Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

An input-output simulation model for assessing production and

environmental waste in construction
Hamed Golzarpoor a, *, Vicente Gonza

lez a, Mehdi Shahbazpour b, Michael O’Sullivan c
a
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, 20 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
b
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Auckland, 20 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
c
Dept. of Engineering Science, The University of Auckland, 70 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Traditionally, the focus of lean construction has been on production waste (a component of production
Received 19 July 2016 that does not add value to the system) while environmental waste (unnecessary use of resources or a
Received in revised form substance released into the air, water, or land) has been the focus of sustainable construction. Production
2 December 2016
and environmental wastes are dependent. However, they are separately assessed in construction.
Accepted 3 December 2016
Available online 9 December 2016
Developing methodologies to simultaneously assess production and environmental performance is still a
significant challenge in construction. This paper explores the impact of lean production on the envi-
ronmental performance of construction projects to propose a framework for simultaneous management
Keywords:
Lean construction
of production and environmental waste. A hypothetical project is illustrated by simulation, which in-
Production waste tegrates a Discrete-Event Simulation (DES) model of construction operations and an Input/Output (I/O)
Sustainable construction framework for environmental loads. Preliminary results show that the DES-I/O framework is capable to
Environmental waste not only reduce project time and cost with better resource utilization, but also to demonstrate energy
Discrete-event simulation savings and a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction dependent. However, they are separately assessed in construction.

Lean production is a management philosophy that results in
elimination of waste (see Section 2.1). The implementation of lean
production in construction is known as lean construction. One of
the main goals of lean construction is to eliminate production waste
(Koskela, 1992). Production waste is a component of production
that does not add value to the system (see Section 2.2). Apart from
the production waste, the increased concern on environmental
sustainability, has generated a new form of waste called environ-
mental waste (Belayutham et al., 2016). Environmental waste is an
unnecessary use of resources/substances released into the air, wa-
ter, or land that could harm human health or the environment (EPA,
2011). Reducing environmental waste is one of the main goals of
sustainable construction. Sustainable construction is the applica-
tion of the principles of sustainable development in construction
(see Section 2.2). In fact, production and environmental wastes are
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hgol431@aucklanduni.ac.nz (H. Golzarpoor), v.gonzalez@

lez), m.shahbazpour@auckland.ac.nz (M. Shahbazpour),
auckland.ac.nz (V. Gonza
michael.osullivan@auckland.ac.nz (M. O’Sullivan).
Due to the fact that both lean and sustainable construction methods
focus on the minimization of waste, mixing these approaches can
enable lean construction to adopt an environmental dimension
(Carneiro et al., 2012). Despite the synergy between lean con-
struction and sustainable construction, lean construction does not
explicitly incorporate environmental waste, where a blind spot is
created with respect to the environmental risk and life cycle impact
(EPA, 2011). Based on the potential benefits of using a mixed
approach to manage waste, the aim of this paper is to explore the
impact of lean production on the environmental performance of
construction projects. The effect of improving production perfor-
mance on minimization of waste, a common concept in both lean
and sustainable construction, is discussed. A simulation model of a
hypothetical construction project, which integrates a Discrete-
Event Simulation (DES) model of construction operations and an
Input/Output (I/O) framework for environmental loads is proposed.
DES and I/O concepts were investigated in order to develop this
model. They were found to be compatible approaches for analyzing
and managing both production and environmental waste in con-
struction. Lean-based management methods or strategies were
implemented in the DES-I/O simulation model in order to reduce

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.010
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104
production waste and its impact on environmental waste. The use
of this simulation model was illustrated and tested through a hy-
pothetical construction project.
2. Background
2.1. Lean production
Lean production is a management philosophy focused on adding
value from raw materials to finished product. It is grounded on the
Toyota Production System (TPS) principles focused mainly on the
elimination of waste. From a lean standpoint, waste is a component
of production that does not add value to the system. TPS originally
addressed the seven types of production waste that were subse-
quently adopted by lean production, namely: transport, inventory,
motion, waiting, overproduction, over processing and defects
(Ohno, 1988) (see Section 2.2). Lean thinking can be summarized in
five fundamental goals (Womack and Jones, 2010): eliminate
waste; establish value stream; encourage flow; pull production;
and pursue perfection. From these goals, a number of principles,
strategies and management methods have been developed.
Following is a description of the strategies and management
methods that are used in this research.

Just-In-Time: Inventory is parts or materials on hand, needed for
the manufacturing process. The way to maintain the absolute
minimum level of inventory of a part is to coordinate deliveries
with use in the production process. JIT can be defined as zero
inventories what lean production is aimed at (Hopp and
Spearman, 2011).

Reducing Work-In-Process: Work-In-Process (WIP) is that part
of a manufacturer’s inventory that is in the production process
and has not yet been completed and transferred to the finished
goods inventory. Despite the JIT theoretical goal of zero in-
ventory, it is not possible to operate a manufacturing system
with zero WIP since it would imply zero throughput. In practice,
lean production aims to minimize WIP meanwhile the system
keeps producing throughput (Reinertsen, 2009).

Reduction of Cycle Time: Lean defines cycle time as the period
required to complete one cycle of an operation from start to
finish. Lean production places a tremendous emphasis on
reducing cycle time as it is the key operational metric used to
determine performance/productivity (Reinertsen, 2009).
Reduction of cycle time is known as a lean strategy with a huge
potential in reducing production waste.

Reduction of Batch Size: A batch is the unit of work that passes
from one stage to the next stage in a production process. In lean
production systems, the batch size should be kept as small as
possible in order to ensure a smooth and rapid flow of materials.
Reducing batch size drives down not only cycle time but WIP
(Reinertsen, 2009).

Kaizen: Kaizen is an approach that seeks improvement in pro-
ductivity as a gradual and methodical process. It is the practice
of continuous improvement with the aim of eliminating waste
(Hopp and Spearman, 2011). Examples of Kaizen are produc-
tivity improvement and process optimization.
Productivity is an average measure of the efficiency of produc-
tion. It can be expressed as the ratio of output to inputs used in the
production process.
Process optimization is the discipline of adjusting a process so as
to optimize some specified set of parameters without violating
some set of constraints. When optimizing a process, the goal is to
maximize one or more of the process specifications, while keeping
all others within their constraints.
1095
2.2. Production and environmental waste
In construction, waste is commonly interpreted as physical
waste that includes material waste (Golzarpoor and Gonza
lez,
2013). However, the concept of waste in construction is broader
than material or physical waste. Production waste represents
components of production that do not add value to the system
(Koskela, 1992). Transportation (movements that are not required
to perform a process), inventory (large numbers of material in
store), motion (equipment or people moving more than necessary),
waiting (waiting of any resources that cause gaps and delays be-
tween activities), overproduction (producing more than required),
over processing (additional steps in processes that are not required)
and defects (extra effort involved in fixing problems) are catego-
rized as lean production waste (Ohno, 1988). As lean construction is
a process focused performance improvement concept and has
mostly been used to reduce production waste, it does not explicitly
include environmental waste. Instead, environmental waste is the
focus of sustainable construction. Sustainable construction is the
application of the principles of sustainable development to the
comprehensive construction cycle from the extraction of raw ma-
terials, through the planning, design and construction of buildings
and infrastructure, until their final deconstruction and manage-
ment of the resultant waste (Tan et al., 2011). Sustainable con-
struction refers to the integration of environmental, social and
economic considerations into construction business strategies and
practices (Tan et al., 2011). Considering the environmental dimen-
sion (environmental sustainability), minimization of environ-
mental waste is the key component of sustainable construction
(EPA, 2011). EPA (2011) defines environmental waste as ‘unnec-
essary use of resources or a substance released into the air, water, or
land that could harm human health or the environment’. Excessive
energy/water consumption, emissions and effluents are examples
of environmental waste. Lean and sustainable construction natu-
rally share a common goal: to eliminate as much waste as possible
(Nahmens, 2009). They share many of the same best practices to
reduce their respective waste (Martínez et al., 2009). The U.S. EPA
confirms that the performance improvement of production systems
can lead to the reduction of environmental waste (EPA, 2011).
However, in any production system there are trade-off relation-
ships between production and environmental variables (e.g.
reducing time/cost increases fuel consumption/carbon emission or
vice versa) (Shahbazpour and Seidel, 2006). Including environ-
mental waste (which is the focus of sustainable construction) in the
list of production waste categories (which is the focus of lean
construction) can encourage the simultaneous assessment of pro-
duction and environmental variables. It enables decision makers to
arrive at a maximized level of production performance while
minimizing the impact on the environment. Inclusion of environ-
mental waste in the list of production waste categories has been
confirmed by Rosenbaum et al. (2012). Rosenbaum et al. (2012)
argue that current lean and sustainable construction approaches
exhibit a disconnect between production and environmental waste
management. Developing a comprehensive waste reduction model
for the implementation of both practices into one coordinated
effort is desirable.
2.3. Life cycle assessment and life cycle inventory data
LCA is a methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts.
It is carried out in four distinct phases. In the first phase the goal
and scope of the investigation and the resulting system boundaries
are defined. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), the second phase, involves
creating an inventory of Input and Output flows for a production
system. Inventory flows include inputs of water, energy and raw
1096 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104
materials; and outputs to air, land and water. LCI is followed by Life
Cycle Impact Assessment (third phase) and Life Cycle Interpretation
(final phase) (ISO14040, 2006).
It is clear that successful LCA is dependent upon reliable LCI
data. However, current LCI based approaches for environmental
analysis in construction have two main modeling limitations: (1)
LCI does not include proper quantitative analysis of the uncertain,
complex and dynamic nature of production systems, (2) LCI lacks
simultaneous assessment of environmental and production per-
formance (Golzarpoor and Gonza
lez, 2013).
One of the main aims of LCA is to quantify the environmental
impact of a given production system, and as a result there is a large
emphasis on the data aspect of LCI. LCI data is basically categorized
into ‘material LCI data also known as material I/O data’ and ‘process
LCI data also known as process I/O data’. In order to overcome the
LCI limitations for construction management purposes, the process
I/O date (known as ‘I/O framework’ in this research) needs to be
complemented with a modeling approach that is able to effectively
represent the complex and dynamic nature of production processes
in construction. This research proposes a dynamic modeling
approach based on the integration of Discrete-Event Simulation
and the I/O framework.
2.4. Discrete-event simulation
Discrete-Event Simulation (DES) is an event-driven simulation
approach in which a real dynamic process is imitated as it pro-
gresses over time (Lo€ fgren and Tillman, 2011). DES models describe
time-driven systems, where state variables change instantaneously
at separate points in time (Law, 2007). The main goals of DES are to:
1) identify problematic areas in a current or proposed system, 2)
implement ‘what if’ experiments, and 3) optimize (production)
system performance. Optimization is achieved by changing model
input parameters such as: work shifts, routes for material, and
available storage, to improve performance metrics that may
include: throughput under average and peak loads, utilization of
resources, queue lengths at work locations, and work-in-process
(Lind et al., 2009). DES is not only able to model complex systems
with highly dynamic decision rules and relationships between
different entities and resources, but can also explicitly address
system uncertainty (Law, 2007). The value of DES lies in its ability to
capture the variability of events instead of using mean values as
model inputs, restricting the need for assumptions. DES has also
been recognized as a powerful technique for the quantitative
analysis of complex construction operations (Martínez, 2010).
2.5. Integration of DES and I/O framework
Reuter and Schaik (2004) state that even though the purpose of
LCA is clear, it is developed under a static approach without
involving statistical and/or probabilistic analyses of measures that
consider the complex and dynamic nature of production systems.
Production systems in construction include a large number of
variables and processes, complex and dynamic relationships be-
tween entities and resources, and high levels of uncertainty
(Gonza
lez et al., 2012). Due to DES’s capability to analyze stochastic
scenarios and its ability to quantitatively analyze the complex and
dynamic nature of production systems, an integrated DES-I/O
simulation framework that adds stochasticity to the produced I/O
data should provide substantial benefits.
The DES and I/O approaches could be separately applied in
construction, without the need for integration. However,
Shahbazpour and Seidel (2006) argue that in any production sys-
tem there are trade-off relationships between environmental pa-
rameters and production performance. It is therefore critical that
the environmental and production parameters are assessed
simultaneously to allow the main decision makers to arrive at an
optimized level of production performance while minimizing the
impact on the environment (Gonza
lez and Echaveguren, 2012). A
common trade-off example in construction is between time and
cost. Construction managers are often faced with situations where
operations should be finished ahead of time (either the project has
fallen behind, or the completion date has been moved up). In such
case, duration of a series of activities on the critical path should be
reduced (Aminbakhsh and Sonmez, 2016). As this usually increases
overall cost of resources, time-cost trade-off analysis is applied (to
Critical Path Method) in order to determine the most optimum
scenario which allows meeting the deadlines while keeping the
imposed cost at minimum (Sonmez et al., 2015). As the environ-
mental performance is gaining more and more significance, this
research highlights the need for developing frameworks that sup-
port trade-off analyses between production and environmental
parameters.
The structure and nature of both DES and the I/O framework are
compatible and provide an opportunity for integration, allowing
life-cycle environmental factors to be considered in decision mak-
€fgren and Tillman, 2011). This integration
ing at a detailed level (Lo
allows causes and effects of various scenarios to be analyzed where
time, resources, location and stochasticity affect the outcome
(Johansson et al., 2009).
A number of studies have revealed positive effects on the eval-
uation of environmental metrics while integrating DES and I/O
framework in the manufacturing industry. Table 1 summarizes the
Integration of DES and I/O framework in Manufacturing.
In the last three decades, DES modeling in construction has been
given a significant amount of attention, and several researchers
have developed simulation tools and engines to model and opti-
mize construction operations (Marzouk and Moselhi, 2003).
However, the study of a project’s environmental impacts has not
yet received much attention in construction, except for some recent
studies that have focused on the analysis of emissions in con-
struction projects using DES and environmental models (Gonza
lez
and Echaveguren, 2012). The integration of DES and the I/O
framework has not been applied for environmental analysis of an
entire construction product (road, building, bridge, etc.). By
learning from the manufacturing industry, this research can fill the
gap in the construction literature by developing an integrated DES-
I/O simulation model specific to the production setting in
construction.
3. Research scope
Fig. 1(1a) illustrates all life cycle phases of construction products
and components. Fig. 1(b) shows a scheme of the processes in each
of the life cycle phases. Process 1, Process 2 and Process 3 represent
activities in each of the three phases. The corresponding inputs of
each process are resources and energy, and the outputs are emis-
sions, residuals and the product or semi-product (which is trans-
ferred to the next phase). The sub-index indicates the process and
the process number.
In order to simplify the model and better demonstrate the
linkages between environmental and production performance pa-
rameters, the scope of this research is limited to the process anal-
ysis in the construction phase (phase 1 in Fig. 1). Although
processes in the other life cycle phases are excluded, they could be
modeled based on the same simulation modeling framework
explained in Section 5. Key production variables such as time and
cost were considered for process analysis in this research. The
environmental variables considered for process analysis were en-
ergy consumption and carbon emission (associated with energy
 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104 1097

Table 1
Integration of DES and I/O framework in manufacturing.

Authors Positive effect

Solding and Petku (2005), Solding and Conducted a few case studies of the Swedish foundry industry in which electricity use was simulated using DES
Thollander (2006)
Wohlgemuth et al. (2006) Developed a method to include both economic and ecological factors and applied the method to model a
semiconductor lithography process
Ingvarsson and Johansson (2006) Linked a company’s food processing, which was modeled using DES, with static environmental background data on
upstream processes
Reinhard and Motsch, 2007 Provided an understanding of the relationship between electricity and material usage and identified energy saving
potentials
Huang et al. (2007) Developed a model to predict the long term environmental consequences of different urban water management
strategies
Persson and Karlsson (2007), Alvemark and Used DES as a tool for environmental measurements in food production
Persson (2007)
Johansson et al. (2008) Combined DES with I/O data to improve a juice manufacturing system
Heilala et al. (2008) Presented the I/O framework to the DES community to assess the automation level, ergonomics and environment of
manufacturing systems
Guidosh (2009) Combined the I/O framework with DES to assess the environmental impact of diapers (a standard model was
translated into a DES environment)
Dietmair and Verl (2009) Developed a specific DES method for detailed modeling of energy use for machine operations
€ fgren and Tillman (2011)
Lo Described how DES can be combined with I/O to measure in detail the environmental performance of a company’s
manufacturing system
Andersson et al. (2012b) Evaluated methods used for life-cycle assessments in DES
Andersson et al. (2012a) Proposed a framework for eco-labeling using DES
Cao and Li (2014) Proposed a DES-based approach to model carbon emissions dynamic characteristics of manufacturing systems
Aughney and O’Donnell (2015) Proposed a structured approach to save energy from non-value added manufacturing activities
Sproedt et al. (2015) Proposed a DES-based decision support system for eco-efficiency improvements in production systems
Stiel et al. (2016) Enhanced manufacturing and transportation decision support systems with LCA add-ins
Uluer et al. (2016) Proposed a framework for energy reduction in manufacturing process chains
Wilson et al. (2016) Proposed an energy usage toolkit from manufacturing simulation data

were developed by modifying the base model defined in this study.

For each model, a number of simulation runs were developed to
achieve estimates with 95% confidence and a relative error of less
than 5% (Law, 2007). Simulation output analysis focuses on
assessing the improvements achieved by comparing the environ-
mental and production performance of each of the improved
models with the base model.

5. Input/output simulation modeling framework

Fig. 1. Life cycle phases of construction products and components (Res ¼ Resources,
En ¼ Energy, Em ¼ Emissions, Re ¼ Residuals, P ¼ Process).
consumption). Since the scope of decision making in the hypo-
thetical illustration presented in this paper was limited to choice of
machinery and sequence of movements, I/O data related to mate-
rials used in the construction process were regarded as out of scope.
The I/O framework in this research is defined as the process I/O
data.
4. Research method
The research method is based on developing the DES-I/O
simulation model. ExtendSim v8, a DES modeling software pack-
age was used to model the project operations as it enables visual-
ization and copes with highly dynamic, complex systems. Modeling
assumptions and the simulation framework are explained in Sec-
tion 6. This is followed by implementation of lean-based manage-
ment methods/strategies in the DES-I/O model and simulation
output analysis. A number of simulation settings (explained in
section: Sustainable Lean Experiments), were proposed, where
several lean improvements were considered for implementation in
the project. The key research goal was to implement lean
improvement into the system and, assess production and envi-
ronmental performance simultaneously. The improved models
5.1. Conceptual modeling framework
The hypothetical project illustrated by simulation in this study
consists of earthmoving and foundation operations. The project
consists of three work sites (Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3) where trucks
are loaded by excavators and concrete is deposited by mixers, a
truck site which the trucks are parked in, a dumping site which
enables excavated material to be dumped at, and a batching plant
where mixers are filled with concrete. Initial number of loaders,
trucks and mixers were considered 1, 3 and 2 at each site.
At each work site two operations take place: an excavation
operation (O1) and a foundation operation (O2). Each operation
consists of several processes. Fig. 2 shows a logical representation
of both O1 and O2. The O1 includes the movement of trucks from
the truck site to each of the sites (T Move), loading of trucks by the
loaders available onsite (L/T Excavate), hauling the excavated ma-
terial to the dumping site (T Haul), the dumping process (T Dump)
and finally returning back to the truck site (T Return). When the O1
is finished, the O2 starts with filling mixers at the batching plant (M
Fill), followed by hauling the concrete to the sites (M Haul),
dumping concrete to fill the excavated volume (M Dump) and
returning back to the batching plant (M Return). Fig. 3 shows the
conceptual model of the behavior of truck, soil (excavated material)
and loader in O1. Similar figure could be drawn for the behavior of
mixers and concrete in O2. Both Figs. 2 and 3 resulted from the
application of a new conceptual modeling framework for
1098 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104
Fig. 2. Logical representation of the excavation and the foundation operations e base model (T ¼ Truck, L ¼ Loader, M ¼ Mixer).
Fig. 3. Conceptual model of the behavior of truck, soil and loader in excavation
operation.
simulation (Furian et al., 2015). Furian et al. (2015) suggest pre-
paring structural view (Fig. 2) and behavioral view (Fig. 3) of the
modeling scenario. Structural view is the logical/physical repre-
sentation of the scenario, while behavioral views represent the
behavior of each of active entities (active entities in the hypothet-
ical example of this study are truck, loader and soil) (see Furian
et al., 2015 for detailed information about developing the
proposed conceptual modeling framework for DES). This frame-
work is independent of the DES package used to model the oper-
ations. The process of transferring the conceptual model of Fig. 3
into any DES package (like ExtendSim that is used in this study)
is discussed in the remainder of Section 5. The purpose of both the
conceptual model and the implemented model in ExtendSim is to
simulate construction operations to assess production and envi-
ronmental performance at the same time. It is highlighted that the
criteria used to evaluate production performance are total time
(total time is the time it takes to complete the project) and total cost
(total cost is calculated by adding up hiring cost and fuel cost); and
the criteria used to evaluate environmental performance are total
fuel consumption (consumed by all types of machinery to complete
the project) and total carbon emission (emitted by all types of
machinery from start to finish of the project).
5.2. Modeling assumptions
In this study, the model’s input is process data and the output is
quantitative measurements of production and environmental per-
formance (e.g. total time, total cost, fuel consumption, carbon
emission). Input data such as distances and costs represent the
assumptions made by the authors using their own experience of
road construction operations. In order to assume more realistic
duration data for the proposed hypothetical case, an expert with
years of experience in earthmoving operations were asked to es-
timate duration data. Triangular distributions were then fitted to
the duration data. This is based on the heuristic approaches pro-
posed by Law (2007) for choosing a distribution in the absence of
data. In triangular approach, used in this research, experts are
asked for their most optimistic, the most pessimistic and the most
likely estimates of the time to perform the tasks. Environmental
data including fuel consumption of machinery and the equivalent
amount of carbon emissions were obtained from the machinery’s
 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104 1099

catalogues and online reports and linked to the model. For instance,
a loader consumes up to 0.4 l/km (diesel fuel) in normal conditions
(asphalt road, standard road slope, standard traffic and so on) and
emits up to 1.08 kg CO2 eq. depending on type and model (Ministry
for the Environment, 2015). Table 2 shows required input data
including distance, duration, expected fuel consumption and car-
bon emission of the project processes for building up the base
model. Carbon emission was calculated based on fuel consumption
and emission factor as follows:
Carbon Emission ðkg CO2 eq:Þ ¼ Fuel Consumption ðlÞ
 Emission Factor ðkg CO2 eq:=lÞ
Carbon emission in this study is the equivalent amount which
covers the six direct Kyoto gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.
Emissions from other gases considered are too small to be reported
and therefore excluded. The six gases have also been the basis for
calculating equivalent emission factor of 2.7 kg CO2 eq./l (transport
fuel: diesel) applied in the DES-I/O model. Guidance for voluntary
corporate greenhouse gas reporting (Ministry for the Environment,
2015) was used in this study to ensure data accuracy.
Depending on the nature of the involved processes, fuel con-
sumption of different types of machinery is calculated based on
distance (movement of machinery from one place to another) or
waiting time (duration of the processes) as follows:
Fuel Consumption T1ðlÞ ¼ Waiting Time ðhÞ
 Consumption per Time ðl=hÞ
Fuel Consumption T2 ðlÞ ¼ Distance ðkmÞ
 Consumption per Distance ðl=kmÞ
Hiring Cost ð$Þ ¼ Operation Time ðhÞ  Hiring Cost per Time ð$=hÞ
 Number of Machinery
(4)
Fuel Cost ð$Þ ¼ Fuel Consumption ðlÞ  Fuel Cost per Volume ð$=lÞ
(5)
Total Cost ð$Þ ¼ Hiring Cost ð$Þ þ Fuel Cost ð$Þ (6)
Fig. 2 explains the distances that are presented in the second
column of Table 2. For example, Fig. 2 clarifies that three distances
should exist for the ‘T Move’ process (the distance between truck
(1) site and site 1 which is 24 km, the distance between truck site and
site 2 which is 13 km, and the distance between truck site and site 3
which is 12 km).
5.3. Simulation framework
Fig. 4 shows how the conceptual model can be transferred into a
DES package as ExtendSim in this study. The blocks used and their
functions are shown in Table 3. As illustrated on Fig. 4, the resource
blocks ‘Initialize Truck, Initialize Excavation Volume and Initialize
Loader’ hold and provide the resources to be used in the simulation.
Volume of excavated material, initial number of loaders, and initial
number of trucks are defined as items in these blocks. In Exten-
dSim, items flow throughout the system (blocks). The number of
units of excavated material (defined as items) is calculated based on
the volume of excavated material and the capacity of trucks. As an
(2)
example, 130 units were defined in the resource block ‘Initialize
Excavation Volume’ as follows:
300 m3 ðExcavation VolumeÞ  1:3 ðSwelling Factor of SoilÞ

(3) ¼ 390 m3 ðVolume of Excavated MaterialÞ

Waiting time is defined as the time that machine is waiting in

(7)
queue for an operation. Equation (2) is applied when machine is Swelling factor indicates the increase in volume of earth once it
waiting in queue for an operation, while equation (3) is applied has been excavated from its natural state.
when the machine is travelling from one place to another.
Hiring costs of machinery were assumed $ 10/h, $ 15/h and $ 25/ 390 m3 ðVolume of Excavated MaterialÞ=3 m3 ðTruck Capacity in
h for trucks, mixers and loaders. Diesel fuel cost was assumed $ 0.8/ the Base ModelÞ ¼ 130 units ðExcavated MaterialÞ
l. Total cost is calculated based on adding up hiring cost and fuel
cost.
(8)

Table 2
Simulation Modeling Input Data for each activity in the Base Model.
a
Activity Distance (km) Duration (min) triangular distribution Expected fuel consumption Expected CO2 emission

Min. Max. Mode l/km l/h kg/km kg/h

T move 24 (S1) 24 72 43 0.25 e 0.675 e

13 (S2) 13 39 23.5 0.25 e 0.675 e
12 (S3) 12 36 21 0.25 e 0.675 e
L/T excavate e 6 13 10 e L: 9.5 e L: 25.6
e T: 5 e T: 13.5
T haul 39 (S1) 39 117 69.5 0.25 e 0.675 e
14 (S2) 14 42 25 0.25 e 0.675 e
28 (S3) 28 84 50 0.25 e 0.675 e
T dump e 1 3 2 e 5 e 13.5
T return 14 14 43 26 0.25 e 0.675 e
M fill e 5 15 11.5 e 6 e 16.2
M haul and M return 4.5 (S1) 4.5 13.5 8 0.3 e 0.81 e
15 (S2) 15 45 27 0.3 e 0.81 e
10.5 (S3) 10.5 31.5 19 0.3 e 0.81 e
M dump e 10 20 16.5 e 6 e 16.2

Note.
a
Calculated based on the transport fuel emission factor of 2.7 kg CO2 eq./l (diesel), Adopted from Ministry for the Environment (2015), (T ¼ Truck, L ¼ Loader, M ¼ Mixer).
1100 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104

Fig. 4. Implementation of the conceptual model in ExtendSim (T ¼ Truck, L ¼ Loader).
The initial number of loaders and trucks were assumed 1 and
3 in the resource blocks ‘Initialize Loader’ and ‘Initialize Truck’.
Activity blocks are used to hold one or more items and pass them
out based on the process time and arrival time of each item. In
other words, processes are simulated by activity delays. Activity
delays are set by connecting activity blocks to random number
generator blocks. Random number generator blocks generate
random integers or real numbers based on selected distributions
(exponential, triangular, beta, etc.). For instance, a triangular
distribution (which represents processing time of an activity) is
fitted to the activity block ‘T Move’, by connecting it to the
random number generator block. Activity block ‘T Move’ defines
the first process for trucks. The batch block allows items from
several sources to be joined into a single item. One loader, one
truck and one unit of the excavated material are batched into a
single item in this block. One unit of excavated material is 3 m3 in
the base model. However, in case of doubling the truck capacity,
each unit of excavated material should be either increased to
6 m3 or two units should be batched together in this block.
Queue/Wait blocks are used in the model whenever there is an
item waiting to be processed by an activity block. When pro-
cessing an item in the activity block ‘L/T Excavate’ finishes, an
unbatch block is used to return back the loader to the queue
block (wait 1 in the figure). However, the excavated material and
the truck are batched again for the ‘T Haul’ process in a new
activity block. As illustrated in Fig. 4, the ‘T Dump’ and ‘T Return’
processes are performed similarly. Loader and Truck return back
and the excavated volume passed out of the simulation using the
exit/leave block.
In this section, the simulation framework was clarified by
explaining a selected potion of the model (only activities related
to the excavation operation in the third site within the base
model). The base model and improved models were built by
applying similar modeling strategies to other operations (e.g.,
foundation operation) at different sites (site 1, 2 and 3).

Table 3
Blocks used to model O1 at S3 - base model.

Block symbol Block name Block function

Resource item This block holds and provides items (trucks, loaders and mixers) to be used in a simulation. It can be used as part
of an open or closed system.

Activity Holds one or more items and passes them out based on the process time and arrival time for each item.

Random number generator Generates random integers or real numbers based on the selected distribution (exponential, triangular, beta,
etc.).

Queue Queue blocks hold items in queue to be able to simulate the waiting time and release them based on a user
selected queuing algorithm.

Batch Allows items from several sources to be joined as a single item. Useful for combining resources.

Unbatch Produces multiple items from a single input item. Useful for detaching resources.

Exit/leave Passes items out of the simulation. The total number of items absorbed by this block is reported in its dialog and
at the value output connectors.
 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104
5.4. Sustainable lean experiments
Several simulation settings based on lean production man-
agement methods/strategies have been developed and applied
to the base model in order to simultaneously assess production
and environmental performance. Removing non-value-adding
activities or production waste from the project’s operations
has been the main mechanism for improving the models per-
formance (both production and environmental). The analyses
are based on the simulation outputs from the following six
models:

Model 1 (Base Model): Production system of the project as
defined in this study.

Model 2 (Reduction of Cycle Time and Batch Size):
Reduction of Cycle Time: In this model, cycle time is reduced by
starting O2 immediately after O1 is finished in each of the sites,
rather than starting O2 after O1 is completely finished in all sites.
Reduced cycle time is achieved by minimizing ‘waiting times’
which is a lean production waste.
Reduction of Batch Size: Reduction of the batch size is also
implemented in the second model. In earthmoving operations, total
excavation volume is normally considered as a single batch. Thus,
the next operation (O2 in the model) should be started after
completing the current operation (O1 in the model). However, in
case of dividing the total excavation volume into several batches,
O2 could be started before O1 is completely finished. In this model,
O2 starts while four fifth (maximum executive time saving poten-
tial based on O1 and O2 durations) of O1 is finished. Therefore, the
cycle time is reduced. The batch sizes or excavation volumes
represent WIP, which in turn, represents inventory (as mentioned,
inventory is waste from a lean standpoint). In practice, lean is
aimed at reducing inventory as much as possible, avoiding starva-
tion of processes at the same time. In this regard, a low level of WIP
was implemented mimicking a minimum level of inventory as
proposed by JIT.
Fig. 5 shows how O2’s flexibility helps reducing cycle time
and batch size. For each of the sites (S1, S2 and S3), this flexi-
bility has been demonstrated in three different situations
including: the base case with no improvement/change (O2 e No
Change), the effect of reduced cycle time (O2 e Reduced CT), and
the effect of reduced cycle time and batch size together (O2 e
Reduced CT & BS). As shown in Fig. 5, the total project time is
reduced directly through reducing the cycle time and indirectly
through reduction of the batch size. Reducing cycle time and
batch size reduces lean production wastes ‘waiting time’ and
‘inventory’.
Fig. 5. Reduction of cycle time and batch size (CT ¼ Cycle time, BS ¼ Batch size).
1101
Note that different project times for O1 at S1, S2 and S3 (in
Fig. 5) are due to differences in duration of activities/processes
(as in Table 2).

Model 3 (Reduction of Transportation: Capacity of Machinery):
Reducing construction process waste in transportation was
achieved in the third model by doubling the truck capacity. In
the base model, 1 loader, 1 truck, and 1 unit of soil (3 m3) are
batched together. However, in the third model, as capacity of
trucks is doubled, 1 loader, 1 truck and 2 units of soil (6 m3) are
batched together. Duration of the truck filling process (L/T
Excavate) is also doubled in Model 3. Another assumption is
that hiring cost of trucks with the capacity of 6 m3 is twice
more than hiring cost of trucks with the capacity of 3 m3.
However, same fuel consumption is assumed for both types of
trucks in the simulation model. As stated in Section 2.2,
‘transportation’ is categorized as one type of lean production
waste and is defined as ‘movements that are not required to
perform a process’.

Model 4 (Reduction of Transportation: Routing of Machinery):
Similar to Model 3, transportation is reduced in Model 4 by
changing the truck routing. In this model, trucks return to the
sites immediately after the dumping process is finished. As
the loaders only move between the three sites and the
dumping site, the ‘T Move’ process is omitted and respective
changes on distances and durations are applied. In this model,
movement of trucks in excavation operation is illustrated in
Fig. 6.
In this experiment, the lean production waste ‘transportation’
and ‘motion’ are reduced.

Model 5 (Multi-Objective Optimization of Resources): Optimi-
zation of the number of machinery (loaders, trucks and mixers)
forms Model 5. Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization has
been used in this research to optimize how resources are uti-
lized. The reason for applying multi-objective optimization was
the possibility of conflict between the variables (total time, total
cost, fuel consumption and carbon emission) (minimizing one
may result in maximizing the other, and vice versa). Therefore,
the number of machinery was expected to be optimized in
presence of trade-offs. An Evolutionary Strategy (ES) belonging
to the class of Evolutionary Algorithms was applied to the
simulation model as it is well suited to multi-objective optimi-
zation problems. As a result, the following equation based on
calculating the least surface, which results in the minimization
of total time, total cost, fuel consumption and carbon emission,
was proposed:
Min: Surface ¼ ðT  FC þ T  CE þ FC  C þ CE  CÞ=2 (9)
where FC ¼ Fuel Consumption, CE ¼ Carbon Emission, T ¼ Total
Time, C ¼ Total Cost.
The objective function optimized the number of machinery in
the case of having total time and total cost as production
Fig. 6. Movement of trucks in excavation operation e model 4 (T ¼ Truck, L ¼ Loader).
1102 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104

6. Result and discussion

As discussed, the radial representation is to visualize multiple

metrics and explore trade-offs (see Fig. 7). A ‘spider web’ plot is
used in Fig. 8 to illustrate results of all the models.
Comparing each of the sustainable lean models with the first
model (base model) reveals the improvements achieved.
Model 1 (Base Model) represents production system of the
project as defined in this study.
In Model 2, batch sizes (excavation volumes) represent WIP. It
was expected that reducing WIP reduces the cycle time. As ex-
pected, total project time was the only variable reduced. The
assumption that reduction of batch size and cycle time does not
affect environmental performance was also confirmed by the result
of the second model. Reducing batch size and cycle time together
reduced total project time by 27 h (from 174 to 147 h).
In Model 3 and Model 4, applying the lean based improvement
reduction of transportation and/or motion, whether by increasing
capacity of machinery or decreasing the distance through changes
on the routing, highly impacts environmental and production var-
Fig. 7. Conceptual Figure of the optimization objective function (FC ¼ Fuel con- iables, simultaneously. The significant effect of reducing construc-
sumption, CE ¼ Carbon emission, T ¼ Total time, C ¼ Total cost). tion process waste in transportation on production and
environmental performance is illustrated in Fig. 8 based on the
results obtained from Models 3 and 4. Model 3 saves 56 h on total
time (from 174 to 118 h), $ 4668 on total cost (from $ 25,773 to $
variables on the X axis and fuel consumption and carbon emis-
21,104), 2430 l on total fuel consumption (from 8658 to 6228) and
sion as environmental variables on the Y axis. The different ob-
6561 kg eq. on total CO2 emission (from 23,377 to 16,815); while
jectives have been combined into a single objective that
Model 4 does not affect the total project time but saves $ 2108 on
minimizes the area of the quadrilateral shown in Fig. 7. The
total cost (from $ 25, 773 to $ 23,664), 1621 l on total fuel con-
trade-off between production and environmental variables is
sumption (from 8658 to 7036) and 4377 kg eq. on total CO2 emis-
captured and visualized.
sion (23,377e18,999). Results from Models 3 and Model 4 show
ES uses mutation, recombination, and selection applied to a
that reduction of transportation and/or motion is the best strategy
population of individuals containing candidate solutions in order to
in terms of combined environmental and production performance
evolve iteratively better and better solutions. ES tuning parameters
improvement. However, increasing the capacity of machinery
were set as follows: m1 ¼ 10, l2 ¼ 20, mutation rate3 ¼ 0.25, se-
(Model 3) resulted in greater savings than changes to the routing of
lection pressure4 ¼ 2. In addition to ES tuning parameters, termi-
machinery (Model 4). Note that some other production and/or
nation rules parameters have the purpose of producing enough
environmental variables can be calculated from the 4 key variables
long simulation runs, which guarantees reliable results avoiding
local convergence and sub-optimal solutions. Termination rules
parameters were set as follows: truncation rate ¼ 0.2, minimum
convergence level ¼ 99.5%, maximum number of generations ¼
1000, maximum sampling by generation (simulation runs) ¼ 100.
Optimization of the number of machinery converged to 99.78%
after 287 simulation runs (Convergence level is an indicator of
improvement in optimization. As the results from successive
simulation runs become closer, convergence level approaches to 1).
Due to the fact that there was a trade-off for minimizing the vari-
ables, the number of loaders, trucks and mixers were optimized
from 1, 3 and 2 to 1, 7 and 5 for each site. Multi-Objective optimi-
zation of resources significantly increased utilization rate of ma-
chinery, which in turn, reduced ‘waiting’ (a production waste
category).

Model 6 (All Changes Combined): All the previous improve-

ments were applied together into Model 6 to demonstrate the
total waste reduction potential.

1
Number of parents involved in the procreation of an offspring (see Beyer, 2007
for more information).
2
Number of offspring created in each iteration (see Beyer, 2007 for more
information).
3
The probability that individuals are randomly altered (see Beyer, 2007 for more
information). Fig. 8. Environmental and production performance (key variables) (TPT ¼ Total project
4
Indicates how much the best individual is better than the worst (see Beyer, time, TPC ¼ Total project cost, TFC ¼ Total fuel consumption, TCE ¼ Total carbon
2007 for more information). emission).
 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104
illustrated in Fig. 8. Fig. A.1 is presented as an extended version of
Fig. 8 in case further discussion on results is required (e.g. it shows
Models 3 and Model 4 also save 398 and 48 h on total machinery
working time; $ 1944 and $ 1297 on total machinery fuel cost; and $
2724 and $ 811 on total machinery hiring cost).
In Model 5, multi-objective optimization of resources enabled
another lean based improvement by reducing over processing and
unnecessary motion. As expected, results from Model 5 proved that
optimization of the number of machinery do not affect the envi-
ronmental performance, but noticeably affects production perfor-
mance (Fig. A.1 shows multi-objective optimization significantly
reduced the total project time; however, the total machinery
working time has remained almost constant. It also noticeably af-
fects the hiring cost but not fuel cost. The savings on total cost is
mainly due to reduction of machinery’s hiring cost in this model).
One interesting finding from this model is the significant effect of
multi-objective optimization on the utilization rate of machinery.
The optimization model results in the highest utilization rate for
almost all the processes defined.
The results of Model 6 indicate that improving production per-
formance not only reduces the production waste but also envi-
ronmental waste. In cases of production and environmental trade-
off between the models, further research is expected to propose a
suitable decision making mechanism. Model 6 demonstrates the
total waste reduction potential and is the best model in terms of
combined environmental and production performance. In general,
the lean-based management methods/strategies applied to this
hypothetical project reduced total project time by 75% (from 174 to
43), total machinery working time by 39% (from 1123 to 679), total
cost of machinery by 38% (from 25,773 to 15,803), total fuel con-
sumption by 41% (from 8658 to 5127) and total CO2 eq. emission by
41% (from 23,377 to 13,843).
7. Conclusion
From the theoretical standpoint, by exploring the relationship
between lean and environment, this study proposed a sustainable
lean approach for simultaneous assessment of environmental and
production waste in construction using an integrated DES-I/O
simulation framework. The integration of DES and I/O framework
has been proved to be effective and efficient in manufacturing.
However, it has not been applied to construction. This research
provides a proof of concept for the applicability of the proposed
methodology through the illustration of a hypothetical project. The
DES-I/O simulation model indicates that improving production
performance not only reduces production waste but also environ-
mental waste. In case of trade-off between production and envi-
ronmental variables (e.g. reducing time/cost increases fuel
consumption/carbon emission), the DES-I/O integration method-
ology helps decision makers to arrive at an optimized level of
production performance while minimizing the impact on the
environment. Further research is expected to identify areas with
significant trade-off relationships between production and envi-
ronmental variables.
From a practical standpoint, the DES-I/O simulation framework
could serve as a basis for building a generic model able to simul-
taneously assess production and environmental performance of
construction operations. The DES-I/O simulation model has the
potential to propose a decision support tool able to assess the
impact of managerial decisions (such as the lean based improve-
ments applied to the model) on production and environmental
performance of construction projects. The environmental analyses,
proposed in this study, contribute to the development of more
sustainable projects that explicitly consider environmental aspects
in the planning phase or even during the construction phase.
1103
Appendix
Fig. A.1. Environmental and production performance (all variables). (TPT ¼ Total
Project Time, TMWT ¼ Total Machinery Working Time, TPC ¼ Total Project Cost,
TMFC ¼ Total Machinery Fuel Cost, TMHC ¼ Total Machinery Hiring Cost, TFC ¼ Total
Fuel Consumption, TCE ¼ Total Carbon Emission).
References
Alvemark, O., Persson, F., 2007. Flow Simulation of Food Production; Cultured Dairy
Products (MSc Thesis, Department of Product and Production Development).
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Aminbakhsh, S., Sonmez, R., 2016. Pareto front particle swarm optimizer for discrete
time-cost trade-off problem. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 04016040.
Andersson, J., Berglund, J., Skoogh, A., 2012a. Framework for ecolabeling using
discrete event simulation. In: Emerging Applications of M&S in Industry and
Academia Symposium, Orlando, Florida, p. 9.
Andersson, J., Skoogh, A., Johansson, B., 2012b. Evaluation of methods used for life-
cycle assessments in discrete event simulation. In: Proceedings of the 44th
Winter Simulation Conference, Berlin, Germany, p. 156.
Aughney, N., O’Donnell, G.E., 2015. The energy saving opportunity in targeting non-
value added manufacturing activities e a structured approach. J. Clean. Prod.
86, 191e200.
Beyer, H.G., 2007. Evolution strategies. Scholarpedia 2 (8), 1965.
Belayutham, S., Gonz
alez, V.A., Yiu, T.W., 2016. Cleanelean administrative pro-
cesses: a case study on sediment pollution during construction. J. Clean. Prod.
126, 134e147.
Cao, H., Li, H., 2014. Simulation-based approach to modeling the carbon emissions
dynamic characteristics of manufacturing system considering disturbances.
J. Clean. Prod. me 64, 572e580.
Carneiro, S.B.M., Campos, I.B., Oliveira, D.M., Barros, N.J.P., 2012. Lean and green: a
relationship matrix. In: Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, San Diego, CA, USA.
Dietmair, A., Verl, A., 2009. A generic energy consumption model for decision
making and energy efficiency optimisation in manufacturing. Int. J. Sustain. Eng.
2 (2), 123e133.
EPA, 2011. Lean Manufacturing and Environment e Environmental Benefits and
Shortcomings. Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
Furian, N., O’Sullivan, M., Walker, C., Vo €ssner, S., Neubacher, D., 2015. A conceptual
modeling framework for discrete event simulation using hierarchical control
structures. J. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 56. ISSN 1569e190X.
Golzarpoor, H., Gonza
lez, V., 2013. A green-lean simulation model for assessing
environmental and production waste in construction. In: 21st Annual Confer-
ence of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Gonza
lez, V., Echaveguren, T., 2012. Exploring the environmental modeling of road
construction operations using discrete-event simulation. Autom. Constr. 24,
100e110.
Gonza
lez, V., Yiu, T.W., Martínez, P., 2012. Towards a dynamic modelling framework
for assessing the sustainable degree of construction materials. In: 37th Annual
Conference of the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association,
Sydney, Australia.
Guidosh, J.A., 2009. The Use of Life Cycle Assessment through an Objective
1104 H. Golzarpoor et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1094e1104
Framework Constructed by Simulation (MSc Thesis, Industrial and Systems
Engineering). Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, USA.
Heilala, J., Vatanen, S., Tonteri, H., Montonen, J., Lind, S., Johansson, B., Stahre, J.,
2008. Simulation-based sustainable manufacturing system design. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 40th Winter Simulation Conference, Miami, FL, pp. 1922e1930.
Hopp, W.J., Spearman, M.L., 2011. Factory Physics. Waveland Press, Waveland Press.
Huang, D.B., Scholz, R.W., Gujer, W., Chitwood, D.E., Loukopoulos, P.,
Schertenleib, R., Siegrist, H., 2007. Discrete event simulation for exploring
strategies: an urban water management case. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (3),
915e921.
Ingvarsson, A., Johansson, C., 2006. Flow Simulation of Food Industry Production:
Ingemar Johansson i Sverige AB (In Swedish) (MSc Thesis, Department of
Product and Production Development). Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
ISO14040, 2006. ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardisation.
Johansson, B., Skoogh, A., Mani, M., Leong, S., 2009. Discrete event simulation to
generate requirements specification for sustainable manufacturing systems
design. In: Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Performance Metrics for
Intelligent Systems, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 38e42.
€
Johansson, B., Stahre, J., Berlin, J., Ostergren, K., Sundstro €m, B., Tillman, A.M., 2008.
Discrete Event Simulation with Lifecycle Assessment Data at a Juice
Manufacturing System. FOODSIM.
Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction
(Technical Report No. 72, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Law, A.M., 2007. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Lind, S., Johansson, B., Stahre, S., Berlin, C., Fath, A., Heilala, J., Helin, K., Kiviranta, S.,
Krassi, B., Montonen, J., 2009. SIMTER e a Joint Simulation Tool for Production
Development. VTT Working Paper 125, Espoo, Finland.
€fgren, B., Tillman, A.-M., 2011. Relating manufacturing system configuration to
Lo
life-cycle environmental performance: discrete-event simulation supple-
mented with LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (17), 2015e2024.
Martínez, J.C., 2010. Methodology for conducting discrete-event simulation studies
in construction engineering and management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (1),
3e16.
Martínez, P., Gonz
alez, V., Da Fonseca, E., 2009. Green-lean conceptual integration
in project design, planning and construction. Rev. Ing. Constr. 24 (1), 5e32.
Marzouk, M., Moselhi, O., 2003. Object-oriented simulation model for earthmoving
operations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129 (2), 173e181.
Ministry for the Environment, 2015. Guidance for Voluntary Corporate Greenhouse
Gas Reporting: Data and Methods for the 2013 Calendar Year. Ref. ME 1194,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Nahmens, I., 2009. From lean to green construction: a natural extension. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2009 Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA,
pp. 1058e1067.
Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota Production System: beyond Large-scale Production.
Productivity Press, New York, USA.
Persson, D., Karlsson, J., 2007. Flow Simulation of Food Industry Production: Kiviks
Musteri AB (In Swedish) (MSc Thesis, Department of Product and Production
Development). Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Reinertsen, D.G., 2009. The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Gen-
eration Lean Product Development, vol. 62. Celeritas, Redondo Beach.
Reinhard, J., Motsch, S., 2007. Material Flow Management in a Motor Fabrication.
Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering, Springer,
pp. 409e415.
Reuter, M., Schaik, A.V., 2004. Optimization of the Resource Cycle: Linking Research
and Teaching in Recycling at the Delft University of Technology. International
Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable Development, Barcelona,
Spain.
Rosenbaum, S., Toledo, M., Gonz
alez, V., 2012. Green-lean approach for assessing
environmental and production waste in construction. In: Proceedings for the
20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San
Diego, USA.
Shahbazpour, M., Seidel, R., 2006. Using sustainability for competitive advantage.
In: 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Flanders,
Belgium.
Solding, P., Petku, D., 2005. Applying energy aspects on simulation of energy-
intensive production systems. In: Proceedings of the 37th Winter Simulation
Conference, Orlando, Florida, pp. 1428e1432.
Solding, P., Thollander, P., 2006. Increased energy efficiency in a Swedish iron
foundry through use of discrete event simulation. In: Proceedings of the 38th
Winter Simulation Conference, Monterey, California, pp. 1971e1976.
Sonmez, R., Iranagh, M.A., Uysal, F., 2015. Critical sequence crashing heuristic for
resource-constrained discrete timeecost trade-off problem. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 142 (3), 04015090.
Sproedt, A., Plehn, J., Scho €nsleben, P., Herrmann, C., 2015. A simulation-based de-
cision support for eco-efficiency improvements in production systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 105, 389e405.
Stiel, F., Michel, T., Teuteberg, F., 2016. Enhancing manufacturing and transportation
decision support systems with LCA add-ins. J. Clean. Prod. me 110, 85e98.
Tan, Y., Shen, L., Yao, H., 2011. Sustainable construction practice and contractors’
competitiveness: a preliminary study. Habitat Int. 35 (2), 225e230.
Uluer, M.U., Unver, H.O., Gok, G., Unver, N.F., Kilic, S.E., 2016. A framework for energy
reduction in manufacturing process chains (E-MPC) and a case study from the
Turkish household appliance industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (Part 4), 3342e3360.
Wilson, J., Arokiam, A., Belaidi, H., Ladbrook, J., 2016. A simple energy usage toolkit
from manufacturing simulation data. J. Clean. Prod. 122, 266e276.
Wohlgemuth, V., Page, B., Kreutzer, W., 2006. Combining discrete event simulation
and material flow analysis in a component-based approach to industrial envi-
ronmental protection. Environ. Model. Softw. 21 (11), 1607e1617.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 2010. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
Your Corporation. Simon and Schuster, New York.