As the global fleet of aircraft ages, an increasing number of retired aircraft are reaching the end of their service life. It is estimated that around 2,000 civil aircraft (excluding military aircraft) are currently grounded, awaiting proper end-of-life treatment, with an additional 250 expected to be retired annually for the next two decades. Though the volume of retired aircraft is smaller compared to the automotive sector, the materials and components within these aircraft hold significant value, making the dismantling and recycling of these assets a vital industrial process.
Dismantling aircraft at the end of their lifecycle involves the recovery of valuable materials, such as high-tech aerospace alloys like aluminum, titanium, and composite materials. This process not only conserves raw materials but also reduces the environmental footprint associated with the production of new materials. In particular, aluminum recycling is critical due to its significant environmental benefits, such as reducing energy consumption and preserving the material's intrinsic properties.
One of the primary challenges in aircraft recycling is maintaining the quality of retrieved materials, particularly aluminum alloys. Aircraft are constructed from a variety of alloys, and when components are shredded indiscriminately, different alloys are mixed, resulting in lower-quality materials. This mixed aluminum requires additional treatment to restore its mechanical properties, increasing costs and energy consumption. To mitigate this, advanced dismantling strategies focus on disassembly before shredding, which helps in sorting materials by alloy family and preserving material quality.
Various dismantling and recovery strategies have been proposed to balance cost, efficiency, and material quality. These strategies range from systematic disassembly to shredding, with several intermediate approaches in between. The ultimate goal is to select the most suitable strategy based on factors like material homogeneity, cost, and sustainability.
This strategy aims to fully separate and sort all components based on their material composition. Attachments, such as rivets, are removed and sorted as well. In cases where the material composition markings are unreadable due to time and corrosion, a portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer (Niton) is used to identify the materials. For accurate detection, paint layers must be partially removed before using the Niton device.
While this strategy ensures the highest quality of material recovery, its high costs make it less viable for industrial-scale applications. Therefore, Strategy A prioritizes quality over quantity.
In contrast, Strategy B involves cutting the aircraft into smaller pieces for transportation to a recycling center, where materials are sorted. However, shredding results in mixed materials (aluminum, titanium, plastics, composites, etc.), which significantly reduces the quality of the recovered materials.
Systematic Disassembly represents the highest potential cost and highest quality of recovered materials, while Shredding represents the lowest cost but also the lowest material quality. Neither is ideal for widespread industrial use due to their respective limitations. Instead, intermediate strategies are preferred, utilizing aircraft mapping to identify materials and guide selective disassembly where it is most cost-effective. Intermediate strategies aim to strike a balance between cost and material quality.
To strike a balance between cost efficiency and material quality, several intermediate strategies have been developed, incorporating elements from both systematic disassembly and shredding approaches. These strategies utilize aircraft mapping to guide selective disassembly and cutting, optimizing the recovery of homogeneous materials while reducing labor and processing time.
Smart shredding involves selecting specific zones of the aircraft carcass based on material mapping. The goal is to identify areas with a high concentration of similar materials, allowing for more homogeneous material recovery before shredding.
Gross cutting allows for more frequent cuts than Smart Shredding, making use of powerful, mobile cutting tools, typically fuel-based. While this approach is faster, it sacrifices precision, leading to less homogeneous material recovery compared to Strategy C.
This strategy improves on Gross Cutting by requiring more precise cuts to enhance material homogeneity. The tools used are typically lighter, more powerful, and electrically powered, allowing for better control during the cutting process.
Detail cutting involves an extensive number of precise cuts using smaller, more accurate pneumatic tools. This strategy allows for unlimited cuts and focuses on maximizing material homogeneity, but it is labor-intensive and time-consuming.
Smart disassembly seeks to address the excessive time and effort associated with Strategy A (Systematic Disassembly) by avoiding the removal of attachments (such as rivets) that connect components made of similar materials. This approach speeds up the disassembly process but compromises the purity of the recovered materials due to the inclusion of these attachments.
This strategy combines the precision of Systematic Disassembly with the efficiency of Detail Cutting. A thorough analysis of the aircraft carcass or parts to be recycled is performed to identify areas with homogeneous materials, which are then cut, while disassembly is focused on heterogeneous regions where components are made of different materials.
These intermediate strategies offer a range of options to optimize the recovery process. From Smart Shredding (Strategy C), which minimizes cuts but preserves material homogeneity, to Disassembly Combined with Cutting (Strategy H), which balances systematic disassembly with targeted cutting, these approaches aim to provide a practical middle ground between cost and material quality. Each strategy is designed to address specific challenges in aircraft recycling, with varying degrees of precision, labor intensity, and efficiency.
Towle, I., Johnston, C., Lingwood, R., & Grant, P. S. (2007). The aircraft at the end of life sector: A preliminary study. University of Oxford, available online: users. ox. ac. uk/~ pgrant/Airplane% 20end% 20of% 20life. pdf.
Feldhusen, J., Pollmanns, J., & Heller, J. E. (2011). End of life strategies in the aviation industry. In Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, May 2nd-4th, 2011 (pp. 459-464). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Airbus, S. A. S. (2008). Process for advanced management of end-of-life of aircraft (PAMELA). Airbus Academy: Champniers, France.
Sabaghi, M., Cai, Y., Mascle, C., & Baptiste, P. (2015). Sustainability assessment of dismantling strategies for end-of-life aircraft recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 163-169.