1

Design Discipline: Product Design Project name: ‘Zero Emissions Furniture’ A research project aimed at reducing harmful emissions from British furniture manufacturers Pod Creator(s): Steven Smith, Brighton University, Department of Engineering. E-mail address:

skipper.smith@breathemail.com

Key words: Who might use this pod? Highlight one or more • Teachers • Practitioners • Students • Industry • Policy Makers Specify educational level, design field, etc. Product Design Description: This pod features some of the results of a DTI project carried out over the last two years. The project examined some of the ways in which design can help reduce the environmental impact of furniture production. The footprint of five existing products was carefully measured using Sima Pro software. These products were then redesigned and the impact recalibrated. The outcomes and lessons learnt from one of the five are recorded in this Pod. How to use this pod: The pod can be used as a reference by designers and

manufacturers of similar products Additional resources needed to use this pod: DEEDS core principles that this pod addresses: It also addresses:

Core content: Introduction

The Company Ness is a British company based in Croxdale just South of Durham.

Established in 1945 by Fredrick Corner, Ness designs and manufactures contract quality desks, seating, tables, storage and screens. They employ more than 180 people at two factories, which have over 15,000sq metres of joinery, upholstery, coating and distribution.

The management are committed to the care of the environment and the prevention of pollution. The organisation operates processes, which are prescribed under the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 1, and observes the requirements laid down by Durham City Council and the Environment Agency. Ness has BS EN ISO 14001 registration Certificate No. EMS 74985.

The Project The subject of the redesign was Discus, a bench seat widely used in public waiting areas in supermarkets and retail outlets.

Ness’ design team, headed by Adrian Gould, carried out the design work. Elizabeth Manzanares of Brighton University carried out Life Cycle Analysis of the existing product and the redesigned product.

The scope of the project included product materials, longevity and fitness for purpose, but not the energy used during manufacture or delivery (this information was too variable and imprecise to compare usefully).

The Existing Product - Description Description Discus comprises of individual seat and back units, which are fixed to beams that vary in length to accommodate two, three or four seats. The seats can be interspersed with tables and optional armrests are also available on request.

The units can either be freestanding or fixed to the floor.

Materials and Manufacture The structural elements of the seat and back are made from round ERW tubular steel. Beams are either round or triangular steel tube. They are available with either a powder coated or polished chrome finish.

Discus seat and back units can be supplied in one of three alternative materials: upholstered with foam and fabric, polished plywood or perforated steel mesh for a more durable application. Tables are 25mm MDF with a laminated surface. The soft-topped arm is moulded in polyurethane. The Existing Product - Image

The Existing Product – Environmental Analysis

COMPONENT

MATERIAL

QUANTITY

KG

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

BEAM

60mm ERW steel tube

N/A

19

29.08

SEAT & BACK FRAME

25mm steel tube

N/A

in figure above

in figure above

SEAT & BACK PADS

pressed steel sheet

N/A

in figure above

in figure above

FIXING BRACKETS

sheet steel

N/A

in figure above

in figure above

ARM TUBE

25mm ERW steel tube

N/A

in figure above

in figure above

ARM PAD

self skinning PU foam

N/A

N/A

N/A

FEET

Aluminium

N/A

2

16.65

FIXINGS

N/A

N/A

N/A

FINISH/PAINT

PUR (AC lacquer)

N/A

N/A

N/A

TOTAL

45.73

The Redesigned Product - Description

Description The new design is a linear bench, rather than individual seat units. The bench can be offered in a variety of lengths.

Materials and Manufacture The seat and back are pressed from constructional beech veneers, faced with a choice of face veneers. These panels can also be upholstered with foam and fabric if required.

The end frames are fabricated from flat-sided oval tube 25 X 15 mm. The tubes are bent, welded and dressed before being finished with either powder coated polyester or chrome. The Redesigned Product - Image

The Redesigned Product – Environmental Analysis Conclusions This redesign project shows just how effective intelligent Product Design can be when used as a tool to help reduce emissions. In particular, it clearly demonstrates the benefit of starting with a clean slate as opposed to modifying an existing product. Ness have used this opportunity to develop a new product that is not only environmentally sounder, it

is also sleeker, more user friendly and cheaper. It is

COMPONENT

MATERIAL

QUANTITY

KG

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

END FRAME

25 X 15 mm ERW steel tube

N/A

6

9.18

BACK BOARD

12 mm pressed beech laminate

N/A

3.8

-10.56

SEAT BOARD

12 mm pressed beech laminate

N/A

7.3

in figure above

CROSS RAILS

15 X 15 mm steel channel

N/A

N/A

N/A

FEET

ABS

N/A

N/A

N/A

FIXINGS

high tensile M8 bolts

N/A

in figure above

in figure above

FINISH/PAINT

powder coated nylon

4

N/A

N/A

TOTAL

-1.38

Cradle Impact Parameters

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.41

0.51

0.19

0.28

0.18

0.50

0.39 0.400.47

-0.03

abiotic depletion global w arming

(GWP100)

ozone layer

depletion (ODP)

human toxicity fresh w ater

aquatic ecotox.

marine aquatic

ecotoxicity

terrestrial

ecotoxicity

photochemical

oxidation

acidif ication eutrophication

original redesign

better for the environment (reduced emissions), better for the company (improved sales) and better for the user (a more comfortable, versatile and attractive product). This has all been made possible by breaking with the convention of ‘beam seating’ that has been an industry standard for the last thirty years or so. The ‘beam seating’ principle is simple: individual seat units are mass produced and stocked, then fitted to beams of various lengths to suit individual customer orders. Logistically, it makes good sense – it combines versatility and quick response times. However, environmentally, it is not so clever as the beam has to be specified to withstand the maximum possible number of seats (in some cases, this will be up to five). Typically, however there will only be two or three seats needed. For this reason, the configuration on page 2.1 looks vastly over engineered – visually clumsy and environmentally wasteful: a sledgehammer to crack a nut. By contrast, the new design is slender and structurally efficient. The shapes that have been pressed into the laminated seat and back maximise stiffness with the minimum material thickness. Using timber for these structural components also helps reduce the product’s carbon footprint as timber is renewable and steel is not. The oval section of the end frame has been specified to achieve the greatest possible strength whilst presenting the slimmest possible profile from the front view.

Comparison tables

The Cradle impact categories are compared for both original and redesign chairs. The data is relative to the

original with categories normalized to unity. The environmental impact of the all metal original chair, principally from steel, is wholly dominant in every aspect. From material inputs alone, the redesign chair has improved all cradle impact categories to better than 50%. Disposal calculations assumed UK data on waste management of metals of 75% recycling and 25% landfill; for recycling of Al, the avoided product is virgin Al while for steel, it is iron; and for wood of 72% landfill, 9% municipal waste incinerator (MWI) with energy recovery, 19% recycle. Total is the sum of Cradle and Disposal values. The total is the measure of the overall material environmental impact.

Total Material Impact Category

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.18

1.00

0.420.37

0.500.57

0.99

-0.33

abiotic depletion global w arming

(GWP100)

ozone layer

depletion (ODP)

human toxicity fresh w ater

aquatic ecotox.

marine aquatic

ecotoxicity

terrestrial

ecotoxicity

photochemical

oxidation

acidif ication eutrophication

Original Redesign

Wood offers the benefit of carbon sequestration i.e. growing trees extract atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which through the process of photosynthesis is converted into carbohydrate to support structural growth. Primary wood is carbon neutral but processing it to make plywood can incur use of resins and these have a positive GWP however the energy used in manufacturing plywood consumes energy sourced from wood products thus production itself yields a negative GWP in the Cradle. The Total material (=cradle+disposal) impact categories are compared for both chairs. The data is relative to the original with categories normalized to unity as above in the Cradle calculation. The relative impacts for the total due to the all metal are better than comparison based on input Cradle data. For the redesign chair about 39% of the employed material is allocated to recycling at the EOL compared to 75% of the material in the original chair. The high recycling allocation of metal is favourable. The disposal scenario for wood products can be improved in the future with new ecological directives to recycling. The end-of-life (EOL) disposal of the employed materials is critically important. Recycling with its avoided material options is the most favourable disposal route. A best practice benchmark must include design for ease of dis-

assembly to constituent parts for replacement and end-of-life disposal. Climate Change Comparison of Cradle climate change indicator or GWP is predominantly from direct CO2 emission from energy usage in manufacturing in an electric arc furnace for steel and joiner for wood. The

allocation for plywood production is that wood waste from the joiner’s shop dedicated for an industrial utilisation and use for commercial or domestic heating is considered as by-product. They do not bear emissions or resource requirements except the negative CO2 emission

Image details / description: N/A

Copyright / Creative Commons licence: N/A

Comments (strengths, weaknesses, envisaged development of Pod content) The challenge for this website is to take a lot of very dense, detailed text and information and put it into a form that is easily grasped and understood by passing traffic. (And much of that traffic will consist of designers, that is, people energized and motivated by primarily visual stimuli.) This requires the specialist skills of a very accomplished web designer. The danger of uploading information indiscriminately, without the intervention of a website architect is that stuff will just get dumped: cut and pasted from reports and lesson plans n a way that does not engage or draw visitors in. To present each Pod in a way that does it justice and maximizes its effectiveness will take considerable time and effort, I think