A Novel Approach for Axiomatic-Based Design for the Environment

  • Alessandro GiorgettiEmail author
  • Andrea Girgenti
  • Paolo Citti
  • Massimo Delogu


The Eco-design approach for new product development is becoming progressively more and more important for competitive and legislative reasons, especially in advanced markets (EU USA, East Asia, etc.). Its importance is increasingly growing since the decisions made in early design stages largely affect not only the cost but also the environmental impact of a product. This paper introduces a novel approach that could be used to increase the potential capability of an Eco-design approach. This aim is achieved through a better fit between the critical environmental issues and the development of new solutions using AD. The introduced approach, first, considers a meta-product point of view that uses a customized Smart Eco-design Platform and the Axiomatic Design (AD) for the improvement of the eco-sustainability of products. Then, the approach introduces the meta-system level as the reference level for detecting the system Design Matrix and developing an uncoupled design. This goal could be achieved through the use of AD and the implementation of the environmental information as a tool to reduce the space of the available design solutions. The first axiom aims to define the Design Matrix of the Functional System in order to detect its best configuration. The purpose is to avoid an optimization without appropriate knowledge in terms of interaction among meta-product and resources. Then, the Functional Requirements definition, used in AD, could represent the ideal index for the ease of sharing information and knowledge on a wide scale among different industrial sectors. The development of the Smart Eco-design Platform could encourage the use of this approach in real product development. The sharing of the database enables obtaining information for reducing the field of design parameters that satisfy the Functional Requirements. In this way, it could be possible to develop a system of products with an overall higher level of eco-sustainability and a better use of resources through information derived from other fields and experiences. Typical goals that are reachable are, for instance, represented by a system that needs less consumption of energy and material during the whole product life cycle.


Eco-design Life cycle assessment Design for environment Functional System Design approach Product development Meta-product 


  1. 1.
    H. Andriankaja, F. Vallet, J. Le Duigou, B. Eynard, A method to ecodesign structural parts in the transport sector based on product life cycle management. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 165–176 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Behrisch, M. Ramirez, D. Giurco, Representation of ecodesign practice: international comparison of industrial design consultancies. Sustainability 3(10), 1778–1791 (2011). doi: 10.3390/su3101778 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Berzi, M. Delogu, A. Giorgetti, M. Pierini, On-field investigation and process modelling of End-of-Life Vehicles treatment in the context of Italian craft-type Authorized Treatment Facilities. Waste Manag. 33(4), 892–906 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.M. Beude, The engineering design of systems: models and methods, 2nd edn (Wiley, Hoboken, 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Brezet, C. Van Hemel, Ecodesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption (UNEP, 1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Brones, M. Monteiro de Carvalho, From 50 to 1: integrating literature toward a systemic ecodesign model. J. Clean. Prod. Integr. Cleaner Prod. Sustain. Strat. 96, 44–57 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.036 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Cappelli, M. Delogu, M. Pierini, F. Schiavone, Design for disassembly: a methodology for identifying the optimal disassembly sequence. J. Eng. Des. 18(6), 563–575 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Cappelli, M. Massimo Delogu, M. Pierini, Integration of LCA and EcoDesign guideline in a virtual cad frame work, in International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, LCE’06, Leuven, 31 May–2 June 2006Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Collado-Ruiza, H. Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, Fuon theory: standardizing functional units for product design. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 683–691 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Dalhammar, E. Machacek, A. Bungaard, K. Overgaard Zacho, A. Remmen, Addressing Resource Efficiency Through the Ecodesign Directive. A Review of Opportunities and Barriers (2014). ISBN 978–92-893-2720-6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Del Pero, M. Delogu, M. Pierini, D. Bonaffini, LifeCycleAssessment of a heavy metro train. J. Clean. Prod. 87(15), 787–799 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Deutz, G. Neighbour, M. McGuire, Integrating sustainable waste management into product design: sustainability as a functional requirement. Sustain. Dev. 18, 229–239 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Dewulf, Sustainable product innovation: the importance of the front-end stage in the innovation process, in Advances in Industrial Design Engineering, Chap. 7, ed. by A.D. Coelho (InTech, 2013), pp. 139–166. doi: 10.5772/3415 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Dray, An analysis of the impact of aircraft lifecycles on aviation emissions mitigation policies. J. Air Transp. Manage. Selected papers from the 15th Air Transport Research Society Conference, Sydney, 2011(28), pp. 62–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.12.012 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    EDGE, The Engineering Design Guide and Environment (2015) Accessed 21 Oct 2015
  16. 16.
    M. Finkbeiner, R. Hoffmann, Application of life cycle assessment for the environmental certificate of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class (7 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 240–246 (2006). doi: 10.1065/lca2006.05.248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Finnveden, A. Moberg, Environmental systems analysis tools—An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 1165–1173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Fletcher, P. Goggin, The dominant stances on ecodesign: a critique. Des. Issues 17, 15–25 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Froelich, E. Maris, N. Haoues, L. Chemineau, H. Renard, F. Abraham, R. Lassartesses, State of the art of plastic sorting and recycling: feedback to vehicle design. Miner. Eng. 20, 902–912 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Froelich, N. Haoues, Y. Leroy, H. Renard, Development of a new methodology to integrate ELV treatment limits into requirements for metal automotive part design. Miner. Eng. Selected papers from Material, Minerals & Metal Ecology ’06, Cape Town, South Africa, 20 Nov 2006, pp. 891–901. doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2007.04.019 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Giorgetti, P. Citti, G. Arcidiacono, M. Delogu, Axiomatic design for the development of eco-sustainable metaproducts, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Axiomatic Design (ICAD2011), Daejeon, Korea, pp. 88–94. ISBN 978-89-89693-30-7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Howe, A.J. Kolios, F.P. Brennan, Environmental life cycle assessment of commercial passenger jet airliners. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 19, 34–41 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2012.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    IDIS International Dismantling Information System (IDIS) (2015). Accessed 21 Oct 2015
  24. 24.
    I.S. Jawahir, K.E. Rouch, O.W. Dillon, L. Holloway, A. Hall, Design for sustainability (DFS): new challenges in developing and implementing a curriculum for next generation design and manufacturing engineers. Int. J. Eng. Edu. 23(6) (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Johansson, Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development a review of state-of-the-art. Environ. Manage. Health 13(1), 98–107 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Koffler, Life cycle assessment of automotive lightweighting through polymers under US boundary conditions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 19, 538–545 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0652-7 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Le Pochat, G. Bertolucci, D. Froelich, Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 671–680 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    V. Lofthouse, Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. J. Cleaner Prod. 14(15–16), 1386–1395 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Morrison, M. Azhar, T. Lee, H. Suh, Axiomatic design for eco-design: eAD+. J. Eng. Des. 24(10), 711–737 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Ness, E. Urbel-Piirsalu, S. Anderberg, L. Olsson, Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 60(3), 498–508 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad, M.R. Rangaswami, Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 87(9), 56–64 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    PILOT Ecodesign Pilot (2015). Accessed 21 Oct 2015
  33. 33.
    G. Ries, R. Winkler, R. Ziist, Barriers for a successful integration of environmental aspects in product design, in Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, 01–03 Feb 1999Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    F. Schiavone, M. Pierini, V. Eckert, Strategy-based approach to eco-design: an innovative methodology for systematic integration of ecologic/economic considerations into product development process. Int. J. Sustain. Des. 1(1), 29–44 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. Stasinopoulos, P. Compston, B. Newell, H.M. Jones, A system dynamics approach in LCA to account for temporal effects—a consequential energy LCI of car body-in-whites. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 199–207 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0344-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    N.P. Suh, Axiomatic design: advances and applications (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    N.P. Suh, Complexity: theory and applications. MIT-Pappalardo Series in Mechanical Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    N. Tchertchian, P.-A. Yvars, D. Millet, Benefits and limits of a Constraint Satisfaction Problem/Life Cycle Assessment approach for the ecodesign of complex systems: a case applied to a hybrid passenger ferry. J. Clean. Prod. 42, 1–18 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M.K. Thompson, A classification of procedural errors in the definition functional requirements in axiomatic design theory, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Axiomatic Design (ICAD’13), Worchester, 2013Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Tukker, U. Tischner, New business for old Europe (Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, Sheffield, 2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    S.A. Waage, Re-considering product design: a practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 638–649 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    WEEE & RoHS PILOT. Accessed 21 Oct 2015
  43. 43.
    Q. Zhu, Y. Geng, K. Lai, Circular economy practices among Chinese manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the performance implications. J. Environ. Manage. 91(6), 1324–1331 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Giorgetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Girgenti
    • 1
  • Paolo Citti
    • 1
  • Massimo Delogu
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione e dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi Guglielmo MarconiRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Ingegneria IndustrialeUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations