aerospace

Article
Comparative Environmental and Cost Analysis of
Alternative Production Scenarios Associated with
a Helicopter’s Canopy
Christos V. Katsiropoulos *,† , Andreas Loukopoulos † and Spiros G. Pantelakis †
Laboratory of Technology & Strength of Materials, Department of Mechanical Engineering & Aeronautics,
University of Patras, Panepistimioupolis Rion, 26500 Patras, Greece; [email protected] (A.L.);
[email protected] (S.G.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +30-261-096-9498
† These authors contributed equally to this work.




Received: 9 November 2018; Accepted: 28 December 2018; Published: 3 January 2019


Abstract: In the present work the carbon footprint and the financial viability of different materials,
manufacturing scenarios, as well as recycling scenarios, associated with the production of aeronautical
structural components are assessed. The materials considered were carbon fiber reinforced epoxy
and carbon fiber reinforced PEEK (polyetheretherketone). The manufacturing techniques compared
were the autoclave, resin transfer molding (RTM) and cold diaphragm forming (CDF). The recycling
scenarios included mechanical recycling and pyrolysis. For this purpose, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) models were developed and implemented for the case of a helicopter’s
canopy production. The results of the study pointed out that producing the canopy by using carbon
fiber reinforced thermosetting composites and involving RTM as the manufacturing process is the
optimal route both in terms of environmental and financial efficiency. The environmental and financial
efficiency of the scenarios including thermoplastic composites as the material of choice is impaired
from both the high embodied energy and raw material cost of PEEK. The scenarios investigated
do not account for potential benefits arising from the recyclability and the improved reusability of
thermoplastic matrices as compared to thermosetting ones. This underlines the need for a holistic
aircraft structural optimization approach including not only performance and weight but also cost
and environmental criteria.

Keywords: life cycle analysis; cost analysis; autoclave; resin transfer molding; cold diaphragm
forming; composite materials; aeronautic component

1. Introduction
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites have been widely adopted from the aeronautical
industry (e.g., 52% in Airbus A350, 50% in Boeing B787 etc.) in primary as well as secondary structures,
as well as in many other similar lightweight structures, which leads to decreased fuel consumption.
On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that the selection process of the appropriate material for
an aircraft structural application is a vital step, made at the early design stages, and has to fulfill
a number of currently applied structural optimization criteria (weight reduction, cost minimization,
efficient mechanical properties, etc.). In parallel, environmental considerations should, nowadays,
represent a significant parameter both for selecting a material, as well as for designing an aircraft’s
structure and manufacturing it.
The mainstream composite material type for aeronautical applications is thermosetting composites,
mainly carbon fiber reinforced epoxies, because of their low processing temperatures, low viscosity,

Aerospace 2019, 6, 3; doi:10.3390/aerospace6010003 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 2 of 12

superior adhesion to fibers, fatigue strength, etc. However, issues associated with their long curing
cycles which lead to low production rates combined with growing environmental concerns associated
with their end-of-life treatment, as well as the adoption of stricter environmental policies, have turned
the attention of the aeronautical industry to alternative solutions.
On the other hand, thermoplastic composites have the ability to melt under heat and harden
after cooling creating a new shape. This process can be repeated multiple times. This characteristic
offers possibilities for adopting faster composite processing techniques with reduced processing
time. Moreover, thermoplastic composites exhibit superior impact and chemical resistance, unlimited
shelf-life, and the ability to assemble sub-structures by welding, which leads to weight reduction
and recyclability; properties that thermosetting composites are unable to provide. On the downside,
the higher processing temperatures and pressures needed for processing these materials, which leads
to both increased energy consumption and tooling cost, are key barriers for their wide-scale use for the
construction of primary structures by the aeronautical industry. Additionally, the severe deterioration
of the mechanical properties of the materials during the recycling process poses a burden for exploiting
their recyclability.
As far as the manufacturing techniques are concerned, out of autoclave techniques demonstrate
high potential for significant financial and environmental benefits as compared to the conventional
autoclave process, although autoclaving is expected to lead to higher product quality. However,
concerning the recycling processes, the recyclability of the material is still defined on the basis of
commonly used recycling methods, including pyrolysis and landfill, which might exhibit lower energy
demands. However, they lead to products with a low or without reusability potential. These conflicting
parameters underline the necessity for developing tools and concepts allowing the simultaneous
optimization of a product with regard to quality, cost and environmental impact.
The available works on this topic are few and limited to either the environmental footprint
or the cost quantification of a product. In this context, several studies have performed either
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of carbon fiber reinforced polymers, e.g., [1–7] or Life Cycle Costing
(LCC) analysis, e.g., References [8–11] of carbon fiber reinforced polymers. An LCA study was
conducted by Timmis et al. [1] to quantify the environmental impact derived from the use of composite
materials in an aircraft’s fuselage used in place of other structural materials (e.g., aluminum alloys).
The results highlighted that the overall environmental impact which occurred from the adoption of
composite materials is positive compared with traditional materials (e.g., aluminum). In Reference [2]
an overview of currently used composite materials for aviation, as well as possible bio-based and
recycled substitution materials, with the focus on their ecological properties is presented. Apart from
conventional materials, several types of novel materials were considered to reduce ecological impacts
compared to the state-of-the-art, such as bio-based thermoset resins (epoxy, furan), bio-based fibers
(flax, ramie) and recycled carbon fibers. Moreover, Duflou et al. [3] and Song et al. [4] quantified
the environmental footprint of composites when they replaced steel, which is of limited use in
aircraft structural applications (e.g., 7% in A350), but of great importance in automotive applications.
Both latter studies demonstrated that composite materials outperformed steel due to the weight
savings that they offer during the in-use phase.
Furthermore, a number of studies are dedicated to the cost efficiency assessment of the composite
materials, e.g., References [8–11]. In Reference [8], an overview of the extensive field of cost
estimation for aerospace composite production, describing the basic methods of how to perform cost
estimation and introducing some of the existing LCC models, is made. In addition, in Reference [10],
an LCC procedure is developed using cost equations to accurately estimate the recurring cost to
manufacture of an aircraft control surface (leading edge flap) applicable to resin transfer molding
(RTM) and vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM). A novel concept for the optimization of
manufacturing processes of composite material components with regard to product’s quality and cost
is introduced in Reference [11] and applied for the case of thermoplastic composite helicopter canopies
produced by ‘cold’ diaphragm forming (CDF) process.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 3 of 12

On the other hand, a limited number of existing works refer to combined LCA and LCC
analyses [12–20]; the few available works are rarely related to composites. In Reference [13] the
application of an LCA/LCC integrated model is described for the comparison of an AGL (Anti-Glare
Lamellae) currently manufactured from virgin HDPE (High Density PolyEthylene) with an alternative
one made with recycled HDPE. The obtained results show that neither the current nor the new AGL
depict the best2019,
Aerospace environmental
6 FOR PEER REVIEW performance in all impact categories. Nevertheless, a clear3 overall
environmental and economic advantage in replacing virgin HDPE with recycled HDPE was exhibited.
(Anti-Glare Lamellae) currently manufactured from virgin HDPE (High Density PolyEthylene) with
Reference [14] combines LCC and LCA in the case of a residential district energy system area in Finland
an alternative one made with recycled HDPE. The obtained results show that neither the current
aiming nor
to identify
the new AGL the actual
depict the technologies that could
best environmental provide
performance theimpact
in all highest sustainable
categories. viability and
Nevertheless,
assessesa the emissions and relative mitigation potentials associated with
clear overall environmental and economic advantage in replacing virgin HDPE with recycled the different technologies.
HDPE was exhibited. Reference [14] combines LCC and LCA in the
Furthermore, in Reference [17] an LCA study, as well as an LCC analysis, were carried out for case of a residential district
energy
a refractory system
brick area in Finland
production company,aimingandtoinidentify the actual
Reference technologies
[18] the evaluation thatofcould provide the
the process-based cost
highest sustainable viability and assesses the emissions and relative mitigation potentials associated
and environmental footprint profile of green composite under a twofold assessment is considered.
with the different technologies. Furthermore, in Reference [17] an LCA study, as well as an LCC
In Reference
analysis, were[20]carried
a combinedout forenvironmental
a refractory brickandproduction
cost assessment
company, dedicated to composite
and in Reference [18] the materials
is performed.
evaluation of the process-based cost and environmental footprint profile of green composite under study,
However, it is on an automotive application (steel vehicle bulkhead). In this
the economic
a twofoldand environmental
assessment effects of substituting steel for lighter weight alternatives with the
is considered.
In Reference
focus on composite [20] a combined
materials environmental
was presented; thus, andfourcost assessment
material dedicated
scenarios, to composite
as well as automated
materials
preforming is performed.
technology, However,
combined it isreaction
with on an automotive
injectionapplication
molding(steel
werevehicle
chosen. bulkhead). In this
Manufacturing and
study, the economic and environmental effects of substituting steel for lighter weight alternatives
life-cycle costs were derived from a technical cost model, and the environmental performance of
with the focus on composite materials was presented; thus, four material scenarios, as well as
each scenario
automatedwas preforming
then quantified using LCA
technology, according
combined to ISO guidelines.
with reaction Therefore,
injection molding werethere
chosen.is not any
available work in the and
Manufacturing openlife-cycle
literature, combining
costs the comparison
were derived from a technicalof a number of processes
cost model, and theused in
aeronautics with regards
environmental both toofLCA
performance eachand LCCwas
scenario studies
then for a composite
quantified using LCA aeronautic
accordingproduct,
to ISO either
guidelines.
thermoplastic Therefore, there is not any available work in the open literature, combining the
or thermoset.
comparison of a number of processes used in aeronautics with regards both to LCA and LCC studies
This work aims to make a comparative analysis in terms of carbon emissions and financial
for a composite aeronautic product, either thermoplastic or thermoset.
efficiency forThis
different material, manufacturing, and recycling scenarios associated with the production
work aims to make a comparative analysis in terms of carbon emissions and financial
of an aeronautical
efficiency for different component;
structural the canopyand
material, manufacturing, of the EUROCOPTER
recycling EC Twin with
scenarios associated Star helicopter
the
described in Reference
production [11], Figurestructural
of an aeronautical 1. In addition, the present
component; the canopy work introduces
of the EUROCOPTER a new ECholistic
Twin Star approach
helicopterfor
which accounts described
not only in cost
Reference [11], Figure 1. Infootprint
and environmental addition, but
the also
present
forwork introduces
additional a newsuch as
features,
holistic
the quality of approach
the product which as accounts
well as for not only and
reusability cost and environmental
recyclability footprint
aspects. but also
In such for
an approach,
additional features, such as the quality of the product as well as reusability and recyclability aspects.
these features would be taken into account at the design phase of a product.
In such an approach, these features would be taken into account at the design phase of a product.

FigureFigure
1. The1.canopy
The canopy described
described ininRefference
Refference [4]
[4](1:3
(1:3scale prototype
scale of the
prototype ofreal
thepart).
real part).

2. Methods
2. Methods

2.1. Life 2.1.

CycleLifeAnalysis
Cycle Analysis
Life cycle analysis is a standardized technique (ISO 14040 2006 [21]) for assessing the
Life cycle analysis is a standardized technique (ISO 14040 2006 [21]) for assessing the environmental
environmental performance of a product or a process at various points in their life cycle, from raw
performance of extraction
material a producttoordisposal
a process at various
or recycling. Thepoints in their
stages for lifeout
carrying cycle, from
a Life raw
Cycle material
Analysis extraction
are the
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 4 of 12

to disposal or recycling. The stages for carrying out a Life Cycle Analysis are the following: Goal and
scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation of the results.
Based on this concept, an LCA model was developed for evaluating the environmental footprint
in terms of carbon emissions of the canopy of the Twin Star Helicopter, which is the case study under
investigation, acting as the functional unit of the system. The stages taken into consideration for
the present LCA were: carbon fiber production, epoxy (TS) and PEEK (PolyEtherEtherKetone)-(TP)
production, manufacturing (autoclave, resin transfer molding (RTM), cold diaphragm forming (CDF))
and recycling (mechanical recycling and pyrolysis).
Epoxy resins are the most commonly used matrix material for composite material aircraft
structural applications. In this context, toughened epoxies have found widespread application.
However, their use in high-performance applications is limited by low service temperature that
is adversely affected by moisture content, loading, and by the use of toughening agents. In general,
the maximum use temperature for advanced epoxies is limited to 150 ◦ C to 180 ◦ C. Other disadvantages
include brittleness and moisture absorption that can lower use temperature as mentioned above.
However, epoxy resins provide many attractive features, including good handling properties,
processability, and low cost.
On the other hand, PEEK (PolyEtherEtherKetone) is commonly used for the matrix of TP prepregs
containing mainly carbon fibers and is selected as the most prevalent TP resin used in aeronautics.
PEEK has been reported to be capable of withstanding continuous operating temperature up to
260 ◦ C in low-stress operations and 120 ◦ C in aerospace structural applications. Moreover, PEEK has
good resistance to hydrolysis, corrosion, chemical, and radiation exposure. It provides high thermal
stability, a low coefficient of expansion, good abrasion resistance, low smoke and toxic gas emission,
and excellent stiffness. Last, but not least, an essential advantage is recyclability which, however,
requires high energy consumption.
In the present work, a Bisphenol-A epoxy-based vinyl ester resin was selected as the TS
representative of toughened epoxies and PolyEtherEtherKetone (PEEK) resin as a TP competitor,
both reinforced with carbon fibers. These systems were chosen to compare the environmental impact
and cost of a commonly used non-recyclable material (epoxy composite) with a recyclable material
(PEEK composite).
In regard to the processes under investigation, autoclave and RTM, as a representative of
autoclave processes, were selected as they are the most commonly used processes to produce structural
aeronautical components. They are capable of producing parts of acceptable quality according to the
aeronautics standards. Cold diaphragm forming (CDF), has a low cost and seems to be promising
for aeronautical applications. Therefore, the above mentioned three processes were selected for our
investigation. CDF was considered only for the thermoplastic composite, as it cannot be used to
process thermosetting matrices, whereas autoclave and RTM can be used for both. Moreover, pyrolysis
was considered only for the scenarios involving thermosetting composite as the material of choice
whereas mechanical recycling was considered for both thermoplastic and thermosetting composites.
The processes under investigation were assumed to be all electric.
For each stage, the total energy demands, as well as the Global Warming Potential-100 (GWP100 )
for a period of 100 years, were estimated. GWP100 was selected as the most critical environmental
impact category commonly used among LCA studies for evaluating the carbon footprint and is
suitable for this study as electricity generation produces mainly CO2 emissions. The system boundaries
are shown in Figure 2. The total energy consumption was calculated by multiplying the mass of
each material with the energy intensity of each process (Equation (1)), which was derived from
literature [5,22–25] and is shown in Table 1. Since the processing temperature of PEEK is almost three
times higher than the processing temperature of epoxy, the energy demands at the manufacturing
stage were assumed to be three times higher as well. The GWP100 was calculated by multiplying
the mCO2eq , which is the mass of CO2 emission that is produced from the consumption of 1 kWh of
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 5 of 12

electricity, with the total energy demands of each process (Equation (2)). The mCO2eq was considered
equal to 0.34 kg CO2eq /kWh [26].
Ei = mi ei (1)
mCO2 eq
GWP100 = Ei (2)
kWh
where Ei is the total energy of each process in kWh, mi is the total mass in kg of each material involved,
ei is the energy intensity for each process in kWh/kg, GWP100 is the Global Warming Potential for
a period of 100 years in kg, mCO2eq is the mass in kg of CO2 emission that is produced from the
Aerospace 2019, 6 FOR PEER REVIEW 5
consumption of 1 kWh of electricity.

Figure 2. System boundaries.

Figure 2. System boundaries.
Table 1. Energy intensity of each process.

Process
Ei = miEnergy
ei Intensity (kWh/kg)
(1)
Carbon fiber production 155 [22]
Epoxy production 21.11 [5,23]
PEEK production mCO2eq77.78 [24]
GWP100 = Ei
Autoclave TS
(2)
kWh4.97 [22]
Autoclave TP 14.9
where Ei is the total energy of RTM
eachTSprocess in kWh, mi is 2.86
the[22]total mass in kg of each material
RTM TP
involved, ei is the energy intensity for each process in kWh/kg,8.58 GWP 100 is the Global Warming
CDF 9 [11]
Potential for a period of 100 years in kg, mCO2eq is the mass
Mechanical recycling
in kg of CO2 emission that is produced
0.075 [25]
from the consumption of 1 kWhPyrolysis
of electricity. 6.67 [26]

Table 1. Energy intensity of each process.

2.2. Life Cycle Costing
Energy Intensity
The Life Cycle Cost analysis is a suitable tool for determining financial trade-offs arising from
Process
(kWh/kg)
a product or a process. In this study, an LCC model was developed based on the principles of the
Carbon fiber production
Activity Based Costing method (ABC). ABC is an accounting method implementing 155 [22] cost estimation
Epoxy production 21.11 [5,23]
mathematical relationships (CERs) for expressing the cost as a function of one or more independent
PEEK
variables that take into account theproduction 77.78 [24]
geometrical features of a material or a product, such as the perimeter
Autoclave TS 4.97 [22]
(PAP), surface (PAA), length (L) shape complexity (cmp), and mass (WP). In the performed analysis,
Autoclave
costs associated with labor, material, TPenergy were calculated. The performed
and 14.9 cost analysis also
accounts for recycling cost which was assumed equal to the energy cost of[22]
RTM TS 2.86 the recycling process.
CERs were either formulated orRTM TP from Reference [11].
adopted 8.58
In the framework of the LCC analysis, the cost of 1 kWh was considered [11]
CDF 9 equal to 0.114 Euros [27]
Mechanical
and the labor cost (kw ) equal recycling
to 32.6 Euros/hour [27]. The cost of the raw0.075 [25] was considered
material
Pyrolysis 6.67 [26]

2.2. Life Cycle Costing

The Life Cycle Cost analysis is a suitable tool for determining financial trade-offs arising from a
product or a process. In this study, an LCC model was developed based on the principles of the
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 6 of 12

equal to the cost of its constituents (Kmf is the cost of carbon fibers and Kmr the cost of the resin).
Additionally, the empirical assumption of 80% of scrap material based on Reference [4] was made for
all the manufacturing processes. The energy cost for all the processes was calculated as follows, and all
the CERs developed are shown in Tables 2 and 3:

Ki = Ei k i (3)

Ktotal = Klabor + Kmaterial + Kenergy + Krecycling (4)

where Ki is the total energy cost, Ei is the total energy consumption and ki is the cost of 1 kWh
of electricity.
In this study, non-recurring costs are not taken into account. However, an effort is made to evaluate
the equipment cost of autoclaving and RTM based on data available from a company specializing in
online commerce (www.alibaba.com).

Table 2. Labor cost.

Activity CER [11,28]

Clean the mold Kcm = kw *1*2*PAA
Application of the release agent Kra = kw *0.1*PAA
Cut prepreg (10 plies) Kcu = kw *0.25*PAP
Cut diaphragms Kd = 1.6kd *PPA*ND
Lay up Klayup = kw *tlayup 8 min. for the first 2, 4 min. for the rest
Cut breather/bleeder/release film/sealing bag/peel plies Kpl = kw *0,25*PAP
Demolding Kde = kw *0.25*PAA
Cost of the rework Krw = kw *0.25*PAP
Cost of the NDT inpection Kins = kw *(1*PAA*cmp + 0.5)
Cost of the dimension measurement Kdim = kw *0.5*cmp*PAA
Cost of the storage Kst = kw *(0.05*WP + 0.16*PAP)

Table 3. Material cost.

Material CER
Cleaning agent Kcm = kcm *PAA*mcm *2 [11]
Release agent Kra = kra *PAA/Coverage
Breather/bleeder/release film/peel ply, sealing bag, diaphragms Ki = ki *Li
Raw material Ktotal = 1.8*(Kmf +Kmr ) = 1.8*kmf *mmf + 1.8*kmr *mmr

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Life Cycle Analysis

The results from the Life Cycle Analysis demonstrated that the production of carbon fiber is
responsible for more than 80% of the total carbon footprint (Figure 3). These findings highlight the
need for developing new or improve the existing recycling techniques to avoid the production of
new carbon fibers. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate that producing the canopy using a carbon fiber
reinforced epoxy composite, involving RTM as the manufacturing process and mechanical recycling as
the end-of-life treatment route demonstrates the lowest carbon footprint. On the contrary, the worst
practice for producing the canopy is when a carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is the
material of choice, and autoclaving is the manufacturing process selected because of the high embodied
energy and processing temperature of PEEK as well as the higher energy demands of the autoclave
equipment. The environmental performance of producing a thermoplastic canopy is improved when
out of autoclave techniques (RTM and CDF) are considered as the manufacturing processes, but this
amelioration is not enough to provide a lower life-cycle carbon impact.
 Aerospace
Aerospace 2019,
2019, 6 FOR
6 FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 77
embodied energy and processing temperature of PEEK as well as the higher energy demands of the
autoclave
embodied equipment.
energyand The environmental
andprocessing
processing performance
temperature of well
producing a thermoplastic canopy is
embodied energy temperature ofofPEEK
PEEKasaswell asasthe thehigher
higher energydemands
energy demandsofofthe
the
improved when
autoclaveequipment. out of
equipment.The autoclave techniques
Theenvironmental (RTM
environmentalperformance and CDF) are
performanceofofproducing considered as the
producinga athermoplastic manufacturing
thermoplasticcanopy
canopyisis
autoclave
processes,
improved but this out
when amelioration
of is not
autoclave enough to(RTM
techniques provide
anda CDF)
lowerarelife-cycle carbon
considered as impact.
the manufacturing
improved when
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 out of autoclave techniques (RTM and CDF) are considered as the manufacturing 7 of 12
processes,but
processes, butthis
thisamelioration
ameliorationisisnot
notenough
enoughtotoprovide
providea alower
lowerlife-cycle
life-cyclecarbon
carbonimpact.
impact.

Figure 3. Contribution of each stage to the total environmental impact.

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Contribution
Contribution
Contribution ofof
of each
Recycling (mechanical)
each stage
stage toto the
the total
total environmental
environmental impact.
impact.
Manufacturing Recycling (mechanical)
Energy consumption GWP100
Resin production 35 Manufacturing
90 Recycling
Carbon Fiber (mechanical)
production Resin production
Recycling (mechanical)
Manufacturing Recycling (mechanical)
Energy consumption Manufacturing GWP100 Carbon Fiber
Recycling production
(mechanical)
80 Energy consumption Resin production 30 35
GWP Manufacturing
90 Resin production
Carbon Fiber production 35 100 Manufacturing
Resin production
(kWh) (kWh)

90
70 Carbon Fiber production Resin production
Carbon Fiber production
25 30
80 Carbon Fiber production
30
(kg CO2 eq.)
80
60
Energy consumption
Energy consumption (kWh)

70 20 25
70
50 25
GWP100 (kg CO2 eq.)

60
100 eq.)

60
Energy consumption

40 15 20
20
CO2

50
GWP

50
30
10 15
GWP100 (kg

40
40 15
20
30 5 10
30
10 10
20
20
0 0 5
10
Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP 5 Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
10
a b
0 0
0 Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP 0 Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
a b
a b
Figure 4. (a) Total energy consumption and (b) Global Warming Potential-100 for each process
Figure 4. (a) Total energy consumption and (b) Global Warming Potential-100 for each process scenario
scenario
Figure4.when mechanical
4.(a)(a)Total
Totalenergyrecycling
energy is considered.
consumption and (b) Global Warming Potential-100 for each process
Figure
when mechanical recycling isconsumption
considered. and (b) Global Warming Potential-100 for each process
scenario when mechanical recycling is considered.
scenario when mechanical recycling is considered.
Recycling (pyrolysis) Recycling (pyrolysis)
Energy consumption Manufacturing
100
Resin production
35 GWP100 Manufacturing
Recycling (pyrolysis) Resin production
90 Carbon Fiber
Recycling production
(pyrolysis) Recycling
Carbon Fiber (pyrolysis)
production
Energy consumption Manufacturing Recycling (pyrolysis)
100
80
100
Energy consumption Manufacturing
Resin production
30 35
35
GWP100
GWP
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Resin production 100 Resin production
(kWh) (kWh)

90 Carbon Fiber production Resin production

Carbon Fiber production
Carbon Fiber production 25 30
(kg CO2 eq.)

90
70 Carbon Fiber production
30
80
Energy consumption
Energy consumption (kWh)

80
60
20 25
GWP100 (kg CO2 eq.)

70
25
100 eq.)

70
50
60
Energy consumption

15 20
CO2

60
40
GWP

20
50
GWP100 (kg

50
30 10 15
40 15
40
20
30 5 10
30
10 10
20
20
0 0 5
Autoclave TS
10 Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP 5 Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
10
0
a 0 b
0 Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP 0 Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
Figure 5. (a) Total energy consumption
a
a and (b) Global Warming Potential-100 bforb each process scenario
Figure 5. (a) Total energy consumption and (b) Global Warming Potential-100 for each process
when mechanical recycling is considered for thermoplastic and pyrolysis for thermosetting composite.
scenario
Figure5.when mechanical
5.(a)(a)Total
Totalenergy recycling
energy is considered
consumption and(b) forGlobal
(b) thermoplastic
WarmingandPotential-100
pyrolysis for thermosetting
Figure consumption and Global Warming Potential-100 forforeach
eachprocess
process
composite.
However,
scenario as
when already mentioned,
mechanical recyclingthe present study is limited to the investigation of the carbon
scenario when mechanical recycling is is considered
considered forfor thermoplastic
thermoplastic and
and pyrolysis
pyrolysis forfor thermosetting
thermosetting
impactcomposite.
without accounting for recyclability and reusability of the composite material. Therefore,
composite.
However,
it results in theas already mentioned,
paradoxical conclusion thethat
present study is limited
a non-recyclable to the(epoxy
material investigation
composite)of the
is carbon
a more
impact without accounting
However,
environmentally as already
friendly for recyclability
mentioned,
alternative the
(lower and
presentreusability
carbon study is
footprint)of the
limited
as composite
to the
compared material.
investigation
to a Therefore,
of
recyclable the it
carbon
material
However, as already mentioned, the present study is limited to the investigation of the carbon
results
impact in the paradoxical
withoutaccounting
accounting conclusion
befor that
recyclability a non-recyclable
andreusability
reusability material
ofthe (epoxy
thecomposite
composite composite)
material. is a more
Therefore,
(PEEK
impact composite).
without It should for noticed that landfill
recyclability and (disposingofwaste material by burial) is
material. a relatively
Therefore, it it
environmentally
results
cheap in the
disposal friendly
paradoxical
route and alternative
conclusion
mostly (lower
used that
in carbon
a
overseas footprint)
non-recyclable
countries as compared
material
(e.g., USA) (epoxyto is
but acomposite)
recyclable
the least material
is a more
preferred
results in the paradoxical conclusion that a non-recyclable material (epoxy composite) is a more
(PEEK composite).friendly
environmentally It should be the
noticed
alternative thatcarbon
(lower landfill (disposing
footprint) waste material
ascompared
compared by burial) is a
waste management
environmentally option
friendly under
alternative European
(lower Union’s
carbon Waste as
footprint) Framework totoa arecyclable
Directive,recyclable
and, material
therefore,
material
(PEEKcomposite).
opposition
(PEEK composite). It Itshould
to it is expected should bebenoticed
noticed
to increase overthatthatcoming
the landfillyears.
landfill (disposing waste
This route
(disposing waste material
is material
already byby
not burial)isis
permitted
burial) inaa
Germany, while other EU countries are expected to follow.
It is worth noting that recycling techniques studied and implemented during the last two decades
in Europe, such as mechanical processes (mainly grinding), pyrolysis, solvolysis, and other thermal
relatively cheap disposal route and mostly used in overseas countries (e.g., USA) but is the least
preferred waste management option under the European Union’s Waste Framework Directive, and,
therefore, opposition to it is expected to increase over the coming years. This route is already not
permitted in Germany, while other EU countries are expected to follow.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 8 of 12
It is worth noting that recycling techniques studied and implemented during the last two
decades in Europe, such as mechanical processes (mainly grinding), pyrolysis, solvolysis, and other
processes, are not satisfactory
thermal processes, as they either
are not satisfactory downgrade
as they the quality the
either downgrade of the recycled
quality material
of the appreciably
recycled material
appreciably
(e.g., grinding)(e.g.,
or grinding) or are
are associated associated
with enormous with enormous
energy energy consumption
consumption (e.g.,
(e.g., pyrolysis). Topyrolysis).
assess the
To assess the
efficiency of aefficiency
recyclingof a recycling
process, moreprocess,
holisticmore holisticcriteria
evaluation evaluation
would criteria wouldtobeaccount
be needed neededfor to
accountconsumption,
energy for energy consumption, overall impact
overall environmental environmental
includingimpact
carbonincluding carbon
footprint, and footprint,
reusability, and
as well
reusability,
as the quality asofwell
theas the quality
recycled of the recycled material.
material.

3.2. Life Cycle

3.2. Life Cycle Costing
Costing
Figure
Figure 66 reveals
reveals that
that material
material andand labor
labor costs
costs are
are responsible
responsible for for 19%
19% and
and 81%81% of
of the
the total
total cost,
cost,
respectively.
respectively. Energy
Energy and and recycling
recycling costs
costs are
are negligible when compared
negligible when compared with with material
material andand labor
labor cost.
cost.
For
For this
this reason,
reason, inin the
the following,
following, onlyonly scenarios
scenarios where
where mechanical recycling is
mechanical recycling is considered
considered as as the
the
recycling technique are shown. Moreover, from Figure 7, it is obvious that
recycling technique are shown. Moreover, from Figure 7, it is obvious that producing the canopy producing the canopy from
carbon fiber reinforced
from carbon epoxy epoxy
fiber reinforced composite using the
composite RTM
using thetechnique is the best
RTM technique option
is the bestfrom a financial
option from a
standpoint. This is the result of the lower raw material cost of the epoxy
financial standpoint. This is the result of the lower raw material cost of the epoxy composite ascomposite as compared to
thermoplastic and of the absence of auxiliary materials (breather films, vacuum
compared to thermoplastic and of the absence of auxiliary materials (breather films, vacuum bags, bags, diaphragms, etc.)
for the RTM etc.)
diaphragms, process.
for the Furthermore,
RTM process. theFurthermore,
fewer steps theneededfewerfor preparing
steps neededthe for mold decreases
preparing the moldthe
labor cost of RTM by 35% and by 26% as compared to the conventional
decreases the labor cost of RTM by 35% and by 26% as compared to the conventional autoclave autoclave technique and
CDF, respectively
technique and CDF, (Figure 8). The financial
respectively (Figure performance of theperformance
8). The financial scenarios involving PEEK composite
of the scenarios involving is
impaired from theishigh
PEEK composite raw material
impaired from the cost.
highHowever, it can cost.
raw material be expected
However, thatitthe
canfinancial performance
be expected that the
of the thermoplastic
financial performancecomposites will be appreciably
of the thermoplastic composites improved
will bewhen the higher
appreciably production
improved whenrates the
offered from these rates
higher production materials arefrom
offered considered as a decision-making
these materials are considered parameter. In addition,parameter.
as a decision-making their high
reusability
In addition,potential
their high can be taken into
reusability account.
potential can be taken into account.
Figure 9 demonstrates a characteristic
Figure 9 demonstrates a characteristic example example of of the
the effect
effect ofof the
the main
main cost
cost drivers
drivers toto the
the total
total
cost
cost of
ofananactivity.
activity.It exhibits
It exhibitsthe the
cost cost
variation for storing
variation the component
for storing as a function
the component of two product’s
as a function of two
features,
product’sthe weightthe
features, and the perimeter,
weight revealing that
and the perimeter, this activity
revealing that this is activity
more sensitive
is moretosensitive
a perimeterto a
increase
perimeter than to a weight
increase than toincrease.
a weight increase.

6. Contribution
Figure 6. Contribution ofof the
the material,
material, labor,
labor, energy
energy and
and recycling
recycling cost
cost to
to the
the total cost
(autoclave-thermosetting composite).
 Aerospace 2019, 6 FOR PEER REVIEW 9

Aerospace 2019, 6 FOR PEER REVIEW 9

450
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 Recycling 9 of 12
Energy
400
Labor cost
350
Material cost
450
Recycling
300
Energy
400
Labor cost
250
350
Material cost

cost (€)
200
300

150
250
cost (€)
100
200

50
150

0
100
Autoclave TS Autoclave TP CDF RTM TS RTM TP
50

Figure 7.Autoclave TSfor

Total cost Autoclave TP CDF
the different RTM TS
manufacturing RTM TP
scenarios examined.
Figure 7. Total cost for the different manufacturing scenarios examined.

300 Labor cost - Autoclave

Figure 7. Total cost for the different manufacturing
300
scenarios examined.
Total
Cut prepreg (10 plies)

Labor cost - CDF

250

Cut prepreg (10 plies)

Total
250
Application of the release agent

200
300 Labor cost - Autoclave
Cut consumables

Application of the release agent

200
cost (€)

300
Total
Cut prepreg (10 plies)

Other subrocesses

150
Labor cost - CDF

Other subrocesses
cost (€)

250

Cut prepreg (10 plies)

150

Total
250

Cut diaphragms
Clean the mold

100
Application of the release agent

Clean the mold

200 100
Cut consumables

Application of the release agent

200
cost (€)

Lay up

Lay up
Other subrocesses

50
150 50

Other subrocesses
cost (€)

150

Cut diaphragms
Clean the mold

0 0
100
Clean the mold

100
a b
Lay up

Lay up

50
50

0 0
300a b
Labor cost - RTM
Cut prepreg (10 plies)

250
Total

300
Labor cost - RTM
Application of the release agent

200
Cut prepreg (10 plies)

250
Other subrocesses
cost (€)

150
Total
Application of the release agent

200
Clean the mold

100
Other subrocesses
cost (€)

Lay up

150
50
Clean the mold

100
0
Lay up

c
50

Figure 8. Labor cost breakdown structure for (a) Autoclave, (b) CDF, (c) RTM.
0
Figure 8. Labor cost breakdown structurec for (a) Autoclave, (b) CDF, (c) RTM.

Figure 8. Labor cost breakdown structure for (a) Autoclave, (b) CDF, (c) RTM.
Aerospace 2019, 6 FOR PEER REVIEW 10
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 10 of 12
Aerospace 2019, 6 FOR PEER REVIEW 10

Figure 9. Cost of the storage as a function of the perimeter and of the weight.

As far as theFigure 9. Cost of the

investment storage
cost as amanufacturing
for the function of the perimeter
processes andisofconcerned,
the weight. this is strongly
dependent
As on the
the size of the equipment, maximum working temperature and pressure isasstrongly
well as
As far
far asas the investment
investment cost cost for
for the
the manufacturing
manufacturing processes
processes is is concerned,
concerned, thisthis is strongly
heating andoncooling
dependent the size
size rates,
oftheinjection
the capacity
equipment, (for RTM)
maximum etc. In temperature
working this frame, a and cost pressure
evaluation of an
dependent on the of equipment, maximum working temperature and pressure as as well
well as
autoclave
as heating and RTM (injection/mixing machine) equipment was made and is shown in Figure 10.
heating andand cooling
cooling rates,
rates, injection
injection capacity
capacity (for(for
RTM)RTM) etc.etc. In this
In this frame,
frame, a cost
a cost evaluation
evaluation of
of an
From
an this
autoclavefigure, it is obvious that the investment cost of autoclaving is more than three times higher
autoclave andand
RTM RTM (injection/mixing
(injection/mixing machine)
machine) equipment
equipment waswas made
made andisisshown
and shownininFigure
Figure 10.
10.
compared
From this with RTM.
figure, it is On thethat
obvious other
the hand, increased
investment cost ofcost of the molds
autoclaving is more usedthaninthree
RTM, as well
times as
higher
From this figure, it is obvious that the investment cost of autoclaving is more than three times higher
additional
compared costs related with the design of the mold (e.g., for defining the injection line), and not
compared with withRTM.
RTM.OnOn thethe
other hand,
other increased
hand, cost ofcost
increased the of
molds
the used
molds in RTM,
used in as well
RTM, as as
additional
well as
taken
costs into
relatedaccount
with in this
the design study, impair
of the the financial
moldof(e.g., performance
for defining the of RTM.
injection
additional costs related with the design the mold (e.g., for defining theline), and not
injection taken
line), andinto
not
account in this study, impair the financial performance
taken into account in this study, impair the financial performance of RTM.of RTM.

50000
Investment cost (€)

50000
40000
Investment cost (€)

40000
30000

30000
20000

20000
10000

100000
Autoclave RTM

0
Figure 10. Investment
Autoclave cost of autoclaving
RTM and RTM.

4. Conclusions Figure 10. Investment cost of autoclaving and RTM.

In the present work Figure

4. Conclusions a Life 10.
CycleInvestment
Analysis cost (LCA)
of autoclaving
combined and RTM.
with a Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
analysis was carried out to estimate the carbon footprint and financial efficiency of different material,
In the present
4. Conclusions
manufacturing, work a Life
and end-of-life Cycle associated
scenarios Analysis (LCA) with the combined
production with a Life
of an Cycle Cost
aeronautical (LCC)
composite
analysis
structure: was carried out to estimate the carbon footprint and financial efficiency of different
In thethe canopy
present workof the Twin
a Life Star Analysis
Cycle helicopter. (LCA)The combined
results from withthea environmental
Life Cycle Costanalysis(LCC)
material, manufacturing,
demonstrated that the and end-of-life
embodied energy scenarios
of the raw associatedand
materials with the
the production
energy intensityof an aeronautical
of each process
analysis was carried out to estimate the carbon footprint and financial efficiency of different
composite
are the key structure:
factors the canopy
affecting of the
theend-of-life
carbon Twin Star
footprint, helicopter.
andassociated
are the cause The the
results
lowerfrom the environmental
material, manufacturing, and scenarios withofthe ecological
production of an performance
aeronautical
analysis
of demonstrated that the embodied energy of the raw materials and the energy intensity
analysis of
composite structure: the canopy of the Twin Star helicopter. The results from the cost
PEEK composite compared with thermosetting epoxy composite. As far as the environmental is
each process
concerned, are the
the main cost key factors
drivers affecting
are the cost the carbon footprint,
of theofmaterials and are the cause of the lower
analysis demonstrated that the embodied energy the raw (raw and auxiliary
materials materials)
and the energy and the
intensity of
ecological
cost for performance
preparing the of PEEK
mold for composite
the process. compared with thermosetting epoxy composite. As far as
each process are the key factors affecting the carbon footprint, and are the cause of the lower
the cost analysis
However, is concerned,
parameters the main
not taken cost drivers
into account in thisare the cost
study, suchofasthe materials
higher product (raw and auxiliary
quality referring
ecological performance of PEEK composite compared with thermosetting epoxy composite. As far as
materials)
to increased and the
mechanicalcost for preparing
properties and the mold
lack of for the
defects process.
provided by autoclaving; higher productivity
the cost analysis is concerned, the main cost drivers are the cost of the materials (raw and auxiliary
However,
offered by and parameters not taken
thermoplastic into account processing
in this study, such as higher product quality
materials) the cost forcomposites
preparing due to reduced
the mold for the process. cycles; assembling potential, such as
referring
the use to increased
of welding mechanical
that is expected properties
to lead and lack of defects
costsprovided by reduction,
autoclaving; higher
However, parameters not taken intotoaccount
lower assembling
in this study, and weight
such as higher product as quality
well as
productivity
recyclability offered
can affect theby thermoplastic
decision properties composites
strategy at and the earlydue to reduced processing cycles; assembling
referring to increased mechanical lack design
of defects stages. This also
provided by underlines
autoclaving; thehigher
need
potential, such as the use of welding that is expected to lead to lower assembling costs and weight
productivity offered by thermoplastic composites due to reduced processing cycles; assembling
potential, such as the use of welding that is expected to lead to lower assembling costs and weight
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 11 of 12

for a holistic approach to include potential reuse and ‘clear’ recycling applications of the composites,
as well as circular economy considerations when establishing the criteria for designing an aircraft
structure, selecting the material and finally manufacturing the structure.
Finally, this analysis makes evident the need for developing a versatile concept able to both deal
with intricate tasks and provide the optimal design options among different alternatives.

Author Contributions: C.V.K. was involved in the conceptualization as well as in the project administration/
supervision and the review/editing of the manuscript. A.L. performed the formal analysis, the data investigation,
the writing a big part of the original manuscript and the application of the methodology. S.G.P. supervised and
validated the project as well as contributed to the final editing and review of the manuscript.
Funding: The present work was partially funded from EU NHYTE project.
Acknowledgments: The present work is a preliminary study performed within NHYTE project (NHYTE,
2017–2020). The NHYTE project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No. 723309.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Timmis, A.J.; Hodzic, A.; Koh, L.; Bonner, M.; Soutis, C.; Shafer, A.W.; Dray, L. Environmental impact
assessment of aviation emission reduction through the implementation of composite materials. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 233–243. [CrossRef]
2. Bachman, J.; Hidalgo, C.; Bricout, S. Environmental analysis of innovative sustainable composites with
potential use in aviation sector—A life cycle assessment review. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2017, 60, 1301–1317.
[CrossRef]
3. Duflou, J.R.; Deng, Y.; Van Acker, K.; Dewulf, W. Do fiber-reinforced polymer composites provide
environmentally benign alternatives? A life-cycle-assessment-based study. MRS Bull. 2012, 37, 374–382.
[CrossRef]
4. Song, Y.S.; Youn, J.R.; Gutowski, T.G. Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites. Compos. Part A
2009, 40, 1257–1265. [CrossRef]
5. Michaud, V. Les Matériaux Composites, Moteurs de la Mobilité Proper. Presented at the Swiss Mobility
Days, Martigny, Switzerland, 7 April 2016.
6. Deng, Y. Life Cycle Assessment of Biobased Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Composites. Ph.D. Thesis, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2014.
7. Das, S. Life cycle assessment of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011,
16, 268–282. [CrossRef]
8. Hueber, C.; Horejsi, K.; Schledjewski, R. Review of cost estimation: Methods and models for aerospace
composite manufacturing. Adv. Manuf. Poly. Compos. Sci. 2016, 2, 1–13. [CrossRef]
9. Bader, M.G. Selection of composite materials and manufacturing routes for cost effective performance.
Compos. Part A 2002, 33, 913–934. [CrossRef]
10. Barlow, D.; Howe, C.; Clayton, G.; Brouwer, S. Preliminary study on cost optimization of aircraft composite
structures applicable to liquid moulding technologies. Compos. Struct. 2002, 57, 53–57. [CrossRef]
11. Pantelakis, S.G.; Katsiropoulos, C.V.; Labeas, G.N.; Sibois, H. A concept to optimize quality and cost in
thermoplastic composite components applied to the production of helicopter canopies. Compos. Part A 2009,
40, 595–606. [CrossRef]
12. Soares, S.R.; Finotti, A.R.; da Silva, V.P.; Alvarenga, R.A. Applications of life cycle assessment and cost
analysis in health care waste management. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 175–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Simões Carla, L.; Costa Pinto Lígia, M.; Bernardo, C.A. Environmental and economic assessment of a road
safety product made with virgin and recycled HDPE: A comparative study. J. Environ. Manag. 2013,
114, 209–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Miro, R.; Antti, S.; Jukka, H.; Seppo, J. Combining life cycle costing and life cycle assessment for an analysis
of a new residential district energy system design. Energy 2013, 63, 168–179.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 3 12 of 12

15. Antonella, P.; Fabio, D.; Elio, J.; Claudio, A.; Mariagiovanna, M.; Lavadera, L.A. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system. Renew. Energy
2016, 95, 337–355.
16. Norris, G.A. Integrating Life Cycle Cost Analysis and LCA. Int. J. LCA 2001, 6, 118–120.
17. Aysun, Ö.; Zerrin, G.; Gülden, T.; Levent, K.; Melike, M.; Müfide, B.; Alpagut, K. Life Cycle Assessment and
Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Magnesia Spinel Brick Production. Sustainability 2016, 8, 662.
18. Koronis, G.; Silva, A. Green Composites Reinforced with Plant-Based Fabrics: Cost and Eco-Impact
Assessment. J. Compos. Sci. 2018, 2, 8. [CrossRef]
19. Xiang, L.; Ruibin, B.; Jon, M. Environmental and financial performance of mechanical recycling of carbon fibre
reinforced polymers and comparison with conventional disposal routes. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 451–460.
20. Robert, A.W.; Jιrτme, P.; Veronique, M.; Christian, L.; Jan-Anders, E.M. Assessing the life cycle costs and
environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications. Compos. Part A 2011,
42, 1694–1709.
21. ISO 14040. Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment-Principles; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
22. Energetics Incorporated. Bandwidth Study on Energy Use and Potential Energy Saving Opportunities in the
Manufacturing of Lightweight Materials: Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites; U.S. Department of Energy:
Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
23. Suzuki, T.; Takahashi, J. Prediction of energy intensity of carbon fiber reinforced plastics for
mass-produced passenger car. In Proceedings of the 9th International SAMPE Symposium, Tokyo, Japan,
29 November–2 December 2005.
24. Howarth, J.; Mareddy, S.S.R.; Mativenga, P.T. Energy intensity and environmental analysis of mechanical
recycling of carbon fibre composite. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 81, 46–50. [CrossRef]
25. Job, S.; Leeke, G.; Mativenga, P.T.; Oliveux, G.; Pickering, S.; Shuaib, N.A. Composites Recycling: Where Are We
Now; Composites UK Ltd.: Berkhamsted, UK, 2016.
26. Oiveux, G.; Dandy, L.O.; Leeke, G.A. Current of recycling of fibre reinforced polymers: Review of
technologies, reuse and resulting properties. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2015, 72, 61–99. [CrossRef]
27. Electricity Map: Live CO2 Emissions of Electricity Consumption. Available online: www.electricitymap.org
(accessed on 1 September 2018).
28. Tong, R.; Hoa, S.V.; Chen, M. Cost Analysis on L-shape Composite Component Manufacturing.
In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Composite Materials, Jeju, Korea, 21–26 August 2011.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).