Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 529–534
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering

A modular LCA/LCC-modelling concept for evaluating material and

process innovations in carbon fibre manufacturing
Thomas Groetscha*, Claudia Creightona, Russell Varleya, Alexander Kaluzab,c, Antal Dérb,c, Felipe
Cerdasb,c, Christoph Herrmannb,c,d
a
Carbon Nexus at the Institute for Frontier Materials, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3216, Australia
b
Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Engineering, Institute of Machine Tools and Production Technology (IWF), Technische Universität
Braunschweig, Langer Kamp 19b, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
c
Open Hybrid LabFactory e.V., Hermann-Münch-Straße 2, 38440 Wolfsburg, Germany
d
Fraunhofer Institute for Surface Engineering and Thin Films (IST), Bienroder Weg 54e, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 522 78056; E-mail address: tgroetsch@deakin.edu.au

Abstract

Widespread use of carbon fibre across various industry sectors remains limited due to the high costs of the raw materials and energy demands
during production. Furthermore, the environmental impacts associated with its manufacturing process, may significantly reduce the potential
benefits of weight reduction or material savings in the end products. Despite the excellent mechanical and chemical properties, which would
make the material a viable substitute in a wide range of applications, further production and cost improvements are necessary to raise interest and
demand. The scarcity of available carbon fibre production related data and the confidentiality of the few commercial carbon fibre suppliers
hinders further research efforts towards these improvements. This paper proposes a dynamic, modular Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life
Cycle Costing (LCC) concept tailored for carbon fibre production and is based on a pilot production set-up (120t/year). The model is intended to
accelerate the assessment of carbon fibre production and serves as a tool for the exploration of various scenarios, including alternative precursor
material, different carbon fibre grades or varying production parameters. In this paper the model is specified, embedded in the environment it is
intended to be used and applied to a production setup based on data collected using the pilot scale carbonisation line at Carbon Nexus, a unique,
open-access carbon fibre/composite research facility in Victoria, Australia.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Keywords: Life cycle assessment; modular LCA; simplified LCA; carbon fibre production

1. Introduction plastics (CFRP) offer a significant weight reduction potential of

Global manufacturing faces many challenges due to
changing legislation, ever increasing standards and intensifying
international competition. One of the main drivers is the
intention to minimize contributions to climate change and
mitigate its effects worldwide [1, 2]. For complex technical
products like airplanes or automobiles, this strongly motivates
the research and development of alternative materials which are
more eco-efficient and/or promise an energy saving benefit
over lifetime. Products made from carbon fibre reinforced
up to 35% compared to aluminium and 60% compared to steel
while meeting the same mechanical requirements [3].
There is however one significant hurdle for the widespread
application of CFRP, besides the need for a proper recycling
strategy. The production of carbon fibres consumes
substantially more energy than a comparable amount of steel or
aluminium, leading to higher cost and related environmental
impacts [3, 4]. Furthermore, the chemical transformation
occurring during the production process produces significant
amounts of emissions. As the mass of the fibres is reduced by

2212-8271 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.146

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 530 Thomas Groetsch et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 529–534
approximately 50% from precursor to carbon fibre during the
process (depending on material and process parameters), gases
such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide
and ammonia are released [5]. Through waste gas treatment the
most toxic substances can be reduced, but overall emissions,
especially of greenhouse gases, continue to rise [5, 6].
LCA is a well-established and standardized system analysis
methodology to evaluate the environmental impacts of product
systems [7, 8]. Advantages of LCA are its systemic life cycle
perspective, using laws of science to provide quantitative
information that can be integrated into engineering tools like
simulations etc. [9]. Detailed assessments however, require a
high level of expert knowledge, are time-consuming and
therefore expensive to perform. Life cycle engineering (LCE)
utilizes LCA and other tools to enable a global view on product
systems and their development from an engineering perspective
incorporating environmental, economic and social angles [10].
It fosters the application of LCA in line with engineering
activities. Figure 1 illustrates an application scenario for carbon
fibre production in the context of LCE. A streamlined
assessment tool is used in an iterative approach to quickly
generate standardized results and based thereon (re-)define
constraints for the production process and subsequently
generate new data for the assessment tool. The aim is to reduce
complexity and accelerate LCA application, while adhering to
accepted principles [11, 12].
Figure 1 Assessment approach based on [10]
Therefore a streamlined assessment is proposed to speed up
studies and reduce the extent of required expert knowledge.
Through integrating a cost perspective, the approach offers a
more holistic view of the production process. The concept is
mainly intended to be used in early development stages by
material researchers and process developers with limited
resources and experience in conducting LCA studies. In
addition to tailoring LCA to the carbon fibre production
process, an assessment database is proposed to help compare
results and steer research towards environmental and
economically viable improvements.
Figure 2 Overview of conversion process of precursor material to carbon fibre
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
2. Background
Carbon fibre production is a continuous process consisting
of two major stages – first the production of precursor materials
and second the conversion of precursor materials to carbon
fibres. The current paper focuses on the second stage, as
illustrated in Figure 2. The conversion of the input fibres starts
with oxidation, at up to 300 °C, where the material is stabilized
through complex chemical processes, which allows the
oxidised fibres to withstand higher temperatures [13, 14].
Following this stabilization phase, the fibres are heated in
furnaces to up to about 1600 °C in an inert atmosphere [13]. In
this phase, the well reported turbostratic microstructure of
carbon fibre is formed and any non-carbonaceous material is
driven off as a gas. While this is typically the last step in
producing high strength carbon fibre, higher temperatures up to
3000 °C can be applied to increase graphitisation of the carbon
fibre for applications which require higher modulus [13, 14].
To facilitate handling in downstream processes and improve
adhesion in a resin matrix system, the fibres surface is
electrochemically treated and a surface coating (sizing) is
applied [14]. Finally, there are several additional peripheral
processes, which do not directly add value. As Dér et al.
showed, most of these processes require only low amounts of
electric energy compared to the equipment directly involved in
converting the fibres. As an exception the abatement system,
which significantly influences the energy demand, should be
considered when determining environmental impacts [15].
2.1. Energy demand of carbon fibre production
While a number of LCA-based studies for carbon fibre
production have been published, evaluation and comparison
prove difficult. Goals and scopes vary and details on production
setups are often not given in detail. Table 1 exemplarily lists the
energy demand per kg carbon fibre recorded in various
assessments, depicting the scale of variance found in published
studies. The data used by Arnold et al. is quite comprehensive
in terms of describing the system and energy/material flows
(12k tow size, 1500t/year, 42% yield) in a study examining
different production scenarios [16]. Das et al. provide limited
information about the observed production line (50k tow size,
48% yield) as part of a study examining automotive parts made
from different materials [3]. Suzuki et al. only report total
energy demands to compare the potential of improvement
measures [17]. A study conducted by Liddell et al. focuses on
 Thomas Groetsch et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 529–534 531

average numbers for the US carbon fibre industry [18]. In
another assessment, Liddell et al. use a similar approach with
slightly lower energy numbers for an average “state of the art”
process [19]. The values published by Dér et al. are based on
the Carbon Nexus 120t/year pilot production line and are
calculated including peripheral processes (44% yield), resulting
in a much higher total energy consumption in comparison [15].
Table 1 Total energy consumption per kg carbon fibre
Source Total Energy Data origin Comment
[MJ/kg]
phases one and two. Impact assessment and interpretation are
conducted separately, as the scope of the assessments slightly
differ. While the LCA side can exclude upstream processes
outlined in the goal and scope definition from the assessment,
they are monetarized in LCC through the input material cost
and energy prices. The combination of the two methodologies
can therefore help to analyse both environmental and financial
impacts with reduced effort. To efficiently combine the two
approaches, literature discusses a number of streamlining
methods for LCA and LCC [25].

Experimental Heat and

Arnold et al. [16] 255
data, simulation electricity
Experimental Little details
Das [3] 459
data, databases about system
No details
Suzuki et al. [17] 286 unclear
about system
Experimental
US industry
Liddell et al. [18] 219 data, databases,
average
estimations
Experimental Figure 3 Streamlined LCA and LCC structure based on [8, 18, 20]
“State of the
Liddell et al. [19] 195 data, databases,
art” average
estimations
Experimental Incl. peripheral
Dér et al. [15] 1150
data processes
3. Modular LCA/LCC modelling concept

2.2. Combined LCA and LCC
LCA combines energy balances with other product flows
like raw material and waste flows to determine a products
environmental impact. Besides the environmental impact, high
cost is one of the main inhibitors for a more widespread
adoption of carbon fibres [20]. Therefore, these two factors
should be analysed using an integrated approach. LCC was
developed to assess costs incurred by or associated with a
product throughout its life cycle. Although the methodology is
not fully standardized, three variants are commonly referenced,
conventional LCC, environmental LCC and societal LCC, each
with a slightly different focus [21]. Numerous concepts have
been developed which combine LCA and one of the LCC
variants into interdisciplinary approaches. Due to the proposed
concept’s streamlined nature, the scope of the incorporated
LCC methodology is limited, focusing on internal costs,
specifically for material and energy. It is therefore only loosely
based on reviewed approaches [22-24]. Figure 3 shows the
proposed four step approach based on LCA principles with joint
Carbon fibre production covers a number of core steps with
usually no forks or by-products. It is therefore reasonable to
base the proposed modular assessment approach on
representations of these core steps. Based thereon, procedures
and challenges of streamlining the methods for carbon fibre
production are discussed.
3.1. Modelling architecture
The proposed concept in summary is based on the principles
of LCA, incorporating the basic evaluation of costs through
LCC techniques. The combination of simplification and
interdisciplinarity is tailored towards fast and easy comparison
of various scenarios in a research environment. It is intended to
support the development from an early phase to streamline the
research process considering ecological/economic feasibility.
The modularity (Figure 2) of the concept ensures comparability
that is easy to verify and simplifies adaption of the model to
specific production setups.
On its own, the methodology can only provide parts of the
overall assessment results, but through its standardized form,

Figure 4 Methodical concept of the proposed modelling approach

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 532 Thomas Groetsch et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 529–534

these outcomes are comprehensibly comparable. Figure 4
shows the environment in which the modular core assessment
is intended to be embedded. As a core concept, it is not meant
to replace existing methodology, but rather be integrated in
assessment frameworks, used case by case. Consequently,
assessments can adhere to standards, be tailored to specification
and at the same time produce comparable results. As the system
boundaries of the core assessment are defined by specific
production steps/equipment and are divided into standardized
modules, the overall scope of the assessment can easily be
extended to include up- or downstream production processes,
adhering to the defined principles.
3.2. Goal and scope
The approach is intended to assist material researchers and
process engineers with evaluating changes in environmental
impact and cost. The changes are based on measures derived
from research and engineering activities, such as changes of
process parameters or innovations in the conversion process. As
the concept aims at streamlining the comparison of these
variations, the influence of ramp-up, ramp-down and
maintenance times are ignored and only stable state production
is evaluated. To tailor the assessment to the carbon fibre
production and streamline it, the product system, its functions,
the functional unit, system boundaries and impact categories
are specified by the model itself and do not have to be defined
for each assessment individually. The concept groups repetitive
production steps (e.g. oxidation steps 1 – 4) into modules (see
Figure 2) to simplify the overall setup. This standardisation is
outlined in the goal and scope definition. The same logic can be
applied when extending the assessment to include up- or
downstream production processes. This concept was developed
based on carbon fibres made from polyacrylonitrile (PAN), as
it is the most commonly used source material in commercial
production today.
3.2.1. Functional unit and reference flow
In order to compare results and to provide a reference
throughout the assessment, the functional unit and reference
flow are defined to be the conversion of precursor to 1 kg of
unsized carbon fibre, based on most commonly used units in
previous assessments [3, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17].
Table 2 Parameters of assessed product/production
Parameters Values (exemplary)
Precursor type e.g. PAN, Lignin…
Precursor name Manufacturer, Name
Material
As the concept aims at comparing production scenarios, the
functional unit is not restricted by detailed specifications in
terms of material properties to enable comparison of different
material qualities or production parameters. The specifications
listed in Table 2 shall be provided with every assessment to
provide more detailed specifications for the functional unit and
ensure transparency regarding the production process. While
there are several other parameters important for the process, the
ones listed above are seen to be the most relevant when
comparing streamlined production scenarios (without ramp-up
/ -down, maintenance, etc.) [26].
3.2.2. System boundaries and cut-off criteria
Elements below a threshold percentage or a specific cut-off
amount may be omitted if their overall contribution to the
assessment results is limited [7, 8]. Because of the
straightforward production setup, the scope and system
boundaries can be standardized for all assessments of this type.
They need to be set in a way that is easily reproducible, flexible
enough to adjust to different scenarios and include the most
essential equipment/processes. Therefore, only three basic
production steps/modules (oxidation, carbonization and surface
treatment), as outlined in Figure 2, are evaluated. Additionally,
the waste gas abatement system, due to its high energy demand
and direct influence on the environmental impact of the
production, must be part of the assessment. Any other
peripheral processes shall be excluded.
Omitting up- and downstream processes can greatly reduce
the necessary amount of data and only has a very limited impact
on the studies quality, especially for comparative assessments.
Nevertheless the potential influence of process parts to be
disregarded has to be thoroughly analysed and clearly stated in
the assessment [27]. As the proposed core assessment is a gate-
to-gate evaluation of the carbonization process, it only includes
the production steps mentioned above. Up- and downstream
processes are not taken into consideration from an LCA
perspective. Cost for input flows are however considered in the
economic part of the assessment.
3.3. Life cycle inventory
For the assessed production processes, data like energy
consumption, material throughput and specific settings should
be directly collected. Dér et al. [15] outline the relevant
production equipment and peripheral processes, which are
equipped with continuous metering equipment. The constantly
collected data has to be converted into a standardized form in
accordance with the pre-defined functional unit. It may be
necessary to use substitute data if data for certain production

Number of tows and size e.g. 30 x 50k

Modulus carbon fibre
Strength carbon fibre
Type / Application
Production line working width
Reference line speed
Overall yield
Process
steps cannot be collected or the data quality is insufficient. If
e.g. 350 GPa
e.g. 3 GPa so, it has to be clearly stated how and what data was substituted
e.g. Standard, Automotive… and the data quality shall be outlined (time frame,
e.g. 5000mm completeness, consistency).
e.g. 200 m/h
e.g. 0.45 3.4. Life cycle impact assessment

Residence times per step e.g. Oxid.: 90 min, Carb.: 10 min

Yield per step e.g. Oxid.: 0.95, Carb.: 0.60
Heated length per step e.g. Oxid.: 500m, Carb.: 10m
Assessed impact categories should be limited to most
Abatement type (per step) e.g. Direct Fired Thermal Oxidizer relevant impacts and based on quality and/or quantity of flows.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Thomas Groetsch et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 529–534
Therefore all flows crossing the system boundaries have to be
evaluated in terms of their relative amount and their
environmental effect/cost prior to elimination [28]. Flows
constantly exiting the system during stable production are the
carbon fibres itself and treated exhaust gases. Other inputs,
which have to be taken into account, are electric energy, natural
gas and nitrogen. As the consideration of upstream processes is
not part of the concept, the effects of the extraction of natural
gas and the production of nitrogen, as well as the precursor
material are excluded. The basic impact categories to be
considered in the core assessment are “climate change”,
“acidification” and “eutrophication”. They are based on
commonly referenced lists of categories [29] in combination
with typically measured compositions of emissions from
carbon fibre manufacturing and [5, 6]. The categories were
furthermore chosen based on the most relevant emissions
according to environmental regulations and their impact on the
respective categories.
3.5. Interpretation
To reduce the necessary effort and expert knowledge for
interpretation, the assessed impact categories shall be limited to
the mentioned categories but can be extended if necessary. To
simplify the comparison process a standardized graphical
representation of the results, similar to Figure 5 shall be
included. Due to mainly relying on directly collected
production data and the fact that production runs for specific
research purposes cannot be repeated often within the
timeframe of a single study, the calculation of uncertainties is
not part of the concept. However, as an indicator for deviations
the variance of the average values used for calculation should
be stated. As this concept is best implemented in a simple to use
software tool, a basic automated sensitivity analysis for the
major input parameters shall be included using a one at a time
approach. Analysing hot spots and comparing parameter
variations or material changes for various production setups
requires standardized results. Therefore the assessment results
format shall be predefined and all generated results shall be
stored in a database for ease of access.
4. Exemplary application
The following exemplary application, based on raw data
from the Carbon Nexus pilot production line, practically
summarizes the concept. Scope, system boundaries and
functional unit are predefined, as outlined above. Figure 5
summarizes the exemplary results of the assessment. The
metadata section illustrates material and process parameters
that are required for a fair comparison of the results with other
assessments. The LCI section depicts relevant energy and
material flows of the considered production and abatement
modules. These are summarized to selected environmental and
economic impact categories. For the interpretation of the
results, a contribution analysis and Sankey diagrams are
exemplarily suggested. With these criteria, the oxidation
demands 81.4 MJ of electric energy and 1.93 kg of PAN fibres
per kg carbon fibre (CF), which leads to an output of 1.95 kg
oxidized fibre. The carbonisation subsequently converts the
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
533
oxidised fibres, using 216.1 MJ of electric energy and 4.8 m³ of
nitrogen. In this module 1 kg carbonized fibres are produced.
Surface treatment and sizing consume 4.6 MJ electric energy
and 0.02 kg of coating material per kg CF. Here the assessed
process concludes with the final product, 1.02 kg of sized fibre.
The abatement consists of only one dual-stage system treating
exhaust gases from all production stages, without any heat
recovery, emissions incurred throughout the production are
summarized here. As the precise concentrations for each
production module are unknown, only 13 m³ of natural gas and
4.6 MJ of electric energy are specified as input for the
abatement system, producing 7.4 g NH3, 65.8 g HCN, 45.3 g
NO2, 7.7 g CO and 32.58 kg of CO2, which are released to the
atmosphere. These only represent the most relevant emissions
according to environmental regulations, but the overall
composition of exhaust gases contains additional substances in
lower quantities. The total modelled electric energy demand
amounts to 85.19 kWh at a cost of 21.29 AUD (0.25
AUD/kWh). The necessary amount of precursor adds 13.22
AUD to the cost, sizing 0.02 AUD, nitrogen 1.94 AUD and the
natural gas for the abatement a further 6.36 AUD. The overall
energy and material related cost of 1 kg CF from this pilot-scale
production setup according to the applied simplified assessment
is therefore 43.02 AUD.
Figure 5: Exemplary application on the Carbon Nexus pilot production line
The environmental impact of the product, with the specified
gate-to-gate view, is summarized in the mentioned categories.
The global warming potential is reflected by 154.40 kg CO2-eq
(IPCC GWP 100a), relevant substances for acidification show
a combined value of 0.33 kg SO2-eq (CML) and eutrophication
is characterized by 0.11 kg PO4-eq (CML) for one kg of CF. The
values represent the impacts incurred during production as well
as the effects of the generation of the necessary electric energy.
As the production line, the application is based on, is located in
south-eastern Australia, impacts are calculated with the typical
local energy mix. Figure 6 summarizes the environmental
impact in the three categories based on direct emissions and
 534 Thomas Groetsch et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 529–534
emissions embodied in the electricity consumed. It shows that
the high electricity demand during production has a major
influence on the environmental impact of carbon fibre.
Figure 6 Environmental impact comparison production and electricity
generation
5. Conclusion and outlook
This paper presents a modular LCA-modelling concept to
optimize carbon fibre production. It is targeted primarily at
research and pilot scale production scenarios. The approach is
not intended to substitute fully standard adherent or more
extensive assessment methodologies, but rather be integrated in
such studies to provide standardized values for comparison.
Nevertheless, it can be used as a standalone tool to analyse
different production scenarios or to get a quick estimate for
energy demand, emissions and cost. These streamlined iterative
assessments, starting at an early research stage, may improve
the development of carbon fibres in terms of speed and costs
and help focus on ecologically and commercially viable
innovations. In an industrial environment, this approach may be
incorporated with ongoing economic assessments to achieve a
more holistic perspective. As LCA related knowledge often is
limited in material focused research areas, a simple-to-use tool
developed on the basis of the presented concept, which can be
applied without the need of specialized software and intensive
prior training, may increase acceptance and adaption. To further
develop this approach, the next step is to substantiate it with
data collected from various production setups. To verify the
model, various scenarios (precursor variation, CF grade
changes, modified production parameters) will be reviewed.
Furthermore, production setups of different sizes will be
assessed to establish scaling factors throughout the process to
further increase comparability and document changes towards
commercialisation of new or improved products. This
LCA/LCC-based approach could additionally be developed
into a more substantial techno-economic-environmental
analysis, with the same focus on material development and fine-
tuning of production processes. Recycling processes were not
considered, as the low amounts of production waste typically
are not recycled, however potential approaches will be analysed
in the scenarios mentioned. In case of mass production, post-
production and consumer waste have to also be considered.
References
[1] A. Hargrove, M. Qandeel, and J. M. Sommer, "Global governance for
climate justice: A cross-national analysis of CO2 emissions," Global
Transitions, vol. 1, pp. 190-199, 2019.
[2] G. Peters et al., "Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst
slowly emerging climate policies," Nature Climate Change, vol. 10, no.
1, pp. 3-6, 2020.
[3] S. Das, "Life cycle assessment of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
composites," The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
16, no. 3, pp. 268-282, 2011.
[4] D. A. Baker and T. G. Rials, "Recent advances in low‐cost carbon fiber
manufacture from lignin," Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 130,
no. 2, pp. 713-728, 2013.
[5] E. Griffing, "Carbon fiber from PAN," Inventory summary, May, 2009.
[6] D. Chung, "Carbon fiber composites," ed: Heinemann, Newton, MA,
1994, pp. 33 - 37.
[7] I. O. f. Standardization, ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life
Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework, 2 ed. ISO, 2006, p. 20.
[8] I. O. f. Standardization, ISO 14044: Environmental Management - Life
Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. ISO, 2006, p. 46.
[9] A. Bjørn, M. Owsianiak, C. Molin, and A. Laurent, "Main
Characteristics of LCA," in Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice,
M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, and S. I. Olsen Eds. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2018, pp. 9-16.
[10] M. Z. Hauschild, C. Herrmann, and S. Kara, "An integrated framework
for life cycle engineering," Procedia CIRP, vol. 61, pp. 2-9, 2017.
[11] F. Cerdas, S. Thiede, and C. Herrmann, "Integrated computational life
cycle engineering—application to the case of electric vehicles," CIRP
Annals, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 25-28, 2018.
[12] C. Herrmann, W. Dewulf, M. Hauschild, A. Kaluza, S. Kara, and S.
Skerlos, "Life cycle engineering of lightweight structures," CIRP
Annals, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 651-672, 2018.
[13] E. Frank, F. Hermanutz, and M. R. Buchmeiser, "Carbon fibers:
precursors, manufacturing, and properties," Macromolecular materials
and engineering, vol. 297, no. 6, pp. 493-501, 2012.
[14] X. Huang, "Fabrication and properties of carbon fibers," Materials, vol.
2, no. 4, pp. 2369-2403, 2009.
[15] A. Dér et al., "Energy flow modelling of polyacrylonitrilie precursor and
carbon fibre manufacturing," TBD, vol. TBD, p. TBD, 2021.
[16] U. Arnold, A. De Palmenaer, T. Brück, and K. Kuse, "Energy-Efficient
Carbon Fiber Production with Concentrated Solar Power: Process
Design and Techno-economic Analysis," Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, vol. 57, no. 23, pp. 7934-7945, 2018.
[17] T. Suzuki and J. Takahashi, "LCA of lightweight vehicles by using
CFRP for mass-produced vehicles," in Fifteenth International
Conference on Composite Materials, Durban, South Africa, 2005.
[18] H. Liddell, C. Dollinger, A. Fisher, and S. Brueske, "Bandwidth study
on energy use and potential energy savings opportunities in US Carbon
fiber reinforced polymer manufacturing," 2017.
[19] H. Liddell, S. Brueske, A. Carpenter, and J. Cresko, "Manufacturing
energy intensity and opportunity analysis for fiber-reinforced polymer
composites and other lightweight materials," in Proceedings of the
American Society for Composites: 31 Technical Conference, 2016.
[20] T. Ellringmann, C. Wilms, M. Warnecke, G. Seide, and T. Gries,
"Carbon fiber production costing: a modular approach," Textile research
journal, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 178-190, 2016.
[21] J.-M. Rödger, L. L. Kjær, and A. Pagoropoulos, "Life Cycle Costing: An
Introduction," in Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice, M. Z.
Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, and S. I. Olsen Eds. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2018, pp. 373-399.
[22] A. Bierer, U. Götze, L. Meynerts, and R. Sygulla, "Integrating LCC and
LCA using extended material flow cost accounting," Journal of cleaner
Production, vol. 108, pp. 1289-1301, 2015.
[23] R. Heijungs, E. Settanni, and J. Guinée, "Toward a computational
structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC,"
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, no. 9, pp.
1722-1733, 2013.
[24] J. Miah, S. Koh, and D. Stone, "A hybridised framework combining
integrated methods for environmental LCA and LCC," Journal of
cleaner production, vol. 168, pp. 846-866, 2017.
[25] K. Tasala Gradin, "Simplified Life Cycle Assessment Approaches and
Potential Impact Shifts," Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, 2020.
[26] S. Nunna, P. Blanchard, D. Buckmaster, S. Davis, and M. Naebe,
"Development of a cost model for the production of carbon fibres,"
Heliyon, vol. 5, no. 10, p. e02698, 2019.
[27] T. Hur and e. al., "Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the
environmental aspects of a product system," Journal of environmental
Management, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 229-237, 2005.
[28] G. Fleischer, K. Gerner, H. Kunst, K. Lichtenvort, and G. Rebitzer, "A
semi-quantitative method for the impact assessment of emissions within
a simplified life cycle assessment," The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 149, 2001.
[29] H. Stranddorf, L. Hoffmann, and A. Schmidt, "Update on impact
categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA–selected EDIP97 data.
Environmental Project Nr. 995 2005, Danish Environmental Protection
Agency, Copenhagen," ed, 2014.