Integrating Sustainability

6
Integrating Sustainability in
Engineering Design
6.1 Problem Solving in Engineering

Problem solving is the foundation of engineering activities and it is
the process of determining the best possible action to take in a given
situation. We can distinguish between two types of engineering
problems:
1. Analytic problems (or exercise solving) are solved by analysis and

logical deductions. They are typically closed-ended problems that
determine the properties of a given device or system and generally
have only a single correct solution. Convergent thinking or a problem
narrowing approach is applied when undertaking modeling and
analysis to solve such problems, usually occurring at the detailed
design stage.
2. Open-ended problems do not have a unique solution and do not lend
themselves to the analytic approach. There is no single “correct”
solution and the engineer looks for the best solution. Divergent think-
ing or a problem-widening approach is applied when confronted with
such problems.
Engineers usually deal with ill-defined problems that are vaguely or

ambiguously formulated by the community or clients. Sometimes, engi-
neering problems are also stated in overly specific terms so that
a solution is stated unintentionally in the formulation. This is also an ill-
defined problem. Problems faced by the engineer are therefore usually
initially ill-defined and open-ended, and the “best solution” has to be
worked out among alternative, potentially acceptable solutions. Also, at
least in the initial stages, there is a significant lack of information.
A methodology for solving such complex problems is as follows
(Dandy et al., 2017):
189
190 Introduction to Sustainability for Engineers
• Formulate the problem clearly and in general terms and ensure it is

not over-specific.
• Develop a wide range of promising approaches through creativity
techniques and gather information to understand the state of the art.
• Choose criteria for ranking the alternative approaches.
• Discard the least promising approaches using simplified evaluations.
• Discard progressively with more detailed evaluations until a short
list remains.
• Choose the best approach from the short list using detailed
evaluations.
• Develop the best approach into a detailed solution and communicate
the results through either oral/written communication or engineer-
ing drawings.
• Implement the solution.
Planning and design, together with management, construction and opera-

tion or production, are key activities of an engineering project from
conceptual stage to successful implementation. They are activities in
which the details of an engineering project or a process are worked out to
the extent necessary for implementation. Planning involves working out
the steps needed to change the present state into the new state. Design, the
essence of engineering, is the process of determining the details of any
required new system. Both planning and design are essentially problem-
solving processes, and the above methodology is used to carry out the
engineering design process for new things or to improve things. The
quality of the planning and design work will have a decisive effect on the
success of the project. A common characteristic of all engineering works is
that they should be undertaken in minimum time using limited resources
such as people, materials, and money. Engineers now have also to be
creative and responsive in facing the challenge of sustainability. One of
the first steps in engineering work is to identify the real problem to be
solved as distinct from community perceptions and views and statements
of individuals. Hence, engineers must also be problem framers in addition
to being problem solvers (Dandy et al., 2017). And sustainability must be
part of the problem framing.
6.2 The Conventional Engineering Design Process

Although design is one among many other tasks conferred to engineers,
such as project management, operation and maintenance management, site
supervision, quality control, research and development, etc., it remains
Sustainability in Engineering Design 191
a central part of engineering practice. It can be defined as the process of

devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs, converting
resources optimally and considering the limitations imposed by practicality,
regulation, safety, cost, and sustainability. Design problems are usually ill-
defined and open-ended. The problem statement often gives no indication of
what a solution must be, and it is this uncertainty that makes designing
a challenging activity. According to Dieter and Schmidt (2009), one way
to summarize the challenges presented by the designing environment is
to think of the following four Cs of design:
• Creativity – requires creation of something that has not existed before

• Complexity – requires decisions on many variables and parameters
• Choice – requires making choices between many solutions at all
levels, from basic concept to the smallest detail
• Compromise – requires balancing multiple and sometimes conflicting
requirements
A design process is a systematic problem-solving strategy which takes

into account the constraints while developing possible solutions to solve
or satisfy human needs or wants and deciding on a final choice. The
process follows the problem-solving steps: problem definition, search for
alternatives, analysis, selection of the “best” alternative and implementa-
tion. Design projects will include all these phases and in addition will
include conceptual design, embodiment design and detailed design. The
conventional design process is summarized in Table 6.1, while Figure 6.1
illustrates the iterative nature of the design process as well as important
points and data. Besides the iterative nature of the design process, the
importance of communication with all partners involved should be
emphasized.
6.3 From Conventional to Sustainable Engineering

Design Process
Design cost varies little in terms of the overall product cost, but its decision
has a major impact on the overall cost. As design proceeds toward the
detailed phase, design decisions become more and more specific and have
less impact on overall costs. Figure 6.2 illustrates why it is important to
start as early as possible in the design process to enhance sustainability.
The early design phases are the ones which have the greatest influence on
the project as a whole due to the fact that project planning is more flexible
at this stage. As the project evolves, flexibility is reduced and the chance of
making changes is smaller, and making changes involves higher costs. During
TABLE 6.1
Generic Conventional Design Process Tasks
Design Phase Tasks
I – Planning and 1. Team formation

problem 2. Definition of the problem, objectives, and context
definition 3. Identification of constraints and other preliminary data
4. Planning of subsequent phases
II – Conceptual 1. Identification of the functions the systems must serve
design 2. Generation of alternative concepts
3. Definition of design specifications, based on the functions or manda-
tory requirements such as regulations
III – Preliminary 1. Elaboration of the alternative concepts
design 2. Evaluation of the concepts, including technical performance, cost
estimation, risk analysis, etc.
3. Selection and communication of the best concept
IV – Detailed 1. Specific data gathering and detailed elaboration of the chosen
design alternative
2. Further evaluation and optimization
3. Identification of requirements for the manufacturing, construction,
operation, and maintenance phases
4. Documentation and communication of the final design
the early phases, there is more potential for studying different alternatives,
reducing costs, implementing changes, and improving performance. The
design phase can thus be considered as one of the key phases in achieving
sustainability.
The most advanced green designs can only be accomplished through
integrative design in which project teams work together to identify syner-
gies among strategies.
To move toward a more sustainable practice of engineering, the design
process must be modified to enable engineers to tackle sustainability issues
in a structured manner. There have been many attempts to incorporate
sustainability principles into engineering design. The Sandestin Sustainable
Engineering Principles (Abraham and Nguyen, 2003) and the 12 Principles
of Green Engineering (Anastas and Zimmerman, 2003) capture similar, but
also complementary, elements of sustainability and engineering design,
which are summarized in Table 6.2. These guiding principles must be consid-
ered by engineers in all design phases of a project through well-integrated
components to the conventional approach.
Sustainable engineering design requires a systems approach whereby
sustainability is systematically integrated in the design rather than con-
sidered as an “add-on.” Based on the literature (Azapagic and Pedan,
Planning and
Project problem Preliminary
initiation definition Data
Problem
statement
II. Conceptual Design

analysis specifications
Alternative
concepts
III. Preliminary Performance

Design of concepts
Legend
Decision
point
Recommended
concept
Design phase Detailed

performance
IV. Detailed of the chosen
Design concept
Data Final
configuration
FIGURE 6.1
The conventional engineering design process.
Major Influence Rapid declining Influence Low Influence
Planning & Schematic Design Construction Construction

programming Design development document
FIGURE 6.2
Opportunities of sustainability impact minimization along the process life cycle.
2005; Crul and Diehl, 2006; Gagnon et al., 2012), the following modifica-
tions are needed to transform the conventional design process into
a sustainable one:
• Choosing team members with various expertises during the problem

framing.
• Identification and involvement of stakeholders.
• Identification of key sustainability issues.
• During planning, defining goals and objectives that take into account
the three pillars of sustainability.
• Adoption of life cycle thinking. Design is often focused on the
operation stage, while the other stages can often have significant
sustainability impacts. The system boundary needs to be extended
to consider the life cycle.
• Use of the backcasting technique. It consists of working backward
from a future vision to the present in order to elaborate potential
solution pathways and then evaluating the different options.
• Identifying criteria and indicators for measuring sustainability.
• Use of a multi-criteria approach to handle compromise between
various environmental, economic, social, or technical issues.
TABLE 6.2
Principles for Sustainable Engineering Design
Sandestin Sustainable Engineering

Principles The 12 Principles of Green Engineering
Principle 1: Engineer processes and products Principle 1: Designers need to strive to ensure
holistically, use system analysis, and integrate that all material and energy inputs and outputs
environmental impact assessment tools. are as inherently nonhazardous as possible.
Principle 2: Conserve and improve natural Principle 2: It is better to prevent waste than to
ecosystems while protecting human health treat or clean up waste after it is formed.
and well-being.
Principle 3: Use life-cycle thinking in all Principle 3: Separation and purification
engineering activities. operations should be designed to minimize
energy consumption and materials use.
Principle 4: Ensure that all material and Principle 4: Products, processes, and systems
energy inputs and outputs are as inherently should be designed to maximize mass, energy,
safe and benign as possible. space, and time efficiency.
Principle 5: Minimize depletion of natural Principle 5: Products, processes, and systems
resources. should be “output pulled” rather than “input
pushed” through the use of energy and
materials.
Principle 6: Strive to prevent waste. Principle 6: Embedded entropy and
complexity must be viewed as an investment
when making design choices on recycle, reuse,
or beneficial disposition.
Principle 7: Develop and apply engineering Principle 7: Targeted durability, not
solutions, while being cognizant of local immortality, should be a design goal.
geography, aspirations, and cultures.
Principle 8: Create engineering solutions Principle 8: Design for unnecessary capacity or
beyond current or dominant technologies; capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions
improve, innovate, and invent technologies to should be considered a design flaw.
achieve sustainability.
Principle 9: Actively engage communities and Principle 9: Material diversity in
stakeholders in development of engineering multicomponent products should be
solutions. minimized to promote disassembly and value
retention.
Principle 10: Design of products, processes,
and systems must include integration and
interconnectivity with available energy and
materials flows.
Principle 11: Products, processes, and systems
should be designed for performance in
a commercial “afterlife.”
Principle 12: Material and energy inputs
should be renewable rather than depleting.
• Selecting strategies and creativity techniques to guide idea generation

during the conceptual phase.
• During preliminary design, a preliminary sustainability assessment
of potential solutions is carried out and during the final design a full
sustainability assessment is carried out.
• Sustainability of the product is communicated at its launch
• Post-project monitoring is carried out with relevant criteria and
indicators.
In the sustainable engineering design process, it is important to use

appropriate tools for the analysis of potential solutions and the synthesis
of the data gathered. Incremental innovation is unlikely to solve sustain-
ability challenges, and radical innovation needs creativity. Key creativity
tools in the field of sustainability (such as brainstorming, mind mapping,
backcasting, industrial ecology, eco-design strategies and Factor X engi-
neering) must be given the same attention as tools for analysis (such as
EIA, SEA, LCA, CBA, LCC, SLCA, etc.) and synthesis (such as MCA).
Stakeholder engagement is a cross-cutting tool to be employed in the
creativity, analysis, and synthesis activities. Sustainable projects need to
be as technically sound as conventional projects, and these tools must
thus be used in conjunction with existing approaches. Table 6.3 presents
the critical tasks in each design phase deemed necessary to move from
the conventional design toward sustainable design.
The large number of criteria that need to be considered when integrating
sustainability issues with conventional technical issues can be problematic.
Azapagic and Pedan (2005) indicate that most MCA studies recommend
that a maximum of 10 criteria be considered in order to simplify assess-
ment and decision making. In contrast, a sustainability assessment frame-
work can prescribe more than 10 criteria or indicators in addition to
technical specifications. To address this situation, Gagnon et al. (2012)
recommend the consideration of criteria in a sequential manner, reducing
the number of them to be tackled simultaneously. Four categories are
proposed for the classification of criteria (see Table 6.4) and to help in the
decision-making process.
6.4 Design for Life Guidelines and Strategies

It is crucial to the successful delivery of sustainable development to realize
that the problem definition stage is where rigorous consideration of sus-
tainable development issues and in particular life-cycle thinking approach
will generate the greatest benefits. By incorporating the principles in the
TABLE 6.3
Critical Tasks in Each Design Phase for a Sustainable Engineering Design Process
Design Phase Critical Tasks
I – Planning and problem 1. Form a multidisciplinary design team

definition 2. Define sustainability principles
3. Identify sustainability issues associated with the defined
problem
4. Analyze stakeholders and plan stakeholder’s involvement
II – Conceptual design 5. Define sustainability criteria in line with the sustainability
issues previously identified, in parallel with technical
functions
6. Develop a vision for the future in which functions are
fulfilled respecting the sustainability principles
7. Generate at least one alternative concept radically different
from conventional ones using sustainability creativity tools
8. Define sustainability indicators derived from the issues or
criteria, in parallel with technical specifications derived from
functions
9. Identify the analysis tools with which data will be generated
for each of indicators
10. Chose a multi-criteria decisions aid method
III – Preliminary design 11. Assess the performance of alternative concepts according to
the sustainability criteria or indicators, including one
“benchmark alternative” representative of current practice
12. Validate the multi-criteria decision aid method chosen and
use it to recommend a preferred concept
IV – Detailed design 13. Refine the assessment of the preferred concept and
optimize its performance along sustainability criteria or
indicators. Do a full assessment of the sustainability of the
chosen design
14. Communicate recommendations for the manufacturing,
construction, use and end-of-life phases
15. Generate the set of sustainability indicators for monitoring
Adapted from Gagnon et al. (2012).
problem statement and design brief, its importance will trickle down
throughout various aspects of the design. Table 6.5 gives the guidelines
for design from a life-cycle perspective.
The D4S strategy wheel in Figure 6.3 illustrates the seven general D4S
strategies which parallel the stages of the product life cycle and give
improvement directions. The seven strategies have been extended with
sub-strategies in Table 6.6. These basic suggestions are useful during the
brainstorming of sustainable design options and can be used as a checklist
or as a source of inspiration.
TABLE 6.4
Categories of Criteria in Sustainability Assessment (SA)
Category Purpose Description
Mandatory, non- Screening of concepts These criteria are associated with regulations,
discriminating (conventional design) codes, standards, etc. and relate to various
dimensions of sustainability (environmental
standards, health and safety requirements,
purchase of regional labor and materials, etc.) or
technical issues. The respect of such criteria is
mandatory in conventional as well as in
sustainable design, so they cannot serve to
discriminate the former from the latter.
Relative, non- Improvement of This category of criteria guides the improvement of
discriminating concepts a given concept and serves to assess, in
a qualitative or quantitative manner, the relative
improvement realized compared to an initial
configuration. These criteria thus help making each
alternative concept more sustainable, but do not
allow comparison between the concepts.
Threshold, Screening of concepts Threshold criteria set objectives (more demanding
discriminating than mandatory requirements) that concepts need
to respect in order to be considered acceptable (go/
no-go testing). Concepts which meet the criteria
can pass on to subsequent design phases (go) and
are discriminated from those who cannot (no-go).
Weighted, Identification of an These criteria are considered in a single decision
discriminating optimal concept step, with the help of one of the many weighted
MCA methods available. An optimal concept
outperforming others is identified, the outcome
depending on the criteria considered and the
decision rules particular to the chosen MCA
method.
Source: Gagnon et al. (2012).
In practice, the design may incorporate several ideas, and several con-
cepts may be developed at the same time. The “Morphological Box”
techniques are useful for combining several ideas in one product concept
in a systematic way.
6.5 Measuring Sustainability

Efforts should be made to be as quantitative as possible when evaluating
alternative designs. Indicators and metrics that can be used to measure and
quantify environmental sustainability need to be developed to provide
TABLE 6.5
Design for Life Guidelines
Raw materials Design for resource conservation

Design for low impact materials
Manufacturing Design for cleaner production
Use Design for energy efficiency
Design for water conservation
Design for minimal consumption
Design for low impact use
Design for service and repair
Design for durability
Distribution Design for efficient distribution
End of life Design for reuse
Design for remanufacture
Design for disassembly
Design for recycling
Design for safe disposal
@. New concept development
7. Optimization of 1. Selection of low-

end-of-life system impact materials
6. Optimization of 2. Reduction of
initial lifetime material usage
5. Reduction of 3. Optimization of
impact during use production
4. Optimization of techniques
distribution system
FIGURE 6.3
Strategy wheel for design for sustainability.
a basis for decision-making. In most engineering designs, the measure is

cost and the goal is to minimize cost. This suggests that one mechanism for
incorporating objectives related to sustainability into engineering design is
to monetize them. However, some indicators of environmental and societal
performance will be difficult, or arguably impossible, to monetize and for
these cases other approaches will be needed for incorporating objectives
into engineering design. In engineering design, it is most convenient to
TABLE 6.6
Design for Sustainability Strategies and Sub-Strategies
1. Selection of low-impact a. Cleaner

materials b. Renewable
c. Have lower energy content
d. Recycled
e. Recyclable
f. Have a positive social impact, (e.g., generate local income)
2. Reduction of materials usage a. Weight
b. Volume (transport)
3. Optimization of production a. Alternative techniques
techniques b. Fewer steps
c. Lower/cleaner energy
d. Less waste
e. Fewer/cleaner materials used to support the production
f. Safety and cleanliness of workplace
4. Optimization of distribution a. Less/cleaner/reusable packaging
system b. Energy efficient transport mode
c. Energy efficient logistics
d. Involve local suppliers
5. Reduction of impact during use a. Lower energy consumption
b. Cleaner energy source
c. Fewer consumables needed
d. Cleaner consumables
e. Health supporting and/or added social added value
6. Optimization of initial lifetime a. Reliability and durability
b. Easier maintenance and repair
c. Modular product structure
d. Classic design
e. Strong product–user relation
f. Involve local maintenance and service systems
7. Optimization of end-of-life a. Reuse of product
system b. Remanufacturing/refurbishing
c. Recycling of materials
d. Safer incineration
e. Taking into consideration local (informal) collection/
recycling systems
Source: Crul et al. (2009).
discuss sustainability in the context of indicators developed through

a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) framework – for example
through an environmental and social LCA – and through the indicators of
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Global Reporting Initia-
tive (GRI) frameworks. Table 6.7 gives a set of potential criteria and
indicators based on these tools and frameworks that can assist in effective
decision-making.
TABLE 6.7
Examples of Sustainability Design Criteria and Indicators
Environmental Economic
Sustainability Sustainability
Indicators Indicators Social Sustainability Indicators
Global warming Capital and operating Direct and indirect job creation within the
costs community
Stratospheric ozone Economic return over Nuisances to the community (noise, odor,
depletion project life cycle visual impact)
Photochemical smog Life-cycle costs Public acceptability/emotional ownership of
formation the community in the engineering project
Human Direct and indirect Improved health and safety of employees,
carcinogenicity investment within the customers, and citizens
community
Atmospheric Environmental Enhanced social opportunities for members of
acidification liabilities the community
Aquatic toxicity Taxes paid Compliance with labor standards
Terrestrial toxicity Community mobility and connectivity/access
Depletion of Enhancement of community aesthetics
nonrenewable
resources
Use of land and
freshwater resources
Eutrophication
The above indicators provide key variables that may be assessed using
specific metrics when evaluating the degree of sustainability for a specific
engineering project or a product. An LCA software and database will
normally be required for the assessment of environmental sustainability.
Economic evaluation in traditional design is normally based on the micro
economic indicators such as NPV, discounted cash flow analysis, returns
on capital investment and so on. In addition to these indicators, life-cycle
costs and investments in, for example, pollution prevention and decom-
missioning should also be considered. Social sustainability indicators can
be translated into both quantitative and qualitative indicators. An SLCA
enables the identification of the most significant social impacts and the
hotspots.
More simple and qualitative sustainability assessment methods can also
be employed. Figure 6.4 shows an Impact Matrix which is a qualitative or
semi-qualitative method that provides an overview of the environmental
inputs and outputs, social aspects, and profit flows at each stage of the
product life cycle. The columns correspond to the different product life
cycle stages and the rows concentrate on the relevant criteria.
Raw In house
Issue Suppliers Distribution Use E-O-L
Materials production
Materials
Energy use
Solid waste
Toxic
emissions
Social
responsibility
Human
resource
management
Distributed
economies
Water
CO2
Costs
FIGURE 6.4
Example of an impact matrix.
Rows – Environmental criteria usually include material use, energy

consumption, solid waste and toxic emissions. Social criteria usually
include social responsibility, local or regional economic development and
human resource management. More issues can be considered by adding
rows. Examples include issues such as specific local problems or sustain-
ability issues like water consumption, biodiversity, CO2 emissions, costs,
and cultural heritage. In addition, rows can be added and linked to the
relevant drivers.
Columns – Depending on the life cycle process tree of the product,
the stages can be named in different ways and the number of columns
can be increased. In Figure 6.4 the life cycle has six stages. Depending
on the real situation, the design team can decide to add or leave out
stages.
Such a matrix can help a design team to make a quick qualitative
assessment of the life cycle by identifying the cells that have major
“sustainability” impacts. The next step is to prioritize the impacts which
will become the focus for developing improvement options. Such a matrix
also enables the identification of information gaps.
6.6 Sustainable Design through Sustainable Procurement Criteria

Procurement is a key part of the project development stage, and it is the
process which creates, manages, and fulfils contracts. Innovation for sus-
tainability requires the use of the best modern procurement practice. The
use of sustainable procurement criteria is an opportunity for clients/
owners to build and operate projects in an environmentally friendly
manner. In most cases, the procuring organization will need technical
support with specific engineering, environmental and economic knowl-
edge to undertake the whole tender process from initial feasibility studies
to the final selection of a contractor. An engineering project will necessarily
include a design phase, selection of a contractor followed by the construc-
tion as such. The subsequent operational phase will, like the earlier phases,
include various environmental concerns, and sustainable procurement
criteria therefore cover all these phases. This section covers specifically
the procurement of design. The following typical phases can be distin-
guished in the project development phase:
1. Tendering for consultancy services (engineers, planners, and archi-

tects): This is typically based upon the consultant’s experience in
performing similar projects, the qualification and experience of the
consultant’s personnel, and the consultant’s proposal for performing
the services. The selection of the consultant is often based upon an
evaluation model consisting of the above requirements and may
include the consultant’s relevant experience in sustainable design,
LCA and LCC calculations for engineering projects.
2. The initial phase: This includes a general outline, feasibility study
and to some extent conceptual design. In these phases, several
potential solutions to the problem are commonly discussed. The
decisions made during the initial phases have great impact on the
economic and environmental performance of the project. Thus, it is

very important to incorporate sustainability considerations very early
in the process. Relevant SPP criteria for the project are selected and
an evaluation model and weighting of the different criteria (economic,
technical, and environmental criteria) are determined. Life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) and/or life cycle costing (LCC) calculations are carried out
for different options.
3. Preparatory phase: This is also called the preliminary design phase
where the more specific technical solutions are considered and
decided. The answers to these questions in the preparatory phase
can be supported by setting up an evaluation model which includes
economic, technical, and environmental performance/SPP criteria for
the specific project. This evaluation model can further be developed
during the detailed design and tender phase and be used as a contract
award model. The calculation of potential environmental impact can be
made based on LCA, and assessment of the total economic impact
can be based on LCC calculations. These analyses can help the owner
to identify the best sustainable solution to the technical problem.
4. Detailed design and tender document phase: The necessary design,
technical specifications, and tender documents for the will be devel-
oped ready for issue to the tenderers. The level of detail in the design
and technical specifications will depend on the contract form. The
type of contract that is most frequently used for the implementation
of engineering projects is the FIDIC type developed by the Federation
Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils, or similar national contract
types. The SPP criteria include guidance for contractual performance
clauses. This is because requirements for the construction and opera-
tion of the infrastructure as such include a number of sustainability
aspects that will need to be included in the contract as contractual
obligations. Performance clauses are understood here as setting
requirements for the manner in which delivery takes place in the
construction or operating activities. Together with the specification of
what must be delivered, the performance clauses constitute what the
constructor/operator must “do” according to the contract.
6.7 Case Studies on Sustainable Engineering Design Process

6.7.1 Sustainable Process Design – Case Study (Source: Azapagic
et al., 2006)
One of the key challenges for sustainable development of the chemical
industry is designing more sustainable processes. Azapagic et al. (2006)
proposes a general methodology based on life cycle thinking for integrating
sustainability considerations (technical, economic, environmental, and social

criteria) into process design. The approach is illustrated on a design case
study of the vinyl chloride monomer process which is an important chemi-
cal because it is used in the production of the plastic PVC. The use of PVC is
increasing which demands further production of VCM. This makes optimi-
zation of the production of VCM interesting and potentially profitable. The
methodology for integrating sustainability considerations into process
design follows the usual stages in process design, i.e. project initiation,
preliminary design, detailed design and final design. As shown in Figure 6.5,
each of these four stages consists of a number of steps.
The case study looked at a promising alternative for process design.
Compared with an average VMC plant, the LCA results, displayed in
Figure 6.6, show that, for most impacts, the proposed VCM design is
environmentally more sustainable than an average VCM plant. The excep-
tion to this is energy use whereby the proposed plant would use around
3% more energy and generate around 7% more greenhouse gases. A much
more significant difference is noted for the water discharge: while the
proposed plant is using around 30% less water than the average plant, it
is discharging into the environment almost twice as much as the average
plant. The proposed plant also has higher carcinogenic potential, through
a higher release of toxic substances. Therefore, these are the areas where
further improvements could be investigated in the detailed design.
The case study illustrates how sustainability considerations could be
integrated into process design from project initiation through preliminary
to detailed design. This requires a systems approach whereby sustainabil-
ity is not considered as an “add on” but is systematically integrated into
process design taking into account the whole life cycle of the plant and the
product. The methodology enables identification of relevant sustainability
criteria and indicators, comparison of alternatives, sustainability assess-
ment of the overall design and identification of “hot spots” in the life cycle
of the system. In this way, it is possible to arrive at a design configuration
3. Detailed design
2. Preliminary design i. Detailed equipment
1. Project initiation i. Process selection and design
ii. Detailed economic
4. Final design
i. Initial identification of description
analysis i. Equipment drawings and
sustainability design ii. Flowsheet preparation
iii. Energy integration layout
criteria and relevant iii. Preliminary cost
estimates iv. Process control and ii. Piping and instrumentation
stakeholders
iv. Preliminary assessment instrumentation diagrams
ii. Identification and
of sustainability and v. Safety, loss prevention & iii. Civil and electrical work
evaluation of alternatives
further identification of HAZOP and so on
on sustainability criteria vi. Full assessment of
sustainability criteria
sustainability
Text in italics—design stages related to sustainability; normal text—stages in traditional design
FIGURE 6.5
Stages in process design for sustainability.
Reprinted with permission from Azapagic et al. (2006).
FIGURE 6.6
Comparison of environmental sustainability of the proposed design and an average VCM plant.
Reprinted with permission from Azapagic et al. (2006).
that would ensure the most sustainable performance of the plant and
product over their whole life cycles.
6.7.2 Sustainable Building Design – A Case Study (Reprinted with

Permission from Santos and Costa, 2016)
Building Information Modeling (BIM), Building Energy Simulation (BES)
and Integrated Design Process (IDP) are complementary processes that
together contribute to a new process for design of sustainable buildings.
IDP is a collaborative process with a multidisciplinary design team that
focuses on the design, construction, operation, and occupancy of
a building over its complete life cycle, with a clear definition of environ-
mental and economic goals and objectives. BIM is a digital representation
of physical and functional characteristics of a facility and serves as
a shared source for information for it forming a reliable basis for decisions
during its life cycle. Sustainable design processes also usually rely upon
a BES software to establish expected energy consumption of building
designs. Practitioners have recognized the importance of early design
stages when reducing buildings’ life cycle environmental impact. Numer-
ous researchers have shown that the earlier decisions are made in the
design process and the fewer the changes to these decisions at later stages,
the greater is the potential for reducing the building’s environmental
impact. Integrating BIM software with LCA methodology provides the
potential to minimize buildings’ environmental impacts during early stage

design. BIM supports integrated design and improves information man-
agement and cooperation between the different stakeholders, and on the
other hand, LCA is a suitable method for assessing environmental perfor-
mance. Santos and Costa (2016) illustrates the potential of integrating the
BIM software with the LCA methodology. Designing environmentally
friendly products gets easier with sustainability modeling softwares.
Architects and building engineers have been using BIM (building informa-
tion modeling) software to study energy efficiency and reduce construction
costs in their building projects. The pilot case study tests existing tools for
energy analysis and environmental performance of buildings. The purpose
of the pilot case study was to understand the effect of designer’s choices in
the environmental impact of the building and to compare the energy
consumption and environmental impact of a multi-family house with
a single-family house, as shown in Figure 6.7.
Two different solutions representing the residential buildings are ana-
lyzed and compared: a single-family building and a multi-family building.
Autodesk Revit software is used to create the BIM models, while Revit
Energy Analysis tool is used to conduct the energy analysis and Tally tool
to perform the LCA study of the above-mentioned solutions. The initial
step was to model two simple buildings in Revit both with same envelope
solutions, in order to guarantee that the results obtained are independent
of material choices. After the development of both BIM models, the
authors used the Revit Energy Analysis option to simulate the energy
consumption (Table 6.8). The second step of this case study was to analyze
Energy Analysis Environmental

Multi-family Analysis
(Revit Energy (Revit - Tally Scenario 1
house
Analysis) plug in)
BIM model
(Revit) Comparison
Single- Energy Analysis Environmental

family (Revit Energy Analysis
(Revit - Tally Scenario 2
house Analysis) plug in)
Single- 7 different Environmental

Analysis Sensitivity
family envelope Analysis
house solutions (Revit - Tally
plug in)
FIGURE 6.7
Pilot case study methodology.
TABLE 6.8
Revit Energy Analysis Results (Multi-Family House vs Single-Family House)
Multi-family house Single-family house Units
Area 1,120 100.00 m2

Electricity use 88.00 90.00 kWh/m2/year
LC electricity use 2,956,800.00 270,000.00 kWh
270.0 24.7 kWh/day
PV low efficiency 46,514.00 11,243.00 kWh/year
PV medium efficiency 93,029.00 22,487.00 kWh/year
PV high efficiency 139,543.00 33,730.00 kWh/year
the environmental impacts due to materials selection, by examining the

results of seven different envelope solutions. Unlike the first step, in which
the authors’ objective was to compare the energy and environmental
analysis of different types of buildings, in this step the authors seek to
understand the impact of designer’s choices of materials, using a single
scenario (single-family house).
As it is possible to observe from Table 6.9, Tally provided six different
Environmental Impact categories: Acidification Potential, which causes
fish mortality, forest decline, and the deterioration of building materials;
Eutrophication Potential, which can cause an undesirable shift in species
composition; Global Warming Potential (GWP), which causes an increase
of the greenhouse effect; Ozone Depletion Potential, which leads to
higher levels of UVB ultraviolet rays; Smog Formation Potential, which
leads to respiratory issues and damage to ecosystems; and Primary
Energy Demand, which measures the total amount of primary energy
extracted (non-renewable plus renewable resources). In general, the
environmental impacts from the multi-family house are about 10 times
higher than the single-family house, being almost proportional to the area
of the building. The GWP is one of the most relevant impacts, and in both
cases it is mostly due to operational energy consumption. However, for
the single-family house, the weight of the operational phase is lower than
for the case of the multi-family house. On the other hand, the manufac-
turing processes contribute more to the GWP of the single-family house
than the GWP of the multi-family house. So, we might argue that there is
an economy of scale in terms of manufacturing (as an example we can
refer that there are several construction elements, such as foundations,
roof, etc., which are not proportional to the number of floors) but in terms
of operational energy consumption the same logic does not apply, as the
multi-family house has higher relative energy consumption (what might
TABLE 6.9
Tally Results (Multi-Family vs Single-Family House)
Sum of Sum of
Sum of Global Smog Sum of Sum of Non- Sum of
Acidification Sum of Warming Sum of Ozone Formation Primary renewable Renewable
Potential Eutrophication Potential Depletion Potential Energy Energy Energy
Total Potential Total Total Potential Total Total Demand Demand Total Demand
Row Labels (kgSO2eq) (kgNeq) (kgCO2eq) (CFC-11eq) (kgO3eq) Total (MJ) (MJ) Total (MJ)
Multi- End of Life 75 41 174,960 0.00 2,550 575,515 569,443 6,046

Sustainability in Engineering Design
family Maintenance 3,114 366 319,574 0.01 17,084 3,840,682 3,309,445 531,238
house and
Replacement
Manufacturing 5,364 468 1,285,760 0.10 48,229 10,458,306 9,612,019 84,628
Operations 12,200 630 2,635,708 0.00 142,650 59,812,579 36,338,720 23,473
Total 20,754 1506 4,416,001 0.12 210,514 74,687,083 49,829,627 2,485,743
Single- End of Life −2 4 39,813 0.00 149 42,730 41,394 1329
family Maintenance 282 34 26,429 0.00 1,457 339,942 291,080 48,862
house and
Replacement
Manufacturing 567 49 192,020 0.02 5,358 1,033,348 940,644 92,704
Operations 1,100 57 222,181 0.00 13,750 5,201,615 3,060,519 2,141,097
Total 1,948 143 480,442 0.03 20,715 6,617,635 4,333,636 2,283,992
209
be related to the relevant energy consumption of the common/social

spaces).
It is also important to understand which kind of materials have higher
environmental impact, and if these materials represent a considerable
portion of the building’s mass. Table 6.10 displays the environmental
impact of all materials used in the single-family house, throughout the
different project phases. For this purpose, it is meaningless to display both
scenarios (multi-family house and single-family house), as our real concern
is only to analyze the environmental impacts due to materials selection,
not to compare the two scenarios.
As expected, concrete was the material with the highest mass percen-
tage of the building, having a relatively low environmental impact/
mass ratio (except in the manufacturing process). On the other hand,
metal-based materials and insulation materials have a very high envir-
onmental impact/mass ratio, particularly on GWP, Acidification Poten-
tial, and Eutrophication Potential, despite their low representativeness
in the total mass of the building. If designers are aiming for sustainable
solutions, the selection of insulation material and its thickness is an
extremely important aspect for the environmental impact of a building.
It is relevant to mention that the higher the insulation thickness,
the less thermal loss, leading to a decrease of operational energy
consumption. So, for a sustainable solution to be reached, it would be
advisable to perform a multi-objective optimization of both. However,
in order to demonstrate how the designer’s choices can profoundly
affect a building’s environmental impact, the authors decided to use
the scenario of a single-family house and select different Revit and
Tally solutions for the envelope. As observed in Figure 6.8, the original
option (studied earlier) is one of the best sustainable solutions for most
environmental impact categories. Also, wood-based solutions (option 3
and option 5) are the ones in which renewable resources can suppress
most of the required Primary Energy Demand. Interestingly though,
these two solutions also seem to be amongst the least environmentally
friendly solutions (option 3 – wood roof: 1st in Acidification Potential,
1st in Eutrophication Potential, and 1st in Primary Energy Demand;
and option 5 – timber floor: 2nd in Eutrophication Potential and 2nd
in GWP). However, if we examine Figure 6.9, we can conclude
that most of those environmental impacts result from the End of Life
potential use (recycling/reuse/recovery) of wood-based solutions,
assuming that these materials are still in good condition. They are
also the only ones with a positive energy return at the end of life
(through burning processes). Regarding Smog Formation Potential,
Acidification Potential, and demand from non-renewable resources,
option 6 (full concrete envelope) comes as the least environmentally
friendly solution.
TABLE 6.10
Tally (Single-Family House Material’s EI)
Sum of Sum of
Sum of Ozone Smog Sum of Sum of Non- Sum of
Acidification Sum of Sum of Global Depletion Formation Primary renewable Renewable
Potential Eutrophication Warming Potential Potential Energy Energy Energy
Building Total Potential Total Potential Total Total Total Demand Demand Total Demand
Phases (kgSO2eq) (kgNeq) (kgCO2eq) (CFC-11eq) (kgO3eq) Total (MJ) (MJ) Total, (MJ)
Single- End of Life –2 4 39,813 0.00 149 42,730 41,394 1,329

family 03 – Concrete 17 2 3,676 0.00 304 61,060 58,499 2,561
house
04 – Masonry 4 1 792 0.00 65 13,189 12,642 547
05 – Metals −19 0 −3,730 0.00 −200 39,564 39,987 423

07 Thermal and −5 0 39,061 0.00 −40 12,243 10,165 2,072
Moisture
Protection
08 – Openings −1 1 518 0.00 −28 −12,902 −8,244 −4,658
and
Glazing
09 – Finishes 3 0 0 0.00 48 8,704 8,320 384
Maintenance 282 34 26,429 0.00 1,457 339,942 291,080 48,862
and
Replacement
03 – Concrete 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0
04 – Masonry 5 0 654 0.00 29 7244 6854 391
05 – Metals 235 31 16,334 0.00 990 246,946 211,625 35,321
211
(Continued )
TABLE 6.10 (Cont.)
212
Sum of Sum of
Sum of Ozone Smog Sum of Sum of Non- Sum of
Acidification Sum of Sum of Global Depletion Formation Primary renewable Renewable
Potential Eutrophication Warming Potential Potential Energy Energy Energy
Building Total Potential Total Potential Total Total Total Demand Demand Total Demand
Phases (kgSO2eq) (kgNeq) (kgCO2eq) (CFC-11eq) (kgO3eq) Total (MJ) (MJ) Total, (MJ)
07 Thermal and 2 0 180 0.00 7 1088 770 318

Moisture
Protection
08 – Openings 10 1 1,943 0.00 120 35,210 23,277 11,933
and
Glazing
09 – Finishes 30 1 7,318 0.00 312 49,453 48,554 899
Manufacturing 567 49 192,020 0.02 5,358 1,033,348 940,644 92,704
03 – Concrete 181 7 40,938 0.00 2,402 290,957 277,781 13,177
04 – Masonry 19 1 11,139 0.00 295 138,240 130,311 79
05 – Metals 283 33 25,320 0.00 1,725 364,925 324,893 40,031
07 Thermal and 53 7 105,754 0.02 544 158,259 143,472 14,787
Moisture
Protection
08 – Openings 12 1 2,455 0.00 147 47,947 31,358 16,589
and
Glazing
09 – Finishes 19 1 6,413 0.00 246 33,021 32,828 192
Operations 1,100 57 222,181 0.00 13,750 5,201,615 3,060,519 2,141,097
Grand Total 1,948 143 480,442 0.03 20,715 6,617,635 4,333,636 2,283,992
Introduction to Sustainability for Engineers
1,236 174.2 286,698 0.02676 11,550 2,420,542 1,860,516 806,485
kgSO2eq kgNeq kgCO2eq CFC-11eq O2eq MJ MJ MJ
100%
50%
0%
1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567
Acidification Eutrophication Global Warming Ozone Smog Primary Energy Non-renewable Renewable
Potential Potential Potential Depletion Formation Demand Energy Energy
Legend Potential Potential
Design Options
Option 1 - Concrete Walls
Option 2 - Bigger Windows
Option 3 - Wood Roof
Option 4 - Concrete Roof
Option 5 - Timber Floor
Option 6 - Concrete Floor/Wall/Roof
Original (primary)
213
FIGURE 6.8
Tally LCA analysis of single-family house (7 different options).
492,731 1,236 174.2 286,698 0.02676 11,550 2,542,312 1,860,516 902,286
214
kg kgSO2eq kgNeq kgCO2eq CFC-11eq O2eq MJ MJ MJ

100%
50%
0%
1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567

Mass Acidification Eutrophication Global Ozone Smog Primary Non-renewable Renewable
Potential Potential Warming Depletion Formation Energy Energy Energy
Potential Potential Potential Demand
Legend Life Cycle Stages
Manufacturing
Net value (impacts + credits) Maintenance and Replacement
End of Life
Design Options
Option1 - Option1 - Concrete Walls
Option2 - Option2 - Bigger Windows
Option3 - Option3 - Wood Roof
Option4 - Option4 - Concrete Roof
Option5 - Option5 - Timber Floor
Option6 - Option6 - Concrete Floor/Wall/Roof
Option7 - Original (primary)
FIGURE 6.9
Introduction to Sustainability for Engineers
Tally LCA analysis of single-family house (life cycle stages).

6.7.3 Sustainable Product Design in Mechanical Engineering – A Case Study

By P. Ramlogun and K. Elahee, Faculty of Engineering, The University
of Mauritius
Environmental concerns generate additional design constraints (Kaeber-
nick et al., 2002), making it difficult to reach to a decision when little
information is available at early design stages, for instance at concept
development. Hence, it is important to have at least a decision matrix
which enables the designer with some freedom in his imagination while
designing for the environment. Traditionally, the environmental aspect is
included at a later stage during LCC (Ullman, 2010). However, it is
possible to integrate it into every stage of the product development which
would result into a shift in paradigm (Conteras et al., 2009). The product
discussed in this case study used the quality tool called Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) along with some qualitative techniques which enabled
the integration of the sustainability aspect into the design. The product
designed is intended to mechanically harvest Caricas Papaya (commonly
known as papaya). Traditionally, papaya is hand-picked in many cultivars
across the country and the world (Jimenez et al., 2014), (CAC/RCP-53,
2003). Workers often need to climb on the trees or stand on ladders in
order to harvest these fruits. Sometimes, they work at a height greater than
3 m above ground level to reach the fruits and this represents a serious trip
hazard. A Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) was performed to
evaluate the seriousness of the job and a score of 13 was obtained which
implies an immediate action of designing because of the high risk (OSHA,
2018). Another drawback of this traditional method is that it tends to
bruise the fruits and affecting the fruit quality, thereby reducing the yield
(AustralianGov, 2008).
Design for the environment (DFE) provides a framework to minimize
these impact in an effort to make the world better (Conteras et al., 2009;
Davidson et al., 2007; Dieter and Schmidt, 2009). Environmental impacts of
a product may include energy consumption, natural resource depletion,
discharges, and solid waste generation. These would broadly fall into two
categories – energy and materials. There is also the socio-economic aspect
of a product, for instance, in terms of job creation, ease of operation,
satisfaction, ethical manufacturing activities and occupational safety. The
logic used in the development of the papaya picker is shown in
Figure 6.10.
Step 1 of the design process identified the customers of the product and
set the design goals toward an environment-friendly orientation. A compila-
tion of some of the design DFE guidelines which were adapted from Telenko
et al. (2008) is shown in Table 6.11.
Step 2 involved identifying the customer needs or the voice of the
customers (VOC). These were obtained through focus group meetings
and off-record interviews with cultivators and then grouped into an
Product Planning 1. Set DFE Agenda
2. Identification of Customer Requirements

& Potential Environmental Impacts
Concept Development
3. Selection of DFE Guidelines as per ISO
14062
System-Level Design 4. Application of DFE Guidelines to Initial

Designs
Detail Design 5. Assessment of Environmental Impacts
Comparison
with DFE 6. Refine Design
Goals
Production Ramp-Up 7. Product Wrap Up & Testing
FIGURE 6.10
The DFE process used which shows that it was an iterative process.
affinity diagram based on their hierarchy and category. The customers

were then asked to rate the attributes in terms of a relative importance
which, when added together, will amount to a score of 100 points. This
method was deemed to be more reliable in that it forces the customer(s) to
think carefully before allocating the marks (Dixon and Poli, 1995; Ullman,
2010). Focus group meetings and interviews were conducted to obtain
necessary information about the expected attributes of the design. The
participants were questioned about their preferences and environmental
concerns.
To complete Steps 2 and 3, the concept generation broke down the
harvesting operations into discrete events. These discretized events were
assessed based on their functionality in achieving the desired goal that is
safely picking a fruit from the tree. The application of DFE was done right
at the concept generation by iteratively referring to the design goals and
adapting the concepts along the way. For instance, it was possible to
develop a concept and product architecture that reduced the amount of
assemblies and other complexities. In Figure 6.11, the concept contained
TABLE 6.11
Design for Environment Guidelines
Life-Cycle
Stage Design for Environment Guidelines
Materials Sustainability of • Specify recyclable/recycle materials

resources
Healthy inputs • Specify non-hazardous materials
and outputs
Production Minimal use of • Use few manufacturing steps as possible
resources in • Specify materials not requiring surface treatments
production • Minimize number of assemblies
Distribution Minimal use of • Minimize packaging materials
resources in • Use structural materials to minimize the total volume
distribution of material
Use Efficiency of • Provide high mechanical advantage
resources • Use of passive components to store energy
Reliable • Embed aesthetics and functionality
• Ensure minimal maintenance and failure modes
Recovery Disassembly, • Specify joints which can be undone by hand or using
separation common tools
over 20 components and of varying sizes. Upon reviewing several possibi-

lities and using CAD modeling techniques, a simpler assembly was
conceived reducing the total number of parts to 6 (Figure 6.12).
The concept selection was guided by the set of key customer require-
ments, DFE guidelines and applicable standards. A concept was selected as
benchmark for a particular function, and all the other concepts were
relatively rated based on the meeting of customer requirements, the
applicable standards and sustainability indices. The one having the higher
scores was selected for further development.
The final embodiment, shown in Figure 6.13, consists of a grabber
assembly which is mounted on a supporting column. The drive system
consists of a crank connected to a drive shaft which is simply supported on
two ball bearings. Axially connected to the driveshaft is a torque-limiting
mechanism which provides slippage when a predetermined torque is
exerted on the drive shaft. A winding drum is bolted to the flange of the
torque limiter hub. This drum winds the connecting link which is
described as a rope. The winding drum is also coupled with a ratcheting
wheel which provides free motion in only one direction.
Based on preliminary static analysis and using the maximum contact
forces which can be applied on the fruit, a torque of 2 Nm was obtained
FIGURE 6.11
Grabber inspired by the human hand, hand-drawn by the author.
which could be exerted on the drive shaft having a diameter of 8 mm. This
enabled the identification of an adjustable torque limiter on the market and
the HPC – SAS 20–6 was chosen as per the manufacturer’s datasheet. The
overall dimension of this unit helped to size the corresponding drive
elements.
The dimensions of the winding drum were guided by the size of the
torque-limiting unit overall length. The bore of the drum was obtained
using the hub dimensions of the torque limiter. Static analysis was carried
out on the drum to evaluate the deformation of the latter under a torque
about its rotating axis.
The design of the drive shaft was based on the assumption that the
bending stress in the shaft is repeated and reversed as the shaft rotates, but
that the torsional shear is nearly uniformed. The tangential force caused by
the winching action produces a transverse force on the shaft which
resulted in bending. Geometric discontinuities such as key seats, fillet
radius and retaining rings grooves were accounted for in the calculations
FIGURE 6.12
CAD model for the reviewed and simplified design.
FIGURE 6.13
Final assembly of the integrated drive and force control mechanism.
and a shaft diameter of 6 mm was chosen which would fit the torque

limiter bore.
The grabber jaw design (see Figure 6.12) was guided by the diameter of
locally available papaya species. The maximum diameter of the fruit was
found to be 150 mm as per the FAREI (Food and Agricultural Research &
Extension Institute). This helped to size the overall dimensions of the jaws.
The final jaw opening width was found to be 160 mm. The proposed jaw is
a single piece part made out of a composite material which would offer
high cleaning abilities and structural rigidity. A finite element analysis was
used to evaluate the deformation of the grabber when loaded as

a cantilevered beam with a uniform loading in the commercial CAD
software. This allowed reduction in material to increase the strength-to-
weight ratio.
The column design used the recommendations of the Aluminium Asso-
ciations. The design calculations assumed that the column is fixed at one
end and is free to move at the other end (flagpole configuration). This gave
a shape factor of 2.10 which was used to calculate the equivalent length of
the column. A trial calculation was done to determine the diameter of the
column when axially loaded with 100 N and using a safety factor of 1.95 as
per the design handbook. This gave a working diameter that enabled to
determine the accepted range of thickness for a tubular member. Finally,
the column diameter was chosen by considering the comfortable width of
a power grip as dictated by anthropometric measurements (Eastman-
Kodak-Company, 1983).
The design of the torsion springs adopted the methodology as described
by Carlson (1978). A spring made using music wire having a diameter of
2.8 mm and a single coil is recommended to provide the biasing force to
unwind the drum. It has a length of 25 mm extending from each side at an
angle of 80°.
The ratcheting mechanism chosen was obtained using the design guide
by KHK-USA (www.khkgears.us). The product identified had the catalo-
gue number SRT2/3–50 – J – Bore 10. The ratchet wheel is proposed to be
directly mounted onto the drum by means of machine screws (M1.6 × 3).
The final part of the design was to design a supporting frame which would
contain the drive assembly. This was guided by the overall dimensions of
the drive assembly and the diameter of the supporting column.
In the detailed design phase, it was important to select some preliminary
materials and manufacturing processes based on the information available
from the DFE guidelines and also on the general shape of the parts.
References were made to handbooks (Ashby, 2005; Dixon and Poli, 1995;
Dieter and Schmidt, 2009; Mott, 2004; Ullman, 2010). Typical design para-
meters are strength-to-weight ratio (Sy =ρ) and stiffness-to-weight ratio
(E=ρ). These are limiting design constraints which enabled the material
selection process.
When making a decision on the material, it is desirable to consider the
following factors: Material composition (grade of alloy or plastic), cost of
material, form of material, size (dimensions and tolerance), heat-treated
condition, directionality of mechanical properties (anisotropy), quality
level (control of impurities, inclusions, cracks, microstructure, etc.), ease
of manufacture (workability, weldability, machinability, etc.) and ease of
recycling (Dieter and Schmidt, 2009).
The decision on the manufacturing process is generally based on the
following factors: unit cost of manufacture, life-cycle cost per unit, quantity
of parts required, and complexity of the part, with respect to shape,
features, and size, compatibility of the process for use with candidate
materials, ability to consistently make a defect-free part, economically
achievable surface finish, economically achievable dimensional accuracy
and tolerances, availability of equipment and lead time for delivery of
tooling.
Using the DFE guidelines and knowledge from engineering materials
and industrial design, it was possible to make the product using envir-
onmentally safe and nontoxic materials in that 45% (by weight) was
aluminum, 39% recyclable plastics, 15.2% steel and 0.8% of landfill
wastes.
The product sustainability assessment was a comprehensive evaluation
process with the consideration of the energy, environmental, resource,
technical and socio-economic indicators. Given the multi-level and com-
plex relationships among various levels, it was subjectively difficult to
obtain accurate pricing mechanism. An attempt was made to determine
all the internal and external costs associated with the product throughout
its entire journey from manufacturing to an eventual re-integration in the
material supply chain as recyclable materials. The cash inflows and out-
flows were computed using handbook values (Dixon and Poli, 1995) and
the net present value (NPV) was determined. Engineering judgement was
exercised to compare between concepts and to ensure that the final
product was meeting the design goals set.
In conclusion, a mechanical tool to harvest papaya was designed as
a result of an ergonomic job assessment done by the authors. This tool had
its unique characteristics of being simple and effective to operate while
meeting all regulatory standards. It was conceptualized with the help of
cultivators and other major stake holders. The use of lean methods like QFD
helped to synthesize all information together to help in translating the
customer requirements into design variables. Some key consideration in the
design for sustainable products were described like for instance the impor-
tance of material selection and the manufacturing processes. It was outlined
that we need to consider the effects of how the material was made, the exact
composition of the candidate material for the application being considered,
any processing that may have to be done for shaping the material or
fabricating a component, the structure of the material after processing into
a component or device, the environment in which the material will be used,
and the cost-to-performance ratio. It is hoped that this work will instill
interest in potential market segments and also empower local workforce to
build up a more sustainable agricultural sector.
6.7.4 Sustainable Product Design in Electronic Engineering (Reprinted with

Permission from Andrae et al., 2016)
Annually, it is estimated that about 4 billion units of consumer electronics
for mobile communications are produced worldwide. This could lead to
various ecological imbalances unless the design and disposal of the pro-
ducts are handled optimally. To illustrate how industry looks at and
responds to the increasing social awareness, this case study describes how
sustainability is successfully implemented in practice at a large Chinese
company, developing and producing various kinds of electronic pro-
ducts used for communication using an Eco-Design Method called
EcoSmarT. All companies are continuously investigating what character-
istics customers want in the next generation (NG) of products. The
features are translated into technical requirements, including environ-
mental requirements, and later the designers come up with different
concepts which satisfy these requirements. It is necessary to system-
atically find a way to integrate eco-design in the usual product devel-
opment process. The targets for all eco-metrics are set in Step 1
(Concept) and baselined in Step 2 (Plan). All eco-metrics are obtained,
improved, and fine-tuned in Step 3 (Development) while actual Field
Failure Rate (FFR) and “Rethink, Reduce, Recycle, Refurbish, Resale”
(5R) values are obtained in Step 4 (Validation). In the proposed method,
the role of LCA in a “Plan, Do, Check, Act” (PDCA) cycle is to “Check”
environmental impacts holistically. The features of the design process
are as follows:
1. Eco-Metrics: The proposed method EcoSmarT includes seven eco-

metrics and LCA score.
(i) Energy efficiency: Energy efficiency is a rather broad concept
defined as the quotient between the energy needed to do
useful work and total energy actually used. The metric refers
to the use stage energy and is product specific. Examples
applicable to mobile phones are charger efficiency, absorbed
power, charging time, and receiver sensitivity.
(ii) Packaging materials mass and volume: This metric refers to
the mass and volume of the packaging materials, such as
cardboard, paper, and plastics. The target is to reduce the
volume and mass.
(iii) Hazardous substances: This metric refers to mass of hazar-
dous substances which are neither regulated nor banned. It
can also be qualitative measures such as elimination of
substance usage.
(iv) Precious metals: This metric refers to masses of gold, silver,
platinum, palladium, and other valuable metals such as tanta-
lum, indium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium, and iridium.
(v) Total mass: This metric refers to the total mass of the designed
product including the accessories. The target is to reduce
the mass.
(vi) Recyclability, recoverability, reuse-ability, disassemble-ability:

The recyclability rate is typically defined as the amount of
materials which can be recycled divided by the total mass of
the product. Several new 5R metrics have been defined for
products. It is judged from case to case if energy recycling is
to be included and which recyclability metrics are to be
applied. An example of a 5R metric is time of disassembly.
The focus shall generally be on easy and fast disassembly,
material identification, fewer material types, and less surface
finish, etc., which all help increase the recyclability.
(vii) Lifetime reliability: This metric usually refers to FFR. FFR is
defined as the frequency at which an engineered system fails.
The mean time between failure (MTBF) scores can be deter-
mined by FFR data.
2. Collection of Requirements: The inputs for this stage are, for exam-
ple, roadmaps for, and LCA performances of, similar products as ED.
These inputs form the basis for the collection of technical/functional/
performance requirements, including environmental requirements.
The output is the initial specification.
3. Design Step 1 – Drafting of Design Concepts: In this step the most
promising concepts and optional solutions are listed and drafted
based on technical/functional/performance requirements and envir-
onmental requirements. The environmental requirement targets can
be set based on findings in the customer surveys documented in the
initial specification. Additionally, for the Current Generation ED
(CGED), in use by the customer, the seven eco-metrics and final
LCA score are obtained. For Next Generation ED (NGED) concepts,
all eco-metrics are defined and preliminary LCA scores are
obtained. The LCA score is calculated by cost-effective LCA meth-
ods and LCA tools used by the organization. For CGED, the final
LCA score, the real FFR value and the real recyclability are possible
to obtain as CGED is a final product used and waste handled in the
market. All eco-metrics are estimated and the preliminary LCA
scores are calculated for the different NGED concepts which the
designers propose. The output from the Concept step is the revised
specification.
4. Design Step 2 – Plan: In this step, the design is planned. Addition-
ally, the environmental requirement targets in design are documen-
ted in the report from Plan. Examples of targets are for power and
resource usage, as well as energy efficiency. Revised specifications are
developed into a specification baseline to be fine-tuned during the
subsequent Development process. The output from Plan is the speci-
fication baseline for NGED.
5. Design Step 3 – Development: In the Development step, the system

architecture and the detailed design for NGED are formed. The
detailed NGED design is based on the specification baseline
for a NGED concept. Prototypes are created and then fine-tuned
repeatedly to meet the technical/functional/performance and envir-
onmental requirements. Meanwhile, verification and testing will be
repeatedly conducted on Prototypes and their fine-tuning models,
including estimations of FFR values. Brainstorming, Theory of Inven-
tive Problem Solving (TRIZ), and guidelines can help generate ideas
for fine-tuning. All eco-metrics are quantified and the preliminary
LCA scores are calculated for the Prototype and its fine-tuned models
of NGED. The designers find ways of fine-tuning the applicable eco-
metrics further for the NGED Prototypes resulting in Final product
NGED. The new fine-tuned values of the eco-metrics and the LCA
score for the Final product NGED design are quantified and calcu-
lated, respectively, and put into the report from Development. The
Final product NGED is manufactured and goes for sale. The require-
ments from Step 3.2 Plan are checked (Check) to validate how the
eco-metrics and the LCA score were investigated for NGED. It is also
checked if the requirements from Step 3.2, Plan, are fulfilled. The
Development step is followed by the Customer Validation.
6. Design Step 4 – Customer Validation: This step validates data from
the use of NGED. Here the final values of the eco-metrics and the
LCA score for the final NGED design are quantified and calculated,
respectively, and put into the report from Customer Validation. Here
the FFR values are based on failure samples returned by customers.
As shown in Figure the eco-metrics values from this design step will
be used as a benchmark for the next NGED. The actual recyclability
rate can also be measured in this step and used as a benchmark for
next NGED.
7. Design Step 5 – Closing Process: Another LCA score is calculated
based on additional data about the life cycle of NGED and the design
project for NGED is closed. The LCA score from this design step is
usually very close to the previous from Step 4. Design steps 0–5 are
then repeated for the next NGED, for example, starting with collect-
ing new customer requirements (from, e.g., roadmaps and LCAs).
The following discusses the application of EcoSmarT to the development

of product B to product C.
1. Collection of Requirements: Based on the features obtained from
customer surveys and analyses of voluntary trends, several technical/
functional/performance requirement targets, and some environmental
requirement targets, are set for phone C: increase the stand-by time
compared to B; introduce a bio-based plastic; eliminate brominated flame
retardants/chlorinated flame retardants from the main body; eliminate

polyvinyl chloride (PVC); eliminate phthalates; Introduce Forest Steward
Council (FSC) certified color box; introduce soy-ink printing. Note that
here environmental requirements refer to customer requirements beyond
mandatory legislation. Examples of environmental requirement targets are:
reach a certain score for various eco-ratings; fulfill energy star standards;
fulfill code of conducts for energy efficiency; fulfill various eco-labels; and
remove hazardous substances beyond legislation.
There are several concepts for C which can fulfill the technical/func-
tional/performance and cost requirements. Design for profitability is the
key driver and, therefore, it is strived for low-cost and high-performance
solutions. Generally, the designers moderate the display, integrated circuits,
light emitting diodes, circuit design, battery charging and discharging, and
printed circuit board assembly layout. In summary, one of the concepts for
C fulfilling the technical/functional/performance requirements, and highly
likely meet the eco-design requirement targets, compared to B, is based on
the following criteria:
– Uses bio-based plastics for the front shell instead of petro-based

plastics.
– Has lower packaging materials volume.
– Has longer talk time and stand-by time.
– Uses soy ink for the packaging box and manual.
– Have no painted mechanical parts.
– Innovated the packaging.
Design Step 1, Drafting of Design Concepts for Phone: In Table 6.12 are
shown eco-metrics for phone B and a concept for phone C in step 4.1.
Lifetime reliability is outside the scope of this article. Due to confidentiality
reasons, the detailed methodology for obtaining the numbers in the tables
is not disseminated.
Based on a sensitivity analysis, it is determined that the degree of
reuse of C has the strongest effect on the LCA score. Other metrics have
weaker correlation with the LCA score’ however, gold content has the
strongest.
Design Step 2, Plan of Phone: Here the stringent environmental require-
ment targets in design are documented for C as follows: fine-tune and
improve three of seven eco-metrics; has >5% lower packaging volume than
B; has at least 10% better autonomy time in stand-by than B; and has better
absolute LCA score than B. The place of the precise requirement setting is
one of the clearest features of EcoSmarT. The requirements are set on the
basis of what can realistically be achieved for C.
TABLE 6.12
Eco-Metric Values for B and a Concept of C in Design Step 4.1
Target value for

SN Eco-metric Value for B a C Concept Unit Comment
1. Energy 422 475 hours Mobile autonomy time in

efficiency stand-by mode (charged
at 100%).
2. Packaging 825 784 cm3 The metric is also used in
materials Open Eco Rating (OER)
volume [91].
3. Hazardous Meet the PVC, Be, Quantitative OER [91] contains similar
substances requirements phthalates and metrics.
of laws and triphenyl
regulations phosphate
eliminated
4. Precious 240 150 mg The metric is also used in
metals OER [91].
(Au, Ag)
5. Total mass 392 454 G Total mass (mobile phone
including battery +
charger + accessories +
packaging).
6. Recyclability 80 90 % Can only be measured for
(metals and C when it has been used
polymers) by customer.
7. Lifetime Not specified Not specified % LIMEv2 weighting
reliability method [89].
8. LCA score 2460 JPY 2510 JPY, (the JPY For Assembly of C a
effect of proxy value is used.
improved 5R and Reuse has a relatively
charging strong correlation with
efficiency can be the LCA score, whereas
explored) the correlation is low for
Bio-plastics.
Design Step 3, Development of Phone: The Development step involves

fine-tuning of eco-metrics making the Prototypes and Final design of C.
Table 6.13 shows the eco-metric values and LCA score which are put in the
Development report. These values shall be compared to B values of Table
6.1. The final verification of all requirements is made. In addition, the
environmental requirements for C set in 4.2 Plan are checked:
– fine-tuned and improved three of seven eco-metrics (yes, autonomy

time in stand-by, packaging volume, and total mass)
– has >5% lower packaging volume than B (yes)
TABLE 6.13
Eco-Metric Values for a Prototype of C and Final Design of C in Design Step 4.3
Target value for

SN Eco-metric Value for B a C Concept Unit Comment
1. Energy 475 480 hours Mobile autonomy time

efficiency in stand-by-mode
(charged at 100%)
2. Packaging 783 780 cm3 Improvements are
materials made during
volume development
3. Hazardous PVC, Be, PVC, Be, phthalates Quantitative
substances phthalates and triphenyl
and triphenyl phosphate
phosphate eliminated
eliminated
4. Precious 151 154 mg
metals
(Au, Ag)
5. Total mass 454 450 G
6. Recyclability 80 80 % Recoverability can
(metals and only be measured for
polymers) C when it has been
used by a customer
7. Lifetime Not specified Not specified % Estimations based on
reliability similar product to C.
LIMEv2 weighting
method (Itsubo et al
2012)
8. LCA score 2510 JPY 2510 JPY, (the effect JPY
of improved 5R and
charging efficiency
can be explored)
– has at least 10% better autonomy time in stand-by than B (Yes)

– has better absolute LCA score than B (no, but as more data are collected
about actual life cycle performance it could change in step 4.4).
Next, the final product C is sent for final assembly, assembled, and its final
LCA value, including the measured impact of the assembly process, is
calculated as 2510 JPY (20.3 USD). Next, C is sold.
Design Step 4, Customer Validation of C: Here, the final values of the
eco-metrics and the LCA score (Table 6.14) for the final C design are
quantified and calculated, respectively, and put into the report from
TABLE 6.14
Eco-Metric Values for Final Design of C in Design Step 4.4
Value for C Final

SN Eco-metric Design Unit Comment
1. Energy 480 hours Mobile autonomy time in stand-

efficiency by-mode (charged at 100%) +
improved charging efficiency
when (fast) charging the battery
2. Packaging 780 cm3 Improvements are made during
materials development
volume
3. Hazardous PVC, Be, phthalates Quantitative
substances and triphenyl
phosphate eliminated
4. Precious 154 mg
metals (Au,
Ag)
5. Total mass 450 G
6. Recyclability 90 % (5% Reuse, 5% Re-manufacturing,
(metals and 90% gold recovery, [Huawei,
polymers) 2014])
7. Lifetime Not specified % LIMEv2 weighting method
reliability (Itsubo et al 2012)
8. LCA score 2400 JPY Solar generated power for
assembly of C, improved gold
recovery, reuse, re-manufacturing
and charging efficiency
Customer Validation. These values for eco-metrics and LCA can be used in
the design of the next generation of C. As shown in Figure 6.14, the actual
improvements of reuse, re-manufacturing, recycling rate, and charging
efficiency finally lead to a better overall LCA score for C. B gets more
credit from metal recycling as it contains more precious metals.
Design Step 5, Closing the C Design Project: The LCA score from Step 4
is confirmed as 2400 JPY (19.4 USD) based on new data describing the life
cycle of C, and next the design project for C is closed. An example of such
new data is the use of solar-based electricity for the assembly of C.
6.7.5 Sustainable Product Design in Electrical Engineering – A Case Study

(Reprinted with Permission from Gurauskienė and Visvaldas, 2006)
Sustainable electrical engineering is focused on developing the following:
renewable electricity sources such as wind and solar power; systems for
FIGURE 6.14
LCA scores used in product development of B and C.
integrating renewable power into the grid; hybrid and electric vehicles;
and energy efficient lights, motors, appliances, and heating and cooling
systems. Gurauskienė and Visvaldas (2006) applied the eco-design metho-
dology for electrical and electronic equipment in a company in Lithuania.
The company specializes in development and manufacturing of multifunc-
tional static electricity meters. It is a leading manufacturer of electronic
electricity meters in the Baltic region. The product range varies from
electronic single-phase meters for household applications to three-phase
multifunctional electricity meters and devices for industry and utilities.
There is a modern line of electronic devices assembly, laboratory for
calibration and verification and department of engineers, researchers, and
designers, who apply the latest technologies for development of new
products and product improvements that satisfy the needs of emerging
new markets. The development of products is a permanent process in the
company. That is why an eco-design approach has also been implemented.
The basic drivers for implementing eco-design are compliance with both
environmental legislation and requirements of standards and commitment
of the company environmental policy to increase environmental efficiency
giving the top priority to the pollution prevention. The main internal
drivers are to reduce the costs, to improve the image of the company and
products, to improve the quality of products and to make innovations.
Compliance with the following environmental legislations is the main
external driver: Directive (2002/96/EC) on Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE); Directive (2002/95/EC) on the Restriction of the Use
of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment

(RoHS); and Directive (2005/32/EB) on Establishing a Framework for the
Setting of Eco-design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP).
The selected product in this case study is a three-phase electronic
electricity meter EMS, intended for use in household, commerce, and
manufacturing industry. The meters collect electrical energy data for up
to four tariff periods per day, also providing maximum demand registra-
tion and load profiling upon request. The EMS meters can be configured
for measuring either active energy or both active and reactive energy.
Other characteristics are as follows: internal real-time clock and calendar
with a battery backup; optical and electrical communication interfaces for
data reading and meter programming; liquid crystal display with 8 digits
for displaying metering values; prevention of unauthorized actions (e.g.
registration of external magnetic field influence, registration of openings of
meter cover, etc.). The screen (two plates of zinc coated steel) of an
electricity meter is covered by clear cowl of polycarbonate (stabilized with
ultraviolet ray) – it protects from external mechanical influence and under
water. Cowl and cops are fixed with screws and covered by lead. There is
a printed circuit board with all electronic components inside of an elec-
tricity meter. The measurements of the EE meter are: 328 × 178 × 58 mm.
The weight is less than 1.5 kg. This product is classified as an electrical and
electronic equipment (EEE), so there is a great potential and importance to
implement eco-design tools. The methodology Eco-indicator’99 was used
in order to assess an environmental impact of the meter. This LCA
methodology is adapted for the eco-design. The Eco-indicator’99 scores
are based on an impact assessment methodology that transforms the data
of an inventory table into damage scores which can be aggregated to one
single score/millipoint (mPt) that expresses the total environmental load of
a product or process (weight of materials, emission and electricity energy).
The impact on environment is calculated weighing three types of damage:
human health, ecosystem quality, resources. The scope of the meter life
cycle begins from extraction of raw materials and finishes at end-of-use of
the electricity meter. The entire life cycle is approximately 30 years. The
functional unit is one electrical electricity meter EMS. The meter is ana-
lyzed at all stages of its production, handling and disposal. From the result
of environmental impact calculations (Figure 6.15), it is found that all the
life cycle consists of 17 points: a production stage – 1.4 Pt, a usage stage –
16Pts (Figure 6.3); and consumption of electricity energy (631 kWh per
30 years) for the equipment operation.
In comparison with other electrical and electronic equipment, this is
a very small amount considering the period of 30 years. On the other
hand, the function of an electricity meter is to collect the electrical energy
data and to economize on energy consumption in time of day and year.
Electricity consumption was not considered as an environmental aspect
implementing eco-design, because of the long handling period. This
FIGURE 6.15
Environmental impact of all the life cycle (production, use and disposal).
environmental aspect is more positive than negative, because of avoiding

the usage of raw materials and energy for production of a new electricity
meter. The analysis of the production stage (Figure 6.16) has been made
evaluating the environmental impact of all components and assembling
processes.
The significant environmental impacts come from the screen of the meter
(506 mPt) that is steel production (182 mPt) and zinc coating (324 mPt); the
case of the meter (345 mPt): production of PC granules (316 mPt), injection
moulding (29 mPt); metal fixing components (188 mPt): lead (109 mPt),
screws (79 mPt); electronic components (capacitors, microchips, resis-
tances) (195 mPt); wire (70 mPt); and brazing with lead solder (44 mPt).
As the result of the LCA, the significant environmental impacts from the
life-cycle stages were identified as follows: Production (345 mPt) and dis-
posal (2.496 mPt) of the meter body; Production of the screen (506 mPt);
Wires (70 mPt); Metal fixing components (188 mPt); and consumption of the
electricity at the usage stage (16,000 mPt). Considering the LCIA results of
the EE meter, improvement decisions for the electricity meter were made
and the new product was improved through the following measures
– Reduction of the case with the amount of plastic used reduced by 22%;
– No steel used in a replaced meter screen;
– Reduction of wires (~3 m);
– No PVC stickers used;
– Metal contacts and screws replaced by wires fixed with chips;
FIGURE 6.16
Environmental impact of production phase.
– Reduced environmental impact at a production stage, by using lead

free solder and components;
– New design of PCB with no waste at the assembly stage;
– Optimized end-of-life systems because of the information on the disposal
of hazardous substances, plastics marking, and because of the symbol
indicating separate collection of electrical and electronic equipment.
The environmental impact of a new EE meter has been analyzed according

to the Eco-indicator’99 methodology. Comparison of environmental impact
of present and new EE meters is presented in Figure 6.17.
With the new design, the environmental impact in the production stage
has been reduced by 2.73 times (Eco-indicator’99 value has been changed
from 1,400 to 423.59 mPt). Compliance of legal drivers has been realized;
cost reduction and raw materials usage has been optimized and awareness
about eco-design of company employees has increased. It indicates that the
integration of eco-design into a product development is beneficial for both
company and the environment.
6.8 Summary
Design is essentially a complex problem-solving process and the engineer-
ing problem-solving methodology is used to carry out the engineering
design process for new things or to improve things. To move toward
FIGURE 6.17
Environmental impact comparison of present and new EE meters.
a more sustainable practice of engineering, the design process must be

modified to enable engineers to tackle sustainability issues in a structured
manner. The chapter identifies critical tasks in each design phase deemed
necessary to move from the conventional design toward sustainable
design. It is crucial to the successful delivery of sustainable development
to realize that the problem definition stage is where rigorous consideration
of sustainable development issues and in particular life cycle thinking
approach will generate the greatest benefits. The use of sustainable pro-
curement criteria is an opportunity for clients/owners to build and operate
projects in an environmentally friendly manner. Efforts should be made to
be as quantitative as possible when evaluating alternative designs. Indica-
tors and metrics that can be used to measure and quantify environmental
sustainability need to be developed to provide a basis for decision-making.
Finally, the chapter gives some case studies on the application of the
sustainable engineering design process in various engineering disciplines.
SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING IN FOCUS: SUSTAINABLE

PRODUCT REDESIGN AT MAKSS PACKAGING INDUSTRIES
LTD. IN KAMPALA, UGANDA
The company has 135 employees, was established in 1994 and pro-
duces 2,500,000 kg corrugated cardboard boxes per year. It was one
of the first companies to get in touch with the Uganda Cleaner
Production Center (UCPC) in 2002 when the UCPC launched a D4S
Redesign project. UCPC found that MAKSS had significant potential
to improve their production process of corrugated cardboard boxes

and to innovate its products. The design of the fruit box, for example,
was traditional and had not changed in 20 years. It consisted of two
pieces of cardboard which required a separate production process for
each. The traditional boxes were formed by using metal staples or
tape. Transportation was done first via trucks on rough roads and
later via air, mainly to Europe. Corrugated cardboard boxes need to
be very robust and lightweight at the same time. Light weight
engineering could improve both aspects: reducing the material input
for the sake of environmental considerations and reducing costs due
to expensive air transportation. Initial ideas were generated, such as
reducing the thickness of the corrugated cardboard from five layers
to three layers and strengthening the boxes with stiff edges and
stiffeners at the same time. Furthermore, the idea of integrating the
lid into the box design, which could help reduce the total mass of the
box, was found. In the next phase, MAKSS Packaging Industries
started intensive discussions with the different customers (flower
producers, fruit and vegetable exporters, etc.) to find out their
requirements and adapt the design of the boxes accordingly. MAKSS
Packaging Industries Ltd. then redesigned the boxes, reduced costs
and the environmental impacts at the same time. As a first result,
MAKSS launched two redesigned products on the Uganda market in
November 2002 – the 5 kg fruit box and the flower box for export.
Both were redesigned according to D4S criteria. The redesigned box
for flower export has the following advantages: (i) Resource effi-
ciency – a 167 g reduction in weight equal to 12% of the original
design. (ii) Improved production process – the production of the box
involves one production step less since the bottom is 3 ply instead
of 5. The box is self-locking and does not require any tape or staples.
(iii) Cost reduction – the box is sold at a cheaper price to the
customer; air cargo charges (approximately 1.5 U$/kg to Europe)
are less since it is lighter. (iv) Functionality and customer satisfac-
tion – this design offers better ventilation for the flowers, so the
product can be better protected and the flowers are in better shape
and consequently have higher value. The D4S redesigned box for
fruit has the following advantages: (i) Resource efficiency – A 60 g
reduction in weight equal to 10.7%. (ii) Improved production
process – the production of the box involves one production process
less since the MAKSS D4S redesign box is a one-piece box. Offcuts
are utilized to make pads for other boxes, (iii) Cost reduction – the
box is sold at a cheaper price to the customer; air cargo charges
(approximately 1.5 U$/kg to Europe) are less since it is lighter, (iv)
Functionality and customer satisfaction – stability and ventilation are
excellent. The easy locking system saves time. A one-piece box is
easier to handle and less space is needed for packing. Furthermore,

there is no problem with imbalance in stocks between tops and
bottoms.
Source: Crul and Diehl (2006).
References
Abraham, M. and Nguyen, N. 2004. “Green Engineering: Defining principles” –
Results from the Sandestin Conference. Environmental Progress, 22, 233–236.
DOI: 10.1002/ep.670220410t.
Allen, D., Bakshani, N. and Rosselot, K. 1992. Pollution Prevention: Homework and
Design Problems for Engineering Curricula. American Institute of Chemical Engi-
neers, New York, American Institute for Pollution Prevention, and Center for
Waste Reduction Technologies, Los Angeles. USA.
Anastas, P. and Zimmerman, J. 2003. Design through the Twelve Principles of Green
Engineering. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 94A–101A.
Andrae, A., Mengjun, X., Zhang, J. and Xiaoming, T. 2016. Practical Eco-Design and
Eco-Innovation of Consumer Electronics – The Case of Mobile Phones. Chal-
lenges, 7, 3.
Ashby, M. 2005. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, 3rd ed., Butterworth-
Heinemann, Burlington.
AustralianGov. 2008. The Biology of Carica Papaya, Department of Health and Ageing
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Canberra.
Azapagic, A., Millington, A. and Collett, A. 2006. A Methodology for Integrating
Sustainability Considerations into Process Design. Trans IChemE, Part A, Che-
mical Engineering Research and Design, 84(A6), 439–452.
Azapagic, A. and Pedan, S. 2005. An Integrated Sustainability Decision-Support
Framework-Part I: Problem Structuring. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 12(2), 98–111.
Azapagic, A. and Perdan, S. 2011. Sustainable Development in Practice-Case Studies for
Engineers and Sxientists, 2nd ed., John Wiley, New York.
CAC/RCP-53. 2003. Code of Hygiene Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, FAO, s.l.
Carlson, H. 1978. Sping Designer’s Handbook, 1st ed., Taylor & Francis, s.l.
Conteras, A., Perez, M., Dominguez, E. and Langenhove, H. 2009. Comparative Life
Cycle Assessment of Four Alternatives for Using By-Products of Cane Sugar
Production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 772–779.
Crul, M. and Diehl, J. 2006. Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach for Developing
Economies, UNEP&TU Delft, Paris, France.
Crul, M.R., Diehl, J.C. and Ryan, C. (Eds.). 2009. Design for Sustainability: A Step-by
Step Approach, United Nations Environmental Program, Paris.
Dandy, G., Daniell, T., Foley, B. and Warner, R. 2017. Planning & Design of Engineering
Systems, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Davidson, C.I., Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T.,Bridges, M.W., Allenby, B.R.,
Crittenden, J.C., Chen, Y., Williams, E., Allen, D.T., Murphy, C.F. and
Austin, S. 2007. Adding Sustainability to the Engineer’s Toolbox: A Challenge

for Engineering Educators. Environmental Science & Technology.
Dieter, J. and Schmidt, L. 2009. Engineering Design, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dixon, J. and Poli, C. 1995. Engineering Design and Design for Manufacturing:
A Structured Approach, 1st ed., Field Stone Pub, MA.
Eastman-Kodak-Company. 1983. Ergonomic Design for People at Work, 1st ed., American
Book Company, New York.
Gagnon, B., Leduc, R. and Savard, L. 2012. From a Conventional to a Sustainable
Engineering Design Process: Different Shades of Sustainability. Journal of Engi-
neering Design, 23, 49–74.
Graedel, T.E. and Allenby, B.R. 2010. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering.
Prentice Hall, US.
Gurauskienė, I. and Visvaldas, V. 2006. Eco-design Methodology for Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Industry. Environmental Research, Engineering and Man-
agement, 3, 43–51.
Huawei. Sustainability Report 2014. Available at: http://www-file.huawei.com/
~/media/CORPORATE/PDF/Sustainability/2014%20Huawei%20sustainabil
ity%20report-final.pdf?la=en (accessed on 18 November 2019).
Itsubo, N., Sakagami, M., Kuriyama, K. and Inaba, A. 2012. Statistical Analysis for the
Development of National Average Weighting Factors – Visualization of the
Variability between Each Individual’s Environmental Thoughts. The Interna-
tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 488–498.
Jiménez, M., Víctor, E.M.-N. and Marco, V.G.-S. 2014. Biology of the Papaya Plant. In
R. Ming and P.H. Moore (Eds.), Genetics and Genomics of Papaya, Plant Genetics
and Genomics: Crops and Models, Vol. 10. Springer Science+Business Media,
New York. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8087-7_2.
Kaebernick, H., Anityasari, M. and Kara, S. 2002. Technical and Economic Model for
End-of-Life (EOL) Options of Industrial Products. International Journal on Envir-
onmental Sustainable Development, I(2), 171–183.
Mott, R. 2004. Machine Elements in Mechanical Design, 4th ed., Pearson, NJ.
Paper November 2013 Conference: 13 AIChE Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Available at: http://proceedings.dtu.dk/fedora/repository/dtu:2791/OBJ/
x142234_GrnDyst_samlet.117.pdf.
Santos, R. and Costa, A.A. (2016). BIM in LCA/LCEA Analysis: Comparative
Analysis of Multi-family House and Single. CIB World Building Congress
2016. Tampere, Finland. Available at: www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/
CIB_DC29646.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2019).
Telenko, C., Seepersad, C.C. and Webber, M.E. 2008. A Compilation of Design for
Environment Principles and Guidelines. ASME DETC Design for Manufactur-
ing and the Life Cycle Conference, New York.
Ullman, D.G. 2010. The Mechanical Design Process, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Exercises
1. Why is it important to take a life cycle approach in design for
sustainability?
2. With reference to the Sandestin Green Engineering Principles and

through a literature search,
i. Provide examples of engineering designs or products from
these designs that caused unintended damage to ecosystems
(Principle 2).
ii. Provide one or more examples of wastes from key product
systems that have found beneficial uses through engineering
designs (Principle 6).
iii. How have innovations in engineering design helped achieve
sustainability goals in developing countries, such as providing
basic services like drinking water, power, food preservation,
and sanitation? Provide some examples and discuss the engi-
neering design aspects (Principle 8).
iv. Investigate and report on how engineers became involved in
community engagement in your chosen field of study. What
kinds of community engagement activities were the engineers
involved in (Principle 9)?
3. What are the key tasks in the sustainable engineering design process
that differentiates it from the conventional one?
4. Design for sustainability requires multidisciplinary teamwork.
Which disciplines do you think need to work together in designing
a more sustainable product in your field? Explain why and what
kind of knowledge and skills these disciplines bring together. What
might be the difficulties of working in multidisciplinary teams?
5. Give some creativity tools that can used by a design team to generate
ideas and concepts during the design process.
6. Give some examples of sustainability criteria that you think are
relevant in the sustainable design of a consumer electronic product.
Why is it important to identify such criteria before specifying the
design alternatives? What would happen if we did it the other way
round?
7. Identify the design for sustainability strategies which have been used
in the case study presented in the box: Sustainable Engineering in
Focus.
8. Read the following case study on a product redesign regarding
a trailer for rural transport of crops in Ghana (Source: Crul and
Diehl, 2006) and identify the design for sustainability strategies
which have been used:
The company REAL (“Rural Enterprise for Agro Logistics”) is an enterprise

working for, and partly owned, by farmers and agro-managers in Ghana. The
project was carried out in 2003 and had the aim to design a means of rural
transport for crops that would reduce post-harvest loss, thus increasing crop
market value and improving labor conditions for farmers (men and women) in
Ghana. This sustainable transport system was designed with locally available
materials and production methods suitable for Ghana. The design took into
consideration the influences of local culture and social habits. The concept devel-
opment phase began with the generation of concepts from a functional point of
view. The concepts were made out of combinations of the several functions and
were clustered into three design directions. After identifying the available materi-
als, further constraints were encountered and considerations were made. Three
design directions resulted in three concepts, the Plain trailer, the Combi trailer,
and the Crate trailer. The Plain trailer concept consisted of one loading space,
created with wire mesh. The Combi trailer could carry almost any kind of
container and had the possibility to create one space, from wire mesh as well. The
Crate trailer could only fit plastic crates from an industrial containers producer in
Tema. After taking several steps in development a fourth concept, the Multi trailer
was generated out of the Combi and Crate trailers. The Multi trailer concept
offered the opportunity to use almost any kind of container to transport the crops.
It was especially designed for current use as well as future use anticipating the
introduction of a complete logistic system based on crates by REAL. After
comparing the four concepts on design guidelines, the Crate trailer and the
Multi trailer proved to be the two most feasible concepts. Both concepts were
constructed in a Ghanaian workshop. Before going into production, models were
constructed. This required locating a workshop, a welder, buying the materials,
and finding specific components for the construction of details of the trailers. As
soon as the models were finished, they were tested in the two regions in the south.
After observation and evaluation of the models in use, small changes were made to
improve performance. The last test in the north was performed and evaluated as
well. It appeared that at least twice the amount of head load could be transported
in the same time or even faster. The users of the trailer appreciated the ease of use
and maneuvering, the increased amount of products that could be loaded and the
width of the total trailer which could be used on small paths. After testing both the
Crate trailer and the Multi trailer on the design guidelines, it was evident that the
Multi trailer needed to be further defined. The dimensions of the Multi trailer
were further optimized in Solidworks, a 3D modeler, in the Netherlands. This
model contains the basic construction and some details. The Multi trailer potential
results include:
• Transportability was improved: The trailer was suitable for single path
roads, double track grass roads, feeder roads and asphalt roads, except for
Abor where it is only suitable for single and double track roads.
• Efficiency was increased: Twice the amount of crops could be transported in
the same time or faster.
• Ergonomics of handling crops was improved: The burden on the farmers
(men and women) was lightened.
• The trailer could be produced locally: It could be produced with production

methods available in Ghana and made from locally available materials. The
construction of the trailer could be optimized for weight and weld type and
production could be simplified. Promote the use of trailers amongst women,
as well as in the transport of the crops.
In summary, the Multi trailer reduced the post-harvest losses thereby increasing
the farmers’ income. Labor conditions have improved due to the lighter burden.
9. Team up with another student. You have to design a table to be used

in a fruit processing factory. It is to have a steel surface and the
surface is to be covered with a soft foam to reduce fruit damage. The
foam top and legs of the table will need to be replaced periodically
and the factory owner, who expects to purchase several hundred
tables, wants the replacement of the components to be quick and
effective. With the help of your local hardware store (if needed),
design the table for optimum disassembly (adapted from Graedel
and Allenby 2010).
Recommended Reading and Websites

• Gagnon, B., Leduc, R. and Savard, L. 2012. From a Conventional to
a Sustainable Engineering Design Process: Different Shades of Sus-
tainability. Journal of Engineering Design, 23, 49–74. This paper places
the conventional design process and the sustainable design process
on a continuum along which the engineer can position himself or
herself.
• Azapagic, A. and Perdan, S. 2011. Sustainable Development in Practice:
Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. Second edition. Wiley-
Blackwell. Taking a life cycle approach to addressing economic, envir-
onmental, and social issues, the book presents a series of new practical
case studies drawn from a range of sectors, including mining, energy,
food, buildings, transport, waste, and health.
• Azapagic, A., Millington, A. and Collett, A. 2006. A Methodology
for Integrating Sustainability Considerations into Process Design.
Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 84, 439–452. This paper
illustrates how different sustainability criteria can be integrated
within a common framework to guide the design of more sus-
tainable processes and chemical plants.
• Crul M.R., Diehl, J.C. and Ryan C. (Eds.). 2009. Design for Sustainability:
A Step-by Step Approach, United Nations Environmental Program, Paris,
www.d4s-sbs.org/d4s_sbs_manual_site.pdf The publication targets
designers and other professionals working in the area of industrial

product development. It is useful to those new to ecodesign as well as
those interested in breakthrough innovation for sustainability. There
is also a sister publication “Design for Sustainability: A Practical
Approach for Developing Economies”, 2006, www.d4s-de.org/
manual/d4stotalmanual.pdf which focuses on the specific needs of
small- and medium-sized companies in developing economies
• Anders S.G., Andrae, Mengjun, X., Jianli, Z., and Xiaoming, T. 2016.
Practical Eco-Design and Eco-Innovation of Consumer Electronics –
the Case of Mobile Phones Challenges, 7(3), www.mdpi.com/2078-
1547/7/1/3
This article describes how sustainability is successfully implemen-
ted in practice at a large Chinese company, developing and produ-
cing various kinds of electronic products used for communication. It
also describes how a variety of eco-innovations and business models
contribute to reducing the environmental impact, for example,
through increased recovery and recycling. A new kind of eco-design
procedure is presented along with a new methodology which shows
how a mobile phone gradually becomes more sustainable from one
generation to the next.
• The text Pollution Prevention: Homework and Design Problems for Engi-
neering Curricula, published by the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, contains more than 20 case studies related to life cycles,
design of materials, thermodynamics, and transport phenomena
(Allen et al., 1992). More case studies, formatted for classroom use,
have been developed by participants in faculty workshops sponsored
by the Center for Sustainable Engineering (www.csengin.org). The
case studies are freely available, without copyright restrictions.
Examples include, but are not limited to, estimating the environmen-
tal impacts of concrete; water system design, including the use of
reclaimed water; methods for incorporating social dimensions of
sustainability; landfill power generation; accounting for environmen-
tal costs and benefits in a semiconductor facility; assessing environ-
mental product claims; electric power generation; and recycling
systems for vehicles. Finally, additional examples can be drawn
from the Green Engineering Web site of the U.S. EPA (www.epa.
gov/oppt/greenengineering) and the links available at that site.

Integrating Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Sustainability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6

6.1 Problem Solving in Engineering

1. Analytic problems (or exercise solving) are solved by analysis and

Engineers usually deal with ill-deﬁned problems that are vaguely or

• Formulate the problem clearly and in general terms and ensure it is

Planning and design, together with management, construction and opera-

6.2 The Conventional Engineering Design Process

a central part of engineering practice. It can be deﬁned as the process of

• Creativity – requires creation of something that has not existed before

A design process is a systematic problem-solving strategy which takes

6.3 From Conventional to Sustainable Engineering

Design Phase Tasks

I – Planning and 1. Team formation

II. Conceptual Design

III. Preliminary Performance

Design phase Detailed

Major Influence Rapid declining Influence Low Influence

Planning & Schematic Design Construction Construction

• Choosing team members with various expertises during the problem

Sandestin Sustainable Engineering

• Selecting strategies and creativity techniques to guide idea generation

In the sustainable engineering design process, it is important to use

6.4 Design for Life Guidelines and Strategies

Design Phase Critical Tasks

I – Planning and problem 1. Form a multidisciplinary design team

Adapted from Gagnon et al. (2012).

Category Purpose Description

Source: Gagnon et al. (2012).

6.5 Measuring Sustainability

Raw materials Design for resource conservation

@. New concept development

7. Optimization of 1. Selection of low-

a basis for decision-making. In most engineering designs, the measure is

1. Selection of low-impact a. Cleaner

Source: Crul et al. (2009).

discuss sustainability in the context of indicators developed through

Rows – Environmental criteria usually include material use, energy

6.6 Sustainable Design through Sustainable Procurement Criteria

1. Tendering for consultancy services (engineers, planners, and archi-

economic and environmental performance of the project. Thus, it is

6.7 Case Studies on Sustainable Engineering Design Process

sustainability considerations (technical, economic, environmental, and social

Text in italics—design stages related to sustainability; normal text—stages in traditional design

6.7.2 Sustainable Building Design – A Case Study (Reprinted with

potential to minimize buildings’ environmental impacts during early stage

Energy Analysis Environmental

Single- Energy Analysis Environmental

Single- 7 different Environmental

Multi-family house Single-family house Units

Area 1,120 100.00 m2

the environmental impacts due to materials selection, by examining the

Multi- End of Life 75 41 174,960 0.00 2,550 575,515 569,443 6,046

be related to the relevant energy consumption of the common/social

Single- End of Life –2 4 39,813 0.00 149 42,730 41,394 1,329

05 – Metals −19 0 −3,730 0.00 −200 39,564 39,987 423

07 Thermal and 2 0 180 0.00 7 1088 770 318

kg kgSO2eq kgNeq kgCO2eq CFC-11eq O2eq MJ MJ MJ

1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567

Tally LCA analysis of single-family house (life cycle stages).

6.7.3 Sustainable Product Design in Mechanical Engineering – A Case Study