the NPV is positive it is
worthwhile investing.
Equivalent annual cost (ECA): This method expresses the one-time NPV of an
alternative as a uniform equivalent annual cost, since it takes the present worth of
annuity into account.
16
Internal rate of return (IRR): The IRR is a discounted cash flow criterion which
determines an average rate of return by reference to the condition that the values be
reduced to zero at the initial point of time. It is possible to calculate the test discount
rate that will generate an NPV of zero. The alternative with the highest IRR is the best
alternative (ISO, 2004)
Net saving (NS): The NS is calculated as the difference between the present worth of
the income generated by an investment and the amounted invested. The alternative with
the highest net saving is the best.
All these methods have their advantages and disadvantages. They have been developed for
different purposes and the user should be aware of their limitations.
17
The table below illustrates the six main economic evaluation methods for LCC, their
advantages and disadvantages and for what purposes they can be used:
Method Usable for Advantage Disadvantage

Simple Rough estimation Quick and easy Does not take
payback if the investment calculation. inflation, interest
is profitable. Result easy to or cash flow into
interpret. account.
Discount Should only be Takes the time Ignores all cash
payback used as a value of money flow outside the
method (DPP) screening device, into account. payback period.
not as decision
advice.
Net present Most LCC Takes the time Not usable when
value (NPV) models use the value of money the compared
NPV. Not usable into account. alternatives have
if the alternatives Generates the different life
have different life return equal to length. Not easy to
length. the market rate of interpret.
interest. It uses
all available data.
Equivalent Different Different Just gives an
annual cost alternatives with alternatives with average number.
(ECA) different life different life It does not indicate
length can be length can be the actual cost.
compared (ISO, compared (ISO,
2004). 2004).
Internal rate Can only be used Result is given in Calculations need
of return if the investments percentage which a trial and error
(IRR) will generate an can be helpful. procedure. IRR
income. can only be
calculated if the
investments will
generate an
income.
The literature shows that the most suitable approach for LCC is the net present value (NPV)
method.
18
2.4 Comparison of various aspects of Life Cycle Costing
analyses in different areas of the world
This part of the study provides an overview of factors that might influence life cycle costing
analyses according to the location of the object studied. It is a general analysis bringing
specific factors related to location considerations into the sight of people carrying LCC
projects and comparing them.
To simplify the comparison, and for reasons of lack of available data, the countries considered
have been divided into two broad categories, industrialized countries and developing
countries.
Resources location, production processes and metal needs related to cultural and social
changes have impacts on stainless steel flow and its vision in the different parts of the world.
According to a Yale study (2010), global stainless steel flow-into-use increased by more than
30% between 2000 and 2005. During the same period its end-of-life recycling rate increased
from 66% to 70%.
Life cycle costs

The main obstacle to stainless steel uses both in developing and industrialized countries is its
cost. Investment costs tend to increase considerably when stainless steel is involved and are
even more determining for the choice of a material in developing countries since budgets are
often lower than in industrialized ones. As for maintenance and repair costs, they are much
higher in industrialized countries than in developing ones, where the cost of labor is
considerably lower. However, since stainless steel doesn’t need to be maintained or repaired,
there aren’t any such costs during its use phase, and so it can be very competitive in the long
term. Thus the burden of the choice of stainless steel weighs more or less heavily on the
different phases in the two categories of countries.
End-of-life and recycling

End-of-life costs are high in Europe because land-filling processes, especially those related to
the metal industry, are strictly regulated. On the other hand, European industries benefit from
high standard and efficient recycling methods that lead to cheaper raw materials. In fact, reuse
of elements and recycling processes appear to be competitive with land-filling solutions since
they reduce the end-of-life costs and lessen investment costs linked to expensive raw
materials. In addition, energy consumption (and therefore total costs), not forgetting
environmental impacts are lower when scraps are used as raw material.
Finally, it is also important to consider that stainless steel has been used in industrialized
countries for a while and a great quantity of scraps is nowadays available to be used as raw
material. The situation is quite different in developing countries where reuse and recycling are
not generalized since maintenance and repair costs are low. In addition, scraps aren’t
19
available yet to be used as raw material since those countries have only recently started using
stainless steel. Therefore, extraction is preferred over recycling processes.
Figure 6: Example of stainless steel bridge life cycle phases and its impacts on
environment in different areas of the world
Uses of stainless steel and domestic market characteristics

Industrialized countries have a long-term perspective of a product and are thus more likely to
be concerned by the durability of materials. Nevertheless, factors such as tendency to
minimize investment costs and lack of historical and engineering knowledge about steel
appliances hinder its application and development. In fact, engineers aren’t familiar with the
characteristics of stainless steel and its advantages, and engineers’ tools don’t include
stainless steel selection among their possibilities.
In developing countries, the use of stainless steel has grown alongside technological
improvements and a better standard of living. But this means more mining and energy and
water consumption in resource-rich countries, which are often developing countries, while
production, manufacturing and use are located in industrialized countries. Nevertheless the
Yale study (2010) identifies a relatively uniform set of countries that dominate production,
manufacture and use of final goods.
The figure below shows that industrialized countries are the main players in terms of
production and manufacturing. It also shows that China has a very small end-of-life flow that
can be explained by a product lifetime use of stainless steel appliances, while in industrialized
countries new stainless steel products replace old ones.
20
Figure 7: Crude production, use in manufacturing, net addition to in-use stocks and
end-of-life flows of stainless steel appliances in various countries
Source: Reck B.K, Chambon M, Hashimoto S. and Graedel T.E, Global stainless steel cycle exemplifies China’s
rise to metal dominance, Environmental science and technology, 2010
To conclude, concerns about LCC and its advantages have increased in industrialized
countries and analyses have been carried out, unlike in developing countries. This could help
support the modernization of technology and encourage sustainable innovation.
References
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise & Industry, Methodology of Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA)
- R. Flanagan and C. Jewell, Whole Life Appraisal for construction, 2005
- ISO/DIS 15686-5, Buildings and constructed assets-service life planning
- G. A. Keoleian, A. Kendall, R. Chandler, G.E. Helfand and M. Lepech, Life cycle cost model for
evaluating the sustainability of bridge decks, University of Michigan (undated)
- D. Landgon, Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction, Guidance on
the use of the LCC Methodology and its application in public procurement, 2007
- Norme NF EN ISO 1404, Management environnemental, Analyse du Cycle de Vie, Définition de
l’objectif et du champ d’étude et analyse de l’inventaire
- Norme NF EN ISO 14040, Management environnemental, Analyse du Cycle de Vie, Principes et
cadre
- Norme NF EN ISO 14042, Management environnemental - Analyse du Cycle de Vie - Evaluation
de l’impact du cycle de vie
- Norme ISO 14043, Management environnemental - Analyse du Cycle de Vie - Interprétation du
cycle de vie
- M. Pradel, Analyse du cycle de vie des produits agricoles, Cemagref, Sciences Eaux & Territoires
n°04 (undated)
- M. Pradel and A. De Gervillier, L’analyse du cycle de vie à l’échelle d’une exploitation agricole :
méthode et premiers résultats, Cemagref, , Sciences Eaux & Territoires n°04 (undated)
- Réseau Scientifique et Technique du MEEDDM, Analyse du cycle de vie d'un pont en béton,
Exemple d'application pour un pont courant, T87 (undated)
- J. Schade, Life cycle cost calculation model for building, Department of Civil, Mining and
Environmental Engineering Luleå University of Technology (undated)
- S. Svoboda, Note on life cycle analysis, University of Michigan Corporate Environmental
Management Program (undated)
- United Nations Environment Programme, Guidelines for social life assessment of products, 2009
21
Part III: Methodology
The aim of this study is to compare stainless steel made products with products made with
other materials according to their life cycle costs and environmental impacts. In other words,
this work is based on the study of the economic and environmental durability of stainless steel
products.
To do so, we have analyzed different Life Cycle Costing (LCC) case studies in different areas
of the world, so as to identify the relevant life cycle cost factors and compare the materials
studied. The other aim of this study is to provide technical answers and to allow a better
targeting of best practices that could be implemented in order to improve the environmental
quality of stainless steel products.
Finally, it is important to note that the LCC method is not yet used extensively in all sectors
considered here and that the comparison of LCC case studies is closely related to the
availability of analyses and relevant data. However, undertaking such a study and starting the
discussion on durability is important as a way to get results when information is not available
and, of course, this is very much correlated with the type and location of the objects.
Furthermore, a material that offers the best economic or environmental performances in one
project does not always do so in others.
This work provides a method to evaluate the environmental and economic performances of
different objects in a reliable and objective way.
To achieve this objective, we organized our six-month workshop in four phases:

- information gathering (one month)
- benchmarking of LCC case studies (two months)
- questionnaire and interviews with stakeholders of the stainless steel sector and its
competitors (two months)
- recommendations (one month)
22
3.1 Information gathering
The first step of our study was to collect all kinds of information so as to see where and how
LCC is used in the stainless steel sector.
First, a complete study of the life cycle of stainless steel products requires knowing about the
production process. The ISSF online database and the ArcelorMittal plant tour in Genk were
precious tools to understand generally what is needed to produce stainless steel and
distinguish the different phases of the production process.
It also meant familiarizing ourselves with the evaluation of the life cycle, especially according
to the LCC methodology. However, we quickly realized that the environmental impacts were
only taken into account through monetization. This is why we decided to draw on the
advantages of using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to evaluate socio-environmental costs at each
phase of the life cycle.
As LCC analyses are only of relevance when they compare different materials, we also had to
identify the main competitors of the stainless steel sector. Though those often depend on the
object studied, copper, concrete, carbon steel and plastic appear to be competitive whatever
the object. We therefore analyzed the characteristics of these materials in order to determine
their respective benefits and drawbacks compared to stainless steel.
3.2 Delimitation of the perimeter
We initially planned to focus our LCC analysis exclusively on bridges, as most LCC analyses
available online are conducted on bridges. However, as explained later on, we did not have
enough data to propose an accurate analysis centered on one object. This issue changed our
approach and we decided to make an overview of all the sectors according to different
objects.
The information-gathering phase enabled us to identify different kinds of objects. Some

markets can be viewed as flexible, putting stainless steel into a situation where it faces
stronger competition. Other objects, because of the particular conditions in which they are
used, require materials with specific characteristics which undeniably favor stainless steel.
This analysis therefore focuses on the following applications:

• bridges and plumbing pipes, as the stainless steel demand on those objects is relatively
high but in competition with other materials
• desalination pumps and washing-machines, which require a high corrosion resistance
which highlights the benefits of stainless steel over its competitors
24
3.3 Benchmarking of LCC already completed
As the time limit did not allow us to do an elaborate LCC analysis for each of the objects, we
based our study on a compilation of several case studies. Most of them are referenced by each
sector and each object in the bibliography. Analyzing case studies constituted the very basis
of the description of the costs at each life cycle phase. However, most of them were not
complete, as the data about life cycle cost are not very often publicly available. We therefore
decided to resort to a questionnaire to get the missing information.
3.4 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was intended to be a support when contacting stakeholders of different

sectors in order to finalize the benchmark of the LCC and LCA analyses. As said above, there
was a serious lack of data and accurate figures and the questionnaire was produced to
compensate for this. Since the objective was to compare the results by sector and object, we
drafted a single questionnaire adaptable to each of them. When possible, we tried to ask for
appointments but since many of the companies we contacted were located abroad, we had to
send questionnaires by email.
Different interview methods exist: directive, semi-directive and non-directive. Since the
questionnaire was intended either as a guideline for direct interviews or for written interviews,
it had to be both general enough and also precise enough to be completed in as much detail as
possible. This is why we chose a semi-directive questionnaire, which is a qualitative
technique frequently used in sociology and economics in order to obtain and verify specific
information. It is organized through a set of open questions, classified by theme, and the
responses of the person interviewed can be channeled along the lines defined by the
interviewer. We allowed enough space for the respondent to express his/her concerns, and
even to digress; in other words we oriented the interview but the respondents were free to talk
about their concerns.
The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix and is made up of six parts:
General information
Here we asked the respondent to introduce him/herself and explain their role/function in
their company.
LCC/LCA analyses
The purpose of this part was to determine whether LCC/LCA analyses had been
conducted in the company of the respondent. If so, we asked him/her to give a general
feedback on the methodology in order to see how LCC/LCA met their needs.
Rules, regulations and compliance monitoring

What was at stake here was to determine what the main regulations are governing the
company of the respondent, including whether the results of LCC/LCA analyses were
25
classified as confidential. In addition, we asked if the company was required to conform
to any environmental regulations through international agreements, carbon
compensation programs or ISO certification.
Environmental management and sustainable development

The aim of this part was to determine how the company deals with most environmental
issues.
The first general question was about which unit, if any, was in charge of environmental
issues. We then had a series of questions about:
- air pollution (gas emission and dust)
- water consumption and wastewater disposal methods
- energy consumption and use of renewable energies/energy saving programs
- solid waste and recycling
- noise pollution
Social aspects
After all the environmental considerations, we focused on the social aspects of
sustainable development by asking what the social priorities in the company of the
respondent were. We also tried to determine what the company does in terms of
prevention of accidents at work and the promotion of training courses.
Life cycle costing

We asked the respondent to fill in a table that includes the main parts of an LCC
analysis between stainless steel and three other materials, where possible. We insisted
above all on initial costs and operating costs. Although we have insufficient knowledge
and experience of this methodology, we were able to adjust the results of this table
thanks to the helpful comments and advice of our contacts.
The questionnaires are strictly confidential.
Interpretation and limits of the questionnaire

The purpose of approaching stakeholders through a questionnaire was to collect data about
different sectors so they can be compared with stainless steel. We chose to use a spider-web
graph to compare the results of the questionnaire per sector on a single graph. We associated
to each criterion an index (from 0 to 9) which designates as objectively as possible the
position of the sector on the graph. The criteria were chosen from the main topics of the
questionnaire.
The first step was to identify companies or other stakeholders of a given sector that
participates in the life cycle of the four products examined. We then planned to compute an
average index for each sector by making a synthesis of the results obtained. Once each sector
had an average index for each of the criteria, all the sectors could be compared on the same
graph by using different colors (see as follows).
26
Figure 8: Prototype of a spider-web graph comparing two materials
The problem was that to produce this graph implied that we had to get at least four or five
completed questionnaires per sector to provide a fair assessment of the performance of the
sectors in the criteria we identified. Unfortunately, most of our emails remained unanswered
despite our efforts, and we had neither the time nor the material resources to achieve our
objective. We therefore decided to leave this comparison for another study and use the results
of the questionnaire as a support of the benchmark analysis and to make recommendations.
Finally, this questionnaire may very well need to be improved and some questions changed,
but this will only become apparent once more data has been collected. Once this has been
done, the indices can be prepared and the spider-graph calculated to compare the different
sectors.
3.6 Recommendations
The last phase of our workshop consisted in making recommendations to the ISSF based on
the experience we acquired through the analysis of case studies, the visit to a stainless steel
plant and the meetings with stakeholders. Again, this part of the study could have been
developed further if more questionnaires had been sent out and completed. However limited
our findings, this nevertheless shows how LCC analyses are done and where actions could be
taken. We have indeed produced general recommendations that may be applied whatever the
object, and specific recommendations object by object (see the ‘recommendations’ section of
this report).
27
Part IV: Benchmark of LCC case studies
28
Case Study: Bridges
29
LCC & Bridges
The case studies used for this analysis use a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or Life Cycle
Costing (LCC) approach. Their aim is to evaluate the costs and environmental impacts of
several bridges in different parts of the world, starting with the various stages of
manufacture, and going though to product use and end-of-life. They show that using high
performance steel such as stainless steel is a way to reduce CO² emissions and, more
generally, environmental impacts. Interestingly, using high performance steel results in
lower long-term costs, thanks to the characteristics of the material.
When deciding which materials to use in bridge construction, a balance has to be made
between minimizing costs, weight, deflection, dynamic response and risk of corrosion, in
the light of the specific constraints that must be respected, including structural and
mechanical requirements, durability, low initial, maintenance and repair costs and esthetic
appearance. However, it is important to state that nowadays most bridges are built using a
combination of several materials. Actually, apart from some pedestrian or train bridges, we
usually find cement and carbon steel or, in fact, reinforced concrete and structural steel.
Stainless steel is rarely used in bridges construction. Pedestrian bridges are the kind of
bridges that are the most likely to be made from stainless steel (a list of stainless steel made
bridges is provided in appendix 4). The following list provides examples of steel appliances
in bridge construction: wire rope, conduits, metal framework, joints, safety devices, post
auscultation tubes…
In the following analysis, the planned life horizons in the study cases were:
- 100 years for the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge (USA), which is located in a high natural
disaster risk area.
- Over 50 years for the Through Bridge (Spain), under high corrosion pressure in coastal
areas.
- 80 years for the Schaffhaussen Bridge (Switzerland), which must resist de-icing salt and
atmospheric corrosion.
- Over 100 years for the Sustainable Duplex Stainless Steel bridges study.
- 100 years for the Analyse de cycle de vie d’un pont en béton (France).
- 50 years for the pultruded bridge (Netherlands).
- 100 years for the Bridge Life Cycle Costing Analysis (BLCCA) of small bridges
(Finland).
Bridges made out of steel have a very long life span. A perfect example is the “iron bridge”
that was constructed between 1880 and 1884 or the Garabit viaduct that is more than 120
years old.
Finally, the data and results of the analyses used to do this study case are relevant regarding
their specific context and the specific needs that have led to the construction of such bridges
(specific environment, national regulation, framework, dimensions, materials …). In other
30
words, the claims of this study are not to be generalized to every situation, even if the
results can be taken to illustrate the influential factors in bridge LCC analyses.
Material characteristics
The grades of material that are used in the following description are relevant for a
pedestrian bridge. They have been chosen for this comparison for practical reasons.
Aluminum (grades AIMgSi1, 0 F31 according to DIN 1748 or 6061 and 6063 alloys
according to ASTM B221)
• Structural and mechanical requirements:
- light-weight metal
- high ductility
- medium-high strength and toughness
- electrical conductor
• Durability:
- long-lasting
- resistant to corrosion
• Initial, maintenance and repair costs:

- expensive initial costs
- medium maintenance costs
- high recycling possibility but it can’t be recycled many times without inputs of new
raw material
• Esthetic appearance:
- thinner parts of bridges are elegant
- shiny structures which produce good visual effects
Stainless steel (Grades X2Cr19-11 or X2CrNiMo18- 14- 3 according to the Euro Norm)
- high strength-to-weight ratio
- meets safety standards
- withstands natural disasters
- high load-bearing capacity
- high tensile strength
- high ductility
- weldability
- can be sterilized
- does not need surface finishes / does not rust
31
• Durability:
- long-lasting
- very high corrosion resistance to aggressive environment

- high initial costs
- low maintenance and repair costs
- high recycling possibilities; it can be recycled without inputs of new material and
it’s also adaptable to new needs over its life span
- thinner parts of bridges are elegant
- shiny structures which produce good visual effects
- high degree of protection against vandalism
Carbon steel (Grades S235JO or S355JO according to EN 10025)

- high strength-to-weight ratio
- medium mechanical and structural resistance related to effects of corrosion
- needs surface finishes (e.g. surfaces coating or cathodic systems)
• Durability:
- susceptible to corrosion

- medium initial costs
- periodic maintenance, repairs and examination leading to partial or full closure of
the lanes
- adaptable: it depends on the surfaces finishes
Concrete (reinforced or pre-stressed concrete)

- admixture incompatibility
- water requirement
- weak workability
- high strength
• Durability:
- possible shrinkage and slump
- short lasting
32
- low initial costs
- high maintenance and repair costs
- recycling of the aggregate material, but the recycling process induces production of
non recycled dusts
- adaptable: it depends on the surfaces finishes
LCC
CAPEX/OPEX
Constructions using stainless steel are more expensive than constructions using only carbon
steel and/or cement or Aluminum since complicated fabrication processes lead to a more
expensive material. Coated carbon steel cost 1.5 euros/kg and stainless steel 7.0 euros/kg in
January 2007 (for a detailed table see appendix 6). Installation costs are estimated to be 1
euro/kg for both kinds of steel.
The table below compares prices over time of stainless steel and carbon steel and underlines
the fact that stainless steel initial price is 5 to 10 time greater than that of carbon steel.
Figure 9: Average prices development of stainless and carbon steel
Source: A. Beletski, Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life cycle
costing, 2007
33
The following table of the BLCCA small bridges construction estimated costs show
expensive initial costs for stainless steel bridges related to high priced material (for more
details, see the table in appendix 6).
Figure 10: Comparative construction costs of miscellaneous bridges
Bridge type Total cost estimate (euros)

Waterway bridge type
Concrete cantilever 138,070
Concrete slab frame bridge 115,883
Arch bridge of carbon steel 119,230
Tube bridge of carbon steel 112,849
Arch bridge of stainless steel 218,238
Tube bridge of stainless steel 320,329
Underpass bridge type
Concrete cantilever 112,099
Concrete slab frame bridge 87,925
Arch bridge of carbon steel 89,195
Tube bridge of carbon steel 83,026
Arch bridge of stainless steel 192,040
Tube bridge of stainless steel 284,266
Source: A. Beletski. Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life cycle
costing, May 2007
In his study A. D. Ryszard (2003) underlines the initial and maintenance costs of
different materials (see table below). Concrete and carbon steel bridges appear to be the
cheaper options with initial costs of 30,000 and 40,000 (painted) or 50,000 euros
(Aluminum coated). An Aluminum bridge would be in a middle position at 77,000 euros.
A stainless steel bridge will be the one that will require the highest initial investment:
96,000 euros (AISI 304L) to 110,000 euros (AISI 316L).
34
Figure 11: Comparison of the initial and maintenance costs of five materials
Source: A.D Ryszard, Environmental considerations to structural material selection for a bridge, European
Bridge Engineering Conference, Rotterdam, March 2003
Furthermore, real discount rate is also identified as having an influence on the life cycle
costing analyses outcomes. A. Beletski (2007) shows that when the real discount rate
applied is below 1.67%, stainless steel made bridges became the most cost efficient option
among several materials (see appendix 6). However, discount rate is related to risk
situations, the price of stainless steel is very likely to change over time and this should then
be considered when choosing the discount rate.
35
Replacement and maintenance costs
The replacement cost of a stainless steel bridge is low thanks to its long life service related
both to its high corrosion resistance and its recyclability. It doesn’t need to be replaced as
often as bridges made out of other materials and its elements can be used for the
construction of new bridges. In addition, stainless steel pathologies can be detected by eye
checking which reduce the costs related to inspections too.
The example of the Krk Bridge shows that the maintenance costs of a stainless steel
made bridge are reduced almost to nothing whereas the maintenance costs of other
materials are equivalent to 50% of their initial costs (in a case of a carbon steel made
bridge in a very aggressive environment). In a word, the use of stainless steel would
have allowed savings of $US18m.
A. D. Ryszard (March 2003) shows that stainless steel is the material that requires the
least maintenance costs: 6,000 euros (with Aluminum coated structural steel). Painted
structural steel will cost 30,000 euros, Aluminum 19,000 euros and concrete 30,000
euros.
A bridge made out of concrete and carbon steel will in fact need to be repaired over time
because of the rusting of the steel that will make it expand and then make the concrete
delaminate and crack. This process is unlikely to happen when metallic bars used for the
structures of a bridge are made out of stainless steel.
Repairs are an expensive process, involving lane closure and restricted traffic, and the cost
of the resulting disruption is estimated to cost more than the repairs themselves. Application
of stainless steel bridges is advantageous in the case of high traffic conditions because they
don’t require traffic disruption, and thus traffic-related costs.
For example, the BLCCA of the small bridge study claims that concrete bridges have to
be renovated twice (costing between 35,000 and 45,000 euros and causing ten weeks
disruption) and carbon steel once (causing two weeks disruption) in their lifetime while
stainless steel bridges don’t have to at all.
On the Schaffhausen bridge, the splashing surfaces would have had to be repaired every
fifteen years if they had been made out of carbon steel whereas they will last eighty years
without repairs since they are made out of stainless steel.
Finally, A. Beletski (2007) demonstrates that for a daily traffic higher than 20,145 vehicles
a day (corresponding to a crowded highway) a stainless steel made bridge is the most cost-
efficient option between several materials. This is the result of traffic disruption costs due to
repairs and renovation of this type of bridge. Yet, concrete is generally use for this kind of
application even if it appears to be the least cost-effective material.
36
Figure 12: Influence of traffic on bridge life cycle costs
Source: A. Beletski, Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life cycle
costing, May 2007
Life services
Although initial investment in raw materials costs ten times as much, a long life span and
repairs and maintenance costs being considerably cheaper, it makes stainless steel more
attractive in a long-term proposition.
Nevertheless, the pultured bridge case shows contradictory outcomes. The stainless steel
made bridge would have cost from 102,000 to 116,000 euros over its whole life span while
the structural steel made bridge would have cost from 56,000 to 70,000 euros, the
Aluminum made bridge 96,000 euros and the concrete bridge 40,000 euros. These results
can be explained by the life time of 50 years chosen in the study. As indeed in the case
below, stainless steel bridges become comparatively interesting when considering a life
span of over 50 years. Also, it is important to underline the fact that each case delivers
different outcomes.
37
Figure 13: Comparison of life span of bridge made out of carbon steel, epoxy coated and
stainless steel
Source: Euro-Inox. Life Cycle Costing and Stainless Steesl. River crossing highway bridge
In the following table taken from the Schaffhaussen Bridge study, the comparative life
phase of the various bridges (carbon steel, epoxy carbon steel and stainless steel) shows that
it is cost-effective to invest in stainless steel.
Source: Euro-Inox. Life Cycle Costing and Stainless Steesl. River crossing highway bridge.
38
For example, the Krk Bridge was made out of carbon steel and installed in a very
aggressive environment. The costs of maintenance and repair over the last three decades
show that outer layers made using stainless steel would have resulted in lower
investments over the years to deal with corrosion issues.
The original costs related to the construction were $US50m ($US48.5m for installation
costs and $US1.5m for raw materials. If the bridge had been made using 50% of
stainless steel it would have cost $US57m ($US48.5m for installation costs and $US8.5m
for raw materials), representing a 13.9% increase in the cost of the initial investment.
However, the maintenance costs of the carbon steel made bridge are equivalent to
almost 50% of its initial cost whereas there are no maintenance costs for a stainless steel
made bridge. In other words, from its construction until today, the carbon steel made
bridge has cost $US75m while the stainless steel made bridge would have cost a total of
$US57m, thus representing a saving of $US18m.
On the contrary, the following table illustrates the fact that on a whole life span the most
cost-effective choice among small bridges are the carbon steel made bridges and the arch
bridge made out of stainless steel. Nevertheless, the life horizon chosen for the study is 100
years and bridges are actually estimated to last over 120 years. In this regard, stainless steel
bridges will became economically more attractive.
Figure 14: Comparison of several bridges’ cumulated life cycle costs
Source: A. Beletski. Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life cycle
costing, May 2007
39
End-of-life
Recycling efficiency is the strong point of bridge construction using stainless steel. It is
entirely recyclable and re-usable, thus reducing waste at the end-of-life of the product and
therefore waste disposal costs. In addition, it is very easy to recycle thanks to its magnetic
properties that enable its separation and selection from other wastes.
In the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge example, the recycling of 18,970 tonnes of steel saved
33,460 tonnes of CO² that would have resulted from producing new steel.
Impacts on the environment and sustainable development
A sustainable bridge has to:

- be economical throughout its life span (construction, maintenance and reuse phases)
- respect social priorities (construction workers, people living by the bridge and using
it)
- minimize emissions and energy consumption; and maximize recyclability of its
components
Resources
Since stainless steel is considered as being entirely recyclable and without loss of
performance or change to its properties, the use of non renewable resources is reduced.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to use up to 100% of stainless steel recycled material due to
insufficient availability of scraps. In addition, whereas scraps and recycling processes are
used in industrialized countries, extraction of raw material is the main process occurring in
developing countries.
Water pollution has also been reduced by the recycling of waste water and its reuse during
the production phase in the plant. In addition, stainless steel doesn’t have to use water
during the construction phase which lessens the impacts on water resources, unlike other
material such as cement. Constructions made out of steel use 41% less water than other
constructions.
Energies
Improved technology and increasing use of recycled steel lower the average energy
consumption of stainless steel production. In the USA, the average consumption has
decreased from 37.8 GJ to 11.5 GJ per tonne of steel produced since the 1980s.
Energy consumption and CO² emissions for carbon steel are lower than for stainless steel.
Nevertheless, experts say that more LCA analysis is necessary in order to compare their
impacts on a whole life span. However, in the pultered bridge case the energy consumption
40
of stainless steel is considered as being about 329,600 MJ while structural steel is about
294,000 MJ.
Stainless steel also consumes far more energy than aluminum (268,700 MJ) and concrete
(277,200 MJ)1. Nevertheless, this calculation doesn’t include demolition costs. If they are
taken into account, the concrete bridge will be the one which consumes the most energy.
Figure 15: Comparison of the energy consumption of bridges made of five materials
Source: A. D. Ryszard. Environmental considerations to structural material selection for a bridge. European
Bridge Engineering Conference, Rotterdam, March 2003
Emissions
The using of scraps and technology improvements lowered CO² emissions during the
production phase by 230,000 tonnes CO² equivalents between the 1980s and the 2000s in
the US.
In the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge example, the recycling of 18,970 tonnes of steel saved
33,460 tonnes of CO² that would have resulted from producing new steel.
Air pollution from the production phase has being reduced in the last decades thanks to
filtration systems and the siphoning off of gas and dusts. Finally, the switch from coal to
natural gas, hydrogen or wood (if the forests used are grown in a sustainable way) is a way
to ensure the lowering of CO²in the near future. Regarding this point, the research program
Ultra Low CO² Steelmaking (ULCOS) is aiming to reduce CO²emissions by 50% by 2050
in Europe.
Building a bridge decreases CO² emissions by reducing distances, especially between

commuting areas.
The “exergy” method was used to quantify these energy impacts. “In this method the total energy consumption is a sum of
the energetic value decreases of the materials involved in the processes under consideration. These energetic values, called
exergy, represent the potential of the energy “stored” in materials to deliver work”. In A. D. Ryszard. Environmental
considerations to structural material selection for a bridge. European Bridge Engineering Conference, Rotterdam, March
2003.
41
For example, the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge reduces the journey distance between the
areas of Mt Pleasant and the Charleston Peninsula from 39 km to 11.6 km and from 30
minutes to 14 minutes. In so doing, it enables a saving of 167,000 tonnes of CO²
equivalents a year from vehicles’ exhaust pipes, or 16.7million tonnes of savings in CO²
equivalents on a lifetime application (based on average petrol consumption and current
automotive design).
The costs of bridge closures due to replacement and maintenance work also have to be
taken into account in CO² emissions analysis. Bridges made using other materials need to
be repaired often and indirectly produce CO² emissions related to the traffic generated by
the closure, whereas stainless steel bridges don’t need such work doing on them.
According to a study made by the OTUA (technical office for steel use), steel constructions
require twice as few truck journeys with other materials, thus reducing related emissions.
Waste
Stainless steel is entirely recyclable and can be reused, which lessens the creation of waste
at the end-of-life of a product and reduces at the same time the environmental impacts of
end-of-life disposal. In addition, it is very easy to recycle thanks to its magnetic properties
that enable its separation and selection from other wastes. In fact, steel construction only
produces 57% of inert wastes. Furthermore, computer programs help designers and builders
to optimize the quantity of material needed for the construction.
Biodiversity
Stainless steel bridges produce less damage to the river environment. Thanks to their larger
spans they need fewer supports, which means less foundations, excavation and ground
disturbance to the river banks.
The fact that no coating is needed for stainless steel production reduces the environmental
impacts throughout the whole life of the bridges.
Social impact and working conditions

Working conditions on construction and deconstruction sites are optimal since the elements
arrive ready and already dimensioned to the right sizes, which allows shorter construction
and deconstruction periods and thus less impacts in the neighborhood (less noise, cleaner
construction sites, lower disturbances …) and a safer working environment for the
employees (lower fatal incident rate, less time working high off the ground …). It is also
important to consider the fact that stainless steel bridges are very resistant thanks to their
high tensile strength and ductility, which means that they are the safest material regarding
natural disaster events and their outcomes in terms of casualties. In fact, stainless steel
bridges are less likely to be destroyed by natural hazards that any other kinds of bridges.
Stainless steel bridges can also be considered as socially beneficial since they allow a good
soundproofing, which means better living conditions for people in the neighborhood.
42
Conclusion
The first result of this study is that more life cycle costing and life cycle assessment data
should be collected in order to enhance our analysis. Part of the complexity of this analysis
stems from the limited data and case studies available and the lack of accepted
methodology. Another obstacle was the fact that each bridge is different and that if two
different bridges are compared the analysis isn’t sound. Finally, most of bridges are
composite; which means that they are made out of various materials and are anyway partly
done with concrete.
Secondly, the aim of this analysis was to identify the influential factors governing the use of
stainless steel in bridge construction. It appeared that the price of the material is the first
determinant aspect of the choice; then, the corrosiveness of the environment and finally, the
planned life time of the bridge.
Concrete is the most often used material for large bridge and carbon steel is the first
competitor of stainless steel for bridge structures.
However, there are specific situations where stainless steel has to be chosen over other
materials. In a highly corrosive environment, stainless steel should be chosen while, in non-
corrosive or slightly corrosive environments, carbon steel seems to be the most cost-
effective proposition. Stainless steel can also be considered as cost-effective for bridges in
the case of daily traffic of over 20,000 vehicles.
Life Cycle Costing methodology data should be collected in order to provide a long-term
vision of bridges made out of various materials. In addition, this methodology should be
applied considering partial use of stainless steel to identify targeted appliances (e.g.
components that are the most likely to suffer from corrosion).
Reference
- N. R. Baddoo and A. Kosmač, Sustainable Duplex Stainless Steel bridges, Euro-inox and The Steel
Construction Institute (undated)
- Beletski, Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life cycle costing,
Helsinki University of Technology, Department of industrial Engineering and Management, 2007.
- Cimbéton, Analyse du cycle de vie d’un pont en béton. Exemple d’application pour un pont courant.
Collection technique Cimbéton, T87. April 2010
- J. Dalsheimer and J. Vigo, Développement durable et génie civil, les atouts de l’acier, 2008
- Euro-Inox, Life Cycle Costing and Stainless Steesl: River crossing highway bridge (undated)
- Euro-Inox, Pedestrian bridges in Stainless Steel, Building series, volume 7 (undated)
- Euro-Inox, Bridge on Cala Galdana on Menorca, 2007
- National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Bridge life cycle cost analysis, NCHRP report 483,
2003
- OTUA, L’acier pour une construction responsable, Haute Qualité Environnementale
- D. Ryszard, Environmental considerations to structural material selection for a bridge, European Bridge
Engineering Conference, Rotterdam, 2003
- Stipanovic Oslakovic, D. Bjegovic and J. Radic, Case study: LCC analysis for Krk Bridge, 2008
- World Steel Association, The Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge, Environmental case study, Bridge, 2008
43
Case Study:
Desalination Pumps
44
LCC & Pumps
Pumping systems account for nearly 20% of the world’s electrical energy demand and range
from 25-50% of the energy usage in certain industrial plant operations. Pumps have several
applications, among others in the water, chemical, petrochemical and mechanical industries or
in domestic and agricultural services. The case studies presented here concern desalination
pumps. They are very specific objects which are only of interest to a purchaser when they
operate as part of a system. Accordingly, their efficiency and durability are essential for the
whole of the system of which they are part.
Generally desalination can be defined as the process of removing dissolved minerals

including salt from seawater but not only. The process is expensive and energy consuming
when compared to capturing fresh water flows in dams or tapping below ground aquifers with
pumps. Of a number of desalination methods the two most commonly used for large scale
municipal water supply are the thermal (distillation) method and reverse osmosis (RO, see
appendix 7).
Thermal distillation is the method where the feed water is heated to produce water vapor; the
water vapor is then cooled to collect the distillate as clean water. Multi-stage flash distillation
is the most popular method for large-scale production. The distillation method uses more
energy than the RO process. For this reason, many distillation plants are co-located with other
processes such as power stations where cheap electricity is available and the excess heat
generated may be harnessed in the distillation process. In the RO process, seawater is pumped
through a membrane at pressure higher than osmotic pressure, thereby separating seawater
and minerals, removing salts and impurities and producing water suitable for drinking on the
outlet side of the membrane. It is the technology that resorts the most to pumping and more
particularly to seawater intake pumps, high pressure feed pumps and RO membranes.
The interest of applying the LCC methodology to the pumping sector is that it shows that the
initial purchase price is actually a small part of the life cycle cost for high usage pumps.
Energy costs and maintenance costs account for the highest costs in the water cooling process
of desalination plants. Therefore, the main characteristic which will influence the choice of
material is its resistance to corroding conditions.
More specifically the material chosen requires:

- corrosion resistance in fresh/saline waters
- corrosion resistance in chlorinated/polluted waters
- corrosion resistance in stagnant waters
- resistance to high velocity and turbulence
- galvanic compatibility
Desalination plants are indeed exposed to different and diversified kinds of environments
such as seawater, seawater-air and salt-air aerosols and corrosive gases. All of them create a
45
number of corrosion-related problems. Besides general corrosion and mechanically and
chemically-induced erosion-corrosion, localized-corrosion such as pitting, galvanic and
crevices are quite frequently observed. In fact, pitting accounts roughly 41% of the corrosion
failures in plants and crevice corrosion under deposits is the most troublesome. Impingement
and cavitation are not uncommon either.
Therefore the expected life span of a pump is between 15 and 20 years. Multi-stage flash
distillers which produce over 85% of all desalinized water in the world have an average life
time of between 20 and 25 years.
Overall, 316L stainless steel is the most commonly used material for vertical lift pumps due
to its excellent corrosion resistance under fast-flowing condition, and good weldability. It is
also used for impellers in brine recirculation or intake pumps, where the impeller shows
pitting due to stagnation or galvanic corrosion. Immersed parts of impellers are subject to
pitting and crevice corrosion under condition of stagnancy in seawater. In these pumps, nickel
is very often used to provide an additional protection to stainless steel since it has an adequate
corrosion resistance to give long life to the equipment. In other pumps, bronze alloys can be
used for impellers.
The discharge column of brine recycle pumps made of nickel (D-2 type) shows cavitation
damage due to water hammer and to high chlorine, high operating temperature
(approximately 50°C) and internal stresses present in the material. Corrosion fatigue failures
have been observed in the shafts of brine recycle pumps of the desalination plants.
Even though stainless steel seems the best material choice for an application to desalination
pumps, some other alternatives are possible. Materials can therefore be compared according
to their characteristics and especially to their corrosion resistance, as follows:
Carbon steel
- high corrosion rate in higher velocities of sea water
- subject to corrosion when aeration in fresh waters
- good performance in deaerated ground waters
• Durability:
- short life as an impeller
• Initial, maintenance and repairs costs:

- low initial cost
- very high maintenance costs due to a low corrosion resistance
46
Copper alloys (Cu-Ni 70/30, Cu-Ni 90/10)
- increasing corrosion rate with velocity, but lower than carbon steel
- sensitive to polluted waters
- equal performance in both saline and fresh waters
- often used for small water pumps
- good corrosion resistance in low pH levels
- good performance in deaerated ground waters
• Durability:
- good corrosion resistance making it a long-lasting material
- not subject to impingement
• Initial, maintenance and repairs costs:

- high initial cost
- maintenance costs depending on the application
Nickel alloys (Hastelloy C, Hastelloy C-276 and Hastelloy C-22, Inconel 625, Incoloy 825)
- low corrosion rate in quiet sea
- high corrosion rate in 35-42 mps
- good protection in low pH levels in fresh water
- used in centrifugal pumps
- high resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion
• Durability:
- long-lasting materials

- very high initial costs
- low maintenance costs
Stainless steel (S 304, 316 L, SS AL6X)

- low and steady corrosion rate, even in increased velocities
- cavitation resistance in high-velocity saline water
- suitable material for impellers
- used in centrifugal pumps
- resistance to crevice corrosion in fresh waters, enhanced thanks to deaeration
- resistance to extreme acid conditions
- resistance to stress corrosion cracking of duplex stainless steel, suitable for high
chloride environment
47
• Durability:
- long-lasting, thanks to its high corrosion resistance
- high recyclability

- high initial cost
- low maintenance and repair costs
Figure 16: Corrosion resistance of materials according to the velocity of water
Source: Nickel Development Institute, 1995
48
LCC
Figure 17: Typical life cycle cost for a medium-sized pump
Source: Hydraulic Institute/Europump, 2001
The case studies analyzed here did not go any further than comparing the properties of the
different materials. Thus, due to the unavailability of data on this subject, it is not possible to
evaluate the life cycle cost for each of the materials used for desalination pumps. On the other
hand, Europump has proposed a guideline for LCC analysis for pumps which elaborates on
the major phases of a pump life cycle. As shown by the graph, energy costs and maintenance
costs account for the biggest cost in the life cycle of a pump.
This guideline gives all the elements which should be included in such an analysis in that
sector.
CAPEX/OPEX
Initial investment is actually a relatively small part in the whole life cycle of a pump. Thus the
higher initial cost of stainless steel compared to its competitors is not significant as it is offset
by reduced maintenance costs which represent a bigger part of the life cycle of a pump. Initial
costs do not only depend on the choice of material, though.
The dimension of the pipe may be a determining factor. A pipe of a small diameter needs is
cheaper to install but requires a more powerful pump to reduce the net positive suction head
available. The initial costs increase accordingly.
The last element to be taken into account is the fact that the pump is part of a complete
system, the installation costs of which include not only the materials (foundations, electrical
wiring, auxiliary systems, etc.) but also labor, with related constraints (work rules,
availability, skills).
49
Corrosion in desalination plants can cause a variety of undesirable consequences, including
loss of equipment, unplanned shutdowns, expensive repairs, leaks and contamination of
products as well as serious personal hazards. The criteria for selection of materials for
different sections of desalination plant are based upon the nature of the corrosive
environment, equipment operating conditions, design features, desired plant life and cost-
effectiveness of the materials.
If energy costs do depend on the performance of stainless steel, stainless steel may be a
decisive factor in maintenance costs, especially since these costs are the second biggest in the
life cycle. Thanks to its durability, stainless steel does not require maintenance costs, and this
has to be underlined as maintenance costs have the following implications:
- maintenance work may imply the unavailability of the process plant which means losing
production or investing in a temporary replacement
- maintenance can reach different levels: either the pump needs routine maintenance or has
to be repaired off-site which results in transportation costs
- the purchaser may invest in a spare pump to prevent the risk of downtime from
happening in order to reduce maintenance costs, which would accordingly increase initial
costs
Energy costs
Energy costs represent the biggest cost element as desalination is a highly energy-intensive
process. This mostly depends on the overall efficiency of the pump and also on the different
kinds of energy used. For example, Europump has reported that much more electricity is
required to drive a pump with an air motor than with an electric motor.
Energy costs also include the costs of auxiliary service in the desalination process, such as
cooling or heating circuits, water filtration, etc.
End-of-life
The life of a desalination pump greatly depends on its corrosion resistance. To avoid the risk
of downtime of the desalination plant, pumps are more often replaced than repaired, which
increases the number of pumps going to waste. This is why the material choice is crucial to
make sure the corrosion resistance rate is at its best to limit downtime & waste.
Stainless steel meets the requirements of sustainable development in its environmental, social
and economic dimensions:
- it is harmless to the health and safety of human beings, if the correct grade is used for
an application
50
- it minimizes emissions in the atmosphere and maximizes recyclability of its
components
- it is economically effective which makes it a reliable material
The main benefit of the desalination process is that it does not impinge on the land
environment in the way that major dam construction does. Yet it is not without any incidence
on the environment. The main issue is about the disposal of waste products, such as the hyper
saline discharge from the process which requires careful consideration of the environment.
Resources
Thanks to its high level of recyclability and reuse without loss of performance, stainless steel
contributes to the saving of natural resources. Its strong resistance to corrosion makes it a
sustainable material, too, as it increases its durability.
As one of the major materials used in desalination pumps, stainless steel also contributes to
the saving of mineral water resources and the promotion of an alternative way of supplying
water especially in countries where drought is severe.
Energies
Although the technologies used to desalinate have become more energy efficient over recent
years, a distillation plant is still a large user of electric power. Unless co-located with other
compatible processes, the thermal distillation process is less energy-efficient than the RO
process.
If generating electric power by renewable energies contributes to reducing the environmental

footprint of desalination, it remains vastly less energy-efficient than collecting rainwater in
dams or even pumping ground water from deep aquifers.
Emissions
Since it is produced by an Electric Arc Furnace, stainless steel as a material is committed to
reducing CO² emissions. Its longevity and excellent corrosion resistance help reduce
replacement costs which would otherwise increase CO² emissions.
As for the desalination technology itself, RO is the lowest pollutant desalination technology
with the present state of the art (4 kWh/m3), and its environmental load is one order of
magnitude less than thermal desalination.
Waste
Stainless steel does not require anti-corrosion products to create a protective layer, which may
pollute the environment. Moreover, its excellent level of recyclability limits the amount of
waste after the production phase.
However the main waste issue is due to the desalination process itself. RO technologies do
waste a lot of water. Four or more gallons of concentrated waste water are flushed down the
51
drain for every gallon of filtered water produced. Although zero waste RO units are available,
they are problematic, as they can re-inject the concentrate waste water back into the water
feeding the RO, thus forcing the RO to work harder and shortening its service life.
As for standard RO, even if the disposal of the hyper saline waste water or brine into the
ocean is relatively safe, care must be taken to adequately defuse the outfall so that the brine is
suitably diluted without forming a plume of salt-laden water that will not readily disperse. A
careful study of prevailing currents must be undertaken to establish the most advantageous
location for the outfall so as not to allow increased salinity levels to deplete oxygen levels in
the area. Moreover, disposal of saline waste water at inland locations presents further risks to
the environment; depending on the size and type of desalination plant, lined evaporation
ponds could be used.
A better option for reducing reverse osmosis system water waste is to fit it with a permeate
pump, which will reduce water waste by up to 80%.
Biodiversity
Desalination also produces brine with about twice the salinity of the source water. The
concentrated brine also often contains elevated levels of constituents found in seawater, such
as manganese, lead, and iodine, as well as chemicals from urban and agricultural runoff.
When brackish groundwater is desalinated, the resultant brine is usually deposited into
evaporation ponds, re-injected into the ground through deep wells, or piped to the ocean.
When seawater is desalinated, the brine is usually piped some distance out to sea, though it
may be mixed with treated wastewater or power-plant cooling water first. If it is not diluted
first, the desalination brine is denser than seawater, so it sinks, creating plumes of higher-
salinity seawater on the ocean bottom, where sea life is concentrated.
52
Conclusion
An LCC analysis shows that it is necessary for pump manufacturers to produce pumps of a
better efficiency and less required maintenance. Pumps are indeed essential to the RO system.
If high pressure pumps break down, the whole plant shuts down. Reliability is therefore the
key criterion for an effective desalination pump.
In addition, the LCC analysis shows that resorting to new systems is not needed. Saving costs
can be guaranteed by optimizing existing systems. Some studies have shown that 30% to 50%
of the energy consumed by pumping systems could be saved through changes to equipment or
control systems.
The low and steady corrosion rates of stainless steel in both fresh and saline waters, whatever
the speed of the stream, make it a highly competitive material for pumping applications in
desalination industries.
References
- H. Boyé, Eau, énergie, dessalement et changement climatique en Méditerranée, 2008
- Hydraulic Institute, Europump, and US Department of Energy’s Office of Industrial Technologies,
Pump Life Cycle Costs: A Guide to LCC Analysis for Pumping Systems, 2001
- ISSF, Desalination in Stainless Steel : a sustainable solution for the purification of salt water, 2010
- U Malik and P. C. Mayan, Corrosion and material selection in desalination plants (undated)
- P. Mohan and L. Donoho, Frost & Sullivan, Pumps for the Desalination Market, 2009
- Nickel Development Institute, Materials for saline water, desalination and oilfield brine pumps, 1995
- R. G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, Life cycle assessment of desalination technologies integrated with
renewable energies, 2005
- Todd, Materials Selection For HighReliability Copper Alloy Seawater System, Nickel Development
Institute (undated)
53
Case Study:
Plumbing Pipe
54
LCC & Pipes
Pipes are an essential component of the structure of buildings, whether for individuals or
corporate buildings. Choosing materials in terms of their use requires defining specific
characteristics, in relation to their aesthetic aspect, or relative to their cost. The cost of a pipe
may be perceived in different ways.
The choice of material used for the realization of a distribution system must take into account
the material cost, installation costs, maintenance costs, long-term performance, recyclability
and scrap value.
The initial cost is the cost of buying the pipes. Life cycle costing helps to know the cost of the
pipe throughout its period of life but also to determine the cost of a specific use.
The choice of material used to make pipes is in relation with the application. We have
selected three materials: copper, plastic, stainless steel.
Stainless steel
- high corrosion resistance
- high strength
- particularly strong and yet ductile
- high recycling possibilities
- low maintenance and repairs costs
- expensive
- looks good
- non toxic
Copper
- non toxic
- not expensive
- looks good
- less resistance to corrosion
Plastic
- low costs
- easy installation
- flexible
- fully recyclable
- lightweight
55
Comparative advantages
In terms of durability, the performance of the materials is different. Plastic tubes have an
average lifespan of 25 years, copper 50 years and stainless steel 70 years.
A major advantage of metal pipes and fittings is that installers are accustomed to use and
more familiar with installation techniques. Plastic tubes are increasing in household usage;
connections don’t need any particular knowledge or any welding equipment. Nevertheless,
the manufacturers recommend using only one supplier of plastic pipe as performance may
vary for the same size.
The use of metal pipes is reserved to professionals. They have been using copper for many
years while stainless steel is fairly new in the field of plumbing and often reserved for luxury
or high technology fields. However, the time needed to install metal pipes is considerable and
is longer for stainless steel than copper.
Figure 18: Labor time savings
Source:Davis Langdon consultancy, Comparison of copper and steel pipework costs for non domestic
installation, 2003
Furthermore, threaded joints are often the cause of leaks. This results in higher operating costs
since compressors must operate longer to compensate for the leak. But this is not the only
defect of metallic gratings. Corrosion can cause scaling and pitting on internal surfaces.
Corrosion products accumulate deposits and other contaminants on the internal surfaces of
pipes and fittings, increasing its roughness. As the inner surface becomes rougher, the
pressure drop increases. Again, this eventually results in additional expenses related to the
decrease of the efficiency of pipe network. What may be even more serious is that the
particles can dislodge clog or damage the equipment at the end of the line.
56
Cases have been reported of polyethylene tubing (PEX) exposed to ultraviolet light which had
deteriorated in just a few weeks. As a result, when these pipes are stored in adverse storage
conditions, the distribution system may fail quickly. Ultraviolet rays have no effect on the
distribution system with copper or steel pipes. Stainless steel pipes such as 316 grades have a
high resistance to corrosion.
Figure 19: Effect of water velocity on the corrosion of stainless steel and copper
Source Nickel Institute, stainless steel plumbing, 2001
The PVC pipe is relatively inexpensive, easy to install, lightweight and corrosion-resistant.
However, its major flaw is its fragility. Any unintended impact may cause it to break,
endangering surrounding personnel. The Institute of Plastic Tubing Guide recommends that
the plastic tube used in coatings is protected by an unbreakable sheath, subject to
manufacturer’s recommendations.
57
Figure 20: Typical physical properties of pipe materials
Source: ISSF, stainless steel plumbing, 2001
Figure 21: Comparison of pressure values
Source: P. Dessers, cours de technologie sanitaire: le tube en cuivre, 2004
58
LCC
CAPEX/OPEX
Figure 22: Comparative cost of a range of tube sizes and fittings
Source:Davis Langdon consultancy, Comparison of copper and steel pipework costs for non domestic
installation, 2003
The cost of a stainless steel pipe is always greater when we take into account only the initial
cost.

The durability of a plumbing system is dependent on the quality of its component parts and
the assembly skills of those who install it. No plumbing system, however well designed, can
be expected to operate safely or hygienically, and if the best-quality products or materials
are used but are installed incorrectly, the system will be a failure.
Replacing the piping can be quite problematic and costly when it is integrated into the wall of
buildings. It is very important to ensure that the network pipe can resist as long as the life of
the building. For this, plastic with an average lifespan of 25 years, involves at least one
replacement in the life of a building built for fifty years, while copper pipes and steel will be
viable until the end.
End-of-life
The end-of-life of the pipes can occur in two ways. Either the pipes can be worn or corroded
and must be replaced, in which case the material can be recovered and sent to a recycling
station, or the pipes are located in a destroyed building, in which case we must recover the
entire plumbing system. The second operation is often more profitable because of the large
quantity recovered.
Energies
Stainless steel is the largest consumer of energy in the manufacture of pipes because it
requires heating well above plastic and also copper. But if we take into account the
59
durability of the material, the energy required to remanufacture and replace a plastic pipe at
least twice more often than stainless steel pipe means that the energy balance is in favor of
steel.
Waste
Today, almost all the steel waste is collected, reflecting the involvement of the steel industry
in the emergence of significant collection and recycling processes. Like stainless steel pipes,
copper pipes are completely recyclable, but with poorer durability. The waste is not a problem
for stainless steel because it is completely recyclable at the same quality level.
Social impact and working conditions

Using pipes that are resistant throughout the life of the building reduces the disadvantages in
terms of inconvenience and disruption.
Conclusion
We can conclude that despite the fact that stainless steel is a better long-term investment it is
less used than plastic. The logic of the construction industry is still focused on a low initial
cost of the pipes, which is why plastic holds a prominent place.
The only noticeable difference with copper is aesthetics, whereas the mechanical properties,
chemical and recycling are almost identical.
References
- D. Brook, Buying and Using Water Heaters, Oregon State University, 1999
- P. Cutler, Stainless steels and drinking water around the world, Nickel Development Institute, 2003
- P. Dessers, cours de technologie sanitaire: le tube en cuivre, 2004
- ISSF, Stainless steel plumbing, 2001
- Plastic Piping Educational Foundation, Plumbing Apprentice Training Manual For Plastic Piping
Systems, 2002
- M. Tanabe, Latest trend of Stainless Steel Piping System in Japan, 2010
- Water industry information and guidance note, Application for stainless Steel in the Water Industry,
1999
- World Health Organization and World Plumbing Council, Health Aspects of Plumbing, 2006
- World Plumbing Council, Environmental Aspects of Plumbing, 2010
60
Case Study:
Washing-machines
61
LCC & Washing-machines
In the case of washing-machines, LCC and LCA are performed at screening level in order to
identify the high impact parts and determine the tasks to be solved. Two scenarios, the
dewater-by-circulation scenario and the lead-free scenario, are used to solve the tasks. The
actual stages of product development, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, using and
recycling are examined, and LCA and LCC are carried out, before and after the environmental
options in these scenarios, after which the results are compared and the Life Cycle Cost
Benefit Analysis (LCCBA) is done for the different options.
Through these processes the basic methodology of LCCBA for Life Cycle Management
(LCM) is set up, its effectiveness is confirmed and future tasks are defined.
Life Cycle Management is an important concept and method for organizations, groups, and
companies to build a sustainable society. LCA is an important tool for evaluation. Since the
adoption of the EuP directive, the RoHS restrictions, and the REACH regulations, the
environmental monitoring of electric and electronic equipment, as far as chemical substances
are concerned, is becoming more stringent and with ever stricter requirements. However, to
comply with these various restrictions, the existing tools for environmental evaluation are
insufficient.
In order to meet these rules, a new environmental risk evaluation method for electric and
electronic equipment products is being developed. The aim is to develop techniques to
evaluate the health risk from hazardous chemicals and the socio-economic risk of
consumption of rare metals as environmental risks which are peculiar to electric and
electronic equipment, and also to develop a decision support system for LCCCBA that
comprises these environmental impacts. In this method, plans are proposed, the various
benefits and effects of which are compared so as to be able to choose the most effective plan
from the viewpoint of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
Stainless steel
- high corrosion resistance
- high strength
- low maintenance cost
Enameling iron (porcelain coating)

- high corrosion
- high resistance for chemicals
- flaking of coating materials
62
Plastic
- low cost
- light weight
- low intensity
LCC
Phase 1: screening step A home appliance washing machine is selected as a target product for
our case study, in which the clothes are put in the washing drum, and washed in the water
current with detergent by rotational wing. To achieve these functions, the washing machine is
composed of a casing unit, a washing drum unit, a driving unit, a water circulation unit, a
dryer unit, a controller unit, and so on.
The life cycle of an average domestic large-scale washing machine is evaluated in a screening
analysis from the material, production to transportation, use, and processing. Screening LCC
and LCA are performed simply by using average data by the Japan Electrical Manufacturers’
Association and the Energy Conservation Center, Japan.
LCC is a method for thinking about the burden of the total life cycle cost, and to decrease the
entire cost by improving the process where the life cycle cost is high. The cost of
transportation, amount of electricity used, the water use period and the recycling processing
have been taken from the literature, reports, and input-output tables, in order to do an LCC
analysis for the average life cycle of a washing machine.
Phase 2: Detailed Data (Detailed LCA for a washing machine built in Japan) LCA was
performed using the detailed data from the washing machine production factory and a detailed
study corresponding to the use stage.
Production (fabrication, sub-assemblies and assembly steps)
Input
- Materials: The list of materials used was taken from the design specifications. Several
thousand parts were divided into eleven units, e.g. driver unit, housing unit, controller
unit, etc. The weight of parts is summed up for each material.
- Process-materials: This includes paints, solvents, machining oil, etc.
- Utilities: These include the electricity, water, and compressed air used in the factory.
The quantity of compressed air is converted into electricity consumption by the
compressor, and added to the total electricity consumption. Utilities (electricity, water,
compressed air) were allocated to each unit manufactured by the workforce.
Output
- Emission to air: Outputs of PRTR (Pollutant Release and Transfer Register) were
used. This was allocated to a unit by manpower of unit manufacturing in the same way
as for the utilities.
63
- Emission to water: Waste water from the factory is processed in the waste-water-
treatment facility. Regulated materials such as harmful chemicals and heavy metals
are measured regularly. After verifying that they are below the legal limits, the water
is discharged into rivers. The maximum measured values are used for LCA
calculation.
- Emission to soil: There was no emission to soil.
- Industrial waste: Valuable items to be recycled such as waste metal, waste plastic,
cardboard, and EPS, together with invaluable items that were not recycled, were
considered and allocated into each unit by manpower of the unit manufacturing.
Transportation
The question of transportation is twofold: transporting washing-machines from the factory
where they were produced to a central point, and then transporting them to the different sales
outlets.
Life services
The use period was the same as in phase 1, i.e. 11.5 year. Studies have shown that the average
frequency of washing is 1.63 times/day, 6.3 days/week, which corresponds to 535,455
times/year. Using a standard developed by the Energy Conservation Center, Japan, it was
possible to calculate the quantity of use in a life cycle from average electricity and water
consumption. It was assumed that the quantity of sewage water was the same as the supplied
water and that the amount of detergent used was the same as in phase 1.
Figure 23: LCA data for phases 1 and 2
Source: H. Yamaguchi and all, Lifecycle Management Methodology using Lifecycle Cost Benefit Analysis for
Washing Machines
64
End-of-life
Used washing machines are collected in a designated place, and recycled in household
appliance recycling factories. Analysis of overseas exportation as used goods is beyond the
scope of LCA here. The rate of recycling of household electric appliances was assumed to be
98.60%, i.e. the same as the collected amount at a designated place. Collection by the
authorities, including collection of appliances abandoned illegally (1.40%), was considered as
the worst case scenario, in which all the component materials were assumed to emit into the
soil. It was assumed that the collection transportation was the same as transportation data
from a local center to stores in an area.
LCA result and impacts on the environment
LCA result for unit production

Figure 25 shows the environmental influence for each unit. Environmental impact is high for
the driving unit, housing unit, controller unit, and basket unit. Air pollution comes from the
production of steel and PP and other materials. For the controller unit ecotoxicity is high
because so many kinds of chemicals are used in the controller circuit boards.
For LCC in the production stage, the cost of materials, process materials, and utilities is
calculated for each unit.
The LCA-LCC relation for units is shown in figure 24. The units are divided into 4 groups:
the driving unit and controller unit show a high cost and high environmental load; the housing
unit and basket unit show a high environmental load with low costs; the lid unit shows a high
cost and low environmental load; while for the other units both elements are low. Each group
has different tasks for cost and environmental load.
65
Figure 24: LCA results for unit production
Washing Machines
Figure 25: LCC-LCA relation of unit production
Washing Machines
66
Social cost and LCA result for activities
The social cost of the life cycle of a washing machine is 16,100 yen and is broken down into
4,500 yen for detergent, 4,300 yen for water, 3,500 yen for production respectively, 1,000 yen
for electricity, 1,300 yen for transport and under 1,500 for the waste scenario. The social costs
during the production process and use stage (water, electricity, detergent) are high. However,
a negative value appears at the waste and recycling stages since less new material production
is necessary and so, overall, the total social cost is decreased. The impact categories of each
stage are shown in Figure 26. The impact of air pollution is high during production and
detergent use.
In addition, the impact of eutrophication, ecotoxicity and air pollution is high in the life cycle
of water, from the initial supply of water through to the creation and functioning of a sewage
system of waste water. However, if disposal is through recycling, the effect on the reduction
of air pollution is considerable.
Figure 26: LCA results for activities
Washing Machines
Circulation-type dewater scenario

With a little water circulated by the water-circulating mechanism, the laundry is pushed up by
turn of a wing of special shape with up-and-down motion and forward-back motion, and then
the laundry is washed by pushing, swatting and rubbing. Therefore, it is thought that the
washing method with a new wash wing and the control method in itself show a water saving
67
effect. However, a simplified scenario evaluation was carried out which shows that saving
water is possible simply by adding the circulation unit. The evaluation items before and after
the water saving measure are shown in figure 27 below.
Figure 23: LCA data before and after dewater
Washing Machines
Note that the quantity of materials and production electricity for the circulation unit increases,
as does the quantity of use electricity, in order to drive the circulation unit. The quantity of
water use for 8kg of laundry for a model is 196L before Dewater and 88L after Dewater. Over
an entire water life cycle, 652.7L of water are saved.
The LCIA results of the water-saving measures before and after are shown in figure 28. The
social cost is 18,800 yen before and 14,800 yen after, i.e. a decrease of 4,000 yen (21.0%).
The reduction in hazards to human health and social negative impacts is high. The results of
evaluation before and after the water-saving measures with impact categories are shown in
figure 29. Global warming, air pollution, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication increase with the
increase of water before the Dewater measure.
68
Figure 28: LCA result before and after dewater
Washing Machines
Figure 29: LCA result for impact categories
Washing Machines
69
Conclusion
Environmental risk evaluation methods for electric and electronic equipment products are
currently being developed. Phase 1 LCA and LCC for general washing machines is evaluated
using literature-based data; phase 2 LCA is based on detailed production data and precise-use
data for washing machines, and LCC is based on detailed production data for each unit.
So far, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- Important items concerning environment and cost have been extracted from the results
of LCC and LCA of phase 1. Concerning the quantities of water and detergent during
the production and use of a washing machine, both the cost and environmental load
are high. These measures are obviously important.
- During phase 2, detailed production data for each unit are examined and the
environmental loads are compared. It is clearly shown that the environmental impacts
of the driving unit, housing unit, and control unit are high.
- From the results of LCA and LCC for production, the units are divided into four
groups having (1) high environmental load and high cost, (2) high environmental load
and low cost, (3) low environmental load and high cost, (4) low environmental load
and low cost. Each group has its tasks for environmental load and cost. This can be
regarded as an indicator of environment-conscious designing.
A circulation-type Dewater scenario was taken for the environment measures scenario, and
the environmental influence of these measures before and after were compared. Water
circulation is a highly effective factor in the reduction of air pollution, eutrophication,
ecotoxicity, by reducing actual water use. The social cost of a washing machine is reduced by
21%.
References
- Association of Electric Home Appliances, Reports on the Recycling of Home Appliances, 2004
- Japan Soap and Detergent Association, Reports on the Spread of Full-automated Washing Machine and
Changes in Washing Activity (undated)
- Rüdenauer, C-O. Gensch, Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Washing machines Commissioned by Electrolux -
AEG Hausgeräte GmbH and BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, 2005
- H. Yamaguchi and all, Lifecycle Management Methodology using Lifecycle Cost Benefit Analysis for
Washing Machines.
- http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Washing-Machine.html
70
Part V: Recommendations
Having analyzed the various cases presented above, we are able to make a certain number of
recommendations to the stainless steel sectors on various aspects of the integration of the
LCC methodology.
The first part is a series of general recommendations about:

- the interests of the LCC method for the stainless steel sector as a tool to promote its
material
- how to specifically apply the LCC method to the stainless steel sector
- how to integrate the benefits of the LCC analyses to the stainless steel sector
The second is a series of applied part recommendations about:

- the application of the LCC method to bridges
- the application of the LCC method to desalination pumps
- the application of the LCC method to plumbing pipes
- the application of the LCC method to washing machines
5.1 General recommendations
General considerations on the interest of LCC method for the

stainless steel sector
LCC as a tool to promote stainless steel

It is in the interest of producers of stainless steel to use LCC analysis more often in order to
promote its use, all the more so as your competitors do it.
To do so, you should:
• Increase publicity about the comparative advantages of stainless steel:

- by producing detailed information sheets in which they underline the competitive
edge stainless steel has over other materials in terms of environmental impact and
costs,
- by developing awareness of the advantages of stainless steel, notably in terms of
maintenance cost. This can be done by organizing training days and sessions and
holding talks and presentations on the advantages of stainless steel.
• Share information and experience of LCC and LCA methods:

- by participating in workshops run by the government and associations on LCC and
LCA approaches and more generally on the durability of products,
71
- by producing relevant data that could be compared with other sectors to produce
best practices recommendations.
Through LCC analyses it will be possible to identify objects that are particularly competitive
for the stainless steel sector.
LCC as a cost optimization tool

It is in the interest of producers of stainless steel to use LCC analyses in order to optimize
their costs.
To do so, you should:
• Identify best practices for the sector/production/object concerned in order to optimize

the different phases of the production and enable a better rationalization of all costs:
- by benchmarking their products with other sectors,
- by benchmarking their production processes with other sectors.
• Use LCC to ensure the best choices in terms of materials, technologies and
maintenance costs.
Necessity to have more available data

From what we have observed, the stainless steel sector does not seem to be carrying out
enough LCC analyses or to communicate the data necessary for such an LCC approach. What
is more, this is not to the advantage of the stainless steel sector since your competitors use it
extensively.
This should be changed and, to do so, you should:
• Carry out more LCC analyses:

- by producing data with a common methodology (e.g. the Euro-Inox LCC program)
- by producing sustainability indicators (e.g. the Worldsteel association
sustainability indicators methodology).
• Communicate those analyses:

- by creating a common database of LCC data and LCC analyses,
- by recourse to a wider organization, such as the ISSF, which could coordinate and
communicate this database between the producers themselves and towards other
industries.
72
Toward a better LCC approach applied to the stainless steel
sector
As explained before, LCC should be applied extensively to the products of the stainless steel
sectors, while bearing in mind a certain number of points.
Considerations about applying LCC to the stainless steel sector

• Net Present Value will have a large impact on the results of an LCC analysis:
- LCC should be carried out using different real interest rates
• It is important to consider carefully the life horizon chosen:

- several lifetimes should be considered according to different scenarios
- regulation on life horizon should be respected
• It is important not to forget that LCC is a framework method which is more or less
adaptable to some sectors (i.e. although LCC is well adapted to industry, it is less
relevant for civil engineering).
• It is necessary to anticipate the future:

- by including future costs related to stricter regulation
- by including future costs or benefits related to changes in the market (e.g.
increased demand for stainless steel leading to lower prices of the material)
- by considering future needs of industries and consumers
- by considering future society changes in different areas of the world
Carry out valuable analyses

In order to provide a comprehensive overview of the costs and benefits related to an object or
a project, it is necessary to take them all into account and to integrate the specificities of the
different areas of the world. In order to include all the costs and benefits related to the studied
object, it is necessary to identify:
• All the direct costs:

- by counting all costs (e.g. investment, maintenance ...)
- by monetizing social and environmental costs (e.g. pollution), through valuation
methods such as cost-benefit analysis methods
- by identifying all the stakeholders that contribute to the life cycle of the studied
product
73
• All indirect costs that are not always considered and could be included (e.g. social and
economic values of the traffic disruption induced by road works on bridges or access
roads):
- by identifying all indirect costs related to each phases of the life cycle
- by identifying all the stakeholders that contribute to the life cycle of the studied
product
• It is necessary to include the costs related to the location:

- by considering the origins of the material when carrying out LCC
- by carrying out LCC in different areas of the world
• The needs and expectations of the final consumers:

- by carrying out market studies
- by devising and conducting questionnaires
Integrate the benefits of LCC to the stainless steel sector
The LCC approach is also a way to improve stainless steel performances by identifying the
weak phases of the life cycle. The following recommendations are proposed as food for
thought.
Extraction
- Implement systematic use of green energies and green technologies (such as
sustainable forests and charcoal programs like that of ArcelorMittal in Brazil)
- When possible, use scraps instead of raw materials, and this wherever in the world the
plant is located
- Implement systems to collect stainless steel wastes, and this wherever in the world the
plant is located
- Set up training programs and courses for employees
- Depollute and exploit old quarries
- Monitor health and safety
- Implement social and environmental programs on extraction sites (e.g. biodiversity)
Fabrication
- Use new technology and low energy or water consumption machines
- Develop renewable energy sources in-house or prefer renewable energy sources (such
as sustainable forests and charcoal programs like that of ArcelorMittal in Brazil)
- Optimize production processes to reduce wastes
- Collect waste and rain water to purify it and reuse it in the plant processes
- Monitor health and safety
- Integrate considerations of nuisances for the neighborhood of the plants
74
Use
The improvement of this phase is closely related to the nature of the object at stake. However,
it is necessary to work on the implementation of a vision of sustainable products and to prefer
repairs to turning products into wastes.
End-of-life
- Increase use of scraps in industrialized countries
- Develop recycling processes in developing countries
- Rethink reuse systems and cooperation
- Use green energies
Transportation
Implementation of more sustainable transportation processes is one way to reduce costs and
environmental impacts on every life phase:
- by grouping the different production phases in one plant
- by using more sustainable means of transportation (use railways or shipping when
possible)
- by using bikes when possible for employees to move around inside the plant
- by planning transport for the everyday functioning of the plant better
- by proposing alternative ways for employees to travel to work (company bus, free
bikes, carpooling ...)
5.2 Specific recommendations
Considerations on bridges LCC and bridges life cycle phases
Underline the positive aspects of LCC on stainless steel bridges which come from its
durability
- Long lifetime
- Low maintenance and repair costs
- High recycling and low disposal costs related to the end-of-life
Integrate specific considerations for bridge LCC

- Integrate indirect costs, since they allow a better estimation of the real costs related to
the life cycle of a bridge (see list of costs below, for instance).
- Stainless steel can also be seen as a framework element of bridges and should be
considered further in future LCC analyses.
- It is important to consider the time horizon of a bridge according to the corrosion of its
environment and to its load. In so doing, the outcomes of the LCC analysis would
change since the life span can reach over 100 years.
75
Targeting
• It is an absolute necessity to target the right people
Different people can be involved in a bridge lifetime. It is important to understand their
roles, interests and contribution to development projects. They should be considered as
input providers and as receivers of LCC results. Interested stakeholders include
engineers, architects, project contractors, financers, subcontractors, maintainers, material
suppliers, authorities, clients and owners.
• It is an absolute necessity to target the right situations

It is important to consider the fact that stainless steel is especially relevant when applied
to certain sorts of bridges in specific contexts:
- Stainless steel can be seen as a competitive material for situations where it is very
difficult to maintain and/or renovate (e.g. buried bridges) or where it is very costly
(e.g. highways).
- Stainless steel should also be used in areas of the world where corrosion is high or
where natural hazard are very likely.
- There are specific needs related to the design of pedestrian bridges that can put
stainless steel as a competitive material for their construction.
Identification of all possible costs

In order to provide a comprehensive overview of the costs related to a bridge life, it is
necessary to identify them all. A. Betleski suggests a list of costs that should be considered2.
• Costs imposed on bridge owners:

- Design, engineering and regulatory costs (feasibility studies, environmental
assessment, reviews, consultant contracts …)
- Acquisitions and other compensation costs
- Construction costs (administrative and contract costs)
- Maintenance and repair costs
- Contract incentives and disincentives costs (bonuses or penalties)
- Demolition, removal and remediation costs
- Inspection costs
- Site and administration service-related costs
- Replacement and rehabilitation costs
- Miscellaneous agency action costs
• Costs imposed on bridge users:

- Traffic congestion delay costs
- Traffic detours and delay-induced diversion costs
- Highway vehicle damage costs
- Environmental damage costs
2
A. Beletski, Thesis: Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life cycle costing, Helsinki
University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, May 2007
76
- Business effect costs (disruption to normal business activities)
- Miscellaneous routine user action costs (nuisance effects such as noise or dust)
• Costs induced by the vulnerability of bridges:

- Load-related structural damage costs
- Collision damage costs
- Earthquake-related damage costs (earthquake-resistant specifications)
- Flood-related damage costs
- Scour-related damage costs (erosion of soil and rock of the foundation materials)
- Obsolescence costs
Considerations on desalination pumps LCC and desalination

pumps life cycle phases
- Use more LCC analyses to show that stainless steel is a sustainable and competitive
material in this fast developing market.
Depending on the area, the market for RO desalination is expanding at a higher or lower rate.
This is due in part to rapidly developing economy, urbanization and population growth, often
to the detriment of the environment. This has led to an increased demand for water and the
desalination market is therefore due to grow. Given its high corrosion resistance, the demand
for stainless steel is very likely to increase, especially if tools like LCC analyses highlight its
low maintenance costs. In that respect, it has to be mentioned that very few LCC analyses
have been conducted to date.
- Include costs for environmental inspection to check whether faulty pumps carry a risk of
contaminating the environment
Faulty pumps that do not deal well with corrosive conditions have to be monitored far more
often than effective pumps. In that respect, any break in the pumping activity puts down the
very activity of the plant. Simple check-ups can entail losses of production of desalinated
water.
- Underline the contribution of stainless steel to producing water in countries where drought
is severe
Desalination is the perfect example of a sustainable application of stainless steel by
contributing to provide drinkable water in countries with few fresh water resources.
- Anticipate the effects of global warming on the salinity of water

Global warming has had a significant impact in the rising seawater temperature and water
salinity. This factor has led to rapid corrosion of the material traditionally used in pumps,
creating demand for a superior grade of material and increasing the capital cost of the
equipment.
77
Considerations on plumbing pipes LCC and plumbing pipes
life cycle phases
- Value markets with high levels of corrosion

- Increase the number of training courses on stainless steel for plumbers
Considerations on washing-machines LCC and washing-

machines life cycle phases
- The major paradox of this product is that the stainless steel drum lasts much
longer than the rest of the appliance. The main focus should therefore be on the
reuse and recycling of this part.
- Research could be done to develop the reuse of old drums in new washing-
machines and/or other objects.
78
Conclusion
During this study, we have highlighted the different characteristics of stainless steel and
compared it with other materials on various objects. The LCC methodology helps us to
understand and improve the different stages of manufacture of a product. Today consumers
are very concerned by the impact of their consumption on the environment. Reducing waste
and energy consumption on production phases of the stainless steel would give this industry a
key role. The durability of stainless steel allows it to go even further, and to make objects
which last even longer. Thus, stainless steel is a sustainable material which can be and is
integrated into systems and objects that unfortunately do not last as long.
Once the world has completed its transition and has become fully sustainable, the stainless
steel should find its place at the center of industry.
79
Appendix
Appendix 1: Bibliography
Life Cycle Costing definition
European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise & Industry, Methodology of Life

Cycle Assessment (LCA)
R. Flanagan and C. Jewell, Whole Life Appraisal for construction, 2005
ISO/DIS 15686-5, Buildings and constructed assets-service life planning
G. A. Keoleian, A. Kendall, R. Chandler, G.E. Helfand and M. Lepech, Life cycle cost model
for evaluating the sustainability of bridge decks, University of Michigan (undated)
D. Landgon, Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction, Guidance

on the use of the LCC Methodology and its application in public procurement, 2007
Norme NF EN ISO 1404, Management environnemental, Analyse du Cycle de Vie,

Définition de l’objectif et du champ d’étude et analyse de l’inventaire
Norme NF EN ISO 14040, Management environnemental, Analyse du Cycle de Vie,

Principes et cadre
Norme NF EN ISO 14042, Management environnemental - Analyse du Cycle de Vie -

Evaluation de l’impact du cycle de vie
Norme ISO 14043, Management environnemental - Analyse du Cycle de Vie - Interprétation

du cycle de vie
M. Pradel, Analyse du cycle de vie des produits agricoles, Cemagref, Sciences Eaux &
Territoires n°04 (undated)
M. Pradel and A. De Gervillier, L’analyse du cycle de vie à l’échelle d’une exploitation

agricole : méthode et premiers résultats, Cemagref, , Sciences Eaux & Territoires n°04
(undated)
Réseau Scientifique et Technique du MEEDDM, Analyse du cycle de vie d'un pont en béton,
80
Exemple d'application pour un pont courant, T87 (undated)
J. Schade, Life cycle cost calculation model for building, Department of Civil, Mining and
Environmental Engineering Luleå University of Technology (undated)
S. Svoboda, Note on life cycle analysis, University of Michigan Corporate Environmental

Management Program (undated)
United Nations Environment Programme, Guidelines for social life assessment of products,
2009
Bridges case studies
N. R. Baddoo and A. Kosmač, Sustainable Duplex Stainless Steel bridges, Euro-inox and The
Steel Construction Institute (undated)
A. Beletski, Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by applying life

cycle costing, Helsinki University of Technology, Department of industrial Engineering and
Management, 2007.
Cimbéton, Analyse du cycle de vie d’un pont en béton. Exemple d’application pour un pont
courant. Collection technique Cimbéton, T87. April 2010
J. Dalsheimer and J. Vigo, Développement durable et génie civil, les atouts de l’acier, 2008
Euro-Inox, Life Cycle Costing and Stainless Steesl: River crossing highway bridge (undated)
Euro-Inox, Pedestrian bridges in Stainless Steel, Building series, volume 7 (undated)
Euro-Inox, Bridge on Cala Galdana on Menorca, 2007
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Bridge life cycle cost analysis, NCHRP
report 483, 2003
OTUA, L’acier pour une construction responsable, Haute Qualité Environnementale
A. D. Ryszard, Environmental considerations to structural material selection for a bridge,

European Bridge Engineering Conference, Rotterdam, 2003
I. Stipanovic Oslakovic, D. Bjegovic and J. Radic, Case study: LCC analysis for Krk Bridge,
2008
81
World Steel Association, The Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge, Environmental case study, Bridge,
2008
Desalination pumps
H. Boyé, Eau, énergie, dessalement et changement climatique en Méditerranée, 2008
Hydraulic Institute, Europump, and US Department of Energy’s Office of Industrial

Technologies, Pump Life Cycle Costs: A Guide to LCC Analysis for Pumping Systems, 2001
ISSF, Desalination in Stainless Steel : a sustainable solution for the purification of salt water,
2010
A. U Malik and P. C. Mayan, Corrosion and material selection in desalination plants

(undated)
P. Mohan and L. Donoho, Frost & Sullivan, Pumps for the Desalination Market, 2009
Nickel Development Institute, Materials for saline water, desalination and oilfield brine
pumps, 1995
R. G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, Life cycle assessment of desalination technologies integrated

with renewable energies, 2005
B. Todd, Materials Selection For HighReliability Copper Alloy Seawater System, Nickel
Development Institute (undated)
Plumbing pipes
D. Brook, Buying and Using Water Heaters, Oregon State University, 1999
P. Cutler, Stainless steels and drinking water around the world, Nickel Development Institute,
2003
P. Dessers, cours de technologie sanitaire: le tube en cuivre, 2004
ISSF, Stainless steel plumbing, 2001
Plastic Piping Educational Foundation, Plumbing Apprentice Training Manual For Plastic
Piping Systems, 2002
M. Tanabe, Latest trend of Stainless Steel Piping System in Japan, 2010
82
Water industry information and guidance note, Application for stainless Steel in the Water
Industry, 1999
World Health Organization and World Plumbing Council, Health Aspects of Plumbing, 2006
World Plumbing Council, Environmental Aspects of Plumbing, 2010
Washing machines
Association of Electric Home Appliances, Reports on the Recycling of Home Appliances,

2004
Japan Soap and Detergent Association, Reports on the Spread of Full-automated Washing
Machine and Changes in Washing Activity (undated)
I. Rüdenauer, C-O. Gensch, Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Washing machines Commissioned by

Electrolux - AEG Hausgeräte GmbH and BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, 2005
H. Yamaguchi and all, Lifecycle Management Methodology using Lifecycle Cost Benefit
Analysis for Washing Machines.
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Washing-Machine.html
Other
B. K. Reck, M. Chambon, S. Hashimoto and T.E. Graedel, Global stainless steel cycle
exemplifies China’s rise to metal dominance, Environmental science and technology, 2010
World Steel Association, WorldSteel sustainability indicators: methodology, 2010
83
Appendix 2: Glossary
Appropriate technology
Technology that can be made at an affordable price by ordinary people using local materials
to do useful work in ways that do the least possible harm to both human society and the
environment.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_s-z.html
Biodiversity
The genetics, species, and ecological diversity of the organisms in a given area.
Best available, economically achievable technology (BAT)

The best pollution control available.
Best practical control technology (BPT)

The best technology for pollution control available at reasonable cost and operable under
normal conditions.
Cavitation
Cavitation means that cavities or bubbles are forming in the liquid that is pumped. These
cavities form at the low pressure or suction side of the pump, causing several things to happen
all at once: the cavities or bubbles will collapse when they pass into the higher regions of
pressure, causing noise, vibration, and damage to many of the components ; the pump can no
longer build the same head (pressure) ; the pump's efficiency drops.
http://www.mcnallyinstitute.com/01-html/1-3.html
Corrosion
Can be defined as the deterioration of material by reaction to its environment. The corrosion
occurs because of the natural tendency for most metals to return to their natural state; e.g. iron
in the presence of moist air will revert to its natural state, iron oxide. Metals can be corroded
by the direct reaction of the metal to a chemical; e.g. zinc will react with dilute sulfuric acid,
and magnesium will react with alcohols
NASA, corrosions control and treatment manual
Cost-benefit analysis
An evaluation of large-scale public projects by comparing the costs and benefits that accrue
from them.
84
Crevice corrosion
Crevice corrosion is a localized form of corrosion usually associated with a stagnant solution
on the micro-environmental level.
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-crevice/Crevice.htm
Desalination
Removal of salt from water by distillation, freezing, or ultrafiltration.
Ductility
The property of metal which permits it to be reduced in cross-sectional area without fracture.
In a tensile test, ductile metals show considerable elongation eventually failing by necking,
with consequent rapid increase in local stresses.
http://metals.about.com/library/bldef-Ductility.htm
Energy
The capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as
heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential electrical, or other forms.
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm
Primary energy
“Primary energy should be used to designate those sources that only involve extraction or
capture, with or without separation from contiguous material, cleaning or grading, before the
energy embodied in that source can be converted into heat or mechanical work.” UN,
Concepts and Methods in Energy Statistics, New York, 1982.
Secondary energy
“Secondary energy should be used to designate all sources of energy that results from
transformation of primary sources.” UN, Concepts and Methods in Energy Statistics, New
York, 1982.
External costs
Expenses, monetary or otherwise, borne by someone other than the individuals or groups who
use a resource.
Fugitive emissions
Substances that enter the air without going through a smokestack, such as dust from soil
erosion, strip mining, rock crushing, construction, and building demolition.
Inflow
Something, such as a liquid or gas, that flows in.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inflow
85
Outflow
Anything that flows out, such as liquid, money, ideas, etc.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inflow
Greenhouse gas
Gasses added to the atmosphere by human actions that trap heat and cause global warming.
Environmental impact
Possible adverse effects caused by a development, industrial, or infrastructural project or by
the release of a substance in the environment.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/environmental-impact.html
Inert wastes
A material having insignificant leach ability and pollution content which will not require
laboratory analysis.
http://www.landfill-site.com/html/inert_waste.html
Infiltration
The process of water percolation into the soil and pores and hollows of permeable rocks.
ISO (The International Organization for Standardization)

ISO is a network of the national standards institutes from many countries, and is the world's
largest developer and publisher of International Standards.
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____38150.aspx
Landfills
Land disposal sites for solid waste; operators compact refuse and cover it with a layer of dirt
to minimize rodent and insect infestation, wind-blown debris, and leaching by rain.
Life cycle
The full life cycle for a product describes all stages from resource extraction and
processing/packaging, through to transportation, use and ultimate disposal. Some labels may
only refer to parts of the product life cycle.
Life-cycle analysis
Evaluation of material and energy inputs and outputs at each stage of manufacture, use, and
disposal of a product.
86
Life span
The longest period of life reached by a type of organism.
Load-bearing capacity
The maximum load that a system can support before failing. (Source: LEEa)
Multi-stage flash distillation

Multi-stage flash distillation (MSF) is a water desalination process that distills sea water by
flashing a portion of the water into steam in multiple stages of what are essentially
countercurrent heat exchangers.
Non-renewable resources
Minerals, fossil fuels, and other materials present in essentially fixed amounts (within human
time scales) in our environment.
Pathology
A departure or deviation from a normal condition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pathology
Pollution
To make foul, unclean, dirty; any physical, chemical, or biological change that adversely
affects the health, survival, or activities of living organisms or that alters the environment in
undesirable ways.
Primary pollutants
Chemicals released directly into the air in a harmful form.
Recycling
Reprocessing of discarded materials into new, useful products; not the same as reuse of
materials for their original purpose, but the terms are often used interchangeably.
Regulations
Rules established by administrative agencies; regulations can be more important than
statutory law in the day-to-day management of resources.
87
Renewable resources
Resources normally replaced or replenished by natural processes; resources not depleted by
moderate use; examples include solar energy, biological resources such as forests and
fisheries, biological organisms, and some biogeochemical cycles.
Renewable water supplies

Annual freshwater surface runoff plus annual infiltration into underground freshwater aquifers
that are accessible for human use.
Reverse osmosis
Water pressure is used to force water molecules through a very fine membrane leaving the
contaminants behind. Purified water is collected from the "clean" or “permeate” side of the
membrane, and water containing the concentrated contaminants is flushed down the drain
from the "contaminated" or “concentrate” side. The average RO system is a unit consisting of
a sediment/chlorine pre filter, the reverse-osmosis membrane, a storage tank, and an
activated-carbon post filter. Reverse osmosis removes salt and most other inorganic material
present in the water, and for that reason, RO lends itself to use in places where the drinking
water is brackish (salty), contains nitrates or other dissolved minerals which are difficult to
remove by other methods.
http://www.advancedwaterfilters.com/reverse-osmosis-system.html
Salinity
Amount of dissolved salts (especially sodium chloride) in a given volume of water.
Salination
A process in which mineral salts accumulate in the soil, killing plants; occurs when soils in
dry climates are irrigated profusely.
Saltwater intrusion
Movement of saltwater into freshwater aquifers in coastal areas where groundwater is
withdrawn faster than it is replenished.
Stakeholders
The involvement of key stakeholder groups can substantially improve the integrity and
recognition of an a project.
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____38150.aspx
88
Strength-to-weight ratio
The relationship between a material's strength and its weight. Materials that are light but also
very strong have a high strength-to-weight ratio.
http://www.toolingu.com/definition-500220-15916-strength-to-weight-ratio.html
Sustainable development
A real increase in well-being and standard of life for the average person that can be
maintained over the long-term without degrading the environment or compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Waste
"Any substance or object the holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard" is
WASTE under the Waste Framework Directive (European Directive (WFD) 2006/12/EC), as
amended by the new WFD (Directive 2008/98/EC, coming into force in December 2010).
Weldability
Suitability of a metal to be welded under specified conditions.
http://www.answers.com/topic/weldability
89
Appendix 3: Questionnaire
The objective of this questionnaire is to realize a benchmark of the Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyses in the following sectors: copper, stainless steel,
Aluminum, plastic and concrete. Some of the questions may not apply to your sector.
We would like to identify the good practices at each phase of the life cycle of the product in
order to provide recommendations for all of them and reduce their social and environmental
impact throughout their life span.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
- What is your job title? What are your main responsibilities?
II. LCC/LCA ANALYSES
- Are you familiar with LCC/LCA methodologies and analyses?
- Have LCC/LCA analyses been conducted in your company?

•If so, for how many years have you done these assessments?
•Where are they accessible? (references, data, websites)
- Are you conducting these analyses yourselves/with an agency?
- Do you know if LCC/LCA analyses have been conducted elsewhere in your sector?
If so:
-What feedback do you have?
•What are the benefits of these analyses in your opinion?
•What are the weaknesses of these analyses in your opinion?
- How do you use the results? And for what final objectives?
- What are, in your opinion, the possible improvements of the life cycle of your products?
- during the extraction and production phase?
- during the distribution phase?
- during the use phase?
- during the end-of-life and recycling phase?
90
III. RULES, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING
- What are the main regulations governing your business? Please give details.
- legislation applicable to your sector
- confidentiality requirements or obligation to disclose or report information to regulators
- financial regulation
- Have you signed up to any international agreements or charters?

•If so, which ones?
- Are you involved in any carbon compensation or foundation programs?

- If so, which ones?
-Do you have any accredited protocol or any ISO certifications?

- If so, which ones?
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
- Do you have an environmental unit responsible for environmental issues?

- If so, give details (priorities, composition and activities of the unit)
- Do you have LCC/LCA data (key data, average, index) on all the material you are using?
Which part of the production as a percentage has been analyzed?
- Air pollution (gas emissions, dust)

- Give details on air pollution.
- What measures, if any, have you undertaken to limit air emissions?
- Water
- Sources of water used
Source Use Quantity m3/day Quantity m3/day
(total production) (per product)
Municipal network
Water tanker
Others
- Wastewater streams final disposal method(s)
91
- Energy sources
- What energy source(s) are used at the unit?
Source Use * (please specify) Percentage

Outside suppliers
Produced in-house
* for production, lighting, heating, hot water, miscellaneous.
- What is the average quarterly energy consumption (total equivalent kWh/season)?

•Quarter 1 Jan.-Mar., Quarter 2 Apr.-June, Quarter 3 July-Sept., Quarter 4 Oct.-Dec.
-Do you use any renewable energies?

•If so, give details (type, production level, percent of total consumption)
- Do you have any energy saving programs?

(Automatic switches, low energy light bulbs, machine shut down system, etc.)
- Solid waste & recycling

- What solid waste streams are generated?
Solid Waste Type Final destination Quantity ton/day Quantity

(total production) ton/day (per
product)
- Do you have a monitoring program for the solid waste generated?
- Do you use any recyclable materials?

•If so, what percentage is used at the production process?
- Noise pollution:
- Sources of noise pollution?
Sources Description in dBA
V. SOCIAL ASPECTS
- What are your priorities? Please give details.
•Non discrimination and equal opportunities
92
•Living and working conditions
•Education and training
•Health & Safety for employees
•Health & Safety for the public and the local community
•Others
- What indicators do you use to monitor the above?
- Are employees involved in the above (corporate governance)?
- How many accidents have occurred in the previous year?
VI. LIFE CYCLE COSTING

Fill in the information related to the life cycle costing, where appropriate.
Object (e.g. bridge)
Description Stainless steel Material 1 Material 2 Material 3
Initial cost
Material costs
Elements of the product
Fabrication and installation costs
Cutting, forming, assembly etc.
Others costs
Special labor skills, safety equipment
Operating costs
Maintenance costs
Replacement costs
Lost production costs
Annual material-related costs
Rates and duration
Cost of capital %
Annual inflation rate %
Desired life cycle duration In years
Downtime per maintenance In days
Value of lost production % of total annual production
Real interest rate %
Please feel free to contact us for any further information about our study.
We will be happy to send you a copy of the final report and would like to thank you for your
time and consideration.
93
Appendix 4: List of stainless steel bridges in the world
In Baddoo N.R & Kosmač, A. Euro-Inox & The Steel Construction Institute, Sustainable
Duplex Stainless Steel bridge
94
95
Appendix 5: Possible designs with several materials of a
pedestrian bridge
In Ryszard, A. D. Environmental considerations to structural material selection for a bridge,

European Bridge Engineering Conference, Rotterdam, March 2003
96
Appendix 6: Tables
In A. Beletski, Thesis: Applicability of stainless steel in road infrastructure bridges by

applying life cycle costing. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of industrial
Engineering and Management, May 2007
Unit costs of construction for the bridge types analyzed
Material prices according to different scenarios
Cumulative discounted costs for waterway bridges during a life cycle of 100 years
97
Influence of the real discount rate on life cycle costs
98
Appendix 7: Typical Reverse Osmosis Plant Diagram
In Sulzer Pumps, Pumps for desalination plants, 2006
99

Life Cycle Costing Report From Sorbonne University PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Costing Report From Sorbonne University PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Supervised by Rosalind Greenstein and Pierre Pech

Host system: Microsoft Word 2007

The Master's degree is multidisciplinary:

We have been supervised by:

Paris, 18 April 2011

r : revised figures; p : preliminary figures

Figure 2: Stainless steel production market in 2020

Source: Steel & Market metal research, Nov 2008

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The following figure illustrates the typical inputs/outputs measured in an LCA:

Figure 3: Typical inputs and outputs in LCA

Process Materials, Reagents,

Goal and Scope

Life Cycle Inventory

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Life Cycle Improvement Analysis

Interrelationship between LCC and sustainability analysis

For example, both:

How to integrate LCA and LCC

Benefits of Life Cycle Costing

Improved awareness: Application of LCC techniques provides management with an

Figure 4: Cost variation over time

Source: Methodology of life cycle costing, European commission

Life cycle cost formula

Desired life cycle duration

Value of lost production

Real interest rate

Fabrication and initial installation costs

Other installation costs

Annual material-related costs

Source: Stainless steel information center (www.ssina.com)

2.3 Economic evaluation methodology

Method Usable for Advantage Disadvantage

Life cycle costs

End-of-life and recycling

Uses of stainless steel and domestic market characteristics

To achieve this objective, we organized our six-month workshop in four phases:

3.2 Delimitation of the perimeter

The information-gathering phase enabled us to identify different kinds of objects. Some

This analysis therefore focuses on the following applications:

The questionnaire was intended to be a support when contacting stakeholders of different

Rules, regulations and compliance monitoring

Environmental management and sustainable development

Life cycle costing

The questionnaires are strictly confidential.

Interpretation and limits of the questionnaire

• Initial, maintenance and repair costs:

• Initial, maintenance and repair costs:

Carbon steel (Grades S235JO or S355JO according to EN 10025)

• Initial, maintenance and repair costs:

Concrete (reinforced or pre-stressed concrete)

Figure 9: Average prices development of stainless and carbon steel

Figure 10: Comparative construction costs of miscellaneous bridges

Bridge type Total cost estimate (euros)

Figure 14: Comparison of several bridges’ cumulated life cycle costs

Impacts on the environment and sustainable development

A sustainable bridge has to:

Building a bridge decreases CO² emissions by reducing distances, especially between

Social impact and working conditions

Generally desalination can be defined as the process of removing dissolved minerals

More specifically the material chosen requires:

Life Cycle Costing definition