Close Go back Collapse all sections
Process Data set: Cu, CuAg contact wires (en) en

Key Data Set Information
Reference year 2024
Name
Cu, CuAg contact wires
Use advice for data set The life cycle analysis of the declared products covers “Product Stage” A1-A3, A4, C2-C4+D modules in accordance with EN 15804 and ITB PCR A (cradle to gate with options). Energy and water consumption, emissions as well as information on generated wastes were inventoried and were included in the calculation. It can be assumed that the total sum of omitted processes does not exceed 5% of all impact categories. In accordance with EN 15804+A2, machines and facilities (capital goods) required for the production as well as transportation of employees were not included in LCA.
Technical purpose of product or process Contact (trolley) wires, type Djp and DjpS covered by EPD are made of Cu-ETP copper and CuAg 0.10 copper alloy, respectively, they consist of a single grooved hard profile wire. Symmetrically made grooves (indentations) at the top of the round contact wire allow it to be attached to hanger cables. Trolleys are the most important component of a catenary wire, and the combination of electrical and mechanical parameters that characterize them limits the capabilities of the catenary and thus the performance of trains. The most common material used for the production of contact wires is copper. This metal is characterized by excellent electrical conductivity and at the same time has (in the hard state) very good strength properties, which, however, are reduced at elevated temperatures of the order of 80°C. Due to this fact, Djp type contact wire cannot be overloaded with electric current, which in turn affects the limitation of the maximum speed of trains to about 160 km/h. The solution to this problem is the addition of a small amount of alloying additives to the copper, which reduce the conductivity of the wire to no or a small extent, while increasing its mechanical properties and raising its operating temperature. For this reason, DjpS type contact wires have a higher current carrying capacity, which translates directly into an increase in train speed, even up to 250 km/h. At present, in Poland, the most modern solution of the structure designed for railway traffic is the YC150-2CS150 catenary with a variation of YC120-2CS150 with a Cu 150 mm2 or 120 mm2 carrying wire and two silver copper contact wires of the DjpS 150 type, approved by the Office of Rail Transport for powering of rail traction vehicles running at speeds up to 200 km/h.
General comment on data set The data selected for LCA originate from ITB-LCI questionnaires completed by TELE-FONIKA S.A. and verified during data audit. No data collected is older than five years and no generic datasets used are older than ten years. The representativeness, completeness, reliability, and consistency is judged as good. The background data for the processes come from the following resources database Ecoinvent v.3.10 (copper, steel, additives, paper, polyethylene, timber, additives, packaging materials). Specific (LCI) data quality analysis was a part of the input data verification. As a result, both upstream- and downstream activities are based on average supply mixes for the specific region depending on the given dataset and KOBiZE data is used (Polish electricity mix and combustion factors for fuels). The allocation rules used for this EPD are based on ITB PCR A and EN 15804+A2. Production of Cu, CuAg contact wires is a line process conducted in TELE-FONIKA Kable S.A.. Allocation was done on product mass basis. All impacts associated with the extraction and processing of raw materials used for the production of Cu, CuAg contact wires are allocated in module A1 of the LCA . Impacts from the global line production were inventoried and 100% were allocated to un Cu, CuAg contact wires production. Water and energy consumption, associated emissions and generated wastes are allocated to module A3 Packaging materials were takien into consideration - wooden cable drums. All data obtained from the LCI survey were taken into consideration, all available data from production have been considered, i.e. all raw materials/elements used as per assembly process, utilized thermal energy, and electric power consumption. Thus, material and energy flows contributing less than 1 % of mass or energy have been considered. It can be assumed that the total sum of neglected processes does not exceed 5 % of energy usage and mass per module A, B, C or D. Machines and facilities required during production are neglected. The production of etiquettes, tape and glue was also not considered.
Copyright Yes
Owner of data set
Quantitative reference
Reference flow(s)
Biogenic carbon content
  • Carbon content (biogenic): 1.0 kg
  • Carbon content (biogenic) - packaging: 1.0 kg
Time representativeness
Data set valid until 2029
Technological representativeness

Indicators of life cycle

IndicatorDirectionUnit Raw material supply
A1
Transport
A2
Manufacturing
A3
Transport
A4
Installation
A5
Operational energy use
B6
De-construction
C1
Transport
C2
Waste processing
C3
Disposal
C4
Recycling Potential
D
Input
  • 3.14E+4
  • 26.5
  • 721
  • 3.55
  • 43
  • 226
  • 43
  • 7.5
  • 3.36
  • 0.0627
  • -1.37E+4
Input
  • 1.55E+3
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Input
  • 3.3E+4
  • 26.5
  • 722
  • 3.55
  • 43
  • 226
  • 43
  • 7.5
  • 3.36
  • 0.0627
  • -1.37E+4
Input
  • 7.94E+4
  • 1.85E+3
  • 7.85E+3
  • 267
  • 582
  • 3.06E+3
  • 582
  • 523
  • 234
  • 0
  • -2.57E+4
Input
  • 463
  • 0
  • 819
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0.0786
  • 0.00152
  • -9.83
Input
  • 7.99E+4
  • 1.85E+3
  • 9.11E+3
  • 267
  • 582
  • 3.06E+3
  • 582
  • 523
  • 234
  • 7.22
  • -3.05E+4
Input
  • 177
  • 0.62
  • 0.822
  • 0
  • 0.053
  • 0.279
  • 0.053
  • 0.175
  • 0.0786
  • 0.00152
  • -9.83
Input
  • 7.36
  • 0.00684
  • 0.00372
  • 0
  • 0.000295
  • 0.00155
  • 0.000295
  • 0.00193
  • 0.000866
  • 0.0000396
  • -0.000767
Input
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0.47
  • 2.47
  • 0.47
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Input
  • 75.3
  • 0.233
  • 23.6
  • 0.0123
  • 0.158
  • 0.828
  • 0.158
  • 0.0658
  • 0.0295
  • 0.0079
  • -1.45E+3
Output
  • 157
  • 2.08
  • 92.8
  • 0.000656
  • 0.006
  • 0.0316
  • 0.006
  • 0.587
  • 0.263
  • 0.00767
  • -56.1
Output
  • 1.75E+3
  • 36.9
  • 417
  • 12.9
  • 0.312
  • 1.64
  • 0.312
  • 10.4
  • 4.67
  • 0.108
  • -6.84E+3
Output
  • 0.0351
  • 0.000138
  • 0.00253
  • 0.0017
  • 0.000435
  • 0.00229
  • 0.000435
  • 0.000039
  • 0.0000175
  • 0.0000479
  • -0.0333
Output
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Output
  • 3.84
  • 0.00573
  • 106
  • 0
  • 0.0006
  • 0.00316
  • 0.0006
  • 0.00162
  • 0.000726
  • 0.0000144
  • -0.938
Output
  • 0.0256
  • 0.0000463
  • 0.0000941
  • 0
  • 0.00000525
  • 0.0000276
  • 0.00000525
  • 0.0000131
  • 0.00000587
  • 1.71E-7
  • -0.00168
Output
  • 61.4
  • 0
  • 6.41
  • 0
  • 1.73
  • 9.1
  • 1.73
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • -1.1E+2
Output
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

IndicatorUnit Raw material supply
A1
Transport
A2
Manufacturing
A3
Transport
A4
Installation
A5
Operational energy use
B6
De-construction
C1
Transport
C2
Waste processing
C3
Disposal
C4
Recycling Potential
D
Acidification potential, Accumulated Exceedance (AP)
  • 169
  • 0.506
  • 5.23
  • 0.0674
  • 0.38
  • 2
  • 0.38
  • 0.143
  • 0.0641
  • 0.00248
  • -55.4
Global Warming Potential - total (GWP-total)
  • 6.58E+3
  • 125
  • 625
  • 16.7
  • 34.9
  • 184
  • 34.9
  • 35.4
  • 15.9
  • 0.264
  • -1.81E+3
Global Warming Potential - biogenic (GWP-biogenic)
  • -418
  • 0.426
  • 15
  • 0.044
  • 1
  • 5.26
  • 1
  • 0.12
  • 0.054
  • 0.000671
  • -1.37E+3
Global Warming Potential - fossil fuels (GWP-fossil)
  • 6.99E+3
  • 125
  • 535
  • 16.6
  • 34.2
  • 1.8E+2
  • 34.2
  • 35.2
  • 15.8
  • 0.263
  • -1.8E+3
Global Warming Potential - land use and land use change (GWP-luluc)
  • 8.01
  • 0.0489
  • 0.181
  • 0.00653
  • 0.012
  • 0.0631
  • 0.012
  • 0.0138
  • 0.0062
  • 0.000249
  • -4.11
Eutrophication potential - marine (EP-marine)
  • 48.9
  • 0.153
  • 0.783
  • 0.0203
  • 0.055
  • 0.289
  • 0.055
  • 0.0432
  • 0.0193
  • 0.000862
  • -14.9
Eutrophication potential - freshwater (EP-freshwater)
  • 119
  • 0.00838
  • 0.821
  • 0.00107
  • 0.065
  • 0.342
  • 0.065
  • 0.00237
  • 0.00106
  • 0.0000245
  • -1.47
Eutrophication potential - terrestrial (EP-terrestrial)
  • 7.1E+2
  • 1.67
  • 6.54
  • 0.222
  • 0.465
  • 2.45
  • 0.465
  • 0.471
  • 0.211
  • 0.00943
  • -229
Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer (ODP)
  • 0.0000596
  • 0.0000288
  • 0.00000896
  • 0.00000385
  • 7E-7
  • 0.00000368
  • 7E-7
  • 0.00000815
  • 0.00000365
  • 1.07E-7
  • -0.0002
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
  • 1.4E+2
  • 0.51
  • 2
  • 0.068
  • 0.13
  • 0.684
  • 0.13
  • 0.144
  • 0.0646
  • 0.00274
  • -46.7
Abiotic depletion potential - fossil resources (ADPF)
  • 7.98E+4
  • 1.85E+3
  • 9.07E+3
  • 247
  • 5.8E+2
  • 3.05E+3
  • 5.8E+2
  • 523
  • 234
  • 7.22
  • -2.86E+4
Abiotic depletion potential - non-fossil resources (ADPE)
  • 2.18
  • 0.000442
  • 0.00023
  • 0.0000591
  • 0.000167
  • 0.000878
  • 0.000167
  • 0.000125
  • 0.000056
  • 6.04E-7
  • -3.96
Water (user) deprivation potential (WDP)
  • 2.91E+3
  • 8.56
  • 155
  • 1.13
  • 12
  • 63.1
  • 12
  • 2.42
  • 1.08
  • 0.0229
  • -1.46E+3
Global warming potential except emissions and uptake of biogenic carbon (GWP-IOBC/GHG)
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.
No records found.

IndicatorUnit Raw material supply
A1
Transport
A2
Manufacturing
A3
Transport
A4
Installation
A5
Operational energy use
B6
De-construction
C1
Transport
C2
Waste processing
C3
Disposal
C4
Recycling Potential
D
1This impact category deals mainly with the eventual impact of low dose ionizing radiation on human health of the nuclear fuel cycle. It does not consider effects due to possible nuclear accidents, occupational exposure nor due to radioactive waste disposal in underground facilities. Potential ionizing radiation from the soil, from radon and from some construction materials is also not measured by this indicator.
2The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used with care as the uncertainties on these results are high or as there is limited experiences with the indicator.
Potential Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (ETP-fw) 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Potential incidence of disease due to PM emissions (PM) 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Potential Comparative Toxic Unit for humans - cancer effects (HTP-c) 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Potential Comparative Toxic Unit for humans - non-cancer effects (HTP-nc) 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Potential Human exposure efficiency relative to U235 (IRP) 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Potential Soil quality index (SQP) 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0