An integrated environment and cost assessment method based on LCA and LCC for mechanical product manufacturing

  • Junli ShiEmail author
  • Yajun Wang
  • Shuangjiao Fan
  • Qinyi Ma
  • Haihua Jin



The purpose of this study is to provide an integrated method to identify the resource consumption, environmental emission, and economic cost for mechanical product manufacturing from economic and ecological dimensions and ultimately to provide theoretical and data support of energy conservation and emission reduction for mechanical product manufacturing.


The applied research methods include environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC). In life cycle environmental assessment, the inventory data are referred from Chinese Life Cycle Database and midpoint approach and EDIP2003 and CML2001 models of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are selected. In life cycle cost assessment, three cost categories are considered. The proposed environment and cost assessment method is based on the theory of social willingness to pay for potential environmental impacts. With the WD615 Steyr engine as a case, life cycle environment and cost are analyzed and evaluated.

Results and discussion

The case study indicates that, in different life cycle phases, the trend of cost result is generally similar to the environmental impacts; the largest proportion of cost and environmental impact happened in the two phases of “material production” and “component manufacturing” and the smallest proportion in “material transport” and “product assembly.” The environmental impact category of Chinese resource depletion potential (CRDP) accounted for the largest proportion, followed by global warming potential (GWP) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), whereas the impacts of eutrophication potential (EP) and acidification potential (AP) are the smallest. The life cycle “conventional cost” accounted for almost all the highest percentage in each phase (except “material transport” phase), which is more than 80% of the total cost. The “environmental cost” and “possible cost” in each phase are relatively close, and the proportion of which is far below the “conventional cost.”


The proposed method enhanced the conventional LCA. The case results indicate that, in a life cycle framework, the environment and cost analysis results could support each other, and focusing on the environment and cost analysis for mechanical product manufacturing will contribute to a more comprehensive eco-efficiency assessment. Further research on the life cycle can be extended to phases of “early design,” “product use,” and “final disposal.” Other LCIA models and endpoint indicators are advocated for this environmental assessment. Environmental cost can also be further investigated, and the relevant social willingness to pay for more environmental emissions is advocated to be increased.


Environmental impact Life cycle assessment Life cycle cost Mechanical product Social willingness to pay 



The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive suggestions of the paper.

Funding information

Support was from Jinan Fuqiang power Co., LTD and the 2017 Liaoning Province Natural Science Fund Guidance Project (energy efficiency, emissions and environmental impact model research of equipment remanufacturing system, Grant No. 20170540080).


  1. Al-Ayouty I, Hassaballa H, Rizk R (2017) Clean manufacturing industries and environmental quality: the case of Egypt. Environ Dev 21:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Haes H (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(6):319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrios R, Siebel M, Helm A, Bosklopper K, Gijzen H (2008) Environmental and financial life cycle impact assessment of drinking water production at Waternet. J Clean Prod 16:471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovea MD, Vidal R (2004) Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and customer valuation. Resour Conserv Recycl 41:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerria D, Taischa M, Terzi S (2014) Proposal of a model for life cycle optimization of industrial equipment. Procedia CIRP 15:479–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiesa M, Monteleone B, Venuta ML, Maffeis G, Greco SA (2016) Integrated study through LCA, ELCC analysis and air quality modelling related to the adoption of high efficiency small scale pellet boilers. Biomass Bioenergy 90:262–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. China nonferrous metal industry yearbook (2006) Available at:
  8. de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts M (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyckhoff H, Quandel A, Waletzke K (2015) Rationality of eco-efficiency methods: is the BASF analysis dependent on irrelevant alternatives? Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1557–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreira S, Cabral M, da Cruz NF, Marques RC (2014) Economic and environmental impacts of the recycling system in Portugal. J Clean Prod 79:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guinée J (2013) Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1722–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M (2014) Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 48:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S, Haque N, Bhuiyan MA (2015) Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications for roofing and floor designs in residential buildings. Energ Buildings 104:250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO 14044 international standard (2006) In: Environmental Management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO 14045 international standard (2012) In: Environmental management—eco-efficiency assessment of product systems—principles, requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Kannan R, Tso CP, Osman R (2004) LCA–LCCA of oil fired steam turbine power plant in Singapore. Energy Convers Manag 45:3093–3107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim MH, Song YE, Song HB, Kim JW, Hwang SJ (2011) Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Jungnang case, South Korea. Waste Manag 31:2112–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kjær LL, Pagoropoilos A, Hauschild M, Birked M, Schmidt JH, McAloone TC (2015) From LCC to LCA using a hybrid input output model-a maritime case study. Procedia CIRP 29:474–479Google Scholar
  19. Kucukvar M, Cansev B, Egilmez G, Onat NC, Samadi H (2016) Energy-climate-manufacturing nexus: new insights from the regional and global supply chains of manufacturing industries. Appl Energy 184:889–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landsiedel R, Saling P (2002) Assessment of toxicological risks for life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee JY, An S, Cha K, Hur T (2010) Life cycle environmental and economic analyses of a hydrogen station with wind energy. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:2213–2225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leng RB (2007) Study on product life cycle 3E+S assessment and methodology of decision analysis. Shanghai Jiaotong University, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  23. Li XD, Wu X, Zhang ZH (2005) Study on social WTP for environmental impacts based on the LCA theory. J Harbin Inst Tech 37(11):1507–1510Google Scholar
  24. Lindahl M, Sundin E, Sakao T (2014) Environmental and economic benefits of integrated product service offerings quantified with real business cases. J Clean Prod 64:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo L, Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:1613–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mistry M, Koffler C, Wong S (2016) LCA and LCC of the world’s longest pier: a case study on nickel-containing stainless steel rebar. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1637–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(2):118–120Google Scholar
  28. Ristimäki M, Säynäjoki A, Heinonen J, Junnila S (2013) Combining life cycle costing and life cycle assessment for an analysis of a new residential district energy system design. Energy 63:168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saling P (2015) Sustainability improvements and life cycle approaches in industry partnerships, Life cycle Management, LCA Compendium - The Complete World of Life cycle Assessment. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saling P, Maisch R, Silvani M, König N (2005) Assessing the environmental-hazard potential for life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency and SEE balance. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Senthil KD, Onga SK, Nee AYC, Tan RBH (2003) A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shonnard DR, Kicherer A, Saling P (2003) Industrial applications using BASF eco-efficiency analysis: perspectives on green engineering principles. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):5340–5348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tapia M, Siebel MA, Helm AWC, Baars ET, Gijzen HJ (2008) Environmental, financial and quality assessment of drinking water processes at Waternet. J Clean Prod 16:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uhlman BW, Saling P (2010) Measuring and communicating sustainability through eco-efficiency analysis. CEP December 2010, special expanded web-only version, American institute of chemical engineers, CEP magazine article, December 2010: 17–26Google Scholar
  36. UNEP/SETAC (2011) Life cycle initiative. Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. USGS Minerals Yearbook 2005 (2005) Volume III-China. Available at:
  38. Wenzel H, Hauschild MZ, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. In: COL. 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu RJ, Lin B (2017) Why are there large regional differences in CO2 emissions? Evidence from China's manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 140:1330–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junli Shi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yajun Wang
    • 1
  • Shuangjiao Fan
    • 1
  • Qinyi Ma
    • 2
  • Haihua Jin
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mechanical Engineering and AutomationDalian Polytechnic UniversityDalianChina
  2. 2.Institute of Sustainable Design and ManufacturingDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations