Environmental Impact of Lifts

Dr. Ana-Maria Lorente Lafuente1, Dr. José Luis Núñez Bruis2

1
Germany1, [email protected]
2
Spain, Escuela de Ingeniería y Arquitectura (EINA). Universidad de Zaragoza.

Keywords: lift, LCA, life cycle assessment, energy consuming product, environmental impact.

Abstract. Lifts are active products, that is, they consume resources to fulfil their function. For this
reason, their environmental impact will last their whole lifetime. In this type of product, the usage
phase has traditionally been assumed to be the most relevant one from an environmental point of
view. Unlike other products fulfilling the same transport function, lifts are inherently linked to the
medium in which they are installed. Thus, they are tailored design to fit the needs of the population of
the building where they will be operating. The fact that lifts are multi-user products conditions their
performance and makes it difficult to estimate their usage, but the ISO 25745-2 current draft (for
public comment) [1] provides with a quite accurate simplified method based on figures obtained from
thousands of simulations. If the boundaries of the analysis are extended to cover its complete useful
life down to its disposal, the results show that the usage phase is not necessarily the most relevant in
all usage categories. In this paper, an overview of the distribution of the environmental impact of lifts
is presented. The results are analysed to determine what the key factors are. Finally, indications on
how to interpret the environmental data provided by a lift supplier are given to allow architects and
lift consultants the selection of the most environmental friendly lifts during the building design phase.

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is life cycle assessment (LCA)?
A Life Cycle Assessment 'LCA' (also known as life cycle analysis, eco-balance or
cradle-to-grave-analysis) [2] consists of the investigation and valuation of the environmental impacts
of a given product system during its useful life. This assessment is based on the input-output analysis
of physical flows (materials, energy, emissions, etc.) and their relationships at all stages of this life
cycle, from the raw materials phase to the transport of the final product. Once delivered to the
customer, Energy-using- (EUPs) or energy related products (ERPs) [3] will, because of their nature,
cause further environmental burdens or will have an influence on the impact of other product systems
until the end of their estimated life period. Finally, environmental flows will be interchanged with the
environment during the product disposal, valorisation and/or recycling in the corresponding
treatment facilities. This holistic assessment approach, which allows detecting whether a design
change is actually shifting environmental burdens from one stage to the other within the product
supply chain, makes Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) the best tool for assessing the potential
environmental impacts of products currently available.
The LCA methodology is described in the Standards ISO 14040 [4] and 14044 [5] and is
complemented in technical reports [6,7] Additionally, ISO 14050 [8] defines most of the terminology
used in the two previously mentioned standards. All leading companies in the transport sector,
including all big lift manufacturers, are promoting sustainable production and consumption and use
the LCA methodology to assess their products from an environmental point of view already in the
development phase [10].

1
Current working Address: Institute of Technical Thermodynamics of the RWTH Aachen University.
Schinkelstraße 8, 52062 Aachen, Germany
 th
134 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies

1.2 Communication of environmental data

The above mentioned ISO standards are valid for the assessment of any product or service. For this
reason, they just describe the “principles and framework” [4] and the “requirements and guidelines”
[5] to apply the methodology and they leave many aspects undefined and therefore subject to the
choice of the practitioners. This flexibility implies that the results of two Life cycle impact
assessments (LCIAs) can only be compared if they are delivered with an extensive report detailing
how the assessment has been conducted and if this report has been critically reviewed. Nevertheless,
this is neither an efficient business to business, nor an effective business to customer communication
way. Instead, companies utilise environmental declarations [11], which can be of three different
types: Type I [12], Type II [13] and Type III [14]. Their degree of credibility and transparency varies
because the procedures to issue the labels and the schemas ruling them, also standardized, are
different. Whereas Type II is a self-declaration, type I and III are based on the life cycle approach and
shall/can be verified by third parties. Type III declarations, in contrast to type I give quantitative
information of the final (or intermediate) product based on a set of specific rules, requirements and
guidelines called Product Category Rules (PCRs). They are mainly used for business to business
communication and are for this reason primarily launched by industry initiative. The lift sector is
currently undergoing the development of these rules [15].

2 DEFINITION OF THE OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The lift sector is highly fragmented and its supply chain is long and complex. Some components and
sub-components manufacturing processes, logistic and installation works can be carried out by a
medium, small or micro company different than the one selling the lift. This aspect complicates the
issue of conducting a complete life cycle assessment, increasing the duration and difficulty of the data
collection process and the cost involved. Additionally, the fact that there are not two identical lift
products in the market, except if they are installed in the same building, makes it necessary to assess
each individual lift unit apart or to create a good database that can be used to extrapolate results.

2.1 Objectives
The purpose of this research was to define a method to conduct LCAs of lifts with the less possible
effort, but providing the most possible reliable results, thus allowing their publication and their use
for comparison of two competing lifts products over their entire life cycle. The development of the
method involved a first screening study, in which the constituting parts of the product system, as well
as the elementary flows that were important with view to the final results were identified. The
screening highlighted the relevance of the usage phase and lead to further investigation, the results of
which are contained in the ISO 25745-2 Standard [1]. After a sensitivity analysis, the study was later
completed to fill in the data gaps existing. Further details like product structure to be used,
background data for the assessment, information requirements regarding the product maintenance
and replacement, rules for the assessment of the use phase, end of life treatments and responsibilities
in the reporting can be found in [10].
The method suggested is valid for specific and model lifts and can be used both by complete lift
supplier/manufacturers and by any other actor of the supply chain: component manufacturers,
installers, maintainers etc. requested to supply information about their products or processes. It can be
applied to assess new and existing products and all technologies, including less energy efficient ones,
like for example hydraulics. These lifts may not beat the energy consumption values of electric lifts
competing with them for the same application, but they might be more advantageous in other phases
of their life cycle like product manufacturing, installation and maintenance (less demanding), or even
at the end of their life because they may have a higher reuse or recyclability rate, as suggested in some
studies from hydraulic lift manufacturers [20,21].
Environmental Impact of Lifts 135

2.2 Methodology
The LCAs were conducted in the four steps suggested by the standards: Goal and scope definition,
life Cycle Inventory analysis (LCI), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Interpretation. The
definition of the goal of the study is the first and most important step, because it is aligned with the
intended application of the results obtained and therefore conditions the methodology to be applied
and the degree of depth and rigour requested. In this section, the definition of the goal and scope will
be explained. Section 3 of this paper contains the results of the three remaining LCA phases.

2.2.1 Goal and scope definition

The methodology covered a “cradle to grave” analysis including all the life cycle phases directly
related to the product until its disposal and end of life treatment. The reinstatement of reused
components back in the in the same life cycle chain was excluded because of the lack of statistical
data. The use of recycled material was accounted in the input materials from the databases only in
those cases where the % of recycled material composition was known.

2.2.2 Functional unit

The main function of a lift is the vertical transportation of goods or passengers in buildings from floor
to floor, therefore the best lift for a certain application will be the one able to transport the amount of
passengers or loads in transit in the building during a certain period to their desired destination
causing the least possible environmental burdens. Considering this, possible functional units are:
Passenger.Floor, kg.Floor, Pkm (Passenger.km), kg.km.

2.2.3 Lift structure

For the inventory, the lift must be broken up into its major components. The information was obtained
from the software application used by the lift company collaborating in the study to configure the
product and from the ERP. These are in some cases linked.
The sum of the weights of the components inventoried matched with the theoretical weight of the lift.
The lift structure reflected the actual supply chain, so that the responsibility regarding the provision of
the inventory information was clear. In this way, double counting of parts can be avoided. In [10], a
proposal for a standardized lift structure that incorporates all possible lift components according to
their function and considers the economic flows in the sector is provided.

2.2.4 System limits

The system limits were established taking into account the influence that the lift suppliers have in the
environmental impact caused by their products. This responsibility included the usage and
maintenance phases, because the lift performance depends on the design and the quality standards
adopted for their components. Processes like building a production site, infrastructure, production of
manufacturing equipment and management personnel activities were left outside the boundaries
because of the lack of data and because they are not expected to have a significant influence in the
results used for comparison. Other data like the impact of manufacturing intermediate parts and
subcomponents or their transport were also left aside because of the impossibility of collecting
reliable information.

2.2.5 Processes of the Lift life cycle

The processes along the product supply chain can be classified as upstream, core or downstream
processes [16] depending on the responsibility that the company conducting the assessment has on
them. They can also be classified as foreground and background processes, depending on whether
there is direct access to environmental information or not. Following, the processes and information
on how they were considered in this study is given.
 th
136 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies

Upstream processes considered (The environmental background information was obtained from
environmental databases of LCA software):
- Production of raw materials (extraction and refining)
- Production of auxiliary materials (like those used for the manufacturing processes)
- Production of semi manufactured goods (not considered)
- Water supply
- Production of heat and electricity
- Transport
Core Processes: These are all relevant unit processes taking place within the organisation of the
product subject of assessment.
- Lift components material composition including packaging. Upstream data were used for the
inventory.
- Lift components manufacturing. Only the manufacturing processes of the first level suppliers, tier
1, were considered for the first study. Manufacturing processes of suppliers were excluded from
the second study. The treatments of wastes generated within the process were considered too.
- Production of parts and subcomponents. Data of components (like electric and electronic
equipment) are available in databases. Foreground data were not collected.
- Components assembly. This activity can be carried out at the components manufacturing site or
during the lift installation. Its environmental impact is however negligible.
- Lift components storage (intermediate storage of components). Only transport from first level
supplier to lift manufacturer considered. Intermediate transports or storage time not considered.
- Lift components distribution to the Building site2, (upstream data used for transport activities).
- Lift installation. Mainly impact of workers displacements. Its impact is however negligible.
Downstream Processes: These processes take place after the lift is sold and installed and are no
longer under the control of the manufacturing industry, but by the product owner.
- Lift use.
- Lift maintenance: Spare parts, use of consumables (e.g. lubricants), and displacement of lift
workers to the lift installation. The later was left outside the system boundaries in this study, but
should be considered when assessing different technologies.
- Lift modernisation. Excluded from the boundaries of an LCA because it depends on the user
decision and the information is therefore unknown to the LCA practitioner
- Lift dismantling.
- Lift disposal or end-of-life. Collection and transport of the complete lift to the end-of-life
treatment facilities and corresponding treatment. Conversion into recycled material was excluded.

3 LCA RESULTS, INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

As mentioned in 2.1, the purpose of the study was to identify the most significant aspects of the lift
product system with view to define a suitable LCA method that supported Product Category Rules.
This objective was achieved. Annex B of [10], indicates the degree of completeness of the lift
inventories used. As the results were not intended to be used in comparative assertions disclosed to
the public, no uncertainty analysis 3 was conducted. The results of the LCA were calculated for
different impact categories and eco-indicators. Most of the results presented in the following sections

2
This transport of the product to the consumer is a downstream process in the case of small goods.
3
Quantification of the uncertainty introduced into the results of the analysis due to the cumulative effects of
model imprecision, uncertainty of the inputs and the variability of the data.
Environmental Impact of Lifts 137

are expressed in units of Eco-Indicator 99 [17], because this end-point indicator aggregates different
environmental categories in a single value and makes it easier to see general tendencies. Although no
official critical review was arranged, the doctoral thesis in which this complete study has been
published was reviewed by several renowned international experts [10]. This section summarizes the
conclusions reached after the sensitivity analysis performed. These are the aspects, architects and lift
consultants need to pay attention to when interpreting the environmental data provided by a lift
supplier for selecting the most environmental friendly option for an application.

3.1 Lifts materials composition and manufacturing processes

Table 1 and Table 2 show the lift composition of a 630 kg geared traction lift in weight. The highest
percentage corresponds to metal parts, which are recyclable or contain recycled materials, however
the impact of electric and electronic components, which average for less than 2% in weight, represent
a much higher % of the total impact of the materials phase. For eco-indicators/impact categories that
consider more aspects than the consumption of fossil resources or global warming potential,
components like the control cabinet are among, or even the most relevant (see Table 3).

Table 1: Distribution by material Table 2: Distribution by functional group

Type of material % weight Components % weight

Ferrous Metals 85,72% Traction unit (Electric Driver) 6,02%
Non Ferrous Metals 2,10% Anti-fall safety devices 1,18%
Polymers 1,52% Controller cabinet 2,32%
Elastomers 0,12% Components of the elect. installation 2,28%
Gases and fluids 0,05% Landing doors 10,54%
Modified organic natural materials 0,34% Car doors 1,58%
Paintings and superficial Coatings 0,30% Car frame (sling) 7,72%
Electronic components 1,93% Counterweight frame (sling) 23,10%
Inorganic materials 0,30% Car 8,12%
Adhesives 0,04% Car guide rails 17,56%
Packaging 7,58% Counterweight guide rails 10,23%
Suspension and compensation ropes 1,52%
Fixing elements 0,18%
Packaging 7,59%
Well components 0,05%
 th
138 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies

Table 3: Environmental impacts of the materials phase depending on the functional group
Photochemi
EcoIndic Global Ozone Acidificati Eutrophica
cal Ozone
ator 99 Warming Depletion on tion
Creation
(E/E) Potential Potential Potential Potential
Potential
Pts % Kg CO2 -eq % Kg CFC- 11-eq % Kg SO2 -eq % Kg PO4-eq % Kg C2H4-eq %
GROUP 1 Traction Unit (Electric Driver) 118,77 12,25% 553,35 8,09% 5,23E-05 9,74% 4,25 11,97% 3,47 13,45% 3,12E-01 8,97%
GROUP 2 Overspeed Governor 4,88 0,50% 58,90 0,86% 2,54E-06 0,47% 0,22 0,62% 0,12 0,47% 3,30E-02 0,95%
GROUP 3 Controller cabinet 155,28 16,01% 544,49 7,96% 4,86E-05 9,06% 4,84 13,63% 5,70 22,13% 2,41E-01 6,93%
GROUP 4 Travelling cables 146,30 15,09% 225,87 3,30% 1,14E-05 2,12% 4,36 12,26% 4,57 17,76% 1,94E-01 5,58%
GROUP 5 Car operator panel 23,33 2,41% 74,15 1,08% 6,53E-06 1,22% 0,59 1,67% 0,53 2,07% 3,17E-02 0,91%
Landing operator panel /
GROUP 6 Call indicator board 4,80 0,50% 26,02 0,38% 2,19E-06 0,41% 0,15 0,42% 0,10 0,37% 8,68E-03 0,25%
GROUP 7 Door front/frame/liner (sheets) 3,82 0,39% 13,54 0,20% 9,24E-07 0,17% 0,07 0,20% 0,02 0,10% 4,23E-03 0,12%
GROUP 8 Landing Doors 72,07 7,43% 884,20 12,93% 1,54E-04 28,73% 3,44 9,67% 1,79 6,94% 4,31E-01 12,41%
GROUP 9 Doors operators 36,47 3,76% 256,65 3,75% 2,20E-05 4,09% 1,30 3,66% 1,39 5,41% 1,02E-01 2,94%
GROUP 10 Car doors 34,85 3,59% 123,44 1,80% 8,25E-06 1,54% 0,64 1,80% 0,22 0,87% 3,84E-02 1,11%
Car Frame + Counterweight frame +
Fixing Parts + Bed Plate + Well
GROUP 11 components 72,74 7,50% 862,34 12,61% 4,31E-05 8,04% 3,14 8,85% 1,70 6,58% 4,52E-01 13,02%
GROUP 12 Car 108,44 11,18% 954,07 13,95% 6,89E-05 12,84% 4,44 12,48% 1,59 6,18% 4,09E-01 11,79%
GROUP 13 Guide Rails 148,17 15,28% 1.856,23 27,14% 8,97E-05 16,71% 6,40 18,00% 3,92 15,24% 1,02E+00 29,27%
Mechanical parts (Accessories +
GROUP 14 Fixing Parts + Other Components) 18,26 1,88% 193,82 2,83% 1,14E-05 2,12% 0,73 2,04% 0,31 1,21% 1,04E-01 2,99%
GROUP 15 Suspension Ropes 12,19 1,26% 134,08 1,96% 7,53E-06 1,40% 0,51 1,44% 0,12 0,46% 7,21E-02 2,08%
GROUP 16 Governor Ropes 0,91 0,09% 10,00 0,15% 5,62E-07 0,10% 0,04 0,11% 0,01 0,03% 5,38E-03 0,16%
GROUP 17 Counterweigh Weights 8,46 0,87% 69,32 1,01% 6,71E-06 1,25% 0,43 1,20% 0,19 0,73% 1,74E-02 0,50%
Total 969,75 6.840,45 5,37E-04 35,54 25,76 3,47

Although the completeness of the inventory data regarding the manufacturing processes is far from
being ideal, the screening studies showed that their ecological relevance is low (see Figure 1).
 Attention shall be paid to the fact that electronic components introduced to improve the lift
performance during the usage phase may significantly worsen the materials phase.
 The cut-off rules applied for the inventory shall be declared by the practitioner to avoid that
materials with a high environmental relevance be excluded.

3.2 Relevance of the usage phase

This is the most critical phase in the LCA of a lift because of the difficulty to predict it. The results are
therefore highly sensitive to the method selected for the estimation of the energy consumption and the
assumptions made regarding the usage of the equipment, which determine the time distribution of the
running and non-running periods. Figure 1 shows the results of the complete LCA of one of the lifts
described in Annex B of [10]. The different columns show the environmental impact of the lift system
during its whole life (estimated as 20 years) measured in units of Eco-indicator 99 for the five usage
categories defined in VDI 4701-Part 1 [18] and the 5 first categories of ISO 25745-2 [1]. Whereas
VDI usage categories are based on building characteristics that may be ambiguous and in the practical
application cause that two different usage categories can be possible for the same application, ISO
25745-2 [1] defines the usage categories according to the daily number of starts (a parameter, which
is already used in the sector as a measure of the intensity of travel for selecting the best equipment)
and gives average values, based on thousands of simulations, for the distance travelled, the weight
transported and the time spent in the different operational modes.
The German guideline was before ISO 25745-2 the only document providing usage tables with data
of average time spent by the lift in the different operating conditions and has been, for this reason, the
reference document used by LCA practitioners in the lift industry till now. Although VDI is a good
guideline for comparison of products, its approach is not adequate for LCA because it considers the
ISO 25745-1 reference cycle (a lift travelling with rated load over the full building height). Thus, if
these data (load and distance) are multiplied by the number of starts, it will result in the lift travelling
longer and carrying a higher load than it actually does. This might not have a high impact in the
Environmental Impact of Lifts 139

average energy consumption (in some cases; in others it does), but when calculating the
environmental performance of the lift system per functional unit Pkm (see 2.2.2), the higher
denominator will reduce the environmental impact. Another flaw of VDI-Part 1 is that energy
consumption in idle is not considered (Part 2 [19] does), what results in an important underestimation
of the total standing energy consumption (idle power is always higher than standby) for the highest
usage categories, as in these cases the lift has not time to switch into standby5min (5 minutes have
elapsed since the last trip) during the normal operation period [9,10].
As per the results shown in Figure 1, the environmental impact associated to the use phase of this lift
only exceeds the impact of the lift materials in categories 3 (for VDI), 4 and 5, while it is lower for
categories 1, 2 and 3 (for ISO). Both for the VDI and ISO usage categories, the energy consumption
travelling generates a greater environmental impact than the standby phase in categories 3, 4 and 5,
but not in the low demand case. It is important to remark here, that due to the absence of measured
data, the same value has been used for the idle and standby5min power and that this lift does not have a
further saving mode (standby30min). The spare parts have been estimated according to the preventive
maintenance plan. Thus, the conclusions for Usage category 3 could change if the actual idle power
and more accurate data of the spare parts were considered. In Table 4, the results of Figure 1 are
grouped in the two most relevant aspects: Lift composition (Materials + spare parts) and usage
(aggregating running, idle = Standby5min and Standby5min). The Nr. of starts for the VDI usage
categories have been obtained from the travelling time given in the tables, considering that each cycle
is the ISO 25745-1 ref cycle (full rise).

Distribution of environmental Impacts

4500
End of Life
(Useful life: 20 years)
4000 Maintenance
Use - Travel
3500
Points Eco Indicator 99 (E/E)

Use - Stand By
Distribution
3000
Manufacture
2500 Purchase
Materials
2000

1500

1000

500

0
VDI ISO VDI ISO VDI ISO VDI ISO VDI ISO
UC 1 UC 1 UC 2 UC 2 UC 3 UC 3 UC 4 UC 4 UC 5 UC 5

Figure 1: Environmental Impact results 630 Kg gearless traction based on usage of the facility
 th
140 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies

Table 4: Impacts in different life cycle phases (grouped). Travelling times and Nr. of Starts

Eco Indicator 99 (E/E)

Usage Cat. 1 2 3 4 5
Method VDI ISO VDI ISO VDI ISO VDI ISO VDI ISO4
Materials +
70,48% 73,00% 64,53% 70,05% 50,36% 61,75% 37,89% 52,44% 25,33% 45,56%
Spare parts
Use (Travel +
22,55% 19,79% 29,09% 23,02% 44,66% 32,14% 58,37% 42,38% 72,16% 49,93%
Standby)
Manufacture 3,52% 3,65% 3,23% 3,50% 2,52% 3,09% 1,89% 2,62% 1,27% 2,28%
Purchase 1,84% 1,90% 1,68% 1,82% 1,31% 1,61% 0,99% 1,37% 0,66% 1,19%
Distribution 1,61% 1,66% 1,47% 1,60% 1,15% 1,41% 0,86% 1,19% 0,58% 1,04%
End of Life 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Travel time (h) 0,20 0,09 0,50 0,22 1,50 0,66 3,00 1,32 6,00 1,98
Standby time (h) 23,80 23,91 23,50 23,78 22,50 23,34 21,00 22,68 18,00 22,02

Starts/day 77 192 576 1152 2304

 These results show that, unlike often believed in the lift industry, the usage phase is not always the
most relevant, in line with some statements made by some hydraulic lift manufacturers [20] and [21].
 The estimation of spare parts and preventive maintenance operations (which will affect the
transportation of lift workers) shall be in accordance with the different categories of usage, as the life
of the components depends on the lift activity (Nr. of starts) and lift technology considered.
Table 5 shows the difference between running and non-running times considered by VDI-1 and ISO
25745-2, which are the source of the big differences in the highest usage categories.

Table 5: Time spent travelling and standing (ISO includes idle, Stby5min and Stby30min)

Daily travel time Daily Standby time

7
6
20
5
VDI 15
4
hours

hours

ISO VDI
3 ISO
10
2
1 5
0
0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Usage Categories Usage Categories

3.3 Influence of the energy mix

The environmental impact of the different power generation technologies (hydropower, nuclear, coal,
gas and other fuels, combined cycle, wind, solar, cogeneration, biomass, bio-fuels, etc.) vary
substantially. Eco-Indicator 99, for example, strongly penalizes electricity generation technologies

4
ISO 25745-2 considers a 6th usage category not represented in the graph to be coherent with VDI.
Environmental Impact of Lifts 141

which are very natural resource-intensive and produce air emissions, but ignores the high risk of a
worst case scenario and the existence of waste for which treatment is not yet possible, in the case of
nuclear energy. Thus, countries or companies using a higher proportion of renewable or clean
production technologies will reduce the impact generated by their energy-consuming processes and
products. In the same way, lifts installed in countries with a good energy mix will be more
environmentally friendly. Figure 2 below shows possible environmental impact scenarios for a
traction lift installed in different countries. The energy mix assumed corresponds to year 2008.

Environmental Impact depending on the Country mix - Usage Category 3

3,250 Materials Purchase Manufacture

3,000 Distribution Maintenance End of Life
2,750 Use - Standby Use - Travel
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
Eco 99 E/E (Pt)

1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0

Figure 2: Environmental Impact results (630kg gearless traction) for the usage category 3,
installed in different countries

 The strong influence of the energy mix in the results of LCAs suggests that it might be reasonable
to consider the kWh as unit for assessment of energy consumption for lift comparison purposes. In
any case, LCA data for publication should clearly indicate what mix has been used for the assessment.
3.4 Maintenance phase: replacements and repairs
The results of the LCA are very sensitive to the amount of spare parts that, according to the estimation
of the lift designer will be consumed during the useful life of the product for ensuring a good
performance. This can be a deciding argument for selecting a certain lift technology
 The lift user shall be informed about the necessary preventive maintenance operations and
replacements necessary to guarantee the best product performance. These replacements shall be
accounted as material inputs for the LCA. The preventive maintenance operations will depend on the
lift usage and its expected life and may therefore differ between usage categories and technologies.

3.5 Modernisation
Modernisation operations are quite common in the lift sector. They increase the environmental
burden of the lifts components phase, making their contribution to the total impact become more
relevant. If the substitution implies a technological improvement which optimizes the energy
consumption, the use phase will also be affected.
 th
142 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies

 Although lift modernisations are excluded from life cycle assessments because they are not under
the control of the lift company selling the product and are not predictable; from an environmental
perspective it is advisable that the impact caused by the upgraded components be checked against the
environmental improvement achieved.

3.6 Lift logistics

The influence of logistic processes in the environmental impact is sensitive to changes related to the
lift supply chain (components set up) and to the transportation method selected (the environmental
impact of transporting 1 ton of material along 1 km is very different depending on whether the
product travels by rail, truck, ship or a cargo plane). For this reason, logistics are usually only
analysed in LCAs for companies’ internal use [10]. In the case of LCAs for public assertions, it is
common to use average logistic values. Obviously, the distribution phase will be more relevant for
companies serving international markets.

3.7 Influence of end of life treatments

As explained before, at the time of conducting the first study no detailed information about the lift
waste management was available, for which reason it was estimated that the lift was disposed in the
landfill. However, this seems not reasonable, as by judicious management of recyclable materials a
significant improvement in the environmental performance of the components can be achieved. In
general, the end of life phase is very sensitive to the end of life scenario assumed; i.e., to whether
materials are reused, recovered or recycled and to which phase of the life cycle these impacts are
allocated. In the first study, a possible configuration of municipal waste management was modelled in
Simapro [22]. Environmental credits were given to all recycled materials obtained. This resulted in a
reduction of 20% of the environmental impact. In the second study, the recyclability of the lift was
analysed following the standards of the rail industry [23]. The results revealed that in a lift, whose
components could be 100% disassembled, 99% (weight) of the materials could be recycled, 0,5 %
valorised (for energy recovery) and approximately other 0,5% would be waste.
 In order to improve the lifts end of life management, lift owners should be provided with
indications regarding how to conduct the dismantling operations and with information about the best
possible treatment options for each component and their potential recycling and recovery rate.

3.8 Influence of the estimated useful life

Being the lift a EuP (Energy using Product), the duration of its useful life will determine the amount
of energy consumed and maintenance operations necessary. There is currently no consensus in the lift
sector about an average useful life of lifts, mainly because of the continuous modernisations works
that are undertaken to improve their performance. It would be interesting to count with some statistics
from the sector. Till then, the lift user shall pay attention to the useful life guaranteed by the lift
manufacturer and estimated in the LCA. A reduction of the useful life increases the relevance of the
materials phase whereas the opposite decreases it. The estimation of spare parts and maintenance
operations shall be recalculated accordingly.
 The life expected for the lift and/or their components plays a decisive role in the final
environmental impact of the lift. Especially in the materials phase, but indirectly affecting also the
usage phase (maintenance and energy consumption). Wear of the installation may lead to higher
consumption. Better quality may imply lower environmental impact.
3.9 Influence of data bases used
For all background processes, the selection of the databases and processes of the databases is of
decisive relevance, because not all of them have the same level of quality and accuracy.
Environmental Impact of Lifts 143

 Common databases for background data should be provided by the lift industry to enhance the
transparency with view to comparison.

3.10 Influence of the environmental categories considered or the eco-indicators used

The environmental impact categories considered for the assessment can change the distribution of
environmental loads attributable to the different components or phases of the life cycle. Some
materials or processes, which are not responsible for a high amount of emissions, can however cause
other damages to the health. For this reason, it is always recommended to use more than one
environmental categories and assessment methods for a right interpretation of the results of an LCA.
 The uncertainty of the
results associated to the databases, environmental categories considered or
assessment methods employed can be avoided if these are fixed in the Product Category rules.

3.11 Important remarks

An environmental declaration can be used to select the best lift product or the best lift supplier,
installer, etc., for a particular application, where more technologies and/or manufacturers are
competing. In this case, the LCA practitioner shall use all actual data available directly applicable to
the particular case considered: from suppliers, manufacturing processes, energy mix in the production
facilities, etc., as well as the circumstances of the location where the product will be used. Generic
data should only be used when some of this information is not available, unless otherwise stated.
However, when the results of a LCA are used in another context, for example in the design phase of a
model lift or to check what technology (hydraulic/electrical, regenerative/non-regenerative, etc.) is
more suitable for a certain application (big/small residential or office buildings, hospitals, etc.),
generic data shall be preferably used for the assessment, so as to minimise the risk that aspects not
related to the technology affect the results.
Some examples of foreground data which can make a significant difference in the results are:
- Company specific energy mix used in the manufacturing phase.
- Use of fresh water resources.
- information on local/site-specific impacts (acidification, eutrophication and biodiversity),
- self-production of components or concentration of suppliers customers etc., affecting logistic data
- the use of materials or processes not included in common databases
- the use different secondary materials with respect to the ones listed in in common databases
- much higher or much lower environmental impact than reported in background databases due to
the application of green purchasing policies (environmental friendly suppliers),
- a better end of life treatment
In general, better environmental performance than average of the sector or the figures given in a
standard, guideline or future Product category rules.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER WORK

LCA Practitioners and users are often concerned about the quality of the environmental results
provided in public assertions. The absence of information regarding the application of the LCA
methodology, the imprecision of the system boundaries used in the analysis, the use of background
data from different sources, different assessment methods or indicators, etc. cause that equally
credible analyses can produce qualitatively different results, thus leading to varying interpretations.
This undermines the reliability of environmental assessments from a scientific point of view, and
renders them ill-suited for eco-labelling. In this paper, the LCA results of an example lift have been
used to illustrate what the key aspects to be considered in the assessment are, but as already suggested
 th
144 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies

in [10], a harmonisation process is needed in the lift industry. Some efforts have already started. It is
important, that all relevant stakeholders are involved in the consultation phase of the Product category
rules that are been developed [15].

5 LITERATURE REFERENCES
1. ISO/DIS 25745-2: 2013 Energy performance of lifts, escalators and moving walks Part 2:
Energy calculation and classification for lifts (elevators)
2. "Defining Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)." US Environmental Protection Agency. 17 October
2010. Web (http://www.gdrc.org/uem/lca/lca-define.html)
3. DIRECTIVE 2009/125/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of Eco design
requirements for energy-related products (recast)
4. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and
framework
5. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and
guidelines
6. ISO/TR 14047:2003 Environmental management -- Life cycle impact assessment --
Examples of application of ISO 14042
7. ISO/TR 14049:2000 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Examples of
application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis
8. ISO 14050:2009. Environmental management – Vocabulary
9. Lorente, A-M., Núñez, J.L. & Barney, G.C. - Energy Models for Lifts: Determination of
average car load, average travel distance and standby/running time ratios. 2nd Symposium
on Lift and Escalator Technology 2012.
10. Lorente Lafuente, A-M, doctorate thesis deposited at EINA, University of Zaragoza entitled:
Life Cycle Analysis and Energy Modelling of Lifts. September 2013
11. ISO 14020:2000 Environmental labels and declarations -- General principles
12. ISO 14024:1999 Environmental labels and declarations -- Type I environmental labelling --
Principles and procedures
13. ISO 14021:1999 Environmental labels and declarations -- Self-declared environmental claims
(Type II environmental labelling)
14. ISO 14025:2006 Environmental labels and declarations -- Type III environmental
declarations -- Principles and procedures
15. http://www.environdec.com/en/PCR/Detail/?Pcr=9211#.U-87TWNz89Q
16. The International EPD cooperation (IEC). Supporting Annexes for environmental product
declarations, EPD. Version 1.0 dated 2008-02-29
17. Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods.
Ecoinvent Report 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories Data v2.0 (2007)
18. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure - VDI Guideline: VDI 4707 Blatt 1, Aufzüge – Energieeffizienz.
2009
19. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure - VDI Guideline: VDI 4707 Blatt 2, Lifts - Energy efficiency -
Components. 2012
20. Spyropoulos, N., Asvestopoulos, L., Hydraulic vs. Traction Lifts: Environmental
Friendliness and Quality of Service to the User. Elevcon 2008
21. Jost C., Analysis of the ecological footprint of different drive systems for lifts.
http://www.lift-journal.de
22. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro
23. ISO 22628:2002. Road vehicles - Recyclability and recoverability. Calculation method
Environmental Impact of Lifts 145

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The main author would like to thank ITA5 (especially its former Technical Director Dr. José Luis
Pelegay Quintana) for appointing her as responsible to implement the LCA and Eco-design research
line of the Institute and for the opportunity to manage, among others, the Project Life cycle analysis
and energy consumption of lifts that was the seed for her PhD6. A special thanks to Dr. Gina Barney,
Doctoral Thesis co-director, together with Dr. Nuñez, for her valuable contributions to this topic too.
Both authors wish to express their most sincere thanks to the company MP Lifts7 for financing and
supporting the data collection process for the Life Cycle Inventories and for the energy
measurements.

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS
Dr. Ana Mª Lorente Lafuente has been an Industrial Engineer since 1994 and holds a PhD. in
Mechanical engineering from the University of Zaragoza since 2013. She is member of the
ISO/TC178/WG10 since 2009 representing AENOR as technical expert. After twelve years of
professional activity in the private sector, which included the lift company Wittur A.G, the author
joined the department for development of mechatronic products of ITA in 2006. In 2011 the author
moved to Germany and is currently working at the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics of RWTH
Aachen University (Germany) with a scholarship from the Institute for Advanced Sustainability
Studies in Potsdam.
Dr. José Luis Núñez Bruis is Dr. Mechanical engineer since 2003, researcher at ITA since 1999 and
works as associate professor in the department of Mechanical Engineering at the School of
Engineering and Architecture (EINA) of Universidad de Zaragoza since 2006.

5
http://www.ita.es/
6
Life Cycle Analysis and Energy Modelling of Lifts. Including.
 New methodological approach for the assessment of the lifts usage phase based on the influence of traffic
 Proposed summary tables for regulatory use fitting existing building classification systems
 Product Category Rules proposal for conducting comparable LCAs and issue of Type III environmental
Statements
7
http://www.mplifts.com/portal/web/guest/inicio
 th
146 4 Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies