Comparison of Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and Ground Power Unit (GPU) with Life Cycle Analysis in Ground Operations: A Case Study for Domestic Flight in Turkey

Abstract:

Article Preview

In this study, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and the Ground Power Unit (GPU) that are required meet the energy demand in ground operations of aircraft were compared in terms of their damages –human health (disability adjusted life years- DALYs), ecosystem quality (PDF.m2.yr) and resources (MJ Surplus). These damages were calculated with gate-to-gate method of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This assessment was held on three main stages; capital investment, operation and maintenance. SimaPro 7.2.4 was used for this calculation. Human Health Damages (HHDs) of APU were found to be (0.0557 -disability adjusted life years- DALYs) 20.34 days/year while HHDs of GPU were calculated as (0.0411 -disability adjusted life years-DALYs) 15 days/year. While Ecosystem Quality Damages (EQDs) of APU were calculated as 103366.37 PDF.m2.yr, EQDs of GPU were found to be 82651.23 PDF.m2.yr. In other words, although the use of APU gives rise to loss of 0.1 species –1 year, 1 square kilometer area, the use of GPU gives rise to loss of 0.083 species. With regards to Resources Damages (RDs), 62125 MJ surplus energy needed for future extractions of minerals and fossil fuel considering APU, one the other hand 36002 MJ surplus energy needed for future considering GPU. As a result, the use of APU effects on human health, ecosystem quality and resources was determined greater than the use of GPU for 30 minute. The use of GPU has less impact on human health, ecosystem quality and resources in ground operations.

Info:

Periodical:

Edited by:

R. Varatharajoo, F.I. Romli, K.A. Ahmad, D.L. Majid and F. Mustapha

Pages:

219-224

Citation:

O. Altuntas et al., "Comparison of Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and Ground Power Unit (GPU) with Life Cycle Analysis in Ground Operations: A Case Study for Domestic Flight in Turkey", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 629, pp. 219-224, 2014

Online since:

October 2014

Export:

Price:

$38.00

* - Corresponding Author

[1] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 1993. Environmental Protection: Annex 16, Vol. II, Aircraft Engine Emissions.

[2] Kesgin, U., 2002. Aircraft emissions at Turkish airports. Energy, 31: 372–384.

[3] Watterson, J., Walker, C., Eggleston, S., 2004. Revision to the method of estimating emissions from aircraft in the UK greenhouse gas inventory. Report to Global Atmosphere Division, DEFRA; netcen/ED47052.

[4] Elbir, T., 2008. Estimation of engine emissions from commercial aircraft at a midsized Turkish airport. Journal of Envıronmental Engıneerıng, 134: 210–215.

[5] Stettler M. E. J., Eastham S., Barrett S. R. H., 2011. Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports, Part I: Emissions. Atmospheric Environment, 45: 5415–5424.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012

[6] Winther, M., Kousgaard, U., Oxbol, A., 2006. Calculation of odour emissions from aircraft engines at Copenhagen Airport. Science of the Total Environment, 366: 218–232.

[7] Moir, I., Seabridge, A. Aircraft systems: mechanical, electrical and avionics subsystems integration. John Wiley & Sons Inc.: (2008).

[8] Göll, S., Samsun, R. C., Peters, R., 2011. Analysis and optimization of solid oxide fuel cell-based auxiliary power units using a generic zero-dimensional fuel cell model. Journal of Power Sources, 196: 9500–9509.

[9] Kim, G., Lee B., Lu H., Park J., 2012. Failure analysis of an aircraft APU exhaust duct flange due to low cycle fatigue at high temperatures. Engineering Failure Analysis, 20: 97–104.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.11.003

[10] Chase Aerospace Inc. Available at: http: /chaseaerospace. com/apu-repair/capabilities (accessed: 27. 10. 2013).

[11] Schafer, K., Jahn, C., Sturm, P., Lechner, B., Bacher, M., 2003. Aircraft emission measurements by remote sensing methodologies at airports. Atmospheric Environment 37: 5261–5271.

[12] Mazaheri M., Johnson G. R., Morawska L., 2011. An inventory of particle and gaseous emissions from large aircraft thrust engine operations at an airport. Atmospheric Environment, 45: 3500–3507.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.12.012

[13] Azapagic, A., 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design and optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal, 73: 1–21.

[14] Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G. and Rydberg, T., 2004. Life cycle assessment. Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis and applications. Environmental International, 30: 701–720.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005

[15] Tukker, A., 2000. Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20: 435–456.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-9255(99)00045-1

[16] Jensen, A. A., Hoffman, L., Moller, B. T., Schmidt, A., 1997. Life cycle assessment (LCA) a guide approaches, experiences and information sources. European Environment Agency, Environmental Issues Series No. 6.

[17] Consoli, F., Allen, D., Boustead, I., Fava, J., Franklin, W., Jensen, A. A., de Oude, N., Parrish, R., Perriman, R., Postlewaite, D., Quay, B., Seguin, J., Vigon, B. Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A code of practice. Brussels, Belgium: SETAC, (1993).

[18] DGCA, (2013).