Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:25:41.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of modularity as a circular design strategy on materials use for smart mobile devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2019

Karsten Schischke ,
Marina Proske ,
Nils F. Nissen  and
Martin Schneider-Ramelow
Karsten Schischke*
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IZM—Department Environmental and Reliability Engineering, Berlin 13355, Germany
Marina Proske
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IZM—Department Environmental and Reliability Engineering, Berlin 13355, Germany; and Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin 13355, Germany
Nils F. Nissen
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IZM—Department Environmental and Reliability Engineering, Berlin 13355, Germany
Martin Schneider-Ramelow
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IZM, Berlin 13355, Germany; and Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin 13355, Germany
*
a)Address all correspondence to Karsten Schischke at [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

There is a huge variety of modular product designs for smartphones (concept studies, prototypes, products on the market), and a similarly high variety of circular economy aspects related to these different design approaches. Modularity requires initially more material input but pays off as the consumer is embracing the possibilities of modularity. Key materials for modularity features are gold, beryllium, and neodymium, etc.

On the example of smartphones modularity as a strategy for circular design is analyzed in detail. Modularity of products is a design trend, which is supposed to facilitate reparability, recyclability, and/or upgradeability. However, modularity requires some design changes. The most evident design change is the need for connectors to provide mechanical and electrical contact between individual modules. Depending on the nature and use scenario of a connector reliability, robustness, wear resistance, and non-reactive surfaces are required. The paper explains different modularity approaches for smartphones, some of these being already available in the market, others are still in a conceptual phase. Analyzing technologies for modularity leads to a group of “modularity materials,” which are essential for such circular design approaches, but at the same time are among those materials with a large environmental footprint or limited recyclability. A life cycle assessment of a modular smartphone shows a roughly 10% higher environmental life cycle impact compared with a conventional design. This needs to be compensated by reaping the circular economy benefits of a modular design, i.e., higher likeliness of getting a broken device repaired, extending the lifetime through hardware upgrades and refurbishment.

Keywords

Auenvironmentally benigngovernment policy and fundinglifecyclesustainability
Type
Review Article
Information
MRS Energy & Sustainability , Volume 6 , 2019 , E16
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Schischke, K., Proske, M., Nissen, N.F., and Lang, K.-D.: Modular products: Smartphone design from a circular economy perspective. In Proceedings of International Congress Electronics Goes Green 2016+, Berlin, Germany, September 7–9, 2016.Google Scholar
Samsung: Galaxy S5: Is Galaxy S5 Dust-Resistant and Water-Resistant (IP67)? Last Update Date: April 09, 2018. Available at: https://www.samsung.com/ca/support/mobile-devices/galaxy-s5-is-galaxy-s5-dust-resistant-and-water-resistant-ip67/ (accessed August 12, 2019).Google Scholar
Manessis, D., Schischke, K., Pawlikowski, J., Krivec, T., Schulz, G., Podhradsky, G., Aschenbrenner, R., Schneider-Ramelow, M., Ostmann, A., and Lang, K.-D.: Embedding technologies for the manufacturing of advanced miniaturised modules toward the realisation of compact and environmentally friendly electronic devices. In Proceedings of EMPC 2019—22nd European Microelectronics Packaging Conference, Pisa, Italy, September 16–19, 2019.Google Scholar
Hebert, O.: The architecture of the Fairphone 2: Designing a competitive device that embodies our values, June 16, 2015. Available at: https://www.fairphone.com/en/2015/06/16/the-architecture-of-the-fairphone-2-designing-a-competitive-device-that-embodies-our-values/ (accessed August 15, 2019).Google Scholar
Jokinen, T.: PuzzlePhone—Design to Last, Emerg-Ing Green Conference, Portland, OR, USA, September 21, 2015.Google Scholar
Google Inc.: Project Ara—Module Developers Kit (MDK), Release 0.10, April 9, 2014.Google Scholar
Google Inc.: Project Ara—Module Developers Kit (MDK), Release 0.21, March 3, 2015.Google Scholar
Knaian, A. and Yeh, D.: MDK Overview, Project Ara Developers Conference, 2015, Mountain View.Google Scholar
Santacreu, A.: PuzzleCluster: The first reuse application of the PuzzlePhone, January 24, 2015. Available at: http://www.puzzlephone.com/blog-read/puzzlecluster-the-first-reuse-application-of-the-puzzlephone/ (accessed August 16, 2019).Google Scholar
Schischke, K., Nissen, N.F., and Lang, K.-D.: The life cycle of smart devices in 2030: The effect of technology trends and circular economy drivers on future products. In Proceedings of Sustainable Innovation 2019, 22nd International Conference, March 4–5, 2019, Epsom, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, OJ L 285, 31/10/2009, pp. 10–35.Google Scholar
prEN 45554:2018. General methods for the assessment of the ability to repair, reuse and upgrade energy-related products.Google Scholar
prEN 45552. General method for the assessment of the durability of energy-related products.Google Scholar
prEN 45553. General method for the assessment of the ability to re-manufacture energy-related products.Google Scholar
prEN 45555. General methods for assessing the recyclability and recoverability of energy-related products.Google Scholar
van Schaik, A. and Reuter, M.: Fairphone’s Report on Recyclability: Does modularity contribute to better recovery of materials? February, 2017.Google Scholar
Cordella, M., Alfieri, F., and Sanfélix, J.: Guidance for the Assessment of Material Efficiency: Application to Smartphones, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Draft, May 6, 2019, Sevilla, Spain.Google Scholar
Universal Serial Bus Type-C Cable and Connector Specification, Release 1.4, USB 3.0 Promoter Group, March 29, 2019.Google Scholar
Schischke, K., Manessis, D., Pawlikowski, J., Kupka, T., Krivec, T., Pamminger, R., Glaser, S., Podhradsky, G., Nissen, N.F., Schneider-Ramelow, M., and Lang, K.-D.: Embedding as a Key Board-Level Technology for Modularization and Circular Design of Smart Mobile Products: Environmental Assessment, Proc. of EMPC 2019—22nd European Microelectronics Packaging Conference, Pisa, Italy, September 16–19, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ITT Industries: Micro Universal Contact, 1.3 mm, drawing no. CU-120220-0210.Google Scholar
TE Connectivity: One Piece BtoB Connector, 10 pins, HI .02, two rows, drawing no. C-2199055, March 2013.Google Scholar
Molex: SlimStack Board-to-Board Connectors, part no. 0513383474, 2019.Google Scholar
Vinaricky, E.: Bemerkungen zum Einsatz dünner Goldschichten. In Elektrische Kontakte, Werkstoffe und Anwendungen, Grundlagen—Technologien—Prüfverfahren, 3rd ed., Vinaricky, E., ed. (Springer, 2016), Berlin / Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Heber, J.: Galvanisch hergestellte Kontaktwerkstoffe. In Elektrische Kontakte, Werkstoffe und Anwendungen, Grundlagen—Technologien—Prüfverfahren, 3rd ed., Vinaricky, E., ed. (Springer, 2016), Berlin / Heidelberg, Germany; p. 352.Google Scholar
Circular Devices Oy, Patent Pending, 2018.Google Scholar
Vinaricky, E. and Buresch, I.: Kontaktträger- und Leiterwerkstoffe. In Elektrische Kontakte, Werkstoffe und Anwendungen, Grundlagen—Technologien—Prüfverfahren, 3rd ed., Vinaricky, E., ed. (Springer, 2016), Berlin / Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Reuter, M.A. and van Schaik, A.: Resource efficient metal and material recycling. In REWAS 2013: Enabling Materials Resource Sustainability (Wiley, February, 2013), Hoboken, New Jersey; pp. 332–340.Google Scholar
Rim, K.T., Koo, K.H., and Park, J.S.: Toxicological evaluations of rare earths and their health impacts to workers: A literature review. Work Health Saf. 4(1), 12–26 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1–1355.Google Scholar
Nuss, P. and Eckelman, M.J.: Life cycle assessment of metals: A scientific synthesis. PLoS One 9(7), e101298 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework.Google Scholar
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines.Google Scholar
Proske, M., Clemm, C., and Richter, N.: Life Cycle Assessment of the Fairphone 2 - Final Report, Fraunhofer IZM, Berlin, November 2016.Google Scholar
Russ, R., Bipp, H.-P., Jantschak, A., Stiewe, M., Cedzich, A., and Dietrich, M.: Abschlussbericht zur Selbstverpflichtung der Halbleiterhersteller mit Pro-duktionsstätten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Reduzierung der Emissionen bestimmter fluorierter Gase, ZVEI—Zentralverband Elektro-technik und Elektronikindustrie e.V., Fachverband Electronic Components and Systems, Frankfurt, November 2011.Google Scholar
Boyd, S.: Life-Cycle Assessment of Semiconductors (Springer, 2012), New York / New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AU Optronics: AUO Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 2010.Google Scholar
Chunghwa Picture Tubes (CPT): 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Report; Reducing Energy Resources Consumption, Develop Environmentally Friendly Products, Taiwan, 2010.Google Scholar
Chimei Innolux Corporation: Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Jhunan, Taiwan, 2010.Google Scholar
Wieser, H.: Ever-faster, ever-shorter? Replacement cycles of durable goods in historical perspective. In Proceedings of PLATE—Product Lifetimes and the Environment, Conference, November 8–10, 2017, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Tröger, N., Wieser, H., and Hübner, R.: Smartphones Are Replaced More Frequently than T-Shirts—Patterns of Consumer Use and Reasons for Replacing Durable Goods, Chamber of Labour in Vienna, February, 2017, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Mouser Electronics: https://www.mouser.de/Connectors/Board-to-Board-Mezzanine-Connectors/_/N-ay0kr?Keyword=board-to-board&FS=True (accessed August 16, 2019).Google Scholar
Fairphone: Cost Breakdown of the Fairphone 2. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Fairphone2-Cost-Breakdown.pdf (accessed August 16, 2019).Google Scholar
Fairphone: A closer look at the spare parts supply chain, August 3, 2017. https://www.fairphone.com/en/2017/08/03/a-closer-look-at-the-spare-parts-supply-chain/ (accessed August 16, 2019).Google Scholar
Pamminger, R., Glaser, S., Wimmer, W., and Podhradsky, G.: Guideline Development to Design Modular Products that Meet the Needs of Circular Economy, CARE Innovation 2018, Vienna, Austria, November 26–29, 2018.Google Scholar
Vaija, S.: Modularity in ICT co.Project, CARE Innovation 2018, Vienna, Austria, November 26–29, 2018.Google Scholar
newzoo: Celebrating 10 Years of iPhones: 63% of all iPhones ever sold are still in use—728 million, by Bernd van der Wielen, June 29, 2017. Available at: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/63-percent-of-all-iphones-ever-sold-still-in-use/ (accessed January 28, 2019).Google Scholar