Customer Integration to Gain Cost Efficiency Alongside Tool's Life Cycle

Application of life cycle thinking towards sustainable cities: A review

Characterizing sustainability of green stormwater infrastructure technologies using life cycle assessment and life cycle costing: A systematic review.

Background, Aim and Scope Sustainability is a well recognised goal which is difficult to manage due to its complexity. As part of a series of sustainability management tools, a Product Sustainability Index (PSI) is translating the sustainability aspects to the organization of vehicle product development of Ford of Europe, thus allocating ownership and responsibility to that function. PSI is limiting the scope to those key environmental, social and economic characteristics of passenger vehicles that are controllable by the product development organisation. Materials and Methods: The PSI considers environmental, economic and social aspects based on externally reviewed life cycle environmental and cost aspects (Life Cycle Assessment, Cost of ownership / Life Cycle Costing), externally certified aspects (allergy-tested interior) and related aspects as sustainable materials, safety, mobility capability and noise. After the kick-off of their product development in 2002, the new Ford S-MAX and Ford Galaxy are serving as a pilot for this tool. These products are launched in Europe in 2006. The tracking of PSI performance has been done by engineers of the Vehicle Integration department within the product development organization. The method has been translated in an easy spreadsheet tool. Engineers have been trained within one hour trainings. The application of PSI by vehicle integration followed the principle to reduce the need for any incremental time or additional data to a minimum. PSI is adopted to the existing decision-making process. End of 2005, an internal expert conducted a Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) study for verification purposes using commercial software. This study and the PSI have been scrutinized by an external review panel according to ISO14040 and, by taking into consideration the on-going SETAC, work in the field of LCC. Results: The results of the Life Cycle based indicators of PSI as calculated by non-experts are fully in line with those of the more detailed expert study. The difference is below 2%. The new Ford Galaxy and Ford S-MAX shows significantly improved performance regarding the life cycle air quality, use of sustainable materials, restricted substances and safety compared to the previous model Galaxy. The affordability (Life Cycle Cost of Ownership) has also been improved when looking at the same engine types. Looking at gasoline versus diesel options, the detailed study shows under what conditions the diesel options are environmentally preferable and less costly (mileage, fuel prices, etc.). Discussion: The robustness of results has been verified in various ways. Based also on Sensitivity and Monte-Carlo Analysis, case study-specific requirements have been deduced defining criteria for a significant environmental improvement between the various vehicles. Only if the differences of LCIA results between two vehicles are larger than a certain threshold are the above-mentioned results robust. Conclusions: In general terms, an approach has been implemented and externally reviewed that allows non-experts to manage key environmental, social and economic aspects in the product development, also on a vehicle level. This allows mainstream functions to take ownership of sustainability and assigns accountability to those who can really decide on changes affecting the sustainability performance. In the case of Ford S-MAX and Galaxy, indicators from all three dimensions of sustainability (environment, social and economic) have been improved compared to the old Ford Galaxy. Recommendations and Perspectives: Based on this positive experience, it is recommended to make, in large or multinational organizations, the core business functions directly responsible and accountable for managing their own part of environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Staff functions should be limited to starting the process with methodological and training support and making sure that the contributions of the different main functions fit together.

Assessment of residential building performances for the different climate zones of Turkey in terms of life cycle energy and cost efficiency

Purpose Infill materials play a pivotal role in determining buildings’ life cycle costing (LCC) and environmental impacts. International standards prescribe LCC and life cycle assessments (LCA) to assess materials’ economic and environmental sustainability. The existing methods of LCC and LCA are tedious and time-consuming, reducing their practical application. This study sought to integrate LCC and LCA with building information modeling (BIM) to develop a swift and efficient approach for evaluating the life cycle performance of infill materials. Design/methodology/approach The BIM model for a case study was prepared using Autodesk Revit®, and the study included four infill materials (lightweight aggregate concrete block (LECA), autoclaved cellular concrete (AAC), concrete masonry and bricks). LCC was conducted using Revit® and Autodesk Insight 360® to estimate costs incurred across different project phases. LCA was conducted using “One Click LCA®,” a BIM-based platform featuring a comprehensive material inventory. Carbon emissions, acidification, and eutrophication were chosen as environmental impact factors for LCA. Findings LECA was the preferred choice due to its lower cost and environmental impact. Its lifetime cost of $440,618 was 5.4% lower than bricks’, with 2.8% lower CO2 emissions than AAC’s, which were second-place options, respectively. LECA had 6.4 and 27% lower costs than concrete blocks, and AAC’s carbon emissions were 32 and 58% lower than concrete blocks and bricks, respectively. Originality/value BIM has been employed for life cycle analysis in existing literature, but its efficacy in evaluating the lifetime costs and environmental impacts of infill materials remains unexplored. The current study presents a BIM-based approach for conducting LCC and LCA of infill materials, facilitating informed decision-making during the planning phase and promoting sustainable construction practices.

We suggest a 2D-plot representation combined with life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and life cycle cost for various energy conversion technologies. In general, life cycle assessment (LCA) not only analyzes at the use phase of a specific technology, but also covers widely related processes of before and after its use. We use life cycle GHG emissions and life cycle cost (LCC) to compare the energy conversion process for eight resources such as coal, natural gas, nuclear power, hydro power, geothermal power, wind power, solar thermal power, and solar photovoltaic (PV) power based on the reported LCA and LCC data. Among the eight sources, solar PV and nuclear power exhibit the highest and the lowest LCCs, respectively. On the other hand, coal and wind power locate the highest and the lowest life cycle GHG emissions. In addition, we used the 2D plot to show the life cycle performance of GHG emissions and LCCs simultaneously and realized a correlation that life cycle GHG emission is largely inversely proportional to the corresponding LCCs. It means that an expensive energy source with high LCC tends to have low life cycle GHG emissions, or is environmental friendly. For future study, we will measure the technological maturity of the energy sources to determine the direction of the specific technology development based on the 2D plot of LCCs versus life cycle GHG emissions.

Existing computational methods for life cycle costing (LCC) are few and appeared inconsistent with the very definition of LCC. This article improves the common matrix-based approach in life cycle assessment as applied to LCC, correcting previous errors. Reusing a simple and hypothetical example, the authors derive the LCC from both the physical and monetary technology matrices. Accounting for the added value of all activities in the life cycle leads to a simplified computational structure for LCC. The results show that the definition of LCC and computational structure can be fully harmonized with life cycle assessments (LCAs) and simplified. In addition to eco-efficiency calculations, the vector of added values, if disaggregated over social groups, allows for distributional analysis. It is furthermore shown how LCC can account for costs shifting (economic externalities) in the same way as LCA highlights shifting of environmental externalities between different products, life cycle stages or actors. Life cycle costing as defined by the sum of the added value over the life cycle is consistent with LCA and cradle to gate assessments in particular. The authors simplified the computation of LCC with either the matrix-based approach or the added values of upstream activities as an elementary exchange vector or matrix.

PurposeThe aim of this research is to carry out a literature review of the use of life cycle costing (LCC) in the urban agriculture (UA) sector by analysing its evolution over a 22-year period from its beginning in 1996 to July 2018.MethodsA total of 442 references were obtained from two principal databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). After a long refining process, 20 (4.5%) references containing the keywords LCC and UA were selected for analysis. Then, we classified and organized the selected references in 4 groups. Qualitative methods were used for analysis, and results on general characteristics of the 20 references and by each group were elaborated. Lastly, we discussed and concluded the most significant findings. Limitations and future research were also included.Results and discussionOur major findings were as follows: (i) urban horticulture was the most studied urban agriculture practice among studies that used LCC for UA; (ii) LCC plays a secondary role in its integration with LCA; (iii) only 4 of the10 papers in group 1 used additional financial tools; (iv) very few (3) papers appropriately applied the four main LCC stages; and on the other side, essential costs like infrastructure, labour, maintenance, and end-of-life were frequently not included.ConclusionsSince we found that life cycle assessment (LCA) was the predominant methodology, we suggest that future research apply both LCA and LCC analyses at the same level. The LCC analysis was quite incomplete in terms of the costs included in each LCC stage. We recommend that the costs at the initial or construction stage be considered a necessity in future studies in order to implement these new systems on a large scale. Due to the limited use of labour cost at the operation stage, we also suggest that labour be included as an essential part of the urban production process. Finally, for more complete LCC analysis for UA, we recommend (i) that all LCC stages be considered and (ii) that additional financial tools, such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period (PBP), be used to complement the LCC analysis.

The implementation of structural health monitoring (SHM) for management and maintenance of critical transport infrastructures, such as bridges, dams or tunnels, is a widely established approach. Even though, SHM shows various technical limitations (e.g. relating to spatial capabilities of the sensors, high cost, repeatability or interpretation of the sensor measurements to support structural assessment and prediction of the infrastructure condition states). Furthermore, linking SHM with life cycle based methodologies such as life cycle costing (LCC) or life cycle assessment (LCA) is only recently discussed. The SENSKIN EC co-funded research project aims to overcome above mentioned challenges through development of a new sensor system and its integration within a Decision Support System (DSS) for proactive condition-based structural rehabilitation planning during the bridge life cycle. The DSS will include structural assessment models (exclusively based on sensor measurements for assessing the bridge condition and damage states of the main structural and a rehabilitation planning module (RPM) that will enable end-users to assess the life cycle economic and environmental implications of bridge rehabilitation options. Hereby, a tailored submodule for integrated life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) assists, taking into account not only direct impacts of the rehabilitation solutions but also external effects caused by restricted traffic conditions (e.g. due to ongoing construction works). Thus, the SENSKIN project will contribute to a sustainable infrastructure. The following paper will sketch out the main scientific and functional structures of the developed DSS, with focus on the RPM and its LCA/LCC submodule for bridge rehabilitation planning.

This overview study investigates integrating advanced manufacturing technologies, specifically metal additive manufacturing (AM) and laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) processes, within Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 frameworks, to enhance sustainability and efficiency in industrial production and prototyping. The manufacturing sector, a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption, is increasingly adopting technologies that reduce environmental impact while maintaining economic growth. Selective laser melting (SLM), as the subsection LPBF technologies, is highlighted for its capability to produce high-performance, lightweight, and complex components with minimal material waste, thus aligning with circular economy goals for metal alloys. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) analyses are essential methods for evaluating the sustainability of any new technology. Sustainable technologies could support the concepts of the factory of the future (FoF), fulfilling the requirements of digital transformation and digital twins. This overview study reveals that implementing AM—specifically SLM—has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing. It underscores the ability of these technologies to promote sustainable and efficient manufacturing practices, thereby accelerating the shift from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0.

Assessing the environmental and economic sustainability of autonomous systems: A case study in the agricultural industry

Due to the growing threat of climate change, we are challenged to find improved assessment practises to recognize solutions for sustainable urban development. The focus of the study is on the life cycle design of a district energy system for a new residential development in Finland. This study analyses LCC (life cycle costs) and carbon emissions (LCA (life cycle assessment)), i.e., the “viability” of different energy systems through a methodological life cycle framework. By combining LCC and LCA, a LCM (life cycle management) perspective is portrayed to support decision-making on a long-term basis. The comparable energy design options analysed are (1) district heating (reference design), (2) district heating with building integrated photovoltaic panels, (3) ground source heat pump, and (4) ground source heat pump with building-integrated photovoltaic panels. The results show that the design option with the highest initial investment (4) is in fact the most viable from a life cycle perspective. This study further strengthens the connection between cost savings and carbon emissions reduction in a life cycle context. Thus, by implementing LCC and LCA analysis in an early design phase, justified economic and environmental design decisions can be identified to develop more sustainable urban areas.

Synergistic generation of energy and water in remote communities: Economic and environmental assessment of current situation and future scenarios

Materials selection is one of the most important phases in the design of a product. In recent years there have been several methods to help designers in materials selection. Several factors such as the environmental impact of the products have been increasingly valued by the society in general, which has been a drive to include environmental analyses in materials selections methods. The recently arisen methodology Life Cycle Engineering provides just an answer to these needs. In this chapter the Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) methodology is applied to a simple case study – a clothes peg, within the objective of illustrate the potentialities of introducing LCE in early design phases. LCE is based on three dimensions of analysis: Life Cycle Cost, Life Cycle Assessment and a technical evaluation. Life Cycle Cost is an economic analysis of the product throughout its life. Life Cycle Assessment is an evaluation of environmental impacts caused during the product lifetime, and technical evaluation consists in the evaluation of the candidate materials based on the functions or the requirements of the product. The purpose of this study was to select candidate materials and to design the manufacturing process for a clothes peg applying the LCE methodology. The design alternatives were therefore evaluated based on these three dimensions of analysis. A decision making methodology called Multi-attribute Utility Analysis was used for the final selection of the best material and process. This analysis is based on the consumers’ opinion, that in this particular application rely on three factors: the market price, the environmental impact and the quality of the product. The proposed methodology integrates a life cycle analysis (LCE) with the value given by the costumer to each dimension considering a specific product.

Life cycle assessment-based selection for a sustainable lightweight body-in-white design