D5.1 - Algorithms and Methodologies For The Eol Product Recovery Process

The PREMANUS project (285541) is co-funded by the European Union under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
theme of the
7th Framework Programme for R&D (FP7).
This document does not represent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be
made of its content.

Programme Factories of the Future PPP
Strategic Objective ICT-2011.7.3 Virtual Factories and Enterprises
Project Title Product Remanufacturing Service System
Acronym PREMANUS
Project # 285541

D5.1 - ALGORITHMS AND METHODOLOGIES
FOR THE EOL PRODUCT RECOVERY
PROCESS

Work Package WP-5 Business Decision Support for PREMANUS
Lead Partner POLIMI
Contributing Partner(s) SAP, LU
Security Classification CO (Confidential)
Date 25-Mar-2013
Version 1.0

COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2013 by <please add partners>
Legal Disclaimer

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO

D5.1 Algorithms and methodologies for the EoL product recovery process

ii

The information in this document is provided as is, and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The above referenced consortium members
shall have no liability for damages of any kind including without limitation direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials subject to any
liability which is mandatory due to applicable law.
This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission from all of the Copyright owners. In addition to such written
permission to copy, reproduce, or modify this document in whole or part, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be
clearly referenced.
The circulation of this document is restricted to the staff of the PREMANUS partner organisations and the European Commission. All information contained in this document is strictly
confidential and may not be divulged to third parties without the express permission of all of the Copyright owners.
All rights reserved. This document may change without notice.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


iii

Document history

Version Date Comments Author
0.1 21/12/12 Draft table of content Polimi
0.4 15/01/13 Edit table of content from LU LU
0.5 20/01/13 Final table of content Polimi
0.8 04/03/13 Draft Final for internal review Polimi
0.9 11/03/13 Final version after internal review Polimi
1.0 25/03/13 Final Version submitted Polimi

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Communitys Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n
o
285541.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


iv

Table of contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 BDSS ROLE IN PREMANUS ....................................................................................................................... 2
3 STATE OF THE ART FOR ALGORITHMS AND METHODOLOGIES .............................................. 5
3.1 BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.2 ALGORITHM OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES IN REMANUFACTURING CONTEXT ....................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Approach in cost calculation .............................................................................................................. 8
3.4 EOL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND ALGORITHMS CONSTRAINS ................................................................... 9
3.5 END OF LIFE OPTIONS AND HIERARCHICAL DECISION MODEL .................................................................... 10
3.6 AN EXAMPLE OF HIERARCHICAL DECISION MODEL ................................................................................... 11
4 ALGORITHM FOR END-OF-LIFE PRODUCT STRATEGY DEFINITION ..................................... 18
4.1 STEPS OF DEFINITION PHASE ..................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 STEPS OF CALCULATION & TERMINATION PHASE ...................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Algorithm for the maximum level of BoM ......................................................................................... 21
4.2.2 Algorithm for other levels ................................................................................................................. 22
5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 24
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO LCA ........................................................................................................................... 24
5.3 MULTI-USE-PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 28
5.4 AVAILABLE TOOLS & DATABASES ............................................................................................................ 30
6 IMPLEMENTATION OF ALGORITHMS INTO BDSS: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ..... 31
6.1 ADAPTATION TO ALGORITHM TO USE CASES ............................................................................................. 31
7 ANNEX 1 TOOLS AND DATABASES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................. 33
7.1 TOOLS ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
7.2 DATABASES .............................................................................................................................................. 38
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


1

1 Executive Summary
The deliverable provides the foundations for BDSS development in the PREMANUS project,
highlighting in particular the implications of eco-efficiency evaluations in remanufacturing processes
and the implications of considering both the economic aspects of remanufacturing business in
conjunction with environmental implications.
The following section present how it would be possible to integrate economic and environmental
dimensions into BDSS and how different algorithms could be used. The main concepts enabling
economic and environmental assessment are linked to:
Activities carried out during remanufacturing processes at product or component level,
Resources used to carried out activities,
Relationship between specific activities at product/component level and different end-of-life
alternatives, and
External and product/component specific influencing factors.
All those elements are included into a hierarchical algorithm taking into account all EoL options for
each item of the BoM, starting from the lower level, up to the product: decisions at lower levels
influence alternatives in upper ones. Such aspects will also provide the foundations for the detailed
and use-case specific activities of Task 5.2 and 5.3.
The eco-efficiency diagram is introduced, allowing the integration of economic and environmental
dimensions into the decision making process. The deliverable details at the end the basic foundation
for a streamlined environmental assessment of remanufacturing processes, providing a brief overview
of the context, problems and complexities of LCA techniques and discussing so-called streamlined
methodologies and multi-use-phase environmental impacts. An overview of available databases and
tools for the purpose of impacts assessments is presented, building on existing work done under the
Life Cycle Thinking coordinated by EU Joint Research Centre.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


2

2 BDSS role in PREMANUS
Business Decision Support System (BDSS) is one of the three pillars of PREMANUS (in conjunction
with the Remanufacturing Information Services RIS and the Remanufacturing Service Gateway
RSG). This section will highlight the main functions and peculiarity of the PREMANUS BDSS; in
particular why BDSS is crucial in remanufacturing businesses, how it works and the main users that
will benefit from it. The role of environmental dimension in decisions will also be introduced in
conjunction with a theoretical model for the eco-efficiency evaluator.
In D1.3 the high level scenario for PREMANUS usage has been defined and described, including the
main requirements for users interactions and decisions to be supported.
In particular the key features of PREMANUS will enable (Figure 1):
More reliable quotes for remanufacturing processes,
Definition and verification of process KPIs,
Data-supported decision on different alternatives and strategies at product/component level.
Sales managers but also production managers and shop-floor technicians will benefit from such
features, at different stages of the entire remanufacturing business. Foundations of PREMANUS,
enabling the above mentioned benefits, consist of:
The ability of search and retrieval of relevant data for decisions from other IT System (e.g.
MES, PLM, MRP) or data entered by operators.
Estimation and calculations of costs/time needed to carry out specific activities along the
remanufacturing process,
A proper reporting interface to allow different users to assess actual status of the
product/component and to provide relevant information to support end-of-life decisions and
define remanufacturing strategy.

Figure 1 - key features of PREMANUS
Decisions supported by BDSS combine the effects of costs, time, inventories and other relevant
variables, including the environmental considerations related to the remanufacturing processes. Input
and output of the BDSS could be clustered into 3 main groups as displayed in Table 1.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


3

Decisions Inputs Outputs
Cost Labour rates
Workflow time
Overhead
Component costs
Used resources
Equipment used
Cost virgin product/component
Mean process cost
Range of process cost
Estimate of remanufacturing cost
Firm quote
Cost breakdown
Mean activity cost
Range of activity cost
Actual workflow cost
Time Activity time
Work flow time
Activity probability
Delivery time
Lead time
Mean process time
Mean lead time
Range of process time
Range of lead time
Mean activity time
Range of activity time
Time break down
Environment Resources used
Energy used
Bill of material
Waste generated
LCA inventories
Environmental impact of remanufacturing
processes
Eco-Efficiency evaluations
Table 1 Input and output of BDSS.
The two dimensions of cost and time are anyway closely interlinked as time needed for different
activities in the process directly impact on resulting costs; for this reason cost will be considered as
primary dimension together with the environmental one in the eco-efficiency evaluator of different
EoL alternatives.
Remanufacturing process is a combination of multiple different activities carried out at product and
component level.
The choice of activity enables different end-of-life strategies, thus having different implications on
costs/time and also different environmental impacts.
The techniques enabling BDSS decisions will now be described in more detail.
The combination of economic and environmental dimension into an eco-efficiency evaluator allows
the definition of different strategies for end-of-life of products/components. As presented in
(Huisman, 2003) the eco-efficiency diagram allows the identification of four main areas (quadrants
AD, defined below). On the Y-axis of the diagram we can plot an economic indicator (in this case !)
for the total costs occurring during the remanufacturing process. The X-axis represents the
environmental indicator (LCA scores using any indicator like Eco-Indicator, Recipe, or any other
available in standard inventories).
Positive values on the Y-axis represent economic revenues, while positive values on X-axis represent
environmental gains. These areas represent specific bests from a purely economic or environmental
perspective. Positive values on the Y-axis could represent local bests for companies in the
remanufacturing business, while X-axis positive values could represent local best regulators and
policy makers targets.
Applying eco-efficiency diagrams to end-of-life options and strategies in the electronics industry has
been extensively used in the past decade in various research projects (Huisman, 2004) and in a recent
study supporting the review of EU WEEE Directive (UNU, 2007).

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


4

Figure 2 Eco-Efficiency diagram.

Different end-of-life scenarios/options for the same product (or component), could end up in different
areas of the diagram, depending on specific value of the input of the BDSS in different time-frames:
Quadrant A: options/activities leading to profits but having negative environmental impacts.
Usually these options should be prevented by local regulations.
Quadrant B: options leading to profits with positive environmental impacts; these represent
win-win situations and scenarios to be promoted.
Quadrant C: options leading to losses and environmental burdens. Common sense should,
generally speaking, avoid or prevent such alternatives.
Quadrant D: options leading to losses despite having a positive environmental impact. Those
cases are usually not directly pursued by companies (as leading to losses) but can be
encouraged by policy makers and regulators, as leading to environmental benefits; this could
be the case of mandatory recycling programs, where the financing of activities leading to
environmental improvements or benefits is required trough Extended Producer Responsibility
principles or other tools.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


5

3 State of the art for algorithms and methodologies
In this section, current attempts to develop models and algorithms for End of Life decision making
will be addressed. Different approaches in the literature are briefly presented. Later in this section
BDSS objectives are described. This will be followed by description of conditions which BDSSs
algorithm should deal with, whilst trying to recommend the best solution.
Later in the context of the End of Life domain a hierarchical decision model is described, based on
which the algorithm is introduced. To do that, first, the available options in product recovery will be
introduced. The different consequences of each option will be considered, namely the environmental
impacts of each as well as the economic effects will be discussed.
Inderfurth, De Kok, & Flapper, (2001) explains that in many product recovery situations returned
products can be reused in multiple ways; therefore reverse logistics will be required, and to do that,
companies have to tackle the correspondent complexity. Huang & Su, (2013) state that: In a closed-
loop supply chain, product proliferation affects the reverse supply chain as well as the forward supply
chain. Although increasing the number of product types can better satisfy diverse customer needs,
complexity in the product recycling, remanufacturing, and resale processes may erode a firms overall
profit. Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, (2006) define the reverse supply chain as a series of activities
required to retrieve a product from a customer in order to dispose of it or recover its remaining value.
In addition to product variability and the benefit incorporated in them, in some countries OEM
1
s are
obligated to take products back at the end of their useful life. There are also some 3
rd
party companies
active in collecting used products and making profit either by reselling them or through recycling.
These firms select used products by comparing the revenue from recycle or resale of products
components and the collection and reprocessing costs of the used products. (Pochampally, Nukala, &
Gupta, 2009) find that making a decision on selecting the product and the appropriate choice on what
to do with it after the End of Life stage is a complex decision which incorporates several drivers. The
consequences of this decision are not limited to economic results but also environmental impacts need
to be taken into account. The multi-object nature of this problem requires several information inputs
to the decision making as well as boundary conditions, restrictions, preferences and priorities which
turn the decision making procedure into a complex process. The aim of BDSS
2
is to facilitate such
processes which are a part of reverse supply chain processes. Huang & Su, (2013) mentions five key
sequential steps in reverse supply chain processes: Product collection and acquisition, reverse
logistics, inspection and disposition, remanufacturing or reconditioning.
3.1 Brief literature review
In the following section a brief state of the art on algorithms and methodologies aiming to assist
decision makers for End of Life product recovery is presented, based on a review of different papers
and research ((Gungor & Gupta, 1999; Huang & Su, 2013; Ilgin & Gupta, 2010; Pokharel & Mutha,
2009; Reverse logistics network design: a state-of-the-art literature review, 2009; Sbihi & Eglese,
2007; Subramoniam, Huisingh, & Chinnam, 2009; Williams, 2007).
Decision support algorithms are designed to support a decision making problem. This problem can be
seen from different points of view. The goal of a decision is the main concern of the algorithm, and is
one of these aspects. To decide for end of life recovery different objectives have been considered, for
example some algorithms try to reduce costs of recovery processes such as disassembly activities

1
Original Equipment Manufacturer
2
Business Decision Support System

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


6

(Gonzlez & Adenso-Daz *, 2005), some others to maximize economic profits of such processes so
they try to maximise resulting revenue minus occurred costs. (H. B. Lee, Cho, & Hong, 2010); as
another example some other algorithms target efficiency goals such as minimising lead time
(Xanthopoulos & Iakovou, 2009).
In addition to the economic concerns, decision supporting algorithms may also consider
environmental consequences of the decision and try to reduce the impacts of the decision on
environment. For example, trying to reduce the amount of produced waste, reducing the emissions as
well as resource consumption are some of the frequent objectives which have been considered by
different researchers and experts so far (Amaya, Zwolinski, & Brissaud, 2010; Huang & Su, 2013;
Ilgin & Gupta, 2010; H. B. Lee et al., 2010; Ma, Jun, & Kim, 2011; Seitz, 2007; Thinking &
Assessment, 2011)
Finding out the best option for end of life is an important problem for OEMs as well as 3
rd
party
companies. In order to develop a decision model, it is necessary to consider several factors. Different
variables, boundary conditions as well as multiple objectives while added to the uncertainty and lack
of proper information about the product and processes, make the task of development of this model
complex.
Traditionally, a considerable amount of previous attempts to develop a model and algorithm for EoL
3

decision making and even in a broader sense, in deciding on closed or reverse supply chain, have been
concentrated on economic sides of the phenomena, trying to minimize costs of product recovery or
reverse logistics or trying to maximize the benefits. (Huang & Su, 2013; Krumwiede & Sheu, 2002;
Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006)
Explicitly to aid decision making on product selection and on appropriate EoL options, mathematical
models have been used by researchers to develop different algorithms for EoL option selection.(Ilgin
& Gupta, 2010) H. R. Krikke, Van Harten, & Schuur, (1998) has used a dynamic programming
approach to determine product recovery and disposal strategy for one product type. Their model tries
to maximize the net profit while considering relevant technical, ecological and commercial
feasibilities. Later in their following task, they have applied their model to real life cases: copier and a
monitors recycling. (H.R Krikke, Van Harten, & Schuur, 1999; H.R. Krikke, van Harten, & Schuur,
1999) This attempt have been later further developed to address multiple disassembly processes and
partial disassembly.(Teunter, 2006). (Das & Yedlarajiah, 2002) have proposed a mixed integer
programing method which has been used to determine the optimal part disposal strategy based on the
maximization of the net profit. A piecewise linear concave program to select between five disposal
options (refurbish, resell, reuse, recycle, landfill) has also been used to maximize the overall return for
disassembly products. (Jorjani, Leu, & Scott, 2004). The impact of reducing disassembly time and
cost on the optimal EoL strategy has been also assessed. (Willems, Dewulf, & Duflou, 2006) Linear
programming method has also been utilized to evaluate three options of repair, repackage or
scrap.(Tan & Kumar, 2008)
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodologies are used in some researches. A multi-
objective method has been introduced in which economic and environmental impacts have been
combined using a weight method. (S. G. Lee, Lye, & Khoo, 2001). (Hula, Jalali, Hamza, Skerlos, &
Saitou, 2003) used a Genetic Algorithm (GA) method to trade-offs between economic and
environmental impacts of different options of EoL. There are several other researches that have used
multi-criteria decision methods and applied different approaches to resolve their issues regarding EoL
decision making. Approaches such as ELECTRE III MCDM methodology to rank different EoL
options (Bufardi, Gheorghe, Kiritsis, & Xirouchakis, 2004) which later were more developed to a
methodology which considers complete ranking of EoL options under uncertainty environment.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


7

(Chan, 2008), also an evolutionary algorithm to maximize the recovery value considering multi-
objective aims (Jun, Cusin, Kiritsis, & Xirouchakis, 2007). (Fernandez, Puente, Garcia, & Gomez,
2008) have also developed a fuzzy approach to evaluate five recovery options and one disposal option
by considering four criteria: product value, recovery value, useful life and level of sophistication.as
another approaches, (Wadhwa, Madaan, & Chan, 2009) propose a methodology to consider the
knowledge of experts, the Multi-criteria Matrix by (Iakovou et al., 2009) and GP methodology
proposed to address the optimal design of the recovery processes of the end-of-life (Xanthopoulos &
Iakovou (2009).
The allocation of different quantities to different options for EoL decisions has been also investigated
by integrating the uncertainty models into the algorithm. (Inderfurth et al., 2001) Zuidwijk & Krikke,
(2008) have introduced a set of strategies for end of life based on available information of the returned
product and by considering different levels of disassembly Bill of Materials in waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE) case. One of the pitfalls of these models is that in most of the
conducted researches, the network of suppliers and remanufacturers with different stakeholder has not
been taken into account. Walther, Schmid, & Spengler, (2008) tried to address this issue and provide a
mechanism and structure for different role players in product recovery to be able to collaborate
through negotiation, calling it as the recycling network. Dehghanian & Mansour, (2009) introduced a
sustainable recovery network. The mechanism for optimizing this network in different stages is based
on Genetic algorithms. They have considered both economical, environment factors as well as social
impacts of the chosen option for end of life by using a LCA approach to assess different EoL options.
(Dehghanian & Mansour, 2009)
An overview of different classifications of manufacturing decision support tools and their descriptions
has been provided in deliver D1.1
3.2 Algorithm Objectives
H. B. Lee et al. (2010) have shown that while formulating the problem statement, how changing the
objective statement affects the overall result and recommends considering maximization of the profit
as the aim of algorithm. In particular they demonstrated how, in a simple disassembly for recovery
scenario, the three potential strategies (or algorithm goals):
Maximise (profits) disassembly cost
Maximise (profits) Minimize (disassembly costs), or
Maximize (profit disassembly costs)
lead to different results. According to their model, the overall objective shall consider the difference
between revenues and costs of an action to decide whether to carry it on or not.
With the aim of introducing not only a pure economic dimension in the BDSS, the maximisation of
net margin, will be integrated with environmental considerations.
Deciding on the right strategy for product recovery 2 main pillars of sustainability will be than
integrated:
Economic consequences of the decision (within the scope of PREMANUS)
Environmental Impacts of the decision (within the scope of PREMANUS)
Therefore the developed algorithm for BDSS of PREMANUS will have as a goal a maximisation of
economic and environmental benefits:
Objective: MAX {economic benefit + environmental benefits}

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


8

3.3 Evaluation activities in remanufacturing context
From a business perspective interviews with remanufacturers, site visits and interactions with use case
partners confirmed that the economic dimension of remanufacturing is essential to understand in
detail, in order to make business decisions as well being able to provide customers a reliable quotation
for the cost of a remanufactured product. However the cost to remanufacture each individual product
will vary due to a variety of factors including the type of product, the condition of the returned
product core and the cost of resources. In addition the level of uncertainty present within the
remanufacturing system tends to be high, and its therefore advisable within a cost estimate to provide
an interval estimate along with probability distributions, rather than relying upon a single point
estimate which does not reflect the errors and uncertainty within the estimation (Angelis and Stamelos
2000).
Cost estimation is a well-defined research topic and is used within multiple disciplines where there is
a great deal of uncertainty and different methods of cost estimation have been developed for these
applications which can be broadly classed as intuitive, analogical, parametric or analytical (Niazi, Dai,
Balabani & Seneviratne 2006, Ben-Arieh and Qian 2003).
Intuitive techniques, also referred to as expert judgement (Angelis and Stamelos 2000), are based on
past experience of the estimator (Ben-Arieh and Qian 2003).
Analogical techniques use historical information of completed projects with known effort to estimate
costs that are deemed similar to new projects (Anglelis and Stamelos, 2000).
Parametric techniques, also referred to as algorithmic (Angelis and Stamelos 2000), estimates costs
based upon particular parameters of a project.
Analytical techniques allow evaluation of the cost of a product from a breakdown of the work
required into elementary tasks, operations or activities with known (or easily calculated) cost (Ben-
Arieh and Qian 2003).
3.3.1 Approach in cost calculation
Based on the requirements of remanufacturing a hybrid of analytical and analogical techniques can be
used within the cost estimation of remanufacturing processes. Such an approach provides the main
elements used in order to calculate main remanufacturing costs.

Figure 3 the four stage approach outlined within the cost estimation tool
Analytical Model
The foundation of cost estimation tool is to use an analytical method by the summation of the
cost of all the activities required by the remanufacturing process. From the business process
model a good understanding of the activities conducted in remanufacturing are known.
However each remanufacturing operation can require a unique effort due to variations in the
product type, condition and customer requirements. This can therefore lead to variations
within the total cost of each activity and the workflow path which occurs during
remanufacture. In order to estimate these costs further, algorithms are used which utilise
historical information to estimate specific costs and evaluate the level of uncertainty within
the overall process.
Analyucal model of
remanufacLurlng
process
uerlvauon of
acuvuy cosL uslng
analoglcal approach
SLausucal analysls of
cased based sample
Lo generaLe
probablllLy
dlsLrlbuuons
Slmulauon of
analyucal model
uslng MonLe Carlo
slmulauon

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


9

Derivation of activity cost
Case based reasoning is a particular analogical technique which aims to match the current
case to the most similar historical case. The historical cases are stored within database
structures. The main challenge for analogical methods is in determining which previous
project most closely matches the new case. Algorithms developed to tackle this problem
include the nearest neighbour algorithm and inductive technique. Cased based reasoning
elements include:
1. Case Representation
2. Indexing (manual or automated). This aims to reduce the computation time and speed
up searching. It isost likely to use a manual method which will allow the user to
determine which attributes are most likely to affect the cost within a particular
activity.
3. Storage. Relational database in this example
4. Retrieval (how to determine the most suitable comparative cases). Example
algorithms include nearest neighbour retrieval and inductive retrieval
5. Adaptation. If the case produced is not exact, how to adapt it.
Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis of the sample of similar historical cases found using the analogical
technique described above is conducted to provide a probability distribution for the cost
model to be simulated. The choice of distribution type is a key factor within this stage to
allow for the best representation of the data. For normal distribution mean and standard
deviations are required to be calculated. Other distribution type may require more or less
complex statistical analysis. This is currently an area of work under that requires further
investigation by the researchers.
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo simulation will play two roles within the cost estimation tool:
1. To decide which activities will be conducted within the remanufacturing process
when a choice exists. The probability of each activity will have been calculated from
the data sources using the algorithms mentioned above.
2. To determine a cost for a particular activity based upon the probability distribution
generated in the above algorithms.
After a cost has been simulated for each activity within the model, the values can be summed
together to generate an overall cost for product remanufacture. By repeating this process
multiple times a cumulative cost distribution can be generated which can represent the level
of uncertainty within the estimation.
3.4 EoL boundary conditions and algorithms constrains
The algorithm should respect boundary conditions and existing restrictions, as well taking into
account specific product/component conditions, as described in the following sections. Detailed
evaluation of specific EoL constraints in the different Use Cases will be carried out in upcoming tasks
5.2 and 5.3. Boundary conditions of EoL management refer to:
factors related to the specific product, and/or
factors related to operations at plant level.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


10

The decision depends on the status and condition of the specific product; for example if the received
product, has been well maintained and is in a good condition, the manufacturer may decide to
refurbish and resell it. Where the product is not in a good condition and has suffered serious wear, the
manufacturer may decide to recycle it. Of course decision making is not simply based on these two
factors and in practice several factors and conditions should be considered.
Boundary conditions are not limited to the product related items only. Elements to be considered,
having a direct impact on remanufacturing business might include:
actual plant capacity, including available tools/machines and resources,
operations carried out in different places with considerable handling/transportation distances,
warehouse related constraints and parameters, e.g. stock level, stock out and overstock costs,
prices of raw materials affects the decision on remanufacturing, recycling or landfill,
energy cost.
Another affecting factor in making decision of EoL is related to the waste and emissions produced by
a decision. For example amount of waste water produced can be an important item. It has economic
impacts as well as environmental impacts.
Production based on the demand or the prediction of demand is the major focusof current business
models. Accordingly, integrating market information and status to the decision making process, can
contribute to create value. Such results are not restricted to the economic results only. Satisfying an
existing demand by recovering a used product, avoids total impacts related to production of a new
product as well as disposing the used one to the environment and generating wastes.
3.5 End of life options and hierarchical decision model
A manufacturer has different options once he is in the position to decide on the end of life recovery
for a product. Based on current conditions, for example the quality and wear of the product or the
market demand for some of its components, the decision maker should decide between the available
options he has. He may decide to reuse the product. In some cases this decision incorporates the need
to repair the product. Another choice would be refurbishing while remanufacturing also would bring
the product back to an acceptable level of quality to go back to the life and be employed again. In
some cases the product is not in such a good condition that none of the above mentioned option is
appropriate for it. In such cases, decision maker may decide to use some parts and components of the
product or in a better way may decide on cannibalization. For elements which are suitable for reuse, a
possible choice would be recycling the materials. Incineration and recapturing energy contents of the
part is the next choice. The last option would be disposal, which in mostcases would be landfill.
(Thierry, Salomon, Van Nunen, & Van Wassemhove, 1995)
EoL planning should be considered together with EoL options for subassemblies. (H. B. Lee et al.,
2010) Options for EoL of a product were described in 3.3. These options can be applied to the product
at different levels, i.e. for each level of BoM different choices exist on the menu. For each one of
modules, components, subcomponents, parts and generally for any item of BoM, several choices
exist. Economic and environmental impacts do not only depend on a single item in BoM of product
but also on the links and connections between items. Usually a considerable amount of costs related to
an item recovery is contributed to dismantling and disassembly activities to separate it from other
items connected to it. So the final decision on a product EoL option requires consideration of existing
possible options for items existing in its BoM. Also the connection between them shall be taken into
account as sometimes it is more beneficial not to dismantle/disassemble some items and consider and
process them as a unit entity. Of course the last point incorporates more information about the
connection of items of BoM and correspondent costs and impacts in each option regarding such
connections.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


11

As an example lets assume that we have two possible actions, remanufacturing and disposal.
And we have a product with 3 components to decide for. The decision on product P1, depends on the
chosen options for its components. Clearly once we have made a decision on what we are going to do
with C1, C2 and C3, we would be able to decide on what to do with P1. For instance, if we decide to
dispose C3, we cannot reuse P1 anymore even with proper repair or remanufacturing but we have to
replace C3 with a new item, therefore the decision on P1 depends on the decision on the bottom layers
of the BoM. Sometimes the decision maker, instead of deciding to do a complete disassembly, may
decide to dismantle C1 but keep and reuse C2 & C3 together to avoid costs or impacts related to
connection between C2 and C3.
Considering above the mentioned items, the BDSS algorithm considers a bottom-up approach and for
each level determine the best option for each item and then the best option based on an aggregation of
the results will be recommended. BDSS algorithm, calculates impacts (economic & environmental)
for each item of the BoM, and for each of possible paths calculates the aggregated economic and
environmental consequence of that path in the tree.
3.6 An example of hierarchical decision model
So far we have briefly introduced different efforts reported in the literature regarding decision for end
of life recovery. Objectives, Options, Constraints and boundary conditions have been indicated. In this
section we present a simplified example, with fake data, to help the reader in comprehend the
concepts and parameters of the algorithm. Product A consists of two components (C1 & C2) each one
made of two raw materials. C1 and C2 required a disassembly activity to become separated from each
other.

producL A
C1
le Cu
C2
le Al
Figure 4 - sample product with 3
components

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


12

Figure 5 Example product A and hierarchical model.
Lets imagine product A which has reached its end of life and a remanufacturing decision should be
taken. The product consists of two components C1 and C2. Component C1 is consisted of 10kg of
Iron and 2kg of Copper (total weight 12kg). C2 weight is 5kg and is made of 1kg of Iron and 4kg of
Aluminium. A diagram showing the BoM of Product A is represented in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Hierarchical Decision model.
Possible EoL options are displayed at product and component level:
Product A has 4 options:
o Reuse
o Remanufacture (in case of refurbish, disassembly should be performed on A to access
C1 & C2)
o Material Recovery
4

o Disposal
Components C1 & C2 have 3 options:
o Reuse
o Remanufacture
o Material recovery
Part levels has only one option
o Material recovery (in this option, components C1 & C2 are disassembled to their
parts. Each part is consisting of one type of raw material i.e. Fe, Cu or Al. Then raw
materials will be recovered).

4
In case of material recovery different scenarios can be considered: product A can be sent for material
recovery as a whole or can be disassembled to C1 and C2 level so that components can be sent for
material recovery. Material recovery can be performed also at 3
rd
level of BoM (i.e. each component
being disassembled to material level).
A

8euse
8efurblsh
C1
8euse
8efurblsh
C2
8euse
8efurblsh
MaLerlal recovery
(M81)
C1
MaLerlal 8ecovery
(M82_C1)
le (10 kg)
MaLerlal 8ecovery
(M83_C1_le)
Cu (2 kg)
MaLerlal 8ecovery
(M83_C1_Cu)
C2
MaLerlal 8ecovery
(M82_C2)
le (1 kg)
MaLerlal 8ecovery
(M83_C2_le)
Al (4 kg)
MaLerlal 8ecovery
(M83_C2_Al)
ulsposal

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


13

Assumptions are generally the input information to the algorithm. In the previous section, we have
defined the structure and corresponding actions for each option for each entity in the BoM of product
A. Now here, we describe our assumed values for prices resulting in income for the remanufacturer,
costs and environmental impacts.
Revenues
One of the values and data categories considered as inputs to the algorithm is the price and income
resulting by selection and execution of each option.
In this example we assume the prices displayed in Table 2.

Raw material Unit price
Aluminum (Al) 4,00 !/kg
Ferro (Fe) 0,40 !/kg
Copper (Cu) 6,00 !/kg
Table 2 - assumptions for the example, price of raw materials
Considering different options for product A, the possible incoming revenue for each of them is
reported in Table 3.
Table 3 Assumptions for the example, revenue income at product level.
Refurbishing product A, requires disassembly of components C1 and C2. At component level,
alternatives are displayed in Table 4.
Recovery option Comments Revenue
C
1

Reuse Sell as is 1,50 !
Refurbish Comprises refurbishing 3,50 !
Material Recovery (MR2) Send for Recovery as is 2,00 !
C
2

Refurbish Comprises refurbishing 4,00 !
Table 4 - assumptions for the example, revenues coming from each of options of components C1 & C2
Costs and required activities for each option
In order to perform each of options some activities are required and shall be performed. These
activities in this example would be:
Disassembly of product A into components C1 and C2
Refurbishing components C1 and C2
Disassembly of component C1 into Fe and Cu parts
Disassembly of component C2 into Fe and Al parts
A summary of costs related to each of these activities is reported in
Recovery option for A Comments Revenue
Refurbish Comprises disassembly and refurbishing of C1 and C2 10,00 !
Disposal Send to landfill -2,00 !

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


14

Table 5.

Table 5 Assumptions for the example, costs of activities
Environmental impacts of each option
The environmental impact for different procedures and options is reported in Table 6. It is necessary
to consider that most of the options which try to reuse or recover the materials of the product, have
negative or small impact on environment as they are avoiding impact of a production of a new product
or component and hence the use of raw materials. In the Example, environmental impacts has been
displayed using single score indicator (Eco-Indicator 99); values for different options are fake to
demonstrate the eco-efficiency evaluator functioning.

BoM level Activity Environmental Impact
(Pt)
Product A
Reuse_A -7,00
Refurbish_A -3,00
Disposal_A +5,00
Material Recovery at first level (MR1) -1,50
Component
C1
Reuse_C1 -2,00
Refurbish_C1 -1,20
Material Recovery at first level (MR2_C1) -0,80
MR3_C1
Material Recovery C1_ Fe -0,20
Material Recovery C1_ Cu -0,90
Component
C2
Reuse_C2 -3,00
Refurbish_C2 -1,80
Material Recovery at first level (MR2_C2) -0,90
MR3_C2
Material Recovery C2_ Fe -0,02
Material Recovery C2_ Al -0,65
Table 6 - Assumptions for the example, environmental impacts of different options
The objective in our example has two dimensions, maximizing profit and minimizing environmental
impacts which are consequences of the chosen option. In our example there are multiple possible
options which are a combination of different options of different entities in the BoM.
Here below we have listed possible options:
1. Reusing product A (Reuse_A)
Activity Cost
Disassembly A to C1& C2 7,00 !
Refurbish_C1 2,00 !
Refurbish_C2 1,50 !
Disassembly C1 to Fe & Cu 3,00 !
Disassembly C2 to Fe & Al 10,00 !
Activity Cost
Disassembly A to C1& C2 7,00 !
Refurbish_C1 2,00 !
Refurbish_C2 1,50 !
Disassembly C1 to Fe & Cu 3,00 !
Disassembly C2 to Fe & Al 10,00 !

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


15

2. Refurbishing product A (Refurb_A)
3. Disposing product A (Dispose_A)
4. Material recovery for Product A (MR1)
5. Reusing both components C1 and C2 (Reuse_C1 & Reuse_C2)
6. Refurbishing both components C1 and C2 (Refurb_C1 & Refurb_C2)
7. Recovering materials of both components C1 and C2 (MR2)
8. Reusing C1 and refurbishing C2 (Reuse_C1 & Refurb_C2)
9. Refurbishing C1 and Reusing C2 (Refurb_C1 & Reuse_C2)
10. Reusing C1 and Material recovery for C2 (Reuse_C1 & MR2_C2)
11. Material recovery for C1 and Reusing C2 (MR2_C1 & Reuse_C2)
12. Refurbishing C1 and Material recovery for C2 (Refurb_C1 & MR2_C2)
13. Material recovery C1 and Refurbishing for C2 (MR2_C1 & Refurb_C2)
14. Material Recovery for both C1 and C2 at 3
rd
level (Fe, Cu & Al) (MR3)
There are other possible combinations but only the main ones have been displayed to present the use
of Eco-Efficiency evaluator in the context of hierarchical decision.
For each of these possible options, corresponding revenue, cost and environmental impacts can be
determined as a sum over the elements of activities required for each option (as shown in Table 7
below).
For example considering option 6 (Refurbishing both components C1 and C2):
Revenues for Refurb_C1 and Refurb_C2 are derived from Table 4 (3,5 + 4 = 7,5 !).
Costs of disassembly of A to C1& C2 (7!) and of refurbishing C1 and C2 (2! and 1,5!) are
given in Table 5.
Profits can be calculated as Revenues Costs, giving 7.5 (7.0 + 2.0 + 1.5) = -3!
Environmental impact is derived from Table 6 (-1,2 + -1,8 = -3Pt).

options Revenues Costs Profit
Env.
impact
1- Reuse_A 3,00 ! - 3,00 ! -7,00
2- Refurb_A
10,00 !
Disassembly Refurb_C1 Refurb_C1
-1,00 ! -3,00 7,00 ! 2,00 ! 2,00 !
3- Dispose_A -2,00 ! - -2,00 ! +5,00
4- MR1 1,00 ! - 1,00 ! -1,50
5- Reuse_C1
&
Reuse_C2 4,50 !
Disassembly Reuse_C1 Reuse_C2
-2,50 ! -5,00 7,00 ! - -
6- Refurb_C1
&
Refurb_C2 7,50 !
Disassembly Refurb_C1 Refurb_C2
-3,00 ! -3,00 7,00 ! 2,00 ! 1,50 !
7- MR2

7,00 !
Disassembly MR2_C1 MR2_C2
- -1,70 7,00 ! - -
8- Reuse_C1
&
Refurb_C2

5,50 !
Disassembly Reuse_C1 Refurb_C2
-3,00 ! -3,80 7,00 ! - 1,50 !
9- Refurb_C1
&
Reuse_C2

6,50 !
Disassembly Refurb_C1 Reuse_C2
-2,50 ! -3,20 7,00 ! 2,00 ! -

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


16

10- Reuse_C1
&
MR2_C2

5,00 !
Disassembly Reuse_C1 MR2_C2
-2,00 ! -2,90 7,00 ! - -
11- MR2_C1
&
Reuse_C2

4,50 !
Disassembly MR2_C1 Reuse_C2
-2,50 ! -3,80 7,00 ! - -
12- Refurb_C1
&
MR2_C2

6,50 !
Disassembly Refurb_C1 MR2_C2
-2,50 ! -2,10 7,00 ! 2,00 ! -
13- MR2_C1
&
Refurb_C2

6,00 !
Disassembly MR2_C1 Refurb_C2
-2,50 ! -2,60 7,00 ! - 1,50 !
14- Disassembl
y and
recycle
materials
32,4!
Disassembly
MR3_disassembly
12,40 ! - 1,77
MR3
Fe
MR3
Cu
MR3
Fe
MR3
Al
7,00 ! 1,5 ! 1,5 ! 5 ! 5 !
Table 7 Evaluation of different EoL alternatives.
In Figure 7 below different options are plotted into the eco-efficiency diagram; on Y-axis the
economic dimension of the table is plotted. On X-axis the environmental dimension is plotted in
reverse direction (negative values, indicating environmental benefits are on the right).
It should be noted how, for instance, given the actual data of the example, from a pure economic
perspective the most convenient option is the Disassembly & recycle material option (#14), but
from an environmental perspective the reuse (#1) is preferable.
Of course changing boundary conditions the ranking or positioning of alternatives vary on the
diagram.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


17

Figure 7 Eco-Efficency diagram for options of the example
As it can be seen in Figure 7, according to the preferences of the decision maker, importance of
environmental impacts as well as economic benefits can be combined and which enables a proper
decision to be made.
-4,0
-2,0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
-8,0 -7,0 -6,0 -3,0 -4,0 -3,0 -2,0 -1,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 6,0
!
"
#
$
%
&
"

(
)
*
+
*
,
-
)

.
"
+
"
/
0

!"#$%&" (+&-1*+,"+0$# 2,3$)0
1- 8euse_A 2- 8efurb_A 3- ulspose_A
4- M81 3- 8euse_C1 & 8euse_C2 6- 8efurb_C1 & 8efurb_C2
7- M82 8- 8euse_C1 & 8efurb_C2 9- 8efurb_C1 & 8euse_C2
10- 8euse_C1 & M82_C2 11- M82_C1 & 8euse_C2 12- 8efurb_C1 & M82_C2
13- M82_C1 & 8efurb_C2 14- ulsassembly

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


18

4 Algorithm for End-of-Life product strategy definition
This section describes main structure of algorithm to support decision at product or component level.
BDSS algorithms should have the following characteristics:
General i.e. applicable to different types of products and industrial sectors;
Multi objective i.e. considers jointly the economic and environmental dimension;
Multi-level supportive i.e. considers different levels of the BoM;
Interactive i.e. it should be able to interact with other systems, to use information coming
from the product. It shall allow the decision maker to contextualize the current status of the
product when it arrives in the company and the current status of the company at that time.
This algorithm shall be able to analyse several dimensional factors. The main dimensions of interests
in BDSS are the environmental and economic dimensions. Economically prices of the option, best and
worth case costs, influencing factors and several other variables such as stock level can be
important in decision making.
BDSSs approach toward these two dimensions is by applying activity based costing (ABC)
methodology for cost evaluation and streamlined LCA for environmental impact assessment.
The proposed algorithm is composed of four phases: Definition phase, initialization phase,
calculation phase and termination phase. (Figure 8)

Figure 8 - Phases of BDSS algorithm
The definition phase is the phase in which information is gathered for the algorithm, i.e. in this phase
BDSS interacts with other resources to get information about product, processes, influencing factors,
results of inspections which may block some of the potential EoL alternatives, prices and other
parameters related to the supply chain such as stock level for the product and its components.
Environmental related information is also collected in this phase. This process is mainly carried out
via interacting with other IT systems as well as the user.
Figure 9 represents steps of definition phase. Broadly speaking, in this phase two categories of
information are gathered from the user or other information systems.
1) Product specific information, which mainly come from inspection reports, beginning of life
and middle of life (usage phase) history as well as current information about demand and
stock level.
2) Product general information, which mainly cover costs, prices, importance factors regarding
stock-out and over-stock events, as well as activities carried out during the remanufacturing
process for different alternatives existing within the plant.
In this phase according to the BoM of the product, for each component possible options will be
addressed. Then for each option relevant activities occurring in the remanufacturing process to
implement such an option will be introduced.
The next piece of information is to choose the relevant influencing factors for each of these activities.
It should be determined whether a factor is blocking or not (f.i. the wear level of connection between
components could be critical for a proper disassembly) and if so, then whether the activity is blocking
the corresponding option or not (f.i. in case non-destructive disassembly due to the wear of connection
between components is impossible, the remanufacturing of such a product/component is impossible).
uene lnlual hase Calculauon hase
1ermlnauon
hase

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


19

Besides determining if whether a factor is blocking, the range and importance weight for each
influencing factor is inserted/updated to/ the system during the definition phase.
At the end of this phase, initial matrices of information will be updated according to system and
product specifications and requirements. More details of figure 10 are given in section 4.1.
In the initiation phase the algorithm updates and generates matrices for each existing component of
the BoM. Based on information provided in the definition phase, all elements which are necessary and
required for the algorithm will have a value, which is either determined previously or at this stage is
set to a neutral value like 0 or 1 depending on the operations using them.
The calculation phase determines, through iterations, the environmental value and economic value of
each object of the BoM following a logic of backward iterations: it is strarting with the maximum
level of the BoM (Bottom of BoM) and then it passes upward to the other levels until the first level
(i.e. the product) is reached.
Generally this phase comprises three steps:
1) Calculations of economic value for each option which is the difference between the resulting
revenue of an option an aggregation of different costs at different levels of the BoM and the
required activities in each.
2) Calculation of the environmental value for each option, this is also an aggregation of what
has been initialized for each item in BoM regarding the option of interests.
3) Determination of resolution method, i.e. how the algorithm is going to mix two dimensions of
objectives i.e. economic and environmental impacts.
In the last phase which is the termination phase, results for different possible options along the BoM
considering both economic and environmental impacts will be integrated and provided to the user
based on the decided resolution method.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


20

Figure 9 - Definition phase of BDSS algorithm, in this phase predefined matrices will be updated according to the
product state and other information which are available such as stock level, process, costs.

8oM
roducL
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
L
s

?es/no
ComponenL
C
p
L
l
o
n

?es/no
CpLlon
A
c
L
l
v
l
L
y

?es/no
AcLlvlLy
l
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
l
n
g

f
a
c
L
o
r

8locklng
?
AcLlvlLy
l
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
l
n
g

f
a
c
L
o
r

8locklng
?
CpLlon
A
c
L
l
v
l
L
y

uS flag
?
CpLlon
A
c
L
l
v
l
L
y

CosL
mln/MAx
CpLlon
A
c
L
l
v
l
L
y

LnvlronmenLal
lmpacL
mln/MAx
A
c
L
l
v
l
L
y

8ange
AcLlvlLy

l
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
l
n
g

f
a
c
L
o
r

WelghL
l
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
l
n
g

f
a
c
L
o
r

rlce
ComponenL
C
p
L
l
o
n

Margln
l
n
v

L
u
r
n
o
v
e
r

Class ln
Lhe
maLrlx
ComponenL
Level
ComponenL
S
L
o
c
k

l
e
v
e
l

% impact
Component
C
v
e
r

s
L
o
c
k

% impact
S
L
o
c
k

o
u
L

MAX cost
Component
C
v
e
r

s
L
o
c
k

MAX cost
S
t
o
c
k

o
u
t

Definition phase

Product specific info. Matrix

Product general info. Matrix

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


21

4.1 Steps of Definition phase
As described before in this phase the algorithm updates predefined matrices by interacting with the
user and other information systems. In this step the BoM for the product is defined for the system.
Default options for each component in the BoM are being defined; for each EoL option the activities
involved in the process need to be identified and selected. In this step the influencing factors in
execution of each of the activities which were defined in previous step, are also defined. A literature
review (Sundin, 2004) suggests the following items (ease of identification, ease of verification, ease
of access, ease of handling, ease of separation, ease of securing, ease of stacking and wear resistance)
as the influencing factors, but other elements can be also introduced by users of PREMANUS.
In this step, for each influencing factor of each activity, user can decide the importance of thiselement
(values for High, Medium and Low). A weight is also assigned for each pair of (activity, influencing
factor). This factor represents how much the influencing factor affects the move from the best case
cost to a worst case cost. Here the aim is define how much the level of influencing factor affects the
execution of the activity.
Blocking constraints need also to be defined at influencing factor and activity level: influencing
factors that can block the activity are defined. If the activity is blocking for one option, a flag = B
will be set. Clearly if any influencing factor is blocking this activity and its value is set to blocking
then the algorithm will deselect the option.
In order to understand if disassembly is needed to have access to lower level of BoM, a flag DS is
also defined. If an option has the flag= DS for an activity this means that it is necessary to drill
down in the BoM.
Best case costs and the worst case costs are also defined, as well as revenues at product or component
level. The same procedure will be carried-out for environmental impacts. i.e. steps which have been
carried out so far, are repeated this time costs are replaced by environmental impacts. The required
information regarding impacts of each option for each object is determined by performing a
streamlined LCA.
4.2 Steps of calculation & termination phase
The algorithm has been divided into two groups of procedures: the first group is related to the
maximum level of the BoM i.e. bottom of BoM, which is i=Imax; the second group is related to the
upper levels of the BoM. In the Algorithm the calculation of Economic Value (V
omi
) and
Environmental Impacts (EI
omi
) for each level of BoM are carried out. The algorithm allows for
calculation of such elements according to different methodologies and approaches, as will be done in
task 5.2 and 5.3.
4.2.1 Algorithm for the maximum level of BoM
the algorithm starts with the bottom BoM level
1) i=Imax
increment of the object index
2) m
i
=m +1
Initialize the index of the option for the object mi
3) o
mi
= 0
Select the option of the object mi of the level i
4) o
mi
= o
mi
+1
It is selected the activity of option omi for the object mi
5) k
i
=k
i
+1

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


22

It is selected the influencing factor of the activity ki
6) f
ki
=f
ki
+1
It is verified if the influencing factor is in a worst case and It is blocking for the activity ki
7) if vf
ki
=0
and
bf
ki
=0 then
It is verified if the activity ki is blocking for the option omi
8) if FLAG= B then
the activity ki is blocking for the option mi and then the option is deselected
I. deselect o
mi

iteration of the blocking verification
II. go to the 4
th
step
III. end if
increment of the influencing factor index
9) go to the 6
th
step until f
ki
=f
kmax

increment of the activity index
10) go to the 5
th
step until k
i
=Kmax
the activity ki is not blocking for the option mi and then It is calculated the economic value
and the environmental value
11) Calculation of V
omi
;EI
omi

the couple of Vomi and EIomi are added to the set of the solutions related to the object mi of
the level I
12) Add !
!"!!
! !
!"!!
! !
!"#
! !"
!"#

increment of the option index
13) Go to the 4
th
step until o
mi
= Omaxmi
application of the resolution method to the set of solution couples of the object mi
14) Apply the resolution method to S
mi,I
! S
*
mi,i

15) Go to the 2nd step until mi = M
maxi

4.2.2 Algorithm for other levels
decrement of the level index
16) i= i-1
17) mi = mi +1
It is initialized the index of the option for the object mi
18) o
mi
= 0
It is selected the option of the object mi of the level i
19) o
mi
= o
mi
+1
It is selected the activity of option omi for the object mi
20) ki=ki+1
It is selected the influencing factor of the activity ki
21) f
ki
=f
ki
+1
It is verified if the influencing factor is in a worst case and It is blocking for the activity ki
22) if vfki=0 and bfki=0 then
It is verified if the activity ki is blocking for the option omi
I. if FLAG= B then
the activity ki is blocking for the option mi and then the option is deselected
II. .deselect omi
iteration of the blocking verification
III. go to the 4th step
IV. end if

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


23

increment of the influencing factor index
23) go to the 20
th
step until f
ki
=f
kmax

increment of the activity index
24) go to the 19
th
step until ki=Kmax
the activity ki is not blocking for the option mi and for the level lower than the last level It is
verified if the object has son/sons in the BoM
25) if Flag o
mi
=DS then
It is calculated the economic value and the environmental value
I. Calculation of Vomi ; EIomi
It is added to the economic value and environmental value of the object also the values
of the son/sons, in the BoM, of the object analysed
II. Add !
!"#
! !"
!"#
! !
!"!!
!
!"#
!"#$
!" !"!#$%&'

the couple of V
omi
and EI
omi
are added to the set of the solutions related to the object mi
of the level i
III. Add !
!"!!
! !
!"!!
! !
!"#
! !"
!"#

if It is verified that the object has no son/sons in the BoM then It is calculated the economic
value and the environmental value without the sons value
26) else Calculation of V
omi
;EI
omi

the couple of Vomi and EIomi without the sons values is added to the set of the solutions
related to the object mi of the level i
27) Add !
!"!!
! !
!"!!
! !
!"#
! !"
!!"

increment of the option index
28) Go to the 18
th
step until o
mi
= Omax
mi

application of the resolution method to the set of solution couples of the object mi
29) Apply the resolution method to S
mi,I
! S
*
mi,i

30) go to the 16
th
step until m
i
= Mmax
i

It is verified if It is the first level of the BoM and if It is true then the solution chosen by the
resolution method in the 28 step is the optimal couple solution of the model
31) If i=1then !
!
! !
!
! !
!"!!
!

It is false the verification and It is decrement the level index
32) else Go to the 15
th
step until i=1
TERMINATION PHASE OF THE MODEL
33) End

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


24

5 Environmental Impacts assessment
This section highlights the main steps to assess environmental impacts of remanufacturing processes,
providing a brief overview of the context, problems and complexities of LCA techniques and
discussing so-called Streamlined methodologies and multi-use-phase environmental impacts. The
effects of these techniques on BDSS will be considered. An overview of available databases, tools and
services for the purpose of impacts assessments is presented, building on existing work done under
the Life Cycle Thinking coordinated by Joint Research Centre of EU. These contents in addition to
ELCD
5
will be the main resources and references for PREMANUS BDSS model in assessing
environmental impacts of EoL recovery. Those elements represent the foundation for assessment
carried out in Task 5.2 and 5.3 of PREMANUS.
Traditional product development was trying to address costs, functionality and manufacturability of
products. Nowadays sustainability is another dimension. Changes in products, legislations and other
aspects, have increased the need to recover products at the end of their life. Product recovery has
different motives and the decision maker is aiming to satisfy these motives. Seitz, (2007) summarizes
motives for product recovery into 3 categories:
ethical and moral responsibility,
legislations,
direct economic motive.
Products experience several life stages from cradle to the grave and potentially multiple use phases
and recovery in between. To assess environmental impacts of a product, its information across all life
stages shall be considered: if an assessment concentrates only on one stage of product life cycle for
example its production stage or the use phase, the results may be misleading and while used, transfer
the impact from one stage to another. Environmental implications of the whole supply-chain of
products, goods and services, their use, and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from cradle
to grave should be considered (ILCD, 2011).
5.1 Introduction to LCA
LCA is a scientific, structured and comprehensive method that is internationally standardised in ISO
14040 and 14044. Important characteristic of LCA is its holistic approach products/processes and
their functions, considering upstream and downstream activities (Introduction to LCA, 2012). LCA
strength is in avoiding the unwanted shifting of burdens, where reducing one kind of impact leads to
an increase in another. It evaluates consumed resources, emissions and health impacts as well as
environment impacts associated with a product.
LCA mainly helps to identify the best environmental options by quantifying environmental impacts,
benefits and trade-offs. LCA has several types according to the life span which is covered during the
assessment. In next section we briefly introduce each one and indicate the common term used for it.
There are several types of LCA in accordance to stages under assessment (Segers, 2011):
1. From cradle to gate (i.e. from mines to the gate at the warehouse)
2. From gate to gate (i.e. to calculate the eco-burden of a manufacturing facility)
3. From gate to grave (i.e. to calculate End of Life scenarios)

5
European Reference Life Cycle Database

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


25

4. From cradle to grave (i.e. to calculate the total eco-burden of a product system from mine to
end of life)
5. From cradle to cradle (closing the loop in the total product system)

Figure 10 Different types of LCA
LCA is calculated by measuring and recording input from (resources such as energy, water, raw
materials,) and outputs to the environment (e.g. emissions such as CO
2
, Wastes, waste water,...).
In a Life Cycle Assessment, the emissions and resources consumed linked to a specific product are
compiled and documented in a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI). An impact assessment is then performed,
generally considering three areas of protection: human health, natural environment, and issues related
to natural resource use. (ILCD, 2011). An LCA comprises five main phases: goal definition, scope
definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. A reporting and review
completes these 5 steps. (ILCD, 2011)

Figure 11 Standard LCA phases.
Manufacturing Cradle Grave
1.Cradle
to gate
3.Gate to
grave
2.Gate to gate
4. Cradle to grave
5. Cradle to cradle (closing the loop)

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


26

In goal definition, decision context, the intended applications and the intended audience of the LCA
are determined. The need for comparative studies is also addressed. Also any other party which may
be affected by the result of the study is distinguished at this stage.
The scope definition comprises clearly describing study related conditions and constraints i.e. the
scope of the system under assessment (e.g. a specific brand), the functions of this system, the
functional unit that is compared as the basis for a fair comparison, the life cycle stages to be assessed,
the environmental impacts to be investigated, the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods to
be incorporated, the interpretation approaches to be used, the assumptions made about data and
method issues, value choices, limitations, data quality requirements, type of critical review if any, and
the type and format of the report required for the LCA. Clearly all of these items should be aligned
with the study goal.
Data collection is addressed in The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis. This data is related to the
resources used and emissions for the next process steps (e.g. manufacturing and packaging of a
product), and the actual modelling of the life cycle of the analysed system. Background data is also
included here. The first step of data validation will be carried out here.
In LCIA phase, LCI results are assigned to the selected impact categories. Categories such as climate
change, acidification, human health, aquatic eco-toxicity, material resource depletion, land use, etc.
are some examples. Then accordingly, potential environmental impacts in each category will be
calculated.
During the interpretation phase, first significant issues are identified (e.g. the main processes and
resources/emissions that quantitatively contribute most to the results): results of the LCI and LCIA
phases are used. The interpretation comprises completeness, sensitivity and consistency analysis. Also
the uncertainty and accuracy of the LCA outputs are checked. Then conclusion and recommendations
are derived.
It is anyway difficult to perform a full LCA, i.e. to carry on an exact LCA covering all aspects of
products for the whole life cycle in details. This is due to the fact that constructing a LCA needs a lot
of information and is time consuming and this all are added to the uncertainty in information
especially during the use phase (Arena, Azzone, & Conte, 2013; Hur, Lee, Ryu, & Kwon, 2005;
Manmek, Kara, & Engineering, 2006). Nevertheless different attempts have been carried out to assess
environmental impacts of products. Based on the ISO standards, LCA has matured over the past
decade (Kumar, Azapagic, Schepelmann, & Ritthoff, 2010; Taisch, Cammarino, & Cassina, 2011). It
has not yet reached mainstream use in industry, though carbon-footprint labelling schemes are
becoming more established as an application based on life cycle information. The main reasons (Wolf
et al., 2012) for this situation are:
Reproducibility: results and recommendations which are being provided by current LCA, are
dependent to practitioners interpretations in ISO standard framework.
LCI data availability and quality: the quality and robustness of decision support is limited
due to relatively low access to high quality and consistent data.
Uncertainty of impact assessment methods and factors: There is yet no robust and fully
practice-tested method.
Quality assurance: selection of qualified and independent reviewers and practitioners is not
straight forward and clear. Also guidelines on how the process of review should be conducted
and the scope of study methods in order to have a widely accepted quality assurance for the
life cycle data and assessment practices do not exist.
Cost and complexity/lack of practicality: Reliable LCAs are often perceived to be too
resource and time consuming, requiring sometimes dedicated experts.
Those aspects lead to two main streams of actions:

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


27

Standardization of data sources and methodologies (Handbook, Sala, & Pennington, 2012;
Holsteijn et al., 2011; Hur et al., 2005; ILCD, 2011; Li, 2005; Wolf et al., 2012).
Simplification by selecting most dominant factors in environmental impacts and accepting
minimal errors and deviation (Arena et al., 2013; Garetti & Taisch, 2012; Hur et al., 2005;
Manmek et al., 2006; Umeda et al., 2012).
5.2 Streamlined LCA
As explained in the previous section, conducting a full LCA, comprises some problems, LCA requires
a reasonable amount of data which may not be available. Even though if such data is available it
would be a time consuming and costly task to gather and analyse it. To avoid exhaustive data
gathering and processing, some simplified methods have been introduced. Several attempts and
different versions of simplified or streamlined LCA (SLCA) has been proposed so far (Arena et al.,
2013; Eur 24708 en - 2010, 2010; Handbook & Assessment, 2010; Hochschorner & Finnveden, 2003;
Hunt, Boguski, Weitz, & Sharma, 1998; Hur et al., 2005; Kumar et al., 2010; Li, 2005; Manmek et al.,
2006; Segers, 2011; Weitz, Todd, Curran, & Malkin, 1996).
Broadly speaking, streamlining incorporates two approaches:
the first involves modifying the methodology used to make it less burdensome to implement,
the second involves facilitating the process of performing an LCA, primarily by making data
more readily available to LCA practitioners.
Considering the group of approaches Weitz, Todd, Curran, & Malkin, (1996) classified different
approaches to streamlining voiced by their respondents to be included in one of the following items:
Narrowing the boundaries of the study, particularly during the inventory stage
Targeting the study on issues of greatest interest
Using more readily available data, including qualitative data.

According to Weitz, Todd, Curran, & Malkin, (1996):
Academicians approach to streamlining is via:
o Drawing boundaries at the firm door (i.e., gate to gate) and dealing with the upstream
and downstream impacts on a very qualitative basis, relating potential impacts to
environmental issues.
o Scoping each product according to budget and areas which the companies can
directly affect.
o Assessing the significant life cycle stages and impacts appropriate to the product or
process
Consultants: emphasis on eliminating indirect secondary and tertiary energy and materials.
Government Agencies: recommend to evaluate life cycle stages that are being affected while
moving from one option to another one.
Industries are interested in quantification, use of surrogate data as much as possible,
collecting all the life cycle inventory data first and then streamlining it in order to focus on the
steps of life cycle that is possible to specify and control.

Generally in SLCA, reference drivers are selected. Usually the impacts of the units of study for such
drivers or sub categories/groups of variables which affect these drivers, are available. An impact can
be calculated by measuring the weight of the driver in the system under study and then looking up in
the datasets to calculate the relative impact of the driver of interest accordingly.
Manmek et al., (2006) recommends five stages in the common life cycle: materials used,
manufacturing processes, use phase and EoL options. Transportation can be involved across all

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


28

stages. Within each stage the environmental impact can be evaluated with respect to both resource
usage and emissions. A metric for each and the corresponding weight for that driver is being
multiplied by the correspondent impact measure which is available in a predefined databases,
obtained from averages of all available processes and items included in LCI.
5.3 Multi-use-phase environmental impacts
In order to understand multi-use-phase products we need to first consider the stages within a life
cycle. It can be seen from Figure 12, a product during its life cycle passes different stages. And during
each stage, has impacts on environment.

Figure 12 - life cycle of a new product adapted from (Amaya et al., 2010)
At different stages, different impacts exist. In 1st step, raw material extraction and preliminary
processes, natural resources are used and clearly using natural resources imposes impacts on the
environment by depletion of natural resources. The same also happens to the rest steps of 2, 3 & 4.
Distribution and logistics costs are also problematic and may affect the environment by releasing
emissions to the environment. Product use phase has also considerable effect and impacts on the
environment. Energy consumption, waste, emission and pollutions produced by this product affects
the environment. At the end of the product life, depending how the product is recovered, different
impacts can be considered for the future.
The environmental interest of end of life recovery comes from lower energy and material compared to
a production of a new product. but it is also necessary to assess the whole life cycle for the recovered
product to verify if environmental impacts have increased by using remanufacturing (or processes
under any other sort of EoL options). By choosing an option we avoid the production of a new
product/component or intake of raw materials (in case of recycling or remanufacturing). In some
cases, the net impact of recovery process may become negative. This is due to the fact that by
replacing a new product/material with the recovered one will remove the impact of producing a new
one.
Current LCA approaches and methodologies often cover linear LCA requirement, i.e. they cover
single use phase life cycles and do not cover multiple use phase Life Cycle Assessment studies.
On the other hand, in the case of product remanufacturing products realize different number of usage
phases (Figure 13). While performing lifecycle assessment, different parameters which can be
considered in the lifecycle of the assessed product are (Amaya et al., 2010):
1. The number of use phases of the product. i.e. the percentage of the product which are going
to experience the use case of interest.
2. The number of products not appropriate for remanufacturing, this is a complement to number
1, here we guess which percentage of the products are going to be recycled or landfilled.
3. The number of products/components recollected in the reverse logistic model. i.e. we need to
estimate the percentage of the product which is retrieved according to the existing (or
predicted future) reverse logistics structure.
1-8aw
maLerlal
exLracuon &
prellmlnary
processes
2-
ManufacLurlng
& assembly of
Lhe
componenLs
3-
ComponenLs
dlsLrlbuuon
4-roducL
assembly
3-roducL
dlsLrlbuuo
n
6-roducL
use
7-8everse
Loglsucs
8-Lnd of
Llfe

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


29

4. The transportation distances. This item completes above variable and is related to the reverse
logistics.

Figure 13 Multiple use phases from Amaya et al., 2010.
Traditional LCA approaches with single-use-stage will be affected if the product is recovered. Product
recovery depending on the selected option for EoL treatment, some of the impacts on environment
will be avoided while some new ones will be introduced and imposed thereby. The following table
represents some of these changes.

Optio
n
Level of
Disassembly
Effect on LCA
Avoiding Imposing
Product Li f e Cycl e End of Use

End of l i f e
Raw material extraction &
preliminary processes
Manufacturing & assembly of
the components
Components distribution
Product assembly
Product distribution
Product use Re-use Recycle

Re-use Remanufacturing Recycle
Number of
use phases
Remanufacturing
Product recovery
Transportation
distance
%Net Remanufacturable

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


30

R
e
p
a
i
r

Product level A new
product except
replaced items
Reverse Logistics
Repairing Process impacts
Replaced items waste
Differences in new use life between a repaired and a
totally new one
R
e
f
u
r
b
i
s
h
i
n
g

module level A new
product except
replaced
modules
Reverse Logistics
Refurbishing Process impacts
Replaced modules (waste + resources)
Differences in new use life between a repaired and a
totally new one
R
e
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

Part level New
product/parts/co
mponents
Reverse Logistics
Remanufacturing Process impacts
Replaced parts (waste + resources)
C
a
n
n
i
b
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

Selective
retrieval of
parts
New
parts/recycling
for the rest
Reverse Logistics
Cannibalization Process impacts
Non selected parts (recycle or disposal impacts)
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g

Material level New
materials

Reverse Logistics
Recycling process impacts
Disposal of remaining materials
Table 8 Effects of EoL options.

5.4 Available tools & databases
Many tools and databases are available to facilitate and/or execute LCA. European Union has
developed an information Hub which includes life cycle thinking based data, tools and services. These
information are cost free and independent and can be find at the address
http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/toolList.vm
Two main resources which can be found in this information HUB are:
The European ELCD database with the Commission's "European Reference Life Cycle
Database" (ELCD) of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data sets, expectedto contribute data to the
upcoming International ILCD Data Network (Wolf et al., 2012)
LCA Resources Directory of Life Cycle Assessment studies (2012) and life cycle oriented
services, tools and third party databases
Tables in Annex 1 summarize these resources directory of DBs and Tools.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


31

6 Implementation of algorithms into BDSS: environmental perspective
While assessing the environmental impacts of EoL recovery, it is necessary to consider the process
and products which are being replaced by recovery, e.g. if a product is remanufactured the
remanufacturing process will avoid production of a new product. This means that the total impacts
related to the new product need to be deducted from the impacts which the remanufacturing process
together the use phase of the renovated item impose upon the environment.
In the algorithm for the BDSS of PREMANUS, the differences between possible options are being
taken into account for assessment. Detailed assessment on the basis of Use Case data will be
performed in task 5.2. The assessment is going to be performed for two phases:
In the first phase the environmental impact of remanufacturing processes (gate to gate LCA)
as such will be considered; in this phase differences between processes and resources required
to produce a complete remanufactured unit is assessed.
In the second phase the impacts of avoided production and potential differences between new
products/components and a remanufactured one will be evaluated.
6.1 Adaptation to algorithm to use cases
Streamlining the LCA according to BDSS specifications is performed from different points of view.
Practicality, comprehensiveness, acceptance and conformity to scientific measures as well as
usefulness and simplicity are different factors shall be taken into account. The table below shows how
the Streamlining approaches defined in section 5.2 affect BDSS

Approach toward streamlining Implications for BDSS
Drawing boundaries at the firm door
(i.e., gate to gate) and dealing with
the upstream and downstream
impacts on a qualitative basis,
relating potential impacts to
environmental issues.
The most important one is gate to gate during remanufacturing.
Secondly the new use phase would be important and
performances and impacts intensity shall be compared to
justify results of gate to gate LCA.
Scoping product and processes
according to areas which the
decision maker can directly affect.
Not asking for further evaluation study, or obligations to carry
out LCA for new products. Some standard averages may be
developed or retrieved from literature.
Assessing the significant life cycle
stages and impacts appropriate to
the product or process.
The significant life cycle stages are recovery stage the most
and with lower importance the use phase after recovery).
Eliminating indirect secondary and
tertiary energy and materials.
Just direct consumption of water, energy and main raw
materials and main waste generated into processes is
considered.
Evaluate life cycle stages that are
being affected while evaluating
different alternatives.
Mainly recovery (remanufacturing stage) is affected.
If the recovered product does not perform the same as a new
one, the use phase will be also important.
In any case the recovered item (impacts and performances)
shall be compared with the new one which is being replaced by
recovery.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


32

Use of surrogate data as much as
possible.
Available data sources (ELCD, JRC reference,) will be used
to quantify the impacts.
Focus on the steps of life cycle that
is possible to specify and control.
Focus on possible options and their consequences.
Table 9 Streamlined activities in Environmental Impact assessment for use cases.
The system under evaluation is the product which has reached its End of Life. Assessment is carried
out on the product and its components. Here the comparison is made between different options for
product recovery as shown in table 7. Clearly all options are compared with the base scenario which is
disposal of available item and using a totally new one. Environmental impacts which are being
investigated by BDSS are energy consumption, water consumption and waste generation. The life
cycle stages which are covered are the recovery phase e.g. remanufacturing processes, recycling
processes and the use cycle (reuse) phases. The method and data used are based on ILCD guidelines
where possible.
Activities and resources needed for each option will be evaluated and gathered per each Use Case.
Accordingly the generic environmental impact profile of each activity will be retrieved from available
databases chosen from the tables in Annex 1.
Energy consumption, water consumption and waste and emission generation are considered for each
activity. Then the impact for an option for the recovery phase is analysed considering these items.
For the use case, a profile for the product shall be provided which compares relative use phase
performance (e.g. life duration) comparing to a new product as well as relative emission and energy
consumption comparing to a new product. These items will be used to justify the results for
comparison.
Activities for this phase are as follow:
Determine product materials and evaluate them according to lookup tables (metagroups such
as metals, plastic, ).
Look up impact related to production of each, as well as disposal of each. And drive the
correspondent impact value.
Evaluate recovering (e.g. remanufacturing) impacts of processes correspondent with each
option.
Such an approach is done through the bottom up approach in the BoM described in section 4 of the
deliverable allowing the definition of Eco-Efficiency table at product and at component level.

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


33

7 Annex 1 Tools and databases for impact assessment
7.1 Tools
Tool + version N Supplier Instruments
Languages
of Interface
AirConLCA Centre for Water and Waste
Technology

English
AIST-LCA Ver.4 National Institute of
Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology
(AIST)
Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle inventory
(LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA), Product
stewardship, supply chain management
Japanese
BEES 3.0d National Institute of
Standards and Technology
(NIST)
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle
inventory (LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA),
Life cycle costing (LCC)
English
DPL 1.0 IVAM University of
Amsterdam bv

Dutch
e!Sankey 1.0 ifu Hamburg GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
inventory (LCI), Life cycleengineering (LCE),
Life cycle assessment (LCA), Substance/material
flow analysis (SFA/MFA), Design for
environment (DfE, DfR), Life cycle
sustainability assessment (LCS), Life cycle
costing (LCC)
English
Eco-Bat 2.1 Haute Ecole d'Ingnierie et
de Gestion du Canton de
Vaud
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Design for
environment (DfE, DfR)
French,
Italian,
English
Eco-Quantum IVAM University of
Amsterdam bv

Dutch
ECODESIGN X-Pro
v1.0
EcoMundo Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle
Legal Compliance checks
English
ecoinvent waste
disposal inventory
tools v1.0
Doka Life Cycle
Assessments (Doka
Okobilanzen)
Life cycle inventory (LCI) English
EcoScan 3.1 TNO Built Environment &
Geosciences
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Design for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
English
EIME V2.4 Bureau Veritas CODDE Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle
Design for environment (DfE, DfR)
English
EIME V3.0 Bureau Veritas CODDE Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle
Design for environment (DfE, DfR), Legal
Complience checks
English
Environmental Impact
Estimator V3.0.2
Athena Sustainable
Materials Institute
assessment (LCA), Design for environment
(DfE, DfR)
English
EPD Tools Suit 2007 ITKE Enviornmental
Technology Inc.
Life cycle inventory (LCI) Chinese
eVerdEE v.1.0 ENEA - Italian National
Agency for New
Technology, Energy and
the Environment
(DfE, DfR)
Spanish,
Italian,
German,
English

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


34

Languages
of Interface
eVerdEE v.2.0 ENEA - Italian National
Agency for New
the Environment
(DfE, DfR)
Italian,
English
GaBi 4.2 PE International GmbH social LCA, Life cycle management (LCM), Life
cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle
environment (DfE, DfR), Legal Complience
checks, Product stewardship, supply chain
management, Life cycle sustainability
assessment (LCS), Life cycle costing (LCC)
Japanese,
Spanish,
Portuguese,
Danish, Thai,
Chinese,
German,
English
GaBi DfX PE International GmbH social LCA, Life cycle management (LCM), Life
environment (DfE, DfR), Legal Complience
checks, Product stewardship, supply chain
management, Life cycle sustainability
assessment (LCS), Life cycle costing (LCC)
Japanese,
Spanish,
Portuguese,
Chinese,
German,
English
GaBi lite PE International GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
(LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA),
Substance/material flow analysis (SFA/MFA),
Design for environment (DfE, DfR), Product
German,
English
GEMIS version 4.4 Oeko-Institut (Institute for
applied Ecology),
Darmstadt Office

Spanish,
Czech,
German,
English
Green-E, version 1.0 Quantis - Sustainability
counts
social LCA, Life cycle management (LCM), Life
cycle assessment (LCA), Design for environment
(DfE, DfR), Life cycle sustainability assessment
(LCS), Life cycle costing (LCC)
English
JEMAI-LCA Pro ver.2 Japan Environmental
Management Association
for Industry (JEMAI)
inventory (LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA)
Japanese,
English
KCL-ECO 4.0 Oy Keskuslaboratorio-
Centrallaboratorium Ab,
KCL
(LCI), Life cycleengineering (LCE), Life cycle
assessment (LCA), Substance/material flow
analysis (SFA/MFA), Design for environment
(DfE, DfR), Product stewardship, supply chain
management
English
LCA - Evaluator 2.0 GreenDeltaTC GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle assessment
(LCA)
English
LEGEP 1.2 LEGEP Software GmbH social LCA, Life cycle management (LCM), Life
cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life
cycleengineering (LCE), Life cycle assessment
(LCA), Design for environment (DfE, DfR), Life
cycle sustainability assessment (LCS), Life cycle
costing (LCC)
Italian,
German
LTE OGIP; Version
5.0; Build-Number
t.h.e. Software GmbH Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), Life cycle
German

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


35

Languages
of Interface
2092; 2005/12/12 Design for environment (DfE, DfR), Life cycle
costing (LCC)
Modular MSWI Model
1.0
GreenDeltaTC GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
(DfE, DfR), Life cycle costing (LCC)
English
Prototype Demolition
Waste Decision Tool 1
IVAM University of
Amsterdam bv
Dutch
REGIS 2.3 sinum AG Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
Legal Complience checks, Life cycle
costing (LCC)
Japanese,
Spanish,
German,
English
Sabento 1.1 ifu Hamburg GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
stewardship, supply chain management, Life
cycle sustainability assessment (LCS), Life cycle
costing (LCC)
German,
English
SALCA-animal 1.0 Agroscope Reckenholz-
Tnikon Research Station
ART
Life cycle inventory (LCI) German
SALCA-biodiversity
061
Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
inventory (LCI)
German
SALCA-biodiversity
1.0
ART
inventory (LCI)
German
SALCA-crop 061 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
German
SALCA-crop 2.02 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
German
SALCA-erosion 061 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
SALCA-erosion 2.0 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
SALCA-farm 1.31 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
German
SALCA-farm 2.1 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
German
SALCA-heavy metals
061
ART

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


36

Languages
of Interface
SALCA-heavy metals
1.0
ART
SALCA-nitrate 061 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
SALCA-nitrate 4.0 Agroscope Reckenholz-
ART
SALCA-soil quality
061
ART
inventory (LCI)
German
SALCA-soil quality
1.1
ART
inventory (LCI)
German
SankeyEditor 3.0 STENUM GmbH

English
SimaPro 7 PR Consultants B.V. social LCA, Life cycle management (LCM), Life
environment (DfE, DfR), Product stewardship,
supply chain management, Life cycle
costing (LCC)
Japanese,
Spanish,
Danish,
Greek,
French,
Italian,
German,
Dutch,
English
STAN 1.1.3 - Software
for Substance Flow
Analysis
Vienna University of
Technology
Substance/material flow analysis (SFA/MFA) German,
English
TEAM 4.5 Ecobilan -
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Design for environment (DfE, DfR), Legal
Complience checks, Product stewardship, supply
chain management, Life cycle costing (LCC)
English
TEAM Web
Simulator
Ecobilan -
(LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA), Design for
environment (DfE, DfR), Product stewardship,
supply chain management, Life cycle costing
(LCC)

TESPI ENEA - Italian National
Agency for New
the Environment
Design for environment (DfE, DfR) Italian,
English
The Boustead Model
5.0.12
Boustead Consulting
Limited
English
trainEE GreenDeltaTC GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
(DfE, DfR), Product stewardship, supply chain
management, Life cycle costing (LCC)
English
Umberto 5.5 ifu Hamburg GmbH Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
English

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


37

Languages
of Interface
analysis (SFA/MFA), Product stewardship,
supply chain management, Life cycle
costing (LCC)
USES-LCA Radboud University
Nijmegen
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) English
Verdee ENEA - Italian National
Agency for New
the Environment
Life cycle management (LCM), Design for
Italian
WAMPS, betaversion IVL Swedish
Environmental Research
Institute Ltd

English
WISARD 4.0 Ecobilan -
(LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA), Product
stewardship, supply chain management, Life
cycle costing (LCC)
French,
English
WRATE UK Environment Agency Life cycle management (LCM), Life cycle
(LCI), Life cycle assessment (LCA), Life cycle
sustainability assessment (LCS)
English

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


38

7.2 Databases
Database + version Supplier Database Languages
CPM LCA Database Center for Environmental Assessment of Product and
Material Systems - CPM
English
DEAM Ecobilan - PricewaterhouseCoopers English
DEAM Impact Ecobilan - PricewaterhouseCoopers English
DIM 1.0 ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technology,
Energy and the Environment
Italian English
ECODESIGN X-Pro database
V1.0
EcoMundo English
ecoinvent Data v1.3 ecoinvent Centre Japanese English
EIME V8.0 Bureau Veritas CODDE Spanish French English
EIME V9.0 Bureau Veritas CODDE Spanish French English
erawsdf AQUA+TECH Specialities Aymara
esu-services database v1 ESU-services Ltd. German English
Eurofer data sets EUROFER English
GaBi databases 2006 PE International GmbH Japanese German
English
GEMIS 4.4 Oeko-Institut (Institute for applied Ecology), Darmstadt
Office
Spanish Czech German
English
IO-database for Denmark 1999 2.-0 LCA consultants English
IVAM LCA Data 4.04 IVAM University of Amsterdam bv English
KCL EcoData Oy Keskuslaboratorio-Centrallaboratorium Ab, KCL English
LC Data Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe German English
LCA Database for the Forest
Wood Sector
Bundesforschungsanstalt fr Forst- und Holzwirtschaft
(BFH)

LCA_sostenipra_v.1.0 Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona (UAB) Spanish Catalan
English
MFA_sostenipra_v.1.0 Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona (UAB) Spanish Catalan
English
Option data pack National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology (AIST)
Japanese
PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles PlasticsEurope English
ProBas Umweltbundesamt German
Sabento library 1.1 ifu Hamburg GmbH German English
SALCA 061 Agroscope Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART German English
SALCA 071 Agroscope Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART German English
SimaPro database PR Consultants B.V. English
sirAdos 1.2. LEGEP Software GmbH German
The Boustead Model 5.0.12 Boustead Consulting Limited English

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


39

Database + version Supplier Database Languages
Umberto library 5.5 ifu Hamburg GmbH German English
US Life Cycle Inventory Database Athena Sustainable Materials Institute English
Waste Technologies Data Centre UK Environment Agency English

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


40

8 Bibliography
Amaya, J. (G-S. L., Zwolinski, P. (G-S. L., & Brissaud, D. (G-S. L. (2010). ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS OF REMANUFACTURING: THE CASE STUDY OF THE TRUCK INJECTOR
Jorge Amaya, Peggy Zwolinski, Daniel Brissaud G-SCOP Laboratory, Grenoble, France.
Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Conte, A. (2013). A streamlined LCA framework to support early decision
making in vehicle development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41, 105113.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.031
Bufardi, a., Gheorghe, R., Kiritsis, D., & Xirouchakis, P. (2004). Multicriteria decision-aid approach
for product end-of-life alternative selection. International Journal of Production Research,
42(16), 31393157. doi:10.1080/00207540410001699192
Chan, J. W. K. (2008). Product end-of-life options selection: grey relational analysis approach.
International Journal of Production Research, 46(11), 28892912.
doi:10.1080/00207540601043124
Das, S., & Yedlarajiah, D. (2002). An integer programming model for prescribing material recovery
strategies. Conference Record 2002 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment (Cat. No.02CH37273), 118122. doi:10.1109/ISEE.2002.1003251
Dehghanian, F., & Mansour, S. (2009). Designing sustainable recovery network of end-of-life
products using genetic algorithm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(10), 559570.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.04.007
Eur 24708 en - 2010. (2010). doi:10.2788/38479
Fernandez, I., Puente, J., Garcia, N., & Gomez, A. (2008). A Decision-Making Support System on a
Products Recovery Management Framework. A Fuzzy Approach. Concurrent Engineering,
16(2), 129138. doi:10.1177/1063293X08092486
Garetti, M., & Taisch, M. (2012). Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges.
Production Planning & Control, 23(2-3), 83104. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.591619
Gonzlez, B., & Adenso-Daz *, B. (2005). A bill of materials-based approach for end-of-life decision
making in design for the environment. International Journal of Production Research, 43(10),
20712099. doi:10.1080/00207540412331333423
Gungor, A., & Gupta, S. M. (1999). Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product
recovery: a survey. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 36(4), 811853. doi:10.1016/S0360-
8352(99)00167-9
Handbook, I., & Assessment, L. C. (2010). ILCD Handbook: Review schemes for Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) First edition EUR 24710 EN - 2010. doi:10.2788/39791
Hochschorner, E., & Finnveden, G. (2003). Evaluation of Two Simplified Life Cycle Assessment
Methods. International journal of lifecycle assessment, 8, 119128. doi:10.1065/Ica2003.04.114

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


41

Huang, S.-M., & Su, J. C. P. (2013). Impact of product proliferation on the reverse supply chain.
Omega, 41(3), 626639. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2012.08.003
Huisman, J. (2003)The QWERTY/EE Concept, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands
J. Huisman, J., C.B. Boks, A.L.N. Stevels, 2004. Quotes for Environmentally Weighted Recyclability
(QWERTY), The concept of describing product recyclability in terms of environmental value,
International Journal of Production Research, Special Issue on Product Recovery, 41 (16): pp
3649-3665.
Huisman, J., A.L.N. Stevels, I. Stobbe, 2004. Eco-efficiency considerations on the end-of-life of
consumer electronic products, IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing,
Vol.27, No.1, pp.9-25, ISSN 1521-334.
Hula, A., Jalali, K., Hamza, K., Skerlos, S. J., & Saitou, K. (2003). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
for Optimization of Product Disassembly under Multiple Situations. Environmental Science &
Technology, 37(23), 53035313. doi:10.1021/es0345423
Hunt, R. G., Boguski, T. K., Weitz, K., & Sharma, A. (1998). Case studies examining LCA
streamlining techniques. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 3(1), 3642.
doi:10.1007/BF02978450
Hur, T., Lee, J., Ryu, J., & Kwon, E. (2005). Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the
environmental aspects of a product system. Journal of environmental management, 75(3), 229
37. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.014
Iakovou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., Xanthopoulos, a., Achillas, C., Michailidis, N., Chatzipanagioti, M.,
Koroneos, C., et al. (2009). A methodological framework for end-of-life management of
electronic products. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(6), 329339.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.02.001
ILCD. (2011). ILCD handbook, Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European
context (1st ed.). doi:10.278/33030
Ilgin, M. A., & Gupta, S. M. (2010). Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery
(ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art. Journal of environmental management, 91(3), 563
91. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.037
Inderfurth, K., De Kok, a. G., & Flapper, S. D. P. (2001). Product recovery in stochastic
remanufacturing systems with multiple reuse options. European Journal of Operational
Research, 133(1), 130152. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00188-0
Introduction to LCA. (2012).DG joint research center, EU commision. Retrieved February 14, 2013,
from http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/introduction.vm
Jorjani, S., Leu, J., & Scott, C. (2004). Model for the allocation of electronics components to reuse
options. International Journal of Production Research, 42(6), 11311145.
doi:10.1080/00207540310001632466

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


42

Jun, H.-B., Cusin, M., Kiritsis, D., & Xirouchakis, P. (2007). A multi-objective evolutionary
algorithm for EOL product recovery optimization: turbocharger case study. International
Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19), 45734594. doi:10.1080/00207540701440071
Krikke, H. R., Van Harten, A., & Schuur, P. C. (1998). On a medium term product recovery and
disposal strategy for durable assembly products. International Journal of Production Research,
36(1), 111140. doi:10.1080/002075498193967
Krikke, H.R, Van Harten, a, & Schuur, P. . (1999). Business case Roteb: recovery strategies for
monitors. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 36(4), 739757. doi:10.1016/S0360-
8352(99)00163-1
Krikke, H.R., Van Harten, a., & Schuur, P. C. (1999). Business case Oc: Reverse logistic network re-
design for copiers. OR Spectrum, 21(3), 381409. doi:10.1007/s002910050095
Krumwiede, D. W., & Sheu, C. (2002). A model for reverse logistics entry by third-party providers.
Omega, 30(5), 325333. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00049-X
Kumar, H., Azapagic, A., Schepelmann, P., & Ritthoff, M. (2010). Options for broadening and
deepening the LCA approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(2), 120127.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.023
Lee, H. B., Cho, N. W., & Hong, Y. S. (2010). A hierarchical end-of-life decision model for
determining the economic levels of remanufacturing and disassembly under environmental
regulations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(13), 12761283.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.010
Lee, S. G., Lye, S. W., & Khoo, M. K. (2001). A Multi-Objective Methodology for Evaluating
Product End-of-Life Options and Disassembly. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 18(2), 148156. doi:10.1007/s001700170086
Li, W. (2005). MEEUP Methodology Report, 1188.
Life cycle indicators for resources , products and waste. (2012). Joint Research Centre Institute for
Environment and Sustainability. doi:10.2788/50351
Ma, Y., Jun, H., & Kim, H. (2011). International Journal of Production Disassembly process planning
algorithms for end-of-life product recovery and environmentally conscious disposal, (January
2013), 3741.
Manmek, S., Kara, S., & Engineering, L. C. (2006). APPLICATION OF THE SIMPLIFIED LIFE
CYCLE INVENTORY FOR A PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE Suphunnika Manmek and Sami Kara.
6th conference on Life Cycle Assessment. Melbourn.
Pochampally, K. K., Nukala, S., & Gupta, S. M. (2009). Eco-procurement strategies for
environmentally conscious manufacturers. International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management, 5(1/2), 106. doi:10.1504/IJLSM.2009.021647
Pokharel, S., & Mutha, A. (2009). Perspectives in reverse logistics: A review. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 53(4), 175182. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.006

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


43

Prahinski, C., & Kocabasoglu, C. (2006). Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply chains.
Omega, 34(6), 519532. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.01.003
Reverse logistics network design: a state-of-the-art literature review. (2009).International Journal of
Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1(1), 6181.
doi:10.1504/IJBPSCM.2009.026266
Richter, K., & Sombrutzki, M. (2000). Remanufacturing planning for the reverse Wagner/Whitin
models. European Journal of Operational Research, 121(2), 304315. doi:10.1016/S0377-
2217(99)00219-2
Sbihi, A., & Eglese, R. W. (2007). Combinatorial optimization and Green Logistics. 4or, 5(2), 99
116. doi:10.1007/s10288-007-0047-3
Segers, M. (2011). Fast Track LCA 1 for Dummies, 20102011.
Seitz, M. a. (2007). A critical assessment of motives for product recovery: the case of engine
remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11-12), 11471157.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.029
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., & Chinnam, R. B. (2009). Remanufacturing for the automotive
aftermarket-strategic factors: literature review and future research needs. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17(13), 11631174. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.004
Sundin, E. (2004). Product and Process Design for Successful Remanufacturing.
Taisch, M., Cammarino, B. P., & Cassina, J. (2011). Life cycle data management: first step towards a
new product lifecycle management standard. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 24(12), 11171135. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2011.608719
Tan, A., & Kumar, A. (2008). A decision making model to maximise the value of reverse logistics in
the computer industry. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 4(3), 297.
doi:10.1504/IJLSM.2008.017478
Teunter, R. H. (2006). Determining optimal disassembly and recovery strategies. Omega, 34(6), 533
537. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.01.014
Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Van Nunen, J., & Van Wassemhove, L. (1995). Strategic Issues in Product
Recovery Management. California Management Review, 37(2), 114 135.
Thinking, L. C., & Assessment, L. C. (2011). Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Waste
Management. doi:10.2788/52632
Umeda, Y., Takata, S., Kimura, F., Tomiyama, T., Sutherland, J. W., Kara, S., Herrmann, C., et al.
(2012). Toward integrated product and process life cycle planningAn environmental
perspective. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 61(2), 681702.
doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.004

Project No
Date
Classification
285541
25-Mar-13
CO


44

UNU 2007 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE),
Final Report to European Commission, Contract No: 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4
ENV.G.4/ETU/2006/0032
Wadhwa, S., Madaan, J., & Chan, F. T. S. (2009). Flexible decision modeling of reverse logistics
system: A value adding MCDM approach for alternative selection. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 25(2), 460469. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2008.01.006
Walther, G., Schmid, E., Spengler, T. S., & , G. W. (2008). Negotiation-based coordination in
product recovery networks. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 334350.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.069
Weitz, J. A., Todd, A., Curran, A., & Malkin, J. (1996). Streamlining Life Cycle Assessment.
International journal of lifecycle assessment, 1(2), 7985.
Willems, B., Dewulf, W., & Duflou, J. R. (2006). Can large-scale disassembly be profitable? A linear
programming approach to quantifying the turning point to make disassembly economically
viable. International Journal of Production Research, 44(6), 11251146.
doi:10.1080/00207540500354168
Williams, J. a. S. (2007). A review of research towards computer integrated demanufacturing for
materials recovery. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 20(8), 773
780. doi:10.1080/09511920601079322
Wolf, M., Pant, P., Chomkhamsri, K., Sala, S., & Pennington, D. (2012). The International Reference
Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
doi:10.2788/85727
Xanthopoulos, a, & Iakovou, E. (2009). On the optimal design of the disassembly and recovery
processes. Waste management (New York, N.Y.), 29(5), 170211.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.11.009
Zuidwijk, R., & Krikke, H. (2008). Strategic response to EEE returns: European Journal of
Operational Research, 191(3), 12061222. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.08.004

D5.1 - Algorithms and Methodologies For The Eol Product Recovery Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

D5.1 - Algorithms and Methodologies For The Eol Product Recovery Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The PREMANUS project (285541) is co-funded by the European Union under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)

You might also like