Advertisement

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2091–2110 | Cite as

Integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) in the early phases of aircraft structural design: an elevator case study

  • Elcin Aleixo CaladoEmail author
  • Marco Leite
  • Arlindo Silva
ENVIRONMENTAL LCC
  • 249 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The main objective of this paper is to develop a model that will combine economic and environmental assessment tools to support the composite material selection of aircraft structures in the early phases of design and application of the tool for an aircraft elevator.

Methods

An integrated life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used as part of the sustainable design approach for the laminate stacking sequence design. The model considered is the aircraft structure made of carbon fiber reinforce plastic prepreg and processed via hand layup-autoclave process which is the preferred method for the aircraft industry. The model was applied to a cargo aircraft elevator case study by comparing six different laminate configurations and two different carbon fiber prepreg materials across aircraft’s entire life cycle.

Results and discussion

The results show, in line with other studies using different methodologies (e.g., life cycle engineering, or LCE), that the combination of LCA with LCC is a worthwhile approach for comparing the different laminate configurations in terms of cost and environmental impact to support composite laminate stacking design by providing the best trade-off between cost and environment. Elevator LCC reduces 19% by changing the material type and applying different ply orientations. Elevator LCA score reduces 53% by selecting the optimum instead of best technical solution that minimizes the displacement. Improving the structural performance does not always lead to an increase in the cost.

Keywords

Aircraft structures Carbon fiber reinforce plastics (CFRPs) Integrated LCA/LCC Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle cost (LCC) Prepreg hand layup 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions to this work by our colleagues at CEIIA Engineering and Innovation Centre.

Funding information

This work was supported by Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, FCT, Portugal, under the MIT-Portugal Program [grant number SFRH/BD/51944/2012]. This work was also supported by FCT, through IDMEC, under LAETA, project UID/EMS/50022/2013.

References

  1. Bovea MD, Vidal R (2004) Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and customer valuation. Resour Conserv Recycl 41(2):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calado EA, Leite M, Silva A (2018) Selecting composite materials considering cost and environmental impact in the early phases of aircraft structure design. J Clean Prod 186:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Curran R, Raghunathan S, Price M (2004) Review of aerospace engineering cost modelling: the genetic causal approach. Prog Aerosp Sci 40(8):487–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Das S (2011) Life cycle assessment of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:268–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deng C, Wu J, Shao X (2013) Research on eco-balance with LCA and LCC for mechanical product design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87:1217–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4887-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duflou JR, De Moor J, Verpoest I, Dewulf W (2009) Environmental impact analysis of composite use in car manufacturing. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 58:9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Field FR, Clark JP, Ashby MF (2001) Market drivers for materials and process development in the 21st century. MRS Bull 26(9):716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gantois K, Morris AJ (2004) The multi-disciplinary design of a large-scale civil aircraft wing taking account of manufacturing costs. Struct Multidiscip Optim 28(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Götze U, Peças P, Schmidt A, Symmank C, Henriques E, Ribeiro I, Schüller M (2017) Life cycle engineering and management—fostering the management-orientation of life cycle engineering activities. Procedia CIRP 61:134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene D (1992) Energy-efficiency improvement potential of commercial aircraft. Annu Rev Energy Environ 17:537–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauschild MZ (2015) Better—but is it good enough? On the need to consider both eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness to gauge industrial sustainability. Procedia CIRP 29:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guinee J (2013) Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1722–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hogg D (2002) Costs for municipal waste management in the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/eucostwaste_management.htm. Accessed 12 March 2016
  14. Humbert S, Schryver AD, Bengoa X, Margni M, Jolliet O (2005) IMPACT 2002+: User Guide, Industrial Ecology & Life Cycle Systems Group, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL)Google Scholar
  15. Huppes G, Ishikawa M (2005) A framework for quantified eco-efficiency analysis. J Ind Ecol 9(4):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006—environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html. Accessed 12 March 2016
  18. ISO (2012) ISO 14045:2012—environmental management—eco-efficiency assessment of product systems—principles, requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/43262.html. Accessed 12 March 2016
  19. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M (2010) Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod 18(2):120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson M, Kirchain R (2010) Developing and assessing commonality metrics for product families: a process-based cost-modeling approach. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 57(4):634–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassapoglou C (1999a) Minimum cost and weight design of fuselage frames: part a: design constraints and manufacturing process characteristics. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 30:887–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassapoglou C (1999b) Minimum cost and weight design of fuselage frames: part b: cost considerations, optimization, and results. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 30:895–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufmann M, Zenkert D, Akermo M (2010) Cost/weight optimization of composite prepreg structures for best draping strategy. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 41(4):464–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee DS, Fahey DW, Forster PM, Newton PJ, Wit RCN, Lim LL, Owen B, Sausen R (2009) Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmos Environ 43(22–23):3520–3537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee JJ (2010) Can we accelerate the improvement of energy efficiency in aircraft systems? Energy Convers Manag 51(1):189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muchová L, Eder P (2010) End-of-waste criteria for iron and steel scrap: technical proposals. Luxemb Euro Commission Jt Res.  https://doi.org/10.2791/43563
  27. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niazi A, Dai JS, Balabani S, Seneviratne L (2006) Product cost estimation: technique classification and methodology review. J Manuf Sci Eng 128(2):563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peças P, Ribeiro I, Silva A, Henriques E (2013) Comprehensive approach for informed life cycle-based materials selection. Mater Des 43:220–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rebitzer G, Hunkeler D (2003) Life cycle costing in LCM: ambitions, opportunities, and limitations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ribeiro I, Kaufmann J, Schmidt A, Peças P, Henriques E, Götze U (2016) Fostering selection of sustainable manufacturing technologies—a case study involving product design, supply chain and life cycle performance. J Clean Prod 112:3306–3319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ribeiro I, Peças P, Henriques E (2013) A life cycle framework to support materials selection for ecodesign: a case study on biodegradable polymers. Mater Des 51:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ribeiro I, Peças P, Silva A, Henriques E (2008) Life cycle engineering methodology applied to material selection, a fender case study. J Clean Prod 16(17):1887–1899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rush C, Rajkumar R (2000) Analysis of cost estimating processes used within a concurrent engineering environment throughout a product life cycle. Adv Concurr Eng Ce 2000:58Google Scholar
  35. Schwab Castella P, Blanc I, Gomez Ferrer M, Ecabert B, Wakeman M, Manson JA, Emery D, Han SH, Hong J, Jolliet O (2009) Integrating life cycle costs and environmental impacts of composite rail car-bodies for a Korean train. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simões CL, Figueirêdo de Sá R, Ribeiro CJ, Bernardo P, Pontes AJ, Bernardo CA (2016) Environmental and economic performance of a car component: assessing new materials, processes and designs. J Clean Prod 118:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simões CL, Pinto LM, Simoes R, Bernardo CA (2013) Integrating environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product development: a material selection case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1734–1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen HL, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):389–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturer Association [JCMA] (2010) Lifecycle assessment of aircraft, automobile and windmillGoogle Scholar
  40. Thokala P, Scanlan J, Chipperfield A (2012) Framework for aircraft cost optimization using multidisciplinary analysis. J Aircr 49(2):367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang K, Kelly D, Dutton S (2002) Multi-objective optimisation of composite aerospace structures. Compos Struct 57(1–4):141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Witik R, Gaille F, Teuscher R, Ringwald H, Michaud V, Månson JAE (2012) Economic and environmental assessment of alternative production methods for composite aircraft components. J Clean Prod 29–30:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Witik R, Teuscher R, Michaud V, Ludwig C, Månson JAE (2013) Carbon fibre reinforced composite waste: an environmental assessment of recycling, energy recovery and landfilling. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 49:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDMEC, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Engineering Product Development PillarSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations