Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 60, Issue 9, pp 1301–1317 | Cite as

Environmental analysis of innovative sustainable composites with potential use in aviation sector—A life cycle assessment review

  • Jens Bachmann
  • Carme Hidalgo
  • Stéphanie Bricout
Open Access


The forecast of growing air transport in the upcoming decades faces the challenge of an increasing environmental impact. Aviation industry is working on promising technologies to mitigate this environmental impact. Lightweight design is a strong lever to lower the fuel consumption and, consequently, with it the emissions of aviation. High performance composites are a key technology to help achieve these aims thanks to their favourable combination of mechanical properties and low weight in primary structures. However, mainly synthetic materials such as petrol based carbon fibres and epoxy resins are used nowadays to produce composite in aviation. Renewable materials like bio-based fibres and resin systems offer potential environmental advantages. However, they have not found their way into aviation, yet. The reasons are reduced mechanical properties and, especially for the use of natural fibres, their flammability. Improvements of these shortcomings are under investigation. Therefore the application of bio-based and recycled materials in certain areas of the aircraft could be possible in the future. Good examples for applications are furnishings and secondary structures. The motivation for this paper is to give an overview of potential environmental properties by using such eco-materials in aviation. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to calculate environmental impacts during all life stages of a product. The main focus is laid on the bio-fibres flax and ramie, recycled carbon fibres and bio-based thermoset resin systems. Furthermore an overview of environmental aspects of existing composite materials used in aviation is given. Generally, a lack of LCA results for the substitution of synthetic materials by bio-based/recycled composite materials in aviation applications has been identified. Therefore, available information from other transport areas, such as automotive, has been summarized. More detailed LCA data for eco-composite materials and technologies to improve their properties is important to understand potential environmental effects in aviation.


aviation composite natural fibre recycled carbon fibre bio-resin cabin interior secondary structure life cycle assessment (LCA) 


  1. 1.
    Airbus global market forecast: Mapping demand 2016/2035 (leaflet). Available at, accessed on 2016-10-20Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boeing traffic and market outlook. Available at, accessed on 2016-10-20Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission Climate Action. 2016. Reducing emissions from aviation. Available at, accessed on 2016-10-26Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stockholm resilience centre: The nine planetary boundaries. Available at, accessed on 2016-10-26Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Commission. The EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). Available at ets_en.pdf, accessed on 2017-03-16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FAST (Flight Airworthiness Support Technology)—Special Edition A350XWB. Airbus Technical Magazine, June 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Timmis A J, Hodzic A, Koh L, et al. Environmental impact assessment of aviation emission reduction through the implementation of composite materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2015, 20: 233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A brief history of aircraft structures. Aerospace Engineering Blog. Available at, accessed on 2016-10-21Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oldest-known fibers to be used by humans discovered. Available at discovered, accessed on 2016-10-05Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dicker M P M, Duckworth P F, Baker A B, et al. Green composites: A review of material attributes and complementary applications. Compos Part A-Appl S, 2014, 56: 280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pinzelli R. Fibres aramides pour matériaux composites. Techniques de l’Ingénieur, 1995: A3 985Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bardonnet P. Résines époxydes: Composants et propriétés. Techniques de l’Ingénieur, 1992, A3 465Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roylance D. Introduction to composite materials. Cambridge, 2000. Available at;jsessionid=F17F86ECB585A74EB2975828D95AC65A?doi= Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berthereau A, Dallies E. Fibres de verre de renforcement. Techniques de l’Ingénieur, 2008, A5 132Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dittenber D B, GangaRao H V S. Critical review of recent publications on use of natural composites in infrastructure. Compos Part A-Appl S, 2012, 43: 1419–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hexcel Corporation. HexPly® Prepreg Technology. January 2013, Publication No. FGU 017c. Available at Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott A. Boeing looks at pricey titanium in bid to stem 787 losses. Reuters Aerospace & Defence. Available at idUSKCN0PY1PL20150724, accessed on 2016-10-26Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donnet J B, Bansal R C. Carbon Fibers. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1972Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richter K. An aeronautic view. World Materials Forum Roundtable: KPI’s for material efficiency, 09/06/2016. Available at Scholar
  20. 20.
    Technical Data Sheet: Hexcel M21. Available at, accessed at 2017-06-27Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mechanical properties of carbon fiber composite materials, fiber/epoxy resin (120°C cure). Available at, accessed at 2017-06-27Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah U D, Schubel P J. On recycled carbon fibre composites manufactured through a liquid composite moulding process. J Reinf Plast Comp, 2015, 35: 533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Technical data sheet: ELG Carbon Fibre Ltd. Carbiso M Nonwoven Mats. Available at fibre-nonwoven-mat, accessed at 2017-06-27Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Technical data sheet: Lineo flaxpreg. Available at http://www.lineo. eu/products, accessed at 2017-01-05Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pickering K L, Efendy M G A, Le T M. A review of recent developments in natural fibre composites and their mechanical performance. Compos Part A-Appl S, 2016, 83: 98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gu Y, Tan X, Yang Z, et al. Hot compaction and mechanical properties of ramie fabric/epoxy composite fabricated using vacuum assisted resin infusion molding. Mater Des (1980-2015), 2014, 56: 852–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang X, Yamauchi M, Takahashi J. Life cycle assessment of CFRP in application of automobile. In: The 18th International Conference on Composite Materials. South Korea, 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Song Y S, Youn J R, Gutowski T G. Life cycle energy analysis of fiberreinforced composites. Compos Part A-Appl S, 2009, 40: 1257–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suzuki T, Takahashi J. Prediction of energy intensity of carbon fiber reinforced plastics for mass-produced passenger car. In: Proceedings of the 9th Japan International SAMPE Symposium. Tokyo, 2005Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Michaud V. Les matériaux composites, moteurs de la mobilité propre? Swiss mobility days. Martigny, Swiss, 2016-04-07Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verpoest I. Innovative material concepts for high volume composite applications (the Hivocomp Project). In: Symposium on the Occasion of the 5th Anniversary of the Institute for Carbon Composites. Munich, 2014Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dai Q, Kelly J, Sullivan J, et al. Life-Cycle Analysis Update of Glass and Glass Fiber for the GREET Model. Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 2015. Available at Scholar
  33. 33.
    Densley Tingley D, Hathway A, Davison B, et al. The environmental impact of phenolic foam insulation boards. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. London, 2015Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moliner T, Pebregat J, Cseh M, et al. Life cycle assessment of a fibre- reinforced polymer made of glass fibre and phenolic resin with brominated flame retardant. Simposio de la Red Española de ACV: ACV & bioenergia, Spain, 2013Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Open LCA nexus: Source for LCA data sets. Available at, accessed on 2016-10-20Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Deng Y. Life cycle assessment of biobased fibre-reinforced polymer composites. Dissertation of Doctoral Degree. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2014Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chester M. Life-cycle environmental inventory of passenger transportation in the United States. Dissertation of Doctoral Degree. Berkeley: University of California, 2008Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johanning A, Scholz D. A first step towards the integration of life cycle assessment into conceptual aircraft design. DLR Document ID: 301347, 2013Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jemiolo W. Life cycle assessment of current and future passenger air transport. Dissertation of Masteral Degree. Norway: University of Nordland, 2015Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lopes J. Life-cycle assessment of the airbus A330-200 aircraft. Lisbon: Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, 2010Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lewis T. A life cycle assessment of the passenger air transport system using three flight scenarios. Dissertation of Masteral Degree. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2013Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Carvalho H, Raposo A, Ribeiro I, et al. Application of life cycle engineering approach to assess the pertinence of using natural fibers in composites—The rocker case study. Procedia CIRP, 2016, 48: 364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Duflou J, Deng Yelin D, et al. Comparative impact assessment for flax fibre versus conventional glass fibre reinforced composites: Are biobased reinforcement materials the way to go? CIRP Annals—Manuf Technol, 2014, 63: 45–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barth M, Carus M. Carbon Footprint and Sustainability of Different Natural Fibres for Biocomposites and Insulation Material. Study Providing Data for the Automotive and Insulation Industry. Hürth: Nova-Institut GmbH, 2015Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bensadoun F, Vanderfeesten B, Verpoest I, et al. Environmental impact assessment of end of life options for flax-MAPP composites. Ind Crop Prod, 2016, 94: 327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dissanayake N P. Life Cycle Assessment of Flax Fibres for the Reinforcement of Polymer Matrix Composites. Dissertation of Doctoral Degree. Plymouth: University of Plymouth, 2011Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Duflou J R, Deng Y, Van Acker K, et al. Do fiber-reinforced polymer composites provide environmentally benign alternatives? A life-cycle-assessment-based study. MRS Bull, 2012, 37: 374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    González-García S, Hospido A, Feijoo G, et al. Life cycle assessment of raw materials for non-wood pulp mills: Hemp and flax. Resour Conserv Recycl, 2010, 54: 923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Haufe J, Carus M. Hemp fibres for green products—An assessment of life cycle studies on hemp fibre applications. Hürth: EIHA Report, 2011Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Le Duigou A, Baley C. Coupled micromechanical analysis and life cycle assessment as an integrated tool for natural fibre composites development. J Clean Prod, 2014, 83: 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miller S A, Srubar Iii W V, Billington S L, et al. Integrating durability-based service-life predictions with environmental impact assessments of natural fiber-reinforced composite materials. Resources Conservation Recycling, 2015, 99: 72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miller S A, Billington S L, Lepech M D. Influence of carbon feedstock on potentially net beneficial environmental impacts of bio-based composites. J Clean Prod, 2016, 132: 266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Xu X, Jayaraman K, Morin C, et al. Life cycle assessment of woodfibre- reinforced polypropylene composites. J Mater Process Tech, 2008, 198: 168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Holbery J, Houston D. Natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites in automotive applications. J Miner, Metal Mater Soc, 2016, 58: 80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dornburg V, Lewandowski I, Patel M. Comparing the land requirements, energy savings, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction of biobased polymers and bioenergy. J Ind Ecol, 2003, 7: 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mishra S, Tripathy S S, Misra M, et al. Novel eco-friendly biocomposites: Biofiber reinforced biodegradable polyester amide composites— Fabrication and properties evaluation. J Reinf Plas Composit, 2002, 21: 55–70Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Guitérrez E, Bono F. Review of industrial manufacturing capacity for fibre-reinforced polymers as prospective structural components in shipping containers. EC JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Luxembourg, 2013Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gardiner G. Recycled carbon fiber update: Closing the CFRP lifecycle loop. Composites Technology, 2014Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Witten E, Kraus T, Kühnel M. Composites-Marktbericht 2015: Marktentwicklungen, Trends, Ausblicke und Herausforderungen. CCeV and AVK, 21 Sept 2015. Available at gesamt.pdfGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Carberry W. Airplane recycling efforts benefit Boeing operators. Boeing AERO Magazine, 2008, QRT4.08: 6–13Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rybicka J, Tiwari A, Leeke G A. Technology readiness level assessment of composites recycling technologies. J Clean Prod, 2016, 112: 1001–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Li X, Bai R, McKechnie J. Environmental and financial performance of mechanical recycling of carbon fibre reinforced polymers and comparison with conventional disposal routes. J Clean Prod, 2016, 127: 451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Finnveden G, Albertsson A C, Berendson J, et al. Solid waste treatment within the framework of life-cycle assessment. J Clean Prod, 1995, 3: 189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manage, 2012, 32: 1019–1030Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yang Y, Boom R, Irion B, et al. Recycling of composite materials. Chem Eng Process, 2012, 51: 53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pickering S. Recycling and disposal of thermoset composites. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Composites Gateway. Dartington Hall, Devon, UK, 2013Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Witik R A, Teuscher R, Michaud V, et al. Carbon fibre reinforced composite waste: An environmental assessment of recycling, energy recovery and landfilling. Compos Part A-Appl S, 2013, 49: 89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pickering S J, Kelly R M, Kennerley J R, et al. A fluidised-bed process for the recovery of glass fibres from scrap thermoset composites. Compos Sci Technol, 2000, 60: 509–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Correia J R, Almeida N M, Figueira J R. Recycling of FRP composites: Reusing fine GFRP waste in concrete mixtures. J Clean Prod, 2011, 19: 1745–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Eickenbusch H, Krauss O. Kohlenstofffaserverstärkte kunststoffe im fahrzeugbau: Ressourceneffizienz und technologien. VDI ZRE Publikationen: Kurzanalyse Nr.3 und Dokumentation des Fachgesprächs, 2013, 5Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Asmatulu E, Twomey J, Overcash M. Recycling of fiber-reinforced composites and direct structural composite recycling concept. J Compos Mater, 2014, 48: 593–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Recycled Carbon Fibre Ltd. Converting composite waste into high quality re-usable carbon fibre. Available at http://www.recycledcarbonfibre. com, accessed at 2011-06-15Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Oliveux G, Dandy L O, Leeke G A. Current status of recycling of fibre reinforced polymers: Review of technologies, reuse and resulting properties. Prog Mater Sci, 2015, 72: 61–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Illing-Günther H, Hofmann M, Gulich B. Nonwovens made of recycled carbon fibres as basic materials for composites. In: Proceedings of the 7th International CFK-Valley Stade Convention “Latest Innovations in CFRP Technology”. Chemnitz, 2013Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Recycling today. 2016. ELG Carbon Fibre Ltd. to highlight role of recycled carbon fibre. Available at, accessed at 2016-10-23Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    La Rosa A D, Banatao D R, Pastine S J, et al. Recycling treatment of carbon fibre/epoxy composites: Materials recovery and characterization and environmental impacts through life cycle assessment. Compos Part B-Eng, 2016, 104: 17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lee C K, Kim Y K, Pruitichaiwiboon P, et al. Assessing environmentally friendly recycling methods for composite bodies of railway rolling stock using life-cycle analysis. Transport Res D-Transport Environ, 2010, 15: 197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Prinçaud M, Aymonier C, Loppinet-Serani A, et al. Environmental feasibility of the recycling of carbon fibers from CFRPs by solvolysis using supercritical water. ACS Sustain Chem Eng, 2014, 2: 1498–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    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: 46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Davidson J, Price R. Recycling carbon fibre. WO 2009090264 A1, 2009Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fischer H, Schmid H G. Quality control for recycled carbon fibres. Translated from Kunststoffe 11/2013, 88–91. Scholar
  82. 82.
    Koffler C, Rohde-Brandenburger K. On the calculation of fuel savings through lightweight design in automotive life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2010, 15: 128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Goto M. Chemical recycling of plastics using sub- and supercritical fluids. J Supercrit Fluid, 2009, 47: 500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Arnold E L, Weager B M. Next generation sustainable composites: Development and processing of furan-flax biocomposites. In: Seventeenth International Conference on Composite Materials Proceedings. British Composites Society, 2017Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Crossley R, Schubel P, Stevenson A. Furan matrix and flax fibre as a sustainable renewable composite: Mechanical and fire-resistant properties in comparison to phenol, epoxy and polyester. Reinf Plast Comp, 2014, 33: 58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tumolva T, Kubouchi M. Evaluating the Carbon storage potential of Furan resin-based green omposites. In: 18th International Conference on Composite Materials. Jeju, Korea, 2016Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    La Rosa A D, Recca G, Summerscales J, et al. Bio-based versus traditional polymer composites. A life cycle assessment perspective. J Clean Prod, 2014, 74: 135–144Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Bachmann
    • 1
  • Carme Hidalgo
    • 2
  • Stéphanie Bricout
    • 3
  1. 1.Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (German Aerospace Centre)Institute of Composite Structures and Adaptive Systems-Department of Multifunctional MaterialsBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.Leitat Technological CenterTerrassaSpain
  3. 3.Airbus Group Innovations, Fuels and EnvironmentSuresnesFrance

Personalised recommendations