Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of the hull of a high-speed craft

Abstract

A comparative Life Cycle Assessment is performed for different structural material concepts on a 24-m-long high-speed patrol craft. The study is comparative and determines the differences in and sensitivities to environmental impact, especially in relation to the total impact of fuel burn for the different material concepts. The material concepts are aluminium and various composite combinations consisting of glass fibre and carbon fibre with vinyl ester resin both as single skins and as sandwich with a Divinycell foam core. Commercially available standard Life Cycle Assessment software is used for the Life Cycle Assessment calculations. The study shows that regardless of hull material concept, the environmental impact is dominated by the operational phase due to relatively large fuel consumption. In the operational phase, the lightest carbon-fibre concept is shown to have least environmental impact. Considering the manufacturing phase exclusively for the different hull concepts, it is concluded that the manufacturing of the aluminium hull has a somewhat larger environment impact for the majority of Life Cycle Assessment impact categories in comparison to the different composite hulls. The significant impact on the marine and the fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity originates from the aluminium raw material excavation and manufacturing processes. It is shown that the lightest hull, the carbon-fibre sandwich concept, with a 50% structural weight reduction compared to the aluminium design, can be utilized to reduce the fuel consumption by 20% (775 ton of diesel) over the lifetime with significant impact on the dominating environmental aspects considered herein, abiotic depletion, global warming and acidification.

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment hull aluminium composite sandwich structures optimization high-speed craft structural design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hellbratt

Mäkinen

. Design and production of GRP-sandwich vessels. In: 5th international conference on marine applications of composite materials (MACM-5), Melbourne, FL, April 18–20 1994.

Sielski

. Review of structural design of aluminum ships and craft. In: SNAME maritime technology conference & expo and ship production symposium, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 14–16 November 2007.

Torrez

. Light-weight materials selection for high-speed naval craft. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2007.

Winebrake

Corbett

Meyer

. Energy use and emissions from marine vessels: a total fuel life cycle approach. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2007; 57(1): 102–110.

Corbett

Winebrake

. Emissions tradeoffs among alternative marine fuels: total fuel cycle analysis of residual oil, marine gas oil, and marine diesel oil. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2008; 58(4): 538–542.

Bengtsson

Andersson

Fridell

. A comparative life cycle assessment of marine fuels: liquefied natural gas and three other fossil fuels. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 2011; 225(2): 97–110.

Schleicher

Swanhart

. Structural design of the 100 knot yacht. In: 7th international conference on fast sea transportation, Ischia Porto, 7–10 October 2003.

Stenius

Rosén

Kuttenkeuler

. On structural design of energy efficient small high-speed craft. Mar Struct 2011; 24(1): 43–59.

Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Rules for classification of high-speed, light craft and naval surface craft. Høvik: DNV, 2008.

10.

Baumann

Tillman

. The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

11.

Oberbacher

Nikodem

Klöppfer

. LCA – how it came about: an early systems analysis of packaging for liquids. Int J LCA 1996; 1(2): 62–65.

12.

Boustead

. LCA – how it came about: the beginning in the UK. Int J LCA 1996; 1(1): 4–7.

13.

Lave

Elisa

Hendrickson

. Using input–output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharges. Environ Sci Tech 1995; 29(9): 420A–426A.

14.

Portney

. The price is right: making use of life cycle analysis. Issues Sci Technol 1993–1994; 10(2): 69–75.

15.

Fiksel

. Design for environment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

16.

Hendrickson

Horvath

Joshi

. Comparing two life cycle assessment approaches: a process model vs. economic input–output-based assessment. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE international symposium on electronics and the environment (ISEE-1997), San Francisco, CA, 5–7 May 1997, pp.176–181. New York: IEEE.

17.

Tillmann

Ekvall

Baumann

. Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 1994; 2(1): 21–30.

18.

ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework.

19.

Hedlund-Åström

Olsson

. A comparative LCA study on a boat structure. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on sandwich construction, Stockholm, Sweden, 9–11 June 1998. Warrington: EMAS Publishing.

20.

Umair

. Environmental impacts of fibre composite materials, study on life cycle assessment of materials used for ship superstructure. Master Thesis, Environmental Strategies Research, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2006.

21.

Goedkoop

Oele

de Gelder

. SimaPro 5.1 reference manual, PRé consultants, January 2003.

22.

Divinycell H-grade. Technical manual, DIAB AB, 2010.

23.

Baczynska

. LCA as a tool for environmental impact description. Laholm: Divinycell International AB, 1996.

24.

Burman

Hedlund-Åström

Lingg

. Cost and energy assessment of a high speed ship. Trans R Inst Nav Archit B: Int J Small Cr Technol 2008; 150(1): 1–10.

25.

Hedlund-Åström

. Model for end of life treatment of polymer composite materials. Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (TRITA-MMK 2005: 23), 2005.