Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 2443–2456 | Cite as

A sustainable method for optimizing product design with trade-off between life cycle cost and environmental impact

  • Mariam Ameli
  • Saeed Mansour
  • Amir Ahmadi-Javid


In today’s competitive market, corporations have learned that taking sustainability issues into account can significantly improve their public image. Modern producers therefore must simultaneously reduce the environmental impact of their products and make economic gains. Therefore, making trade-offs between economic and environmental issues is required to ensure a company’s continuity. In doing so, companies have attached a great deal of importance to the new product design phase. However, optimization at the design stage becomes very complex for a product with a large number of parts, which can have several design alternatives with similar forms and functionality, but different costs and environmental impacts. In the automobile, shipbuilding and aircraft industries, if the conventional complete enumeration method is applied, the time required for selecting the optimal combination of design alternatives with respect to life cycle cost and environmental impact may exceed a human’s natural life span. To overcome this limitation, this paper introduces an optimization method for use as a design aid tool that enables a designer to assess the life cycle cost and environmental impact of his/her design very early in the product development process. To support the developed method, an illustration is provided using a case study on a locally manufactured automobile.


Sustainable product design New product development Life cycle assessment Carbon footprint Optimization method Automotive industry 



The authors would like to thank SAPCO, the exclusive supplier of parts for IKCO, for providing the required information about parts. We are also thankful to Thinkstep for providing the GaBi software package for our calculations.


  1. Ameli, M., Mansour, S., & Ahmadi-Javid, A. (2016). A multi-objective model for selecting design alternatives and end-of-life options under uncertainty: a sustainable approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 109, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardente, F., Pastor, M. C., Mathieux, F., & Peiró, L. T. (2015). Analysis of end-of-life treatments of commercial refrigerating appliances: bridging product and waste policies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, J. (2003). Production, consumption and the world summit on sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5, 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behdad, S., Kwak, M. J., Kim, H., & Thurston, D. (2010). Simultaneous selective disassembly and end-of-Life decision making for multiple products that share disassembly operations. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behdad, S., & Thurston, D. (2012). Disassembly and reassembly sequence planning tradeoffs under uncertainty for product maintenance. Journal of Mechanical Design, 134, 1–9.Google Scholar
  6. Chiang, T.-A., & Che, Z. H. (2015). A decision-making methodology for low-carbon electronic product design. Decision Support Systems, 71, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ding, G., He, Y., Qin, S., Jia, M., & Li, R. (2012). A holistic product design and analysis model and its application in railway vehicle systems design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Engineering Manufacture, 227, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EU commission (2016). Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars. Climate Action. Retrieved from Accessed in Sept 2016.
  9. Gonza´lez, B., & Adenso-Dı´az, B. (2005). A bill of materials-based approach for end-of-life decision making in design for the environment. International Journal of Production Research, 43, 2071–2099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2014). Decision analysis for management judgment (5th ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., & Akbarpour Shirazi, M. (2014). Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 620–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang, C. C., Liang, W. Y., & Yi, S. R. (2015). Cloud-based design for disassembly to create environmentally friendly products. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. doi: 10.1007/s10845-015-1093-x.Google Scholar
  13. Kucukkoc, I., Buyukozkan, K., Satoglu, S. I., & Zhang, D. Z. (2015). A mathematical model and artificial bee colony algorithm for the lexicographic bottleneck mixed-model assembly line balancing problem. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. doi: 10.1007/s10845-015-1150-5.Google Scholar
  14. Kuo, T. C., Chen, H. M., Liu, C. Y., Tu, J.-C., & Yeh, T.-C. (2014). Applying multi-objective planning in low-carbon product design. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 15, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lagaros, N. D., & Karlaftis, M. G. (2015). Life-cycle cost structural design optimization of steel wind towers. Computers & Structures. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.09.013.Google Scholar
  16. Le, T. P. N., & Lee, T.-R. (2013). Model selection with considering the CO2 emission alone the global supply chain. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24, 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, K.-H. (2011). Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: the case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1216–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinez, M., & Xue, D. (2016). Development of adaptable products based on modular design and optimization methods. Procedia CIRP, 50, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mascle, C., & Zhao, H. P. (2008). Integrating environmental consciousness in product/process development based on lifecycle thinking. International Journal of Production Economics, 112, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ordouei, M. H., Elkamel, A., Dusseault, M. B., & Alhajri, I. (2015). New sustainability indices for product design employing environmental impact and risk reduction: case study on gasoline blends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schneider, L., Schröder, K., & Teipel, F. (2015). Assessing environmental and social impacts. Econsense—Forum for Sustainable Development of German Business.Google Scholar
  22. Schuller, O., Hassel, F., Kokborg, M., Thylmann, D., Stoffregen, A., Schöll, S., et al. (2013). GaBi database and modelling principles 2013. Leinfelden–Echterdingen: PE International AG.Google Scholar
  23. Shokohyar, S., Mansour, S., & Karimi, B. (2014). A model for integrating services and product EOL management in sustainable product service system (S-PSS). Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 25, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Song, J. S., & Lee, K. M. (2010). Development of a low-carbon product design system based on embedded GHG emissions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Su, J. C. P., Chu, C.-H., & Wang, Y.-T. (2012). A decision support system to estimate the carbon emission and cost of product designs. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 13, 1037–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2011). Product design and development (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Valkama, J., & Keskinen, M. (2008). Comparison of simplified LCA variations for three LCA cases of electronic products from the ecodesign point of view. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco, May 19–22.Google Scholar
  28. Vinodh, S. (2011). Sustainable design of sprocket using CAD and design optimisation. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13, 939–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitney, D. E. (2004). Mechanical assemblies: their design, manufacture, and role in product development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Yan, J., Feng, C., & Cheng, K. (2012). Sustainability-oriented product modular design using kernel-based fuzzy c-means clustering and genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 226, 1635–1647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariam Ameli
    • 1
  • Saeed Mansour
    • 1
  • Amir Ahmadi-Javid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations