Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative life cycle assessment and cost analysis of autoclave and pressure bag molding for producing CFRP components

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Composite materials are demonstrating the ability to face the challenge of competitive markets where high-performance, low costs, and reduced manufacturing time are mandatory. Vacuum bagging with autoclave curing is one of the most used manufacturing methods for carbon fiber composite parts. However, it shows some limitations, mainly due to manual operations and long processing time. Out-of-autoclave (OOA) methods, such as pressure bag molding (PBM), can lead to a strong reduction of the manufacturing time through the simplification of lay-up and curing phases. In this paper, a comparative analysis between the autoclave and the PBM processes has been performed, jointly considering both the economic and environmental aspects. An evaluation of the environmental impacts has been carried out following the standardized life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. In addition, costs related to these two manufacturing techniques have been estimated through a parametric approach and successively compared. Different scenarios have been considered to take into account various production batches, mold manufacturing techniques, and end of life alternatives. The analyses show conflicting results demonstrating that a global optimum scenario does not exist and, depending on the chosen indicator and production batch, the best alternative varies. Considering only the environmental indicators, the autoclave process can be considered the most sustainable option, due to the lower consumption of energy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holmes M (2017) Carbon composites continue to find new markets. Reinf Plast 61:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repl.2016.12.060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mathes V (2018) The composites industry: plenty of opportunities in heterogeneous market. Reinf Plast 62:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REPL.2017.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rao S, Simha TGA, Rao KP, Ravikumar GV V. (2015) Carbon composites are becoming competitive and cost effective. Infosys website 2–3

  4. Nickels L (2017) Composites driving the auto industry. Reinf Plast 62:38–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repl.2017.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duflou JR, De Moor J, Verpoest I, Dewulf W (2009) Environmental impact analysis of composite use in car manufacturing. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 58:9–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Witik RA, Payet J, Michaud V, Ludwig C, Månson JAE (2011) Assessing the life cycle costs and environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 42:1694–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.07.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Faster cycle, better surface: out of the autoclave : CompositesWorld. https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/faster-cycle-better-surface-out-of-the-autoclave. Accessed 17 Apr 2018

  8. Advani SG, Hsiao K-T (2012) Manufacturing techniques for polymer matrix composites (PMCs). Woodhead Pub

  9. Henning F, Kärger L, Dörr D, Schirmaier FJ, Seuffert J, Bernath A (2019) Fast processing and continuous simulation of automotive structural composite components. Compos Sci Technol 171:261–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2018.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Summerscales J, Searle TJ (2005) Low-pressure (vacuum infusion) techniques for moulding large composite structures. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl 219:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1243/146442005X10238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hwang S-S, Park SY, Kwon G-C, Choi WJ (2018) Cure kinetics and viscosity modeling for the optimization of cure cycles in a vacuum-bag-only prepreg process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99:2743–2753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2467-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kay J, Fahrang L, Hsiao K, Fernlund G (2011) Effect of process conditions on porosity in out-of-autoclave prepreg laminates. In: 18Th international conference on composite materials

  13. Liu S, Li Y, Shen Y, Lu Y (2019) Mechanical performance of carbon fiber/epoxy composites cured by self-resistance electric heating method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103:3479–3493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03707-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Crivelli Visconti I, Langella A (1992) Analytical modelling of pressure bag technology. Compos Manuf 3:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-7143(92)90176-U

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mitchell P, Society of Manufacturing Engineers (1996) Tool and manufacturing engineers handbook. Volume 8, plastic part manufacturing: a reference book for manufacturing engineers, managers, and technicians. In: Society of Manufacturing Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  16. Park S, Lee D, Song J (2018) Fabrication and evaluation of mechanical properties of carbon/epoxy square tube using pressure bag molding and compared with autoclave method. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 19:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-018-0053-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Drozda T, Wick C, Benedict JT, et al (1983) Tool and manufacturing engineers handbook: a reference book for manufacturing engineers, managers, and technicians. Society of Manufacturing Engineers

  18. Duflou JR, Deng Y, Van Acker K, Dewulf W (2012) Do fiber-reinforced polymer composites provide environmentally benign alternatives? A life-cycle-assessment-based study. MRS Bull 37:374–382. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2012.33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Suzuki T, Takahashi J (2005) Prediction of energy intensity of carbon fiber reinforced plastics for mass-produced passenger cars. Ninth Japan Int SAMPE Symp JISSE-9:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  20. Song YS, Youn JR, Gutowski TG (2009) Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 40:1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.05.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Witik RA, 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 29–30:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tong R, Hoa SV, Chen M (2011) Cost analysis on L-shape composite component manufacturing. In: Proc 18th Int Conf Compos Mater 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Baskaran M, Sarrionandia M, Aurrekoetxea J, et al (2014) Manufacturing cost comparison of RTM, HP-RTM and CRTM for an automotive roof. ECCM16 16th Eur Conf Compos Mater 22–26

  24. Vita A, Castorani V, Germani M, Marconi M (2018) Comparative life cycle assessment of low-pressure RTM, compression RTM and high-pressure RTM manufacturing processes to produce CFRP car hoods. Procedia CIRP

  25. Potter K, Bloom D, Crowley D, et al (2017) Automating the manufacture of very complex composite structures. In: ICCM International Conferences on Composite Materials. pp 20–25

  26. Louis BM (2010) Gas transport in out-of-autoclave prepreg laminates. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

  27. Arafath ARA, Fernlund G, Poursartip A (2009) Gas transport in prepregs: model and permeability experiments. Proc 17th Int Conf Compos Mater 1–9

  28. Slesinger N, Shimizu T, Arafath ARA, Poursartip A (2009) Heat transfer coefficient distribution. ICCM 17th, 27 Jul - 31 Jul 1–10

  29. Anderson JP, Altan MC (2012) Properties of composite cylinders fabricated by bladder assisted composite manufacturing. J Eng Mater Technol 134:044501. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kar KK (2016) Composite materials: processing, applications, characterizations. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vita A, Castorani V, Mandolini M, Papetti A, Germani M (2019) Cost and temperature homogeneity optimization of the heating system for composite materials air press molding. Comput Des Appl 16:1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2019.1084-1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. ISO-International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO EN:14040

  33. ISO-International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO EN 14044

  34. Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Duverlie P, Castelain JM (1999) Cost estimation during design step: parametric method versus case based reasoning method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 15:895–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001700050147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Khalil YF (2017) Eco-efficient lightweight carbon-fiber reinforced polymer for environmentally greener commercial aviation industry. Sustain Prod Consum 12:16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. (2016) EUROPEAN ALUMINIUM, Recycling aluminium a pathway to a sustainable economy. https://www.european-aluminium.eu/media/1712/ea_recycling-brochure-2016.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  38. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, De Schryver A, et al (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. A life cycle impact … 133. http://www.lcia-recipe.net. Accessed 8 Feb 2019

  39. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al (2007) IPCC, 2007: climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support offered by HP Composites s.r.l. (Ascoli Piceno, Italy) for the data retrieval.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131, Ancona, Italy

    Alessio Vita, Vincenzo Castorani & Michele Germani

  2. Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Largo dell’Università, 01100, Viterbo, Italy

    Marco Marconi

Authors
  1. Alessio Vita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincenzo Castorani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michele Germani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco Marconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Vita.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vita, A., Castorani, V., Germani, M. et al. Comparative life cycle assessment and cost analysis of autoclave and pressure bag molding for producing CFRP components. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 105, 1967–1982 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04384-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04384-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation