Comparative Environmental and Cost Analysis of Alternative Production Scenarios Associated with a Helicopter’s Canopy

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.

A Novel Holistic Index for the Optimization of Composite Components and Manufacturing Processes with Regard to Quality, Life Cycle Costs and Environmental Performance

“…C case and C autoclave are functions relating the cost of the structural component under consideration to the manufacturing process parameters and are derived empirically. Such functions may be found in [7] and a representative example is shown in Table 1. C is understood as a 'penalty'.…”

“…E case and E autoclave are also functions of the manufacturing process parameters and are derived empirically. Such functions may be found in [7] and a representative example is shown in Table 1. Also E is understood as a 'penalty' and therefore it is also deduced from the value of quality term Q.…”

“…To compare the AFP process to the Autoclave with regard to their suitability to manufacture the part under consideration the approach followed above for the AFP has to be repeated for the Autoclave. As the Autoclave is a process which is widely used process several parts of the above analysis such as the derivation of quality functions or Life Cycle Costing analyses are already available in the literature [4,7]. Yet, as for formulating the present Index P the Autoclave process has been taken as the reference process all terms in Eqn.…”

“…Several studies have been conducted for evaluating separately the financial viability or the environmental footprint of structures made from composite materials [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. A number of existing works are dedicated to the cost estimation analysis of the processing of structural components; manufacturing process or component quality optimization are made as independent processes [9,[19][20][21][22].…”

Special Issue “8th EASN–CEAS Workshop on Manufacturing for Growth and Innovation”

“…This results in severe nonlinearities in the model. Katsiropoulos et al [7] have assessed the carbon footprint and the financial viability of different materials and manufacturing scenarios, as well as recycling scenarios, associated with the production of aeronautical structural components. For this purpose, the authors developed Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) models and implemented them for the case of a helicopter's canopy production.…”