1. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Life Cycle Assessment of Float Glass Sunshades vs. Fiber-
Reinforced Plastic Sunshades
Prepared for: Kreysler & Associates
Veronica Chau, Kyle Pineo, Milciades Reyes Gonzalez, Roberto Santana
Abstract
Background: This report presents the results of a life cycle analysis (LCA) comparing two
sunshades for The two options compared are:
a fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) panel fabricated by Kreysler and Associates (K&A) in Napa, CA,
and a float glass (FG) panel manufactured by Schott in Hamburg, Germany.
Results: Of all the impact categories available, the following were weighed more heavily:
energy resources, greenhouse gas emissions, ozone layer, carcinogens, and solid waste. The life
cycle assessment showed that the FRP sunshade panels were lower in energy resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, ozone layer, and carcinogens. The FRP panels did not perform well in
the solid waste category, because there was no viable end of life recycling FRP option. The
majority of impact for both systems was in the raw material and production phases. For the float
glass system, the fabrication of steel had the largest impact in carcinogens and solid waste, yet
could be recycled. For the FRP, the resin had the highest impact for every category except solid
waste. However, the solid waste was counterbalanced by pollution minimization.
Conclusions: In almost every impact assessment category (except solid waste), the FRP
sunshade is more environmentally sustainable and cost effective. The recommendation is for
Kreysler & Associates to pursue building the sunshades using their FRP method.
Introduction
Fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) is made of a polymer matrix reinforced with fibers. The first FRP
applications took place in the Second World War1, and production at commercial scale started in
the late 1950s. Currently, FRP is widely use in aerospace, automotive, marine, and construction
industries. The key advantages of FRP over other materials are weight and economic savings.
However, the use of FRP has come into question because fibers and plastics cannot be easily
separated, making FRP impossible to recycle.
Our project sponsor Kreysler & Associates (K&A), a Napa Valley company founded in 1982, is
interested in understanding the differences in environmental impact for a sunshade panel made of
FRP and another one made of float glass (FG). For this purpose, we conducted a comprehensive
life cycle analysis of both options. In this paper, we assess the environmental impact of FRP and
Float Glass from cradle to gate. With the help of SimaPro, a LCA simulation software, we
modeled the environmental impact caused by raw materials, production, transportation,
1
Erhard, Gunter. Designing with plastics. Bruhl, Germany. 2006
1

2. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
construction, and end of life of both FRP and float glass. We also included a life cycle cost
analysis before we present our final conclusions and recommendations.
Float Glass2 and RFP Process3
The production of float glass panels follows an industry standard procedure by first combining
sand, soda ash, dolomite, limestone, and cullet into a mixing batch. The batch materials are fed
into the furnace around 1600°C, followed by floating a continuous ribbon of molten glass along
the surface of molten tin bath. Irregularities are melted out here to ensure flat and parallel
surfaces in the glass. The glass is annealed and gradually cooled to around 200°C to prevent
splitting and breaking during the cutting process. The glass is cut, shipped, and installed onto the
building using a crane4 and bolted with steel. The lifespan per panel is estimated at 50 years. At
its end of life, the glass panels can be disposed of via recycling or landfill.
The production of FRP panels utilizes vacuum infusion by first spraying on the gel coat to give
the model color, followed by applying the glass fiber on top. The balsa core is placed on top of
the glass fiber, followed by the steel to be embedded and the inner layer of glass fiber. A rubber
bag is placed around the mold and sealed with a silicon rubber sheet. The vacuum is placed over
the construct, compressing it with atmospheric pressure, and the resin is let in permeating the
molding with glass fiber in it through feeder hoses. The entire molding is then cured, packaged,
and shipped off to the construction site, where a crane will lift the panels into the building. Steel
is bolted down every two feet. Each panel, like the glass is projected to have a 50-year lifespan;
at the end of which, it is unbolted and disposed of in the landfill.
Exhibit A shows the process life cycle of both FG and FRP.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
In our life cycle cost estimate we assumed that the lifetime of the material is 50 years. We
considered separately the panel cost, steel support cost, use phase cost, and end of life cost
associated with the disposal of FRP and float glass. For panel costs, we obtained a dollar per
square foot cost estimate from K&A for both FRP and glass options. FRP is slightly more
expensive than glass ($36.7 versus $30 per sq. ft.), but it requires considerably less steel and
labor than the glass installation. The cost of steel for FRP (including labor) was provided by
K&A ($8 per sq. ft.). For float glass, we used market5 prices for steel. Savings in steel support
are derived from the weight advantage that FRP has over float glass. The difference in weights
translates into much lighter structural support needs for FRP.
The use phase cost associated with both materials is considered to be zero for purposes of the
study because very little maintenance is required in the regular used of the panel. Bearing any
catastrophic damage like high intensity earthquakes this assumption should hold true. For the end
of life calculations, we assumed a discount rate of 4%, which is slightly above inflation. Since
2
Source: http://www.pfg.co.za/all-about-glass.aspx
3
Source: Kreysler & Associates
4
Building is 4 stories with the assumption of 12 feet per story
5
Source: http://www.meps.co.uk/World%20Carbon%20Price.htm
2

3. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
FRP cannot be recycled, we used average tipping fees for California6. Prices for recycled glass
and steel were taken from secondary material pricing rates7. As shown in Exhibit B, the FRP
option is 50% less expensive than float glass.
LCA Methods and Functional Unit
For this model we took into account various aspects of the process of fabrication of the fiber
reinforced polymer panel and the float glass option. To obtain the results of the impacts we used
a process-based LCA analysis; for this we used the software SimaPro and the “Eco-Indicator 95”
protocol. The assumptions that were made for this analysis are related to various aspects like
transportation distances, processes used and materials taken into account. The use phase was not
taken into account in our analysis because the impacts are negligible and similar to both
sunshades.
Our functional unit is a 40’ x 10’ panel for the two options; our assumptions and differences
between these two options are described below.
Impact Assessment Results by Phase: Material Production - Assumptions
Materials
The materials used for the production of the FRP panels are:
1. Glass Fiber provided by Owens Corning. M5 Chopped Strand Mat for Hand-Lay Up. A
waste factor of 3% was used for glass fiber, as well as for the resin.
2. Unsaturated Polyester Resin, provided by Ashland Chemical. HETRON FR620T-20. A
waste factor of 3% was used.
3. Balsa Wood provided by BALTEK. BALTEK® SB STRUCTURAL END-GRAIN
BALSA.
4. Gelcoat provided by Valspar. WHITE BASE – STANDARD VOC.
5. Steel, for structural purposes. Steel type Fe 360 I as considered in SimaPro.
For the float glass panels, the following materials were considered:
1. Float Glass coated EHS.
2. Steel type Fe 360 I. For structural and framing purposes.
Weight distribution for each material
For RFP panel the distribution is as follow:
Raw Material Weight (kg) % of total
Glass Fiber 456.89 49.5%
Polyester Resin 219.31 23.7%
Structural Steel 128.81 13.9%
Balsa Wood 118.79 12.9%
Total 923.79
6
Source: http://tinyurl.com/6nbcefv
7
Source: https://www.cmg.net/recyclingmarkets/smp/smpsample.html
3

4. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
For Float glass panels:
Raw Material Weight (kg) % of total
Float glass 2362.00 78.3%
Structural Steel 653.73 21.7%
Total 3015.73
Exhibit C was used to help determine total weight of the FRP panel.
Impact Assessment Results by Phase: Material Production – Results
As mentioned previously we used SimaPro and the protocol Ecoindicator 95 to obtain the results
in our analyses of both options. Please refer to Exhibit D for the table showing the quantitative
impact and the charts show the percentage of the total impact that each material is causing. And
for the results of the float glass panel please refer to Exhibit E, for the same information.
As seen on those exhibits, the float glass option accounts for most impacts in most of the
categories. On the other hand, the FRP panel accounts for most of the solid waste and this is due
to the production of glass fiber and balsa wood. At the same time, the unsaturated polyester resin
has the greatest impact in all categories, except solid waste. But, when these are compared to the
float glass option is still less.
As for the carcinogens category, float glass panel has an impactful footprint due to the large
amount of steel required to support the panel.
Impact Assessment Results by Phase: Transportation and Construction – Assumptions
The FRP panels are made in the Kreysler and Associates fabrication plant in Napa and all raw
materials were brought there, processed and shipped to their final location as panels
ready to be installed for a distance of km. On the other hand, it was assumed that Schott, a
glass company in Hamburg, fabricated the float glass panels in Germany. These glass panels
were assumed to be transported 6400 km by a transoceanic freight ship from Hamburg to New
York and then carried 4650 km by diesel powered freight rail from NY to San Francisco, and
finally transported 69.5 km by truck from San Francisco to the final location in .
Impact Assessment Results by Phase: Transportation and Construction – Results
Exhibit F shows the relative environmental and construction impacts for float glass, and Exhibit
G shows the relative environmental impacts for FRP. For FG, rail transport contributed the
largest relative impact. For FRP, transportation of materials to the plant had the largest
environmental impact. The magnitudes of the FRP environmental impacts were smaller than the
FG impacts because the FRP panel was about one-third the weight of a FG panel and its
transportation distance was assumed to be much less. Both zinc coating for FG and vacuum
infusion for FRP had minimal environmental impacts.
A schematic (not to scale) of the FRP system, Exhibit H, is located in the exhibit section.
4

5. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Impact Assessment Results by Phase: End of Life - Assumptions
The total life of both FG and FRP were assumed to be 50 years. Because there is no viable
recycling option for FRP8, it was assumed that FRP system goes directly to landfill. The FG
panel system was assumed to be 100% recycled.
Impact Assessment Results by Phase: End of Life – Results
No end of life analysis was performed because FRP has no practical recycling options. We can
qualitatively infer that the FRP end of life impact is higher than the FG impact because of the
glass recycling process.
Total Impact Assessment
Impact Category Total (FG) Total (FRP) Difference % Difference
Acidification (kg SO2) 24.958 10.00390 14.954 149
Carcinogens (kg B(a)P) 0.000582 0.000179 0.000402 224
Energy resources (MJ LHV) 62421.049 37412.100 25008.948 66.8
Eutrophication (kg PO4) 2.742 1.429 1.312 91.8
Greenhouse (kg CO2) 4057.697 2144.518 1913.179 89.2
Heavy metals (kg Pb) 0.0346 0.0178 0.0167 93.8
Ozone layer (kg CFC11) 0.000663 0.000392 0.000270 68.9
Pesticides (kg act.sub) 0 0 0 0
Solid Waste (kg) 7.047 28.469 -21.422 -75.2
Summer smog (kg C2H4) 1.535 1.414 0.120 8.5
Winter smog (kg SPM) 13.228 6.508 6.719 103
Taking into account all the aforementioned processes, assumptions, and results, the FRP panel
performed much better environmentally and financially compared to the FG panels. In every
impact category (except for solid waste), the FRP panel at minimum 66.8% environmentally
better than the FG (except for summer smog and solid waste, which performed at 8.5% and -
75.2%, respectively). Of the four major categories in our LCA, energy resources, greenhouse gas
emissions, ozone layer, carcinogens, and solid waste, carcinogens were decreased by 224%.
Put into perspective, a reduction of approximately 2,000 kg of CO2 is equivalent to driving one
30-mpg car almost 12,000 miles in one year. Saving 25,000 MJ per panel, on the other hand, is
equivalent to burning 1 metric ton of coal9.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to better compare the environmental impacts of FG and
FRP by taking out FG’s transoceanic and rail transports. The float glass was then assumed to
travel the exact distance the FRP was (both assumed to originate from K&A) to .
Exhibit I shows a spider graph of all impact categories in percentages of the two panels with all
transportation included. Exhibit J shows the same spider graph but with transoceanic and rail
transport excluded. Still, the FRP panels performed better.
8
Source: http://mntap.umn.edu/fiber/resources/report12-04.pdf
9
Source: Professor Anthony Kovscek, Stanford.
5

6. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Combining the materials, processes, and transportation environmental impacts into one, Exhibit
K and Exhibit L (FG and FRP respectively), structural steel and float glass account for the
majority of the environmental impacts over transportation. For the FRP the polyester resin and
structural steel account for most of the environmental impacts.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The FRP panel performed more favorably in terms of environmental sustainably and financially.
With reductions per panel in the majority of the impact categories by over 60%, total weight by
44%, and total cost by 53%, we recommend that Kreysler & Associates further communications
with the computer company to install FRP sunshades over float glass sunshades.
To further improve the environmental practicality of FRP sunshades, recommendations that
Kreysler & Associates should consider is the end-of-life recycling of the panels once they are no
longer being used. Even though FRP recycling is still in its infancy, K&A should be aware of
new technology that could help the FRP panel perform better at end-of-life. Drawing from the
environmental impacts of the FRP resin, and in general, it is always advisable that Kreysler &
Associates be on the lookout for alternative materials that can perform just as well as FRP (and
the resin), but with even less environmental impacts.
6

7. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Exhibit
A:
FG
and
FRP
Process
Flow
Exhibit
B:
Life
Cycle
Cost
Analysis
7

8. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Exhibit
C:
Raw
Material
Densities
for
FRP
Exhibit
D:
FRP
Environmental
Impacts
FRP,
Materials
Environmental
Impacts
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Balsa
Wood
0.4
Structural
Steel
Polyester
Resin
0.2
Glass
Fiber
0
8

9. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
FRP,
Processes
Environmental
Impacts
0.5
0.45
Wood
Cutting
and
preparation
0.4
0.35
0.3
Transportation
of
materials
to
0.25
plant
0.2
0.15
Vacuum
Infusion
process
for
0.1
making
panels
0.05
0
Transportation
from
plant
to
site
Exhibit
E:
Float
Glass
Environmental
Impacts
FG,
Materials
Environmental
Impacts
1.2
1
0.8
Structural
Steel
0.6
0.4
0.2
Float
Glass
0
9

10. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
FG,
Processes
Environmental
Impacts
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Transportation
by
truck
Transportation
by
rail
0.2
Transportation
transoceanic
0.1
Zinc
Coating
0
Exhibit
F:
Float
Glass
Environmental
and
Construction
Impacts
FG,
Transporta0on
Environmental
Impacts
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
(%)
0.3
Transporta3on
by
truck
0.2
Transporta3on
by
rail
0.1
Transporta3on
transoceanic
Zinc
Coa3ng
0
10

11. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Exhibit
G:
FRP
Environmental
and
Construction
Impacts
FRP,
Transporta0on
Environmental
Impacts
0.5
0.45
Wood
CuAng
and
prepara3on
0.4
0.35
0.3
Transporta3on
of
materials
to
%
0.25
plant
0.2
0.15
Vacuum
Infusion
process
for
0.1
making
panels
0.05
0
Transporta3on
from
plant
to
site
Exhibit
H:
Schematic
of
FRP
System
11

12. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Exhibit
I:
Comparative
Environmental
Impact
with
Transport
Greenhouse
100%
Solid
waste
Ozone
layer
80%
60%
Energy
resources
40%
AcidiQication
20%
0%
Percentage
FRP
Winter
smog
Eutrophication
Percentage
FG
Summer
smog
Heavy
metals
Pesticides
Carcinogens
Exhibit
J:
Comparative
Environmental
Impact
without
Transport
Greenhouse
90%
Solid
waste
80%
Ozone
layer
70%
60%
50%
Energy
resources
40%
AcidiQication
30%
20%
10%
FRP
0%
Winter
smog
Float
Glass
Eutrophication
Summer
smog
Heavy
metals
Pesticides
Carcinogens
12

13. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
Exhibit
K:
FG
Total
Combined
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Transport:
truck
50%
Transport:
rail
40%
Transport:
transoceanic
30%
Zinc
Coating
20%
Structural
Steel
10%
Float
Glass
0%
Exhibit
L:
FRP
Total
Combined
100%
90%
Wood
Cutting
and
preparation
80%
70%
Transport:
materials
to
plant
60%
Vacuum
Infusion:
making
50%
panels
Transport:
plant
to
site
40%
30%
Balsa
Wood
20%
Structural
Steel
10%
0%
Polyester
Resin
Glass
Fiber
13

14. CEE 226: Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Systems
Chau, Pineo, Reyes Gonzalez, Santana
References
1. Ali S.M., Lepech, M., Basbagill, J.P. PROBABILISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF A LIFE
CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) DATASET FOR PULTRUDED FIBER REINFORCED
POLYMER (FRP) COMPOSITES. Stanford University. Stanford.
2. Bartholomew, Kyle. "Fiberglass Reinforced Pastics Recycling." (2004).
3. Erhard, Gunter. Designing with plastics. Bruhl, Germany. 2006
4. Kreysler, Bill. Kreysler & Associates. American Canyon, CA.
5. Kovscek, Anthony. “Energy Scale (Joules)”. Stanford.
6. "Secondary Materials Pricing.com - Sample Prices." Web.
<https://www.cmg.net/recyclingmarkets/smp/smpsample.html>.
7. "Tipping Fees." California Tipping Fees. Web. 09 Dec. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/6nbcefv>.
8. World Carbon Steel Prices. Web. <http://www.pfg.co.za/all-about-glass.aspx>.
14