Improving the consideration of life-cycle costs in bridge decision-making in Switzerland

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Brühwiler ◽  
Bryan Adey
Buildings ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalilzadehazhari ◽  
Vadiee ◽  
Johansson

The Energy Performance of Building Directive obligated all European countries to reduce the energy requirements of buildings while simultaneously improving indoor environment quality. Any such improvements not only enhance the health of the occupants and their productivity, but also provide further economic benefits at the national level. Accomplishing this task requires a method that allows building professionals to resolve conflicts between visual and thermal comfort, energy demands, and life-cycle costs. To overcome these conflicts, this study exploits the incorporation of building information modelling (BIM), the design of experiments as an optimization algorithm, and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) into a multi-criteria decision-making method. Any such incorporation can (i) create constructive communication between building professionals, such as architects, engineers, and energy experts; (ii) allow the analysis of the performance of multiple construction solutions with respect to visual and thermal comfort, energy demand, and life-cycle costs; and (iii) help to select a trade-off solution, thereby making a suitable decision. Three types of energy-efficient windows, and five types of ground floors, roofs, and external wall constructions were considered as optimization variables. The incorporation of several methods allowed the analysis of the performance of 375 construction solutions based on a combination of optimization variables, and helped to select a trade-off solution. The results showed the strength of incorporation for analyzing big-data through the intelligent use of BIM and a simulation in the field of the built environment, energy, and costs. However, when applying AHP, the results are strongly contingent on pairwise comparisons.


2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (5) ◽  
pp. 504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabila Iken ◽  
Stéphane Morel ◽  
Franck Aggeri

The purpose of the article is twofold. We first present a Life Cycle Costing methodology applied at different scales to compare between design options in terms of materials use: in an automobile vehicle part, a whole vehicle, and a car manufacturer’s portfolio. The Life Cycle Costs consider costs for different stakeholders, including environmental damage costs (supported by the civil society), fuel expenses (supported by the customer) and materials costs (supported by the car manufacturer). The second objective of the article is to bring a management and socio-technical vision to the issue of material use in the automobile industry, in order to challenge the idea that all decisions regarding material use depend on purely technical and economic criteria. Through a qualitative research, we investigated the barriers to material efficiency and integrating the environmental criterion in decision making from a French car manufacturer’s perspective. Within the same company, we also collected material experts’ feedbacks on the LCC tool developed in the first Part, both in terms of methodology and potential integration in decision-making.


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
R C Gupta ◽  
J Sonwalkar ◽  
A K Chitle

As competition is increasing day by day, industries are giving more and more emphasis upon managing equipment efficiencies to keep pace with the fast moving competition. Equipment should be designed to help the Company to maximize profitability Today, where profitability is so often ‘marginal’, effective management and life cycle costs are magnified in importance. Life cycle costing is the systematic decision making to evaluate overall cost effectiveness at the design stage of the system. This paper addresses the basics of Early Equipment Management and gives details of life cycle costs. Various stages of Early Equipment Management where trade-offs in life cycle costs are possible are also discussed.


2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shayne Brannman ◽  
Eric W. Christensen ◽  
Ronald H. Nickel ◽  
Cori Rattelman ◽  
Richard D. Miller

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document