1 Planning
-
The fridge freezer to be recognized as the input in the design work,
-
vision of a fridge freezer to meet the requirements of the parties interested and recommendations formulated after key analyses, e.g., life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (SLCA),
-
technological advance difference as the future ecodesign effect.
1.1 Appointing the ecodesign team
1.2 Definition of the target
-
Identification of the main sources of environmental effect in the life cycle of the refrigerator being the reference object,
-
identification of the main cost sources in the refrigerator’s life cycle,
-
identification of the most important interested parties appearing throughout the reference refrigerator’s life cycle and the requirements set towards the refrigerator,
-
definition of the designed refrigerator’s development directions that would enable its reduced environmental effect and at the same time meet the requirements of the parties interested and definition of the economic consequences of some specific solutions,
-
selection of the optimum solution.
1.3 Definition of the input condition
-
height, 1850 mm;
-
width, 595 mm;
-
depth, 600 mm.
-
sheet metal cutting,
-
casing jacket profiling,
-
door jacket profiling,
-
preparing the surface and painting,
-
polystyrene panel production,
-
thermal forming,
-
plastic injection,
-
assembly of evaporators,
-
foam application on the doors of the freezer and fridge,
-
pre-assembly,
-
foam application on the casings,
-
artwork printing,
-
final assembly.
-
Power consumption reduction at the usage stage,
-
reduction of environmental effects related to the cooling system with particular consideration to the compressor effect,
-
reliability improvement,
-
cost reduction of materials used in the production.
1.4 Definition of the target condition
Interested parties | Importance coefficient (0–5) |
---|---|
Internal environment | |
Firm owners | 5 |
Employees | 4 |
External environment | |
Raw material and semi-finished product suppliers | 2 |
Fridge freezer users (actual and potential users/target customers) | 5 |
Competitors | 5 |
Logistic-forwarding company | 2 |
Recycling organizations | 3 |
Service repair units | 2 |
Retailers | 2 |
Home appliance recyclers | 2 |
Ecological associations | 2 |
Consumer associations | 2 |
Lobby | 2 |
Ecomarking: EU ecomark | 5 |
Public and local administration | 4 |
-
the reference object analyzed appears worse in case of almost all the assessment criteria (except the price and usage time) than the competitive object 1,
-
the reference object shows slight differences as compared to the competitive object 2; the reference object refrigerant is more environment friendly and the object has more additional functions;
-
the biggest difference as compared to the competitive object 1 appears within the following criteria: the refrigerant, recyclability, noise, power consumption and the product weight.
-
elimination of the use of toxic compounds during the production (3.33%),
-
increased share of recyclable materials (4.36%),
-
disassembly time reduction (3.93%),
-
use of recycled materials (3.93%),
-
considering the whole life cycle during product design (4.52%),
-
restricted number of inseparable connections (3.74%),
-
providing spare parts availability (4.52%),
-
reduced power consumption at the usage stage (4.52%),
-
extending the warranty and usability periods (3.33%),
-
noise level reduction during operation (3.33%),
-
marking the materials (4.68%),
-
assuring usage compliant with environment protection requirements (3.33%),
-
following the policy of returning the used products (5.12%), reaching the levels of collection of obsolete products (4.28%).
1.5 Formulation of conclusions from the planning stage
2 Conceptual design
Ecodesign task | Variant description | Variant number |
---|---|---|
Power consumption reduction to 218 kWh/year | Replacement of the refrigerating unit with a more efficient one | Variant 1 |
Change of the number of refrigerating units | Variant 2 | |
Replacement of the refrigerant with a one of higher energetic efficiency | Variant 3 | |
Improvement of the refrigerator insulation | Variant 4 | |
Replacement of traditional electrical refrigerating units with magnetic ones | Variant 5 | |
Noise reduction to 38 dB (A) | Application of elements damping vibrations during the refrigerating unit’s operation | Variant 6 |
Replacement of traditional electrical refrigerating units with magnetic ones | Variant 5 | |
Replacement of the refrigerating unit with a more efficient one | Variant 1 | |
Change of the number of refrigerating units | Variant 2 | |
Improvement of the refrigerator insulation | Variant 4 | |
Restriction of toxic substances by 25% | Replacement of the refrigerant with a more environmental friendly one | Variant 3 |
Removal of the chloride paraphin inflammability reduction agents | Variant 7 | |
Reduction of disassembly time to 30 min | Reduction of the number of inseparable connections by 10% | Variant 8 |
Reduction of the amount of material by 5% | Variant 9 | |
Change of the number of refrigerating units | Variant 2 | |
Reduction of the product’s weight | Change of the number of refrigerating units | Variant 2 |
Reduction of the amount of material by 5% | Variant 9 | |
Restriction of the package weight | Variant 10 | |
Obtaining recyclability index on the level of 80% | Reduction of the amount of material by 5% | Variant 9 |
Replacement of the toxic index with a more environmental friendly one | Variant 3 |
Criterion | Toxic substances | Power consumption in operation | Noise | Disassembly | Product weight | Recyclability rate | Refrigerant |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type of characteristic/stimulant, destimulant, nominant/ | D | D | D | D | D | S | D |
Target/min, max | Min | Min | Min | Min | Min | Max | Min |
Unit | Number of toxic substances [number] | Power consumption [kwh/year] | Noise emission [db (a)] | Disassembly time [min] | kg | [%] | GWP |
Criterion’s significance coefficient | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Variant 1 | 4 | 230 | 39 | 60 | 80 | 72 | 20 |
Variant 2 | 3 | 218 | 38 | 40 | 70 | 70 | 20 |
Variant 3 | 3 | 230 | 41 | 60 | 77 | 72 | 0 |
Variant 4 | 3 | 220 | 39 | 50 | 80 | 75 | 20 |
Variant 5 | 4 | 230 | 38 | 55 | 80 | 75 | 20 |
Variant 6 | 4 | 252 | 38 | 65 | 82 | 75 | 20 |
Variant 7 | 2 | 252 | 41 | 60 | 77 | 70 | 20 |
Variant 8 | 4 | 252 | 41 | 30 | 76 | 70 | 20 |
Variant 9 | 4 | 252 | 41 | 38 | 74 | 80 | 20 |
Variant 10 | 4 | 252 | 41 | 60 | 74 | 72 | 20 |
Criterion’s input value (reference product) | 4 | 252 | 41 | 60 | 78 | 70 | 20 |
Criterion’s target value (ecodesign tasks) | 3 | 218 | 38 | 30 | 74 | 80 | 3 |
Variant | SDM (with weighting) | SDM (without weighting) |
---|---|---|
Variant 1 | 0.022 | 0.29 |
Variant 2 | 0.015 | 0.19 |
Variant 3 | 0.008 | 0.14 |
Variant 4 | 0.015 | 0.21 |
Variant 5 | 0.021 | 0.27 |
Variant 6 | 0.025 | 0.32 |
Variant 7 | 0.028 | 0.31 |
Variant 8 | 0.028 | 0.23 |
Variant 9 | 0.026 | 0.23 |
Variant 10 | 0.027 | 0.30 |
-
the extent of fulfillment of the particular criteria—the closer was a variant to the target value the better,
-
the number of criteria met—the better a given variant the more criteria will be met thanks to its fulfillment.
3 The detailed design
-
The replacement of the R600a refrigerant (isobutane) with RC270 (cyclopropane),
-
the replacement of the PUR insulation material with its variety (PIR), characterized with a lower heat conductivity index.
4 Tests
Stage | Production (%) | Usage (%) | Recycling (%) | Whole life cycle (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic version | Environmental indicator [Pt] | 52.09 (0.00) | 148.01 (0.00) | −14.80 (0.00) | 185.30 (0.00) |
Variant 2 | 41.58 (↓20.18) | 128.49 (↓13.19) | −13.43 (↑9.26) | 156.64 (↓15.47) | |
Variant 3 | 51.81 (↓0.54) | 134.73 (↓8.97) | −17.75 (↓19.93) | 168.79 (↓8.91) | |
Variant 4 | 52.07 (↓0.04) | 136.21 (↓7.97) | −14.80 (↓0.00) | 173.48 (↓6.38) | |
Basic version | Economic indicator [PLN] | 644.00 (0.00) | 1,186.35 (0.00) | 60.00 (0.00) | 1,890.35 (0.00) |
Variant 2 | 635.00 (↓1.40) | 1,002.75 (↓15.48) | 53.00 (↓11.67) | 1,690.75 (↓10.56) | |
Variant 3 | 675.00 (↑4.81) | 1,112.15 (↓6.25) | 55.00 (↓8.33) | 1,842.15 (↓2.55) | |
Variant 4 | 660.00 (↑2.48) | 1,078.35 (↓9.10) | 57.00 (↓5.00) | 1,795.35 (↓5.00) |