Grant Agreement No.: 280371
Project Acronym: G.EN.ESI
Project Title: Integrated software platform for Green ENgineering dESIgn and product
sustainability
D. 1.3: G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Collaborative Project
Start Date of project: 01/02/2012
Duration: 36 months
Name of Beneficiary responsible for this deliverable: INP GRENOBLE
Version: Final Version 1.0
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme
Dissemination Level
Public
PU
X
Restricted to other Programme Participants (including the Commission
PP
Services)
RE
CO
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission
Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission
Services)
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Version:
1.0
Date Draft:
Due Date of Deliverable according to
Annex I:
Editor:
Contributors:
31/10/2012
31/10/2012
Responsible:
CHANGE CONTROL:
Version
Date
0.1
04/06/2012
0.2
24/10/2012
0.3
29/10/2012
0.4
29/10/2012
0.5
30/10/2012
1.0
31/10/2012
INP GRENOBLE
INP GRENOBLE
UNIVPM
UBATH
VECTRON
ENEA
INP GRENOBLE
Description
First draft version
Second draft version
Third draft version
Fourth draft version
Fifth draft version
Final version
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 2 of 116
Author
UNIVPM
INP GRENOBLE
UNIVPM
UBATH
INP GRENOBLE
UNIVPM
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 6 FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. 7 TABLES ............................................................................................................................... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 10 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 11 2 DEFINITION OF THE G.EN.ESI ECO-DESIGN METHODOLOGY........................... 12 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.2 Framework ................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Life cycle concept for design.......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Designers view points during the design process .......................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Concurrent engineering ................................................................................................................................. 14 A multidisciplinary group ............................................................................................................................................. 14 From the willingness to integrate to the need for cooperation .................................................................................. 15 A concurrent design is always distributed ................................................................................................................... 16 Two concurrent approaches ........................................................................................................................................ 16 A concurrent design can be parallel ............................................................................................................................. 17 A concurrent design can be integrated ........................................................................................................................ 18 2.2.4 Integrated design characteristics................................................................................................................... 18 New organizations ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Cooperation ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Project manager ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 Tools ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23 2.3 Changes induced by Eco‐design at different levels of the company .............................................................. 26 2.3.1 Data fluxes ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................... 28 2.3.3 The design process ........................................................................................................................................ 28 2.3.4 Companies strategies .................................................................................................................................... 28 Policy: the environment as a value .............................................................................................................................. 29 Definition of the specifications .................................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.5 Knowledge and skills ...................................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.6 Cultural change .............................................................................................................................................. 30 2.4 The G.EN.ESI. methodology ......................................................................................................................... 30 2.4.1 Working hypothesis ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Actors ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Faber Example ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 The design organisation ............................................................................................................................................... 32 The product model ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 2.4.2 Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 34 Indicators ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34 The sustainability calculation module.......................................................................................................................... 34 Dashboard .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 CBR ............................................................................................................................................................................... 35 This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 3 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Reports ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Specific tools ................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Structure ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36 2.4.3 Steps of the methodology ............................................................................................................................. 38 3 INDICATORS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO IMPROVE PRODUCT
SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................................... 41 3.1 Indicators for the simplified life cycle assessment tool ................................................................................. 41 3.1.1 Resource depletion ........................................................................................................................................ 42 3.1.2 Climate change .............................................................................................................................................. 43 3.1.3 Water consumption ....................................................................................................................................... 43 3.1.4 Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) ................................................................................................................ 44 3.2 Design guidelines ........................................................................................................................................ 44 3.2.1 Standard components of mechatronic products ........................................................................................... 45 3.2.2 Eco‐design guidelines classification ............................................................................................................... 47 3.2.3 Knowledge about past design choices ........................................................................................................... 52 4 BRIEF APPLICATION OF THE G.EN.ESI ECO-DESIGN METHODOLOGY TO
IMPROVE ECO-SUSTAINABILITY OF AN HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE: COOKER
HOOD CASE STUDY ................................................................................................ 53 4.1 Functional analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 53 4.2 Assessment and determination of environmental hot spots ........................................................................ 55 4.2.1 Determination of the environmental strategies and deployment in indicators ............................................ 59 4.3 Guidance ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 4.3.1 Analysis of components with high impact during the use phase .................................................................. 60 4.3.2 Analysis of components with high impact in the material selection phase .................................................. 64 4.3.3 Analysis of components with criticality on disassembly ................................................................................ 68 4.3.4 Analysis of components with criticality on transport phase ......................................................................... 69 4.4 Sustainability check ..................................................................................................................................... 70 4.5 Impacts of the decisions in the long term company strategy ........................................................................ 73 4.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 73 5 ECO-DESIGN APPROACH IN COMPANIES............................................................ 74 5.1 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 74 5.2 Outcome ..................................................................................................................................................... 75 5.2.1 Collaborative Activities During Eco‐Design Projects ...................................................................................... 75 5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 79 6 DEFINITION OF THE NEW TO-BE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR FABER AND
VECTRON ................................................................................................................. 80 6.1 Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 80 Environmental Design Manager .................................................................................................................................. 80 This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 4 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Eco‐design Software Tools ........................................................................................................................................... 81 6.2 Inputs ......................................................................................................................................................... 82 Environmental Requirements ...................................................................................................................................... 82 Life Cycle Data .............................................................................................................................................................. 82 Environmental Report .................................................................................................................................................. 82 Cost report ................................................................................................................................................................... 83 6.3 Design Process Stages ................................................................................................................................. 83 6.3.1 Feasibility (A.1) (Figure 31) ............................................................................................................................ 83 6.3.2 Development (A‐2) (Figure 33) ...................................................................................................................... 84 6.4 Knowledge Feedback Loop .......................................................................................................................... 85 6.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 86 7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 93 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 95 Methodology References ....................................................................................................................................... 95 Eco‐Design Guidelines References .......................................................................................................................... 97 APPENDIX 1: ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
OF BONFIGLIOLI-VECTRON ................................................................................... 98 IDEF Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 98 Description of the Bonfiglioli‐Vectron Development Process .................................................................................. 99 Description of resources .............................................................................................................................................. 99 Feasibility (A‐1) .......................................................................................................................................................... 101 Development (A‐2) ..................................................................................................................................................... 102 Series production planning (A‐3) ............................................................................................................................... 105 Maturity phase (A‐4) .................................................................................................................................................. 105 Used and planned tools in the product development process .................................................................................. 116 This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 5 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation
Description
S-LCA
Simplified life cycle assessment
S-LCC
Simplified life cycle cost
CBR
Case-based reasoning
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 6 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
FIGURES
Figure 1: Two approaches in concurrent engineering ........................................................ 17 Figure 2: The different actors within the company required for classical integrated design
(on the left) and for integrated design associated to ecodesign (on the right).................... 31 Figure 3: Elements of the methodology ............................................................................. 37 Figure 4: The G.EN.ESI. methodology .............................................................................. 40 Figure 5: Energy consumption for each life cycle phase of the cooker hood ..................... 55 Figure 6: CO2 Footprint for each life cycle phase of the cooker hood ............................... 56 Figure 7: Energy consumption for life cycles (use excluded) of the cooker hood .............. 57 Figure 8: CO2 Footprint for life cycles (use phase excluded) of the cooker hood .............. 57 Figure 9: Energy for cooker hood standard components in material selection................... 58 Figure 10: CO2 Footprint for cooker hood standard components in material selection ..... 59 Figure 11: Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solution in the use phase ............ 62 Figure 12: CO2 Footprint of Current/Alternative Solution in the use phase ....................... 62 Figure 13: Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solution in the material selection . 63 Figure 14: CO2 Footprint of Current/Alternative Solution in the material selection ............ 63 Figure 15: Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solutions in Material selection ..... 65 Figure 16: CO2 Footprint for Current /Alternative Solutions in Material selection .............. 66 Figure 17: Energy consumption for Current /Alternative Solutions in Material selection .... 67 Figure 18: CO2 emission for Current /Alternative Solutions in Material selection .............. 67 Figure 19: CO2 emission related to transport phase for Current /Alternative Solutions of
lamps in transport phase.................................................................................................... 69 Figure 20: CO2 emission related to transport phase for Current /Alternative Solutions of
motor in transport phase .................................................................................................... 70 Figure 21: Comparison of energy emission for Current / Alternative solution .................... 71 Figure 22: Comparison of CO2 Footprint for Current /Alternative solution ......................... 72 Figure 23: Level 0 for the eco-design process SADT representation ................................. 75 Figure 24: Level 1 for the eco-design process SADT representation (preliminary design) 77 Figure 25: Level 1 for the eco-design process SADT representation (detailed design) ..... 77 Figure 26: Level 2 for the eco-design process SADT representation (environmental
assessment activity) ..........................................................................................................78 Figure 27: Level 1 for the eco-design process SADT representation (production)............. 79 Figure 28: Environmental Knowledge Feedback Loop ...................................................... 85 Figure 29: General product development process with the elements of the G.EN.ESI
methodology ...................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 30: Product development process with the four major phases and with the elements
of the G.EN.ESI methodology ............................................................................................ 88 Figure 31: Feasibility phase with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology .................. 89 Figure 32: Preliminary design with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology................ 90 Figure 33: Development process with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology .......... 91 Figure 34: Detailed environmental development................................................................ 92 Figure 35: IDEF0 methodology .......................................................................................... 98 Figure 36: General product development process ........................................................... 106 Figure 37: Product development process with the four major phases ............................. 107 This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 7 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 38: Feasibility phase ............................................................................................. 108 Figure 39: Development process ..................................................................................... 109 Figure 40: Mechanical design phase ............................................................................... 110 Figure 41: Electrical design phase ................................................................................... 111 Figure 42: Electronic design phase .................................................................................. 112 Figure 43: Software development phase ......................................................................... 113 Figure 44: Specific testing................................................................................................ 114 Figure 45: Final product release ...................................................................................... 115 This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 8 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
TABLES
Table 1: Tools for design project management .................................................................. 26 Table 2: Functional groups and standard components for cooker hoods .......................... 45 Table 3: Functional groups and standard components for washing machines................... 46 Table 4: Eco-design guidelines related to products .......................................................... 48 Table 5: General eco-design guidelines related to components ....................................... 50 Table 6: Specific eco-design guidelines related to components ....................................... 51 Table 7: Values for Energy consumption and CO2 Footprint ............................................. 56 Table 8: Values for Energy consumption and CO2 Footprint (use phase excluded).......... 58 Table 9: General Guidelines referred to the use phase ..................................................... 60 Table 10: Specific guidelines referred to cooker hood ....................................................... 60 Table 11: Current Solution motor characteristics ............................................................... 60 Table 12: Alternative Solution motor characteristics .......................................................... 61 Table 13: Absorbed power for Current/Alternative lamps .................................................. 61 Table 14: General guidelines related to material selection phase...................................... 64 Table 15: General guidelines related to end of life phase .................................................. 68 Table 16: Modifications proposed ...................................................................................... 70 Table 17: Values of Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solution ........................ 72 Table 18: Values of CO2 Footprint for Current/Alternative Solution ................................... 73 This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 9 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This deliverable has been realised to present the eco-design methodology developed in
the G.EN.ESI. project and to illustrate how to implement this methodology in a traditional
product design process.
The first part presents the methodology and has been structured with different sections:
-To provide a framework to apply the methodology;
-To show the changes induced by eco-design in the company, from the design process to
company policy, including the project management team;
-To describe the different elements and the different steps of the methodology.
This part shows that eco-design must be implemented in companies working in a context
of concurrent engineering. Furthermore it shows that different actors and tools are required
to properly actuate the methodology.
The second part presents two studies: the first one is about indicators for the simplified life
cycle analysis and the second one is about the basis of the case-based reasoning (CBR)
database which will be used in the specific phase of guidance. Indeed, the CBR tool
assists designers in redesign to improve the environmental performance of their product.
The CBR tool is divided into two groups: eco-design guidelines and knowledge about
company design choices.
In the next part, the eco-design methodology is applied succinctly to a cooker hood to
illustrate how the methodology can lead to redesign choices that reduce impact on the
environment.
After the illustration of the methodology to a cooker hood, the next objective consists in the
deployment of the G.EN.ESI ecodesign methodology. In order to achieve that, the next
section presents the analysis of the results obtained by a survey carried out in five French
companies. This part provides an overview of eco-design practises in those companies:
the scenarios constructed are generic but describe the current actions needed for the
successful implementation of eco-design that should be supported by the GENESI
platform.
In the final part, the eco-design methodology is matched against the current actions
needed for the successful implementation of eco-design within the FABER design process;
this offers an illustration of how eco-design could be implemented.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 10 of 116
Final Version 1.0
1
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
INTRODUCTION
Regarding the economical and environmental pressure from consumers, legislation,
competitors etc, companies need to be proactive and to propose new products in
shorter times. For this, they need to change/adapt their design methods. The design
phase is an important phase of the product life because it determines the success or
failure of the commercial offer. Moreover, even if only 20% of the financial costs
related to product life cycle are spent during this design phase, more than 80 % of
them are committed. We can easily imagine the same proportional division for
environmental costs. So, design approaches have to be developed to consider
environmental constraints early during the design process.
The first objective of this deliverable is therefore to develop a G.EN.ESI eco-design
methodology for the improvement of ecological and economical aspects. The
methodology guides the design team from the early design stages, to the integration
of environmental concerns in the product development process, which induces
changes in the company organisation. Due to the companies’ limited eco-design
knowledge, the different elements (actors, organisation, tools, steps, etc.) required to
the methodology have to be studied and described to facilitate the setting up.
However, the framework and the steps of the G.EN.ESI methodology are not
sufficient to fully understand the actions the designers must carry out. A focus on the
resources available to aid designers in eco-designing their product highlights two of
interest: eco-design guidelines and knowledge about previous company design
choices.
Thus in the first part of this deliverable the G.EN.ESI methodology is presented. Then
the second part analyses existing eco-design guidelines which will constitute a basis
for the development of a tool in the G.EN.ESI platform. Next, the methodology is
superficially applied to a cooker hood and it constitutes a first case study to test a few
points of the methodology. The last purpose of this work is to implement the
methodology and thus the platform in the traditional design process. The objective
here is to show a way to set up the integration of eco-design actions supported by
the elements of the methodology.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 11 of 116
Final Version 1.0
2
2.1
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
DEFINITION OF THE G.EN.ESI ECO-DESIGN
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The design process should not only be considered as an activity to solve problems,
but as a complex activity to answer technical, social, strategic and economic
concerns. Tools supporting the plurality of the domains and parameters to consider in
a design process exist. Design for X tools is an example of this evolution. Those
tools, issued from design for X methods, recommend a very early consideration of
parameters that are typically considered later in the design process (when the design
is too constrained to allow detailed consideration). The « X » represents the
Assembly (Design For Assembly), the Manufacturing (Design For Manufacturing,
Design For Machining), the Recycling (Design For Recyclability) etc. They introduce
a new point of view during the design process to describe not only the technological
requirements but also all the future life cycle aspects of the product.
With these new approaches considering the product life cycle, the way the
organisation supports design also has to be reconsidered. Concurrent engineering,
distributed design, simultaneous design or integrated design, have all developed to
answer a common goal: how to better design a product while considering all aspects
throughout its life cycle.
In the G.EN.ESI program, we will propose a methodology and a platform that
supports integrated design and, more precisely, eco-design within a company. The
aim of this document is to describe the G.EN.ESI methodology. That means we will
have to consider tools, actors and organisations in eco-design projects to propose a
methodology and then a platform supporting this methodology.
Before the description of the methodology, we will introduce different concepts we
need to make the reader able to understand the foundations for the G.EN.ESI
methodology.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 12 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
2.2
Framework
2.2.1
Life cycle concept for design
To be able to consider all the product life cycle aspects the designer needs to
understand the specific problems the product will have to solve for each life cycle
phase. Here, the design process has to consider the point of view of all life cycle
actors. This highlights two notions that were not really considered in previous
sequential design methodologies: the product life cycle and the life cycle actor’s
viewpoints.
The life cycle notion groups together the changes to which the product is subjected at
specifics points. This means that the life cycle considers all the successive states a
product encounters during its life: from its definition, to its manufacturing, assembly,
distribution, usage and end of life. To take all those aspects into account during the
design, implies that designers have to consider the future, to imagine the product in
the different life cycle phases, to define, during the design phase, solutions that will
be able to solve specific questions encountered by the product.
Recycling for example will be optimised only if the product has been developed to be
recycled. This is not easy, because designers have to plan what will happen in the
future in order to identify the best recycling process. Taking the automotive industry
as an example, designers have to consider what processes or technology may be in
use 15 years into the future, in order to design a product that will be easily recycled.
To be able to consider all the aspects of the life cycle, we will see that we have to
integrate viewpoints of the different life cycle actors, during the product design
process.
2.2.2
Designers view points during the design process
A viewpoint of an actor of the design process represents his vision of the future
product, when positioned at a specific stage of the lifecycle. He then captures the
product from his perspective. This look becomes a point of view only when it is finally
formalized in the design process. The viewpoint represents a potential solution, or
concept, developed within the designer’s field of expertise. This concept provides the
basis for this same expert to describe the constraints the product will encounter
during each life cycle stage. It is also a means by which each expert can express
their objectives for the product. So, a viewpoint is the expression by an expert of:
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 13 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― Their knowledge
― Constraints linked to their field of expertise
― Specific objectives to optimize the product within each expert field.
The final design should represent a combination of the viewpoints of each of the
relevant actors throughout the life cycle. This global product perspective demands
that all relevant actors within a company, or supply chain, are able to express their
viewpoint at relevant points during the design development. As such they need to be
aware of the design process taking place and be able to communicate their ideas to
the wider design team. This is known as concurrent engineering.
“Concurrent engineering is generally recognized as a practice to integrate various
life-cycle values into the early stage of design. These values include not only the
products primary functions but also their aesthetics, manufacturability, assembly,
serviceability, and recyclability” (Ishii 1993).
Concurrent engineering is often presented as a balance between technical design
constraints, the designers’ goals and costs throughout the life cycle. From now, we
will call “designer” every actor of the product life cycle involved in the design process,
that means, for example R&D, manufacturing engineers, materials specialists,
environmental experts, recyclers. All the designers together form the design team.
2.2.3
Concurrent engineering
In this section we will present the concept of concurrent engineering, in accordance
with Poveda (2001) and Prudhomme (1999).
In order to develop a product a designer, or more often a design team, looks for
information to generate and assess solutions that satisfy both the requirements and
the constraints (Janthong et al. 2010). The product design process consists of a set
of actions realised by different actors. Each actor has his own jurisdiction but the
design team work together. To facilitate well integrated design teams, that can work
together, companies are now developing more “project oriented” processes.
A multidisciplinary group
Within a product oriented process, a multidisciplinary group is created to enable
different company departments and perspectives to be voiced during the design
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 14 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
development. Through this process, compromises are established that provide the
balance between the desirable, technical and economical factions.
This organisation is necessary to avoid a poorly considered viewpoint, or the ‘locking
in’ of undesirable design solutions.
In this organisation, a project manager is needed to maintain a global overview and
resolve conflicts. They also manage the market study and define the economic and
technical objectives. They are responsible for the level of risk but also for the
commercial success of the products being designed. They are also the direct link
between all the different areas of expertise. Within this multidisciplinary group,
representatives from each area of expertise have the opportunity to assess the
project from their viewpoint and communicate their perspective to the project
manager and other experts.
From the willingness to integrate to the need for cooperation
Concurrent engineering aims to allow all disciplines concerned by the product, to
intervene in its design, by taking into account all the different expert viewpoints to
help make design decisions. However, even when the design objectives are clear,
this it is not always an easy approach to implement.
To begin the recommendations and constraints from the different life cycle experts
need to be captured. These then need to be translated from recommendations and
constraints, into product requirements. In addition to this, there is the even more
difficult question of how the different viewpoints coexist. There are often antagonisms
(i.e. manufacturing constraint vs aesthetics).
To help with this implementation, a company needs to determine general rules or
guidelines that can be followed when translating differing viewpoints into product
requirements. These rules must dictate which, if any, viewpoints they prioritise and
define how to develop an optimised product solution that addresses all viewpoints.
The way a company defines these parameters is not the jurisdiction of one actor but
must instead be agreed by all actors in the design process. Achieving this may
require new relationships to be established and new communication channels to be
used. During a project, the different members of a design team construct specific
knowledge and know-how related to their own expertise, and communicating these
areas of expertise is not always easy because their vocabulary, references and goals
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 15 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
may not be the same. To really cooperate, they may need to expand their viewpoint
and consider issues outside their field of expertise. They may also have to develop
more cooperative methods of working and in doing so adapt their goals and usual
references. This can radically change the design process. The goal is not only to
share data but to share and modify their own expert logic.
A concurrent design is always distributed
Knowledge sharing is an important point because a design team will always be
distributed in some way. This distribution could be between the different actors or the
different areas of expertise. The required transfer of knowledge may need to
overcome (Brissaud, Garro 1998):
― Knowledge distributed amongst the design team and separated in both time
and space. Numerous technological fields of knowledge developed as the
designed products became more complex (mechanics, automatic, electronic,
materials, etc.) when the design became divided (functional studies, structural
analysis, calculations, manufacturing approaches, etc.). These varying fields
are likely to use different technical languages which must be translated to
other fields in an understandable manner;
― The different tools or techniques (i.e. industrial design) that are used by the
different members of the design team to create the different versions of the
solution. Those tools are usually used inside the same field of expertise, but
the different representations of the solutions will be distributed in both time and
space.
Two concurrent approaches
Thus concurrent engineering is described as a design process where all product life
cycle characteristics are considered simultaneously. Various structures were
developed to model the design activity and to try to encourage this concurrent
approach. Two main ways were developed (Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido
per un segnalibro.):
― The first is by dividing up the design task amongst different groups who
simultaneously work on different life cycle stages, dependent upon their
expertise. This is referred to as parallel design.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 16 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― The second is to develop a multidisciplinary group who consider the whole
product life cycle together. This is called integrated design.
Parallel design
The total design task is divided amongst
different groups who work
simultaneously
Concurrent
engineering
Integrated design
A multidisciplinary group consider the
whole product life cycle together
Figure 1: Two approaches in concurrent engineering
Having defined these two concurrent engineering approaches we will now discuss
each in more detail.
A concurrent design can be parallel
As described above, parallel design is when the tasks are shared among the design
team and those design tasks are realised in parallel with one another. This concept is
a simultaneous design approach that is characterised by parallel design activities
which often rely on a common database. This parallelism is necessary to decrease
development time.
This can be induced by the fact that:
― The study is very large and has to be separated into different studies. This is
typical in the case of aeroplanes or cars. To encourage successful design
integration, an interface has to be developed to achieve consistency between
the different results;
― The project is subcontracted by a prime contractor;
― A task has been separated into sub tasks dependent upon the design teams
knowledge.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 17 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
A concurrent design can be integrated
In an integrated design approach a design team is developed with the aim of
integrating the constraints from different areas of expertise, early in the design
process.
When the concept of integrated design was first conceived, the first step was to
collect expert knowledge linked to the product life cycle (i.e. manufacturing) and
make this knowledge available to designers through the creation of databases. Two
major problems have been identified with this approach:
― The difficulty of formalising the knowledge used by different experts;
― The fact that knowledge may not be easily understood in the different
contexts.
As integrated design evolved,a new approach appeared. This second approach
involves the integration of the expert themselves within the design team. The
objective is to integrate all life cycle actors into the design process and to provide
them all with the data necessary to think about the solution and to allow them to act
on the product definition. This does not only involve problems related to knowledge
formalisation, but also requires the creation of new tools that favour cooperation
between the different actors, whilst addressing the different viewpoints they have on
the product, during its definition.
Currently, two perspectives of this integration coexist:
― The first gives priority to the effective cooperation of the different life cycle
actors, working on common objects created during the different interactions of
the design team;
― The second is software tools oriented. In that case, the work of each actor of
the life cycle is realised taking into account its own knowledge. The inclusion
of each experts viewpoint is represented in a common database.
According to the above definition, we promote an integrated design approach for the
G.EN.ESI methodology.
2.2.4
Integrated design characteristics
To promote an integrated design approach, the G.EN.ESI methodology has been
developed to support it. This section presents some characteristics of integrated
design, to provide a better understanding of how this approach functions. These
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 18 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
features can be considered as requirements for good implementation of the
G.EN.ESI. methodology in the product development process of a company.
New organizations
The success of an integrated design approach is based on its capacity to provide
designers with tools that support knowledge production in their field of practice, and
to make this knowledge directly usable in other fields of practice. Integrated design
also needs an environment common to everyone within the design team to make
cooperative work and knowledge sharing easier. This common environment must
support knowledge exchange within the design team and be organised to help
people cooperate. In this approach, questions concerning the organisation of the
activities, the management of competences and know-how, and the organisation of
cooperation must be considered. The answers depend on a lot of parameters, such
as the product nature, the company, or the design context. No strict rules govern the
implementation of integrated design; instead, they are often defined on a case by
case basis, and differ from one project to another. Thus, the main changes for
companies choosing to pursue an integrated design approach lie in their
organizational process. The objective of these changes is to create a productoriented design. A product-oriented design approach means that the product does
not evolve through successive actions of designers, instead the product is central.
This requires an adapted environment for exchange and communication, a productoriented organization and specific tools able to communicate and manage the
different competences.
Cooperation
Within the framework of concurrent engineering, i.e. actors with different expertise
will work together, share data, coordinate and cooperate to create a new product.
Cooperation is not restricted to an exchange of partial representations of the product
but includes different types of physical interactions (oral, physical, etc.) representing
the common result and the resources used. Coordination must take into account the
group dynamics created by the different actors as they move towards a common
goal. Jeantet and Boujut (1998) defined conditions to promote the cooperative
coordination:
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 19 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― The establishment of a period of informal work dedicated to the cooperative
coordination
― The inclusion of this informal period in the planning of the project;
― The decrease of daily constraints of the different stakeholders, so they stop
focussing on the day-to-day and can enter into a long-term anticipatory logic;
― The existence of a single information support about the product allowing
modifications and intervention of different actors.
To reach an integrated approach for the designers and promote good coordination, it
is essential to appoint a project manager. The following section has been provided to
help explain and understand the activity of the project manager.
Project manager
The design development towards integrated design involves changes in the process
and requires an actor to carry out the management of the activities and the
coordination of the design team: this person is the project manager. This section
describes the role and the activities of this actor.
The project manager makes sure that the rules and measures defined in the
concurrent engineering process are respected and applied. He or she is also
responsible for internal organization and external representation.
 Internal organization
Each project has its own rules or guidelines for functioning. These rules contribute to
role and activity of each team member. Thus, even if the project manager has a
specific position he does not independently determine the operation of the project
and the activity of each team member. Instead it is the functioning of the project
which guides the role and the activity of the project manager.
 External representation
The project manager or the team who leads the project represents the link between
the project and its external environment. This actor is the project spokesperson in the
company and the special correspondent with the company. The project manager is
then the main vector of the constraints imposed on the project by the external
business environment. This explains a number of constraints demanded by the
project manager in the design process and to the different actors.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 20 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
The project manager leads all the operations necessary for the completion of a
project. These can be divided into four areas that represent the framework of the
project manager activity:
―
―
―
―
Supporting the current state of the product and its evolutions
Integrating the different points of view
Organizing the cooperation
Taking decisions
 Supporting the current state of the product and its evolutions
In a context of integrated design, the product is in the centre of the activity and the
process develops with each product evolution. It means there is no product
checkpoint between each actor to confirm choices, decisions or constraints, as it is
the case in a sequential process. The product, or rather its representations, are
therefore not stable but are subject to change at all times, in all aspects. A
representation is a way for a designer to present a potential solution; this
representation is mostly a CAD model, such as a component, an assembly, or a
sketch. These representations are important because they are used as common
references for the actors and lead their actions in the design process. However if the
current state of the product was the only guide of the design activity, the product
would struggle to meet all the objectives and satisfy all the constraints of the different
design actors. That is the reason why the project manager regulates the activity,
according to the product evolution, in order to maintain a unity between the various
product design viewpoints (including the environmental point of view). The manager
assumes the responsibility for leading the design process towards an optimum
solution. To lead the design process, he must integrate the different points of view
and establish cooperation within the project (that is particularly true if the
(environmental) expert is a consultant).
 Integrating the different points of view
Each actor of the design process brings a viewpoint which depends on his status, his
experience and his position in the product lifecycle. The integration of all the
viewpoints involves a double translation: a translation of the actor’s knowledge in
order to capture it and communicate it, and a translation of his objectives and his
constraints on the product in progress. The project leader manages this translation
task and controls the coherence of the possible evolutions to create a solution that
satisfies specifications and constraints.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 21 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
 Organizing the cooperation
In addition to this the project manager must also encourage cooperation between the
different actors. His role is not just to bring the various perspectives together, but also
to direct the activity of each one and help bring the actors to common expectations.
His role aims to establish a concurrent engineering approach in the definition of a
single product to meet everyone's expectations.
 Taking decisions
There is a difference between managing and steering a project. Steering a project
involves a greater influence on the project development and involves taking an active
part in design development decisions. Decision-making depends on different criteria
and takes into account constraints. The external environment and the state of the
product or of the process are all factors that influence the decision-making of the
project manager. Nevertheless, decisions are taken dynamically and are linked to the
product’s evolution and to the process configuration. They can, therefore, be difficult
to plan. The nature and the origin of the project influence the management activity.
However, whatever the project configuration, a project manager has to meet the
industrial features required, within the constraints of cost, deadline and required
quality.
According to the importance of each constraint, the management will steer differently.
The guidance is based on the management’s priority and on the time limitation. For
example, an economic management describes a management technique where the
cost control is a primary concern. Considering technical parameters as a priority in
order to reach a specific quality still represents a different way of management. In
reality the project manager has to consider many different aspects as well as
environmental concerns. The special feature of concurrent engineering consists in
integrating the different viewpoints during the product definition.
This integration of knowledge and know-how must be organized, decided and
planned to get the best coherence in the process and to reach an optimum for the
product. This integration must take into account the classical concerns: cost, deadline
and quality. The multiplicity of viewpoints, methods and objectives is a source of
conflict.
Steering a project does not involve settling conflicts but rather bringing the actors
together to identify these conflicts and resolve them themselves as soon as possible.
The same applies to crises and the project manager makes sure that solutions to
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 22 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
crises and conflicts will fit into the optimal solution for product and process with the
financial, technical and temporal demands. However, the three previous constraints
are not the only constraints that the product must adhere to. Other features such as
managing uncertainty, risk management, innovation, and environmental concerns
have to be considered by the project manager. Thus, steering a project requires a
definition of the activity of each expert regarding all the constraints.
The project manager does not determine all the measures taken within the project,
but he guarantees that all the operations move in the same direction to meet the
different constraints. He carries the identity of the project while the others actors
work, in general, on specific aspects. This section has shown that the steering activity
is complex. Indeed, being a project manager is a multidisciplinary activity and the
activity evolves over time, according to the process configuration. That is the reason
why the current trend is to develop multidisciplinary teams to support the leading
task.
Tools
In the approach of concurrent engineering, the design team’s knowledge and also the
tools supporting this knowledge must evolve to be disseminated within the company.
The need for mutual exchanges in the design process, results in the creation of new
expert tools designed to enable a concurrent approach. Thus, a new generation of
tools is developed to allow easy reorganization and diffusion of knowledge in order to
quickly and efficiently integrate them into the product design process. Different fields
were concerned with these changes, including assembly (Rejnéri 2000), calculation
(Fine et al. 2000), manufacturing (Brissaud 1992) (Paris 1995) (Blondaz 1999), or
even ergonomics (Zwolinski 1999).
Moreover, a multitude of tools for project management were developed in order to
facilitate the steering work. Some of them are commercially available and others
have been developed internally by companies to manage the projects in a way
specifically tailored to their products or their functioning. These tools cover almost all
of the tasks that are required in a steering team. However a single tool cannot
support all of these tasks. These tools are therefore built to meet specific features
concerning the needs of the management activity.
The following section presents tools dedicated to the project management and they
are summed up in Table 1.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 23 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
 Specific management tools
Some tools have been developed specifically for the activity of steering a project.
They are intended to allow steering actors to lead their activity with regard to the
constraints that the project must meet.
Planning and resource sharing
The project manager is designed to promote a concurrent engineering approach. To
achieve that, he has a mass of tools including for example PERT and Gantt
diagrams. These tools enable the steering team to plan, monitor and control the
allocation and the execution of the project tasks.
Investment and cost tracking
Many financial tools, cost calculation or investment calculations are also available in
order to determine the economic approach of the project.
 Tools supporting integration
Other tools are also used to support project management. Some of them are not
originally designed for that purpose but they can be useful because they represent
tools with common formats, able to support the integration of different expertise.
Assembly
The CAD (Computer Aided Design) tools can be used as steering tools. They make it
possible to quickly visualise the assembly of solutions and the steering team can thus
detect technical, geometrical or functional design problems. Although they were not
developed for this purpose, they nevertheless represent a support that has now
become essential to manage integration.
Simulation
Simulation tools, as with CAD tools, are not specifically dedicated to project
management but their contribution is important. They help encourage awareness
within the management team of the performance of different components, and help
them define the next tasks required to create a coherent whole.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 24 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Data management
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) aims to structure, capitalize on and reuse the
different technical information produced and used in a project. As described in the
previous sections, an integrated design project involves cooperation and information
sharing between the different actors of the project. This leads teams to focus on two
specific criteria in the data structure; scalability and non-repetition. This approach
aims to promote a better flow of information and thus a better coordination between
actors with different skills and knowledge.
There are also many other tools to address other specific aspects such as control of
risks, innovation management or marketing position. However, whatever the tools
used in project management, they do not deal with all the complexities of steering
problems.
 The tool for technical management does not exist
Providing effective management tools that meet the physical reality of the project is a
challenge for tool development companies. This challenge has still not been entirely
addressed. Currently tools only partially meet the specific needs of a project.
Effective management tools are those that approach the steering activity through the
common fields shared by all projects, such as market, budgetary or time constraints.
However it appears that no tool (as far as we know) takes into account the physical
or technological translation required to translate multiple viewpoints. This integration
is different according to the nature of the product being designed and the
development process. In this context, how can a tool support project steering with
regard to the physical reality of a project, when there are many perspectives relating
to the design outcome?
Thus there is a paradox. The manager of a concurrent engineering project remains
responsible for cost, time and quality. Moreover, the primary objective of a design
project is to define a product and the optimum outcome will be one that addresses all
viewpoints and translates these into specifications for the product. While many tools
consider the constraints of quality, cost and time, no tool assists the project manager
in ensuring consistency and cohabitation of technical solutions, developed by the
different actors in the process. This aspect is usually managed with the expertise and
the experience of the management team. As such a steering team will require skills in
design in addition to communication, management and economics in order to achieve
satisfactory integration. We will see that a steering team needs skills in environmental
aspects to ensure its integration as well.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 25 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Table 1: Tools for design project management
Specific
management
tools
Tools
supporting
integration
Aim
User
Manage a specific task
of a project
Steering
actors
Support project
Designers,
management & support
management
the integration of
team
different expertise
Examples
Planning and resource sharing
(PERT & GANTT diagrams)
Investment and cost tracking
(Investment & costs
calculation tools)
Tools for assembly solutions
(CAD tools)
Simulations tools
Data management tools (PLM)
The next part explains the main changes to consider in an integrated design
approach, in order to include environmental targets in the design of a product, and
implement an eco-design approach within a company.
2.3
Changes induced by Eco-design at different levels of the
company
Currently, mechanical designers provide technical solutions to meet companies’ and
customers’ needs, in relation to the functional performance, product cost and mass
production. Despite increasing interest in environmental issues, very few design
specifications include environmental targets. According to Bovea and Pérez-Belis
(2012), three key factors are required to optimise the design process in term of
environmental performance:
― The integration of the environmental aspects in the early stages of the design
process;
― The consideration of a life cycle approach;
― The consideration of a multi-criteria approach.
The methodology developed for the G.EN.ESI. project aims to fit in with these key
factors and integrated design is seen as the best approach to reach our future
environmental goals.
However for this integration to be effective changes may be required in the company.
The life cycle perspective, required to integrate environmental goals into a design
process, separates them from other technical constraints and demands the
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 26 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
consideration of organisational aspects. In accordance with Le Pochat (2005), we will
show how this new viewpoint, considering a multi criteria approach during the
assessment and the improvement of the product induces important changes in a
company. We will have to consider those singularities in order to be able to apply the
GENESI methodology.
2.3.1
Data fluxes
A variety of data needs to be compiled to be able to realize an environmental
assessment and environmental improvements for the products. The data can be
technical, organizational but also sociological. Moreover, this data will also come
from inside and outside the boundaries of the company, from the raw material
extraction phase to the end-of life phase. This inventory shows that beyond the
classical design teams, eco-design projects require the involvement of all the
divisions of the company. Bertoluci et al. (2005) showed on an industrial example that
the informational fluxes were transformed and that a real transverse approach is
necessary inside and outside the company. Sarkis (2003) showed that when strategic
decisions have to be made at the strategic level of the company, they have to modify
their internal organization and the relations with the customers and the supply chain.
As mentioned by Gondran (2001), environmental data is necessary to manage
environmental impacts for a company and the network of data is really important to
integrate environmental aspects during the design process. The more a company
constructs relations with others, the better environmental aspects are integrated.
At this stage it is worth noting two potential problems:
― On one hand, the necessary environmental data are outside the boundaries of
the company and are spread on numerous suppliers, subcontractors,
customers, recyclers, etc.
― On the other hand , that data is not always directly available. In fact the need
for the data may appear gradually with the eco design emergence in
companies. As that data was not needed before, it was not collected.
This shows the necessity to create those environmental data fluxes to complete the
existing data fluxes. Many companies are now working on these questions. Indeed,
this modification is not trivial for the company, because:
― The data networks are not usual. This leads the company to modify the habits
and relations with the life cycle partners;
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 27 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― The data are rare and distributed, generating difficulties in the collection and
inducing time consuming processes and additional costs.
2.3.2
Partnerships
One of the barriers for the eco-design approach in companies is the separation
between the « environment division » and the classical structures (the « green wall
»). And yet the representation of the fluxes linked to environmental concerns in the
company and toward external partners shows that all the actors of the company are
affected by eco-design. Beyond the actors of the company, industrial partners from
the supply chain have to be implicated in the eco-design processes. This implies a
network involving internal and external partners and changes in the works of those
partners.
2.3.3
The design process
Sherwin and Bhamra (2001) state that eco-design implies a concurrent engineering
process. But the integration of environmental aspects during the design process is
also dependent upon the use of new tools, new design processes and new
knowledge (Millet 2003). Tonnelier (2002) also underlined that technical aspects
have to be considered for eco-design as well as management aspects.
So, the new organisation for eco-design, based on concurrent engineering, should
consider the following transformations during the design process:
― The use of new tools (eco-design tools);
― The creation of new indicators to be able to assess the product under design
from an environmental point of view;
― The use of new data;
― The implementation of new procedures to allow definition and validation that
include environmental constraints into the product requirements.
2.3.4
Companies strategies
Integrating eco-design involves changes within the corporate strategy at two levels
(Sarkis 2003):
― At the level of its policy;
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 28 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― At the level of the strategic approach of the product development, i.e. for the
definition of the specifications.
Policy: the environment as a value
The company has to define the environment as a value in order to explain its
involvement among the workforce of the company. This involvement is necessary
(Argyris 2000) to ensure the success of the integration.
Thus, the integration of this environmental constraints change the hierarchy of usual
values within the company (performance, quality, cost, etc.). This hierarchy has then
to be redefined. Millet (2003) mentioned a paradigm shift in the business.
This change in the corporate strategy will contribute to the modification of the
communication system of the company, both internally (information, involvement and
motivation of staff) and externally (marketing, CSR, etc.).
Definition of the specifications
Defining the product specifications is difficult in the evolving context of the company.
The integration of eco-design, changing the influence of each constraint to each
other, will force the company to change its business strategy to enable the project
team to prioritize constraints, and define product specifications.
2.3.5
Knowledge and skills
Eco-design integration, through the integration of new and complex constraints,
modifies the required knowledge. All the modifications presented in this section
require knowledge and skills which need to be created because they do not culturally
exist in the company. They will enable the company to:
― Define the strategy;
― Use the eco-design tools;
― Manage the environmental data of the product.
Jacqueson (2002) declares that this environmental knowledge is the driver of the
eco-design integration.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 29 of 116
Final Version 1.0
2.3.6
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Cultural change
Eco-design integration also changes the vision the designers have of their product
because of the life cycle approach and the new environmental dimension. Each
lifecycle phase of the product shows this product with characteristics different from
those usually considered. The specification is not only expressed as functions that
meet the performance requirements for the customer. The product must also be
considered in terms of "disutility" (Millet 1995), expressed as functions of
environmental impacts.
Eco-design forces designers, and even the wider company, to adopt a different
approach to their product. They must not only consider the phase of design and
manufacturing of the product, but also the phases of use and end of life and the
phases of extraction and production of raw materials, materials and energy.
Moreover, the design team has to consider, in addition to the usual technical criteria
such as hardness, strength, weight, etc., the environmental technical criteria such as
environmental toxicity, the embodied energy, the CO2 emitted, the disassembly, etc.
Eco-design requires adopting a systemic vision of the product.
2.4
The G.EN.ESI. methodology
2.4.1
Working hypothesis
Actors
At the beginning of a project, a design team is constituted to develop a product. This
team consists of designers from the design office but it also includes other actors
from different departments, like research and development, methods, production,
purchasing department, etc. Within this G.EN.ESI. methodology, we have used the
term « designer » universally to refer to every actor in the design team, regardless of
the department they come from. The design team is managed by a steering team,
usually one person known as the project manager. In a context of integrated design,
this project manager has a multidisciplinary role. He ensures the coordination
between the different actors and their points of view in order to meet all the
constraints.
In addition to this an environment expert is strongly recommended in order to
manage eco-design and the environmental issues in the product design process. In
this methodology, this expert is called the Environmental Design Manager. Indeed,
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 30 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
the project manager needs to be assisted by this environmental expert because he
usually does not have the skills to understand the environmental data, the
environmental indicators and thus he cannot take informed decisions. Thus the
Environmental Design Manager is a member of the steering team. The
Environmental Design Manager can be an environmental expert of the company or if
there is no environmental expert, it can be a consultant. In the same way, an
environmental expert may be required occasionally within the design process to
manage environmental issue in a particular field. By working alongside the
environmental manager, the project manager can learn environmental skills. As this
knowledge increases, environmental responsibilities will tend to be shared throughout
the design team and the need for a distinct Environmental Design Manager reduces.
In addition to internal information environmental data is also required from suppliers
to eco-design a product. The suppliers are therefore requested to share information
about their products, components, materials, factories or other. The shared data will
be useful to realise the environmental and cost analysis of the designed product. This
close relationship between the suppliers and the design team is quite new and
requires careful management.
Figure 2 shows the different actors involved in the design process and their
connections. It compares the difference between a classical integrated design and an
integrated design associated to eco-design.
Project management
team
Environmental
expert
Actor n
Actor 2
Actor 1
Actor n
Actor 2
Actor 1
Supplier portal: lifecycle data
Project management team
Environmental
Design Manager
Figure 2: The different actors within the company required for classical integrated design (on the
left) and for integrated design associated to ecodesign (on the right)
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 31 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Faber Example
In the following section, this methodology has been exemplified by applying it to
Faber, a company who design and manufacture domestic cooker hoods. In Faber
different types of designers contribute to the product development process:
mechanical designers, packaging designers, electrical designers and electronic
designers. Each section has its manager; who constitute the management team. As
they do not have an environmental expert within the company, they would need to
bring in a consultant to perform the role of the Environmental Design Manager or to
dedicate training time to one of their engineer to increase their level of knowledge on
the subject. The Environmental Design Manager is also included in the management
team.
The design organisation
The methodology aims at integrating environmental issues into the design process
while keeping the traditional design tools. Below are presented some classical tools
often used in design activities and particularly using computer-based resources.
― The most commonly used software is Computer Aided Design (CAD) software;
it enables the development of geometric models: 3D parts and assemblies
(Noël and Brissaud 2003).
― Expert software is employed for specific tasks. Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
is a method of mechanical computer analysis, used to determine stresses and
strains in complicated mechanical systems (Dar et al. 2002). Designers use
FEA simulations to validate the models developed.
― The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a specific methodology to
evaluate a system, design, process, or service for possible ways in which
failures can occur (Stamatis 2003). After identification and evaluation of the
known or potential failure, an action plan is carried out to minimize the
probability or the effect of this failure.
― Steering tools are used to help the project manager lead the design process.
These tools can be able to manage the product model and different indicators.
― Expert tools have been developed to help the project manager prioritise each
criteria and each constraint. After this step, this kind of tool helps the project
manager make suitable choices.
― Reporting tools are used to automatically generate reports.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 32 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― Tools to help designers to solve design problems or to easily improve the
product. These tools can be in the form of guidelines.
― Faber example: Designers mainly use these tools during the development
phase: CAD tool, electrical CAD tool for the wiring design, FMEA and FEA.
None of these tools integrate environmental concerns even though the decisions
made when using these tools can contribute to the environmental impacts.
The product model
The product model is based on the CAD-model and it also contains the function
model, the life cycle model and the usage model. They are not always formalized but
appear as essential for environmental aspects integration. Many different
representations of the product life cycle model are completed within PLM software.
So, the solution model has to be established with classical design tools and with
others tools corresponding to each simplified model.
― The function model is obtained by carrying out a functional and a modular
analysis. Thus as a product aims to fulfil one or many functions to satisfy a
need, the functional analysis enables the design team to identify the functions
of the product and determine the optimal way of providing them (Hauschild et
al. 2004). The modular analysis consists of defining sets of components in
modules. Each module corresponds to a specific function of the product.
― The life cycle model consists of models of the different life cycle phases;
manufacturing, supply chain, use and end-of-life. The objective of this model is
to provide designers with the information needed to make life cycle choices
that benefit the product from an environmental and economic viewpoint, and to
encourage their implementation. Life cycle choices significantly influence a
product’s final environmental impact.
― The usage model enables characterization of the use phase. The objective of
this model is to better consider the use phase, during the design process. This
would be particularly focused on products which need energy and other
resources such as water to operate and/or processes that produce waste. The
development of clear environmental indicators to assess the use phase, in
terms of consumed resources (energy included) and waste generated; is
important to enable designers to design a more responsible use pattern.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 33 of 116
Final Version 1.0
2.4.2
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Requirements
In this section, the different requirements needed for the development of the
G.EN.ESI methodology (and of the G.EN.ESI platform) such as indicators,
sustainability calculation module or specific tools are presented.
Indicators
Different types of indicators are used in the G.EN.ESI. methodology to assess the
product; environmental indicators, coming directly or indirectly from the LCA, cost
indicators, indicators typically used by the designers, energy efficiency of electrical
motors, and other ad hoc indicators such as the recyclability rate or the disassembly
rate. The cost indicators consist of two different indicators, the first one representing
the financial cost and the second one representing an environmental cost (Kara et al.
2007; Jing and Songqing 2011). Within the G.EN.ESI. methodology, only the cost of
design decisions in a traditional sense will be considered.
The sustainability calculation module
The sustainability calculation module consists of three modules: a simplified life cycle
assessment (S-LCA), a simplified life cycle cost module (S-LCC) and a specific
calculation module for ad-hoc indicators. This module is managed by the
Environmental Design Manager and returns indicators. Data to carry out the
calculations come from the suppliers and from the designers’ tools.
Here are some details concerning the life cycle assessment (LCA). In eco-design an
environmental assessment is about the main function of the product. Thus, the
functional analysis will help to determine the functional unit - the reference unit required for the LCA. The modular analysis will also be useful for the life cycle
analysis; indeed the contribution of each module to the environmental impacts could
thus be calculated. It enables the designers to know the weakness of each module in
term of environmental considerations.
Dashboard
The dash board consists of a panel of suitable indicators that represent the product
and then guide the design towards the objectives. The management team chooses
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 34 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
these indicators which will be visible by all the actors involved in the design process.
The indicators could come from the calculation module or from indicators directly
used by the designers.
CBR
The CBR tool assists the designers in improving the environmental performance of
the product through the utilisation of existing knowledge and relevant eco-design
guidelines. The CBR tool is divided into two groups: eco-design guidelines and
knowledge about company design choices.
Reports
With the assistance of the Environmental Design Manager two kinds of reports are
generated from the calculation model each with different goals. . The first is
dedicated to the management team and consists of an environmental report and a
cost report. This report, associated with the dashboard, aims at having a
comprehensive vision of the product under development and highlight areas of
weaknesses. The second type of reports is dedicated to the designers. The
management team can select different features to be shown and reported, for
example:
― The component point of view;
― The product point of view (assembly, etc.);
― Another point of view: material, distribution, etc.
According to the results described in the report, specific rules and guidelines are
suggested to improve the critical points of the product.
Specific tools
As described above, the calculation module consists of a S-LCA, a S-LCC and a
specific calculation module for ad-hoc indicators. In order to realise these
calculations, a variety of data is needed. The data required for a simplified LCA often
just describe the materials and their manufacturing processes. As such we have to
define both for each material used. . In order to carry out an LCC, the cost associated
to these materials and processes also have to be collected.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 35 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
The G.EN.ESI. methodology promotes the use of specific tools to assist data
collection. To perform a more in-depth LCA data concerning all the life cycle phases
must be collected. It is therefore appropriate to distinguish the different types of data
according to the life cycle phases. As the energy consumption is a driver for the
mechatronic products, the energy efficiency is a crucial issue. To address each life
cycle phase we have developed four specific tools reflecting different kinds of data:
Eco-Material, 0km tool for the transport phase, DfEE (Design for Energy Efficiency)
for the use phase and LeanDFD (Lean Design for Disassembly) for the end-of-life
phase.
These tools also have the objective to guide the improvement of the environmental
performance of the product. Indeed, after the assessment realised by the calculation
module, feedback is generated for the designers in order to give them objectives for
redesign. As such these tools include optimization modules, that compare design
changes and help the designer identify hoe to improve the environmental
assessment.
Therefore these tools are required to gather information about the life cycle data of
the product, but also to provide optimisation modules in order to improve the
environmental features of the product.
Structure
Figure 3 represents the main elements described in this section and the relationships
between them. To sum up, the project manager is in charge of the product model and
the dashboard including indicators. The Environmental Design Manager works on the
sustainability calculation module to get indicators and reports. Obviously, the project
manager and the Environmental Design Manager work together to manage the
project and to make the decisions. The designers use their tools to realise their tasks
and satisfy the requirements and the constraints. Suppliers provide data to the
specific tools.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 36 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Project management team
Product model
Dashboard
Relevant indicators
Environmental Design Manager
Sustainability calculation module
LCA
Specific calculation
module
LCC
Indicators
CBR
Reports
Previous knowledge
Guidelines
Designers
Classic
design tools
Specific tools
EcoMaterial
0km
DFEE
LeanDFD
Data collection and Optimisation
Communication
Data fluxes
Feedback
Suppliers
Figure 3: Elements of the methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 37 of 116
Final Version 1.0
2.4.3
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Steps of the methodology
The G.EN.ESI. methodology (Figure 4) consists of six main phases:
―
―
―
―
―
―
Functional analysis
Determination of environmental hot spots
Determination of the environmental strategies and deployment in indicators
Guidance
Sustainability check
Impacts of the decisions in the long term company objectives
The phases are described in the following paragraphs.
1) The first step of the methodology is to carry out a functional analysis and a
modular analysis for an existing product. This approach is useful either for the
realization of a new product and for the optimization of an existing product
(D1.2). The modular analysis concerns only the redesign of an existing
product; it consists in defining sets of components in modules. Each module
corresponds to a specific function of the product.
This is a necessary step because with eco-design the goal is to maintain
functionality whilst minimising environmental impacts and using resources
efficiently.
2) The second step of the methodology is to realise an initial environmental
assessment of an existing product. This consists of identifying the most
environmental critical points, called “environmental hot spots”, during the life
cycle of the product. The environmental hot spots represent the worst
environmental impacts in the product life cycle, for example the energy
depletion or the waste production during a specific life cycle stage. Different
ways are used to find them, the designer will carry out this step based on:
 The literature and legislation. The literature is useful to find similar case
studies already analysed. One objective of this step is to determine the
legislation and standards to which the product is subjected. This can
help to determine some priorities to improve the environmental
performance of the product;
 Previous experience. The designer uses their own experience about
previous products to guide them in their task;
 An initial assessment phase. In cases where the product is well defined
(e.g. in the case of redesign), the initial assessment is done by a
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 38 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
simplified life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of the existing product. A more
qualitative LCA or life cycle approaches can be used to identify
potential environmental hot spots when the product is not sufficiently
well defined (Hauschild et al. 2004).
3) The next step enables the company, and specifically the design team, to
establish the environmental strategy, according to the environmentally critical
points highlighted in the second phase. The strategy is then deployed in
indicators: the designer’s team set design targets translated in values for the
chosen indicators. The design targets depend on different criteria mainly the
environmental hot spots, the company objectives, the product or other minor
criteria like the place where the product will be used or the type of end-users.
4) Step 4, called the guidance step, aims to help the designer improve the
environmental performance of the products using guidelines, checklist, etc.
and respecting the standards. The product is optimised according to the
priorities and targets established in the previous steps (Hauschild et al. 2004).
It is a continuous and iterative phase of assessment, advice and action.
Specific modules help the designer in the advising activity:
 Rules
 Guidelines
 CBR tool: the concept of this tool is based on the adaptation of previous
solutions to solve the current problems (Janthong et al. 2010). It
contains a data base which lists the previous design solutions. This tool
enables the reuse of company knowledge and experience.
 DFD advisor: it provides a specific guideline based on the design for
disassembly (DFD)
5) During this step the final sustainability check is carried out. This evaluation
highlights the potential points where the design still does not reach the targets.
The evaluation phase is based on a collection of data from experts and
contributes to the establishment of the different reports.
6) The last step is to assess the impacts of the previous decisions from two
perspectives. The first one is about the project itself in order to redefine the
strategic indicators if needed. The second one concerns the impacts of the
decisions on long term company objectives.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 39 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
1
Functions and functional unit
2
Environmental hot spots and
Legislation
Initial assessment
Sustainability calculation module
3
Distributed enterprise
strategy and Indicators
Strategic decisions
Dashboard
4
Guidance
Actions to improve
CBR
5
Sustainability check (collect,
evaluate, report)
Evaluation phase
Sustainability calculation module
6
Impact of the decisions in both
the project and the long term
Strategic decisions
Figure 4: The G.EN.ESI. methodology
The next part presents the principle of the case-based reasoning (CBR) database
which will be used in the specific phase of guidance (phase 4, Figure 3). It explains
how eco-design guidelines can be used to improve product sustainability from the
CBR database.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 40 of 116
Final Version 1.0
3
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
INDICATORS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO
IMPROVE PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY
The aim of this part is to present the first study realised on the indicators for the
simplified life cycle assessment (S-LCA) and on the design guidelines to improve
sustainability. These contributions give first results but this work will evolve and be
continued during the tools specification.
3.1
Indicators for the simplified life cycle assessment tool
As far as the indicators for the simplified Life cycle Assessment (S-LCA) tool are
concerned, an analysis on how to select them was carried out in WP 1, adopting a
twofold approach: i) firstly, the midpoint impact assessment categories and indicators
recommended by JRC-IES were considered. ii) Secondly, an analysis of the
emerging eco-standards for mechatronic products has been done in order to
evaluate whether specific indicators were explicitly required.
Overall, the analysis resulted in the identification of the following impact categories
and indicators:
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
climate change
ozone depletion
eutrophication
acidification
human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer related)
respiratory inorganics
ionizing radiation
ecotoxicity
photochemical ozone formation
land use
resource depletion
water consumption
energy consumption.
In order to select a subset of meaningful impact categories and indicators, the
following elements were taken into consideration:
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 41 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― the tools already available. Since the S-LCA tool will be developed starting out
by the GRANTA software, the main characteristics (e.g. impact categories and
indicators presently considered, databases used) and constraints (e.g.
possibility to conduct the assessment only for a limited set of impact
categories, due to license agreements) of the existing software tool were taken
into account;
― the final user of the tools: designers, with limited knowledge about the
environmental aspects and about the life cycle assessment method;
― the main aims of a study carried out with this tool: to provide information about
the main environmental aspects of concern of the product at hand, in order to
identify Ecodesign strategies for its improvement;
― the data inputs: data about the materials used, the energy consumption in the
manufacturing and use phases, the destination of the product at the end of its
life and thus the amount of materials that can be recovered, reuse or disposed
off, depending also on its disassembly rate.
Moreover, considering that:
― the LCA study should not be carried out according to and in compliance with
the ILCD Handbook “General Guidance on Life Cycle Assessment”;
― the purpose of a study carried out with the simplified LCA tool is not to get any
third-party certification, such as an Environmental Product Declaration or any
other Type III labels.
The following short list has been drafted:
―
―
―
―
3.1.1
Resource depletion
Climate change
Water consumption
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
Resource depletion
This impact category is recommended by the ILCD Handbook “Recommendations for
Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context”. This category is classified
as Type II1, i.e. recommended but in need of some improvements, and it makes use
1
The recommended impact categories at midpoint, indicators and characterisation models are classified according to their quality into three levels: "I" ‐ recommended and satisfactory, II”‐ recommended but in need of some improvements, “III” ‐ recommended, but to be applied with caution. "Interim" ‐ a method was This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 42 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
of the CML 2002 method for the life cycle impact assessment calculation (Guinée et
al., 2002). The characterisation factors are named ‘abiotic depletion potentials’ (ADP)
and expressed in kg of antimony equivalent - to be multiplied with the amount of a
given resource extracted - which is the adopted reference element.
Characterization factors are given for metals, fossil fuels and, in the case of reserve
base and economic reserves, mineral compounds. In addition, the method covers
most of the substances/materials identified as critical by the European Commission’s
Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials.
3.1.2
Climate change
This impact category is recommended by the ILCD Handbook “Recommendations for
Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context”, and it is classified as Type I,
i.e. recommended and satisfactory. It makes use of the baseline model of 100 years
of the IPCC for the life cycle impact assessment and the indicator considered is the
“Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100)”.
3.1.3
Water consumption
This is an indicator suggested by the MEEUP methodology for Ecodesign products
and as such it is relevant and needs to be considered for the simplified LCA tool.
Originally it includes both process and cooling water. However, LCA usually deals
with process water, i.e. water from the public grid that is used in a process and is
then disposed off through the sewage system or as water vapour to air. Cooling
water is often water from a nearby river that is used to cool a process and then
returned to the same river. The impact of this “Thermal pollution”, as it has been
defined also in the MEEUP methodology, is not well defined and many LCA data
sources do not even consider cooling water. An analysis of the Ecoinvent database,
which is one of the most used LCA database and also the one used also by the
existing GRANTA tool, resulted in the identification of the following types of water
included in the database: all water extractions (rivers, lakes, ocean, sole, from wells)
except for the water used for cooling and used in turbines in hydroelectric power
production, which are not characterized in the impact assessment..
considered the best among the analysed methods for the impact category, but still immature to be recommended. This does not indicate that the impact category would not be relevant but further efforts are needed before a recommendation for use can be given. This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 43 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
For these reasons, given that consistency with the Ecoinvent database needs to be
guaranteed as it represents the database behind the simplified LCA tool, only the
process water will be accounted for with the indicator “Water consumption”. It is
measured in m3.
3.1.4
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
Together with the water consumption, the MEUUP recommends to take into account
also the total consumption of energy. As indicator, the CED has been selected. It
represents the direct and indirect energy use of a product/service/system throughout
the life cycle, including the energy consumed during the extraction, manufacturing,
and disposal of the raw materials.
Given the existence of diverging concepts for the characterization of the different
primary energy carriers and given the consistency to be assured with the Ecoinvent
database, the method used by Ecoinvent is suggested for the simplified LCA tool.
According to the method adopted in Ecoinvent, the following categories and flows are
accounted for by the CED method:
Non-renewable resources (fossil: hard coal, lignite, crude oil, natural gas, coal mining
off-gas; nuclear: uranium; primary forest: wood and biomass from primarily forests)
Renewable resources (biomass: wood, food products, biomass from agriculture; wind
(wind energy; solar: solar energy, used for heat and electricity; geothermal:
geothermal energy; water: run of river hydro power, reservoir hydro power).
The cumulative energy demand (CED) is also used as a screening indicator for
environmental impacts. Furthermore, CED-values can be used to compare the
results of a detailed LCA study to others where only primary energy demand is
reported.
3.2
Design guidelines
The knowledge which will be the basis of the CBR database can be divided in two
groups: eco-design guidelines and knowledge about company design choices.
The eco-design guidelines can be divided in general purpose guidelines and specific
guidelines. The general purpose ones are grouped by life cycle phase (material
selection, process selection, transports, use, end of life), and objective (the purpose
achieved after the application of the related guideline) and they are retrieved by the
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 44 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
state of the art in this topic. Specific guidelines for mechatronic products are
essentially the EuP directives for each product type and they look mainly at the use
phase, in particular at the reduction of the energy consumption and other in-use
consumables (water, etc.).
The knowledge is represented by all the choices made from designers in the
development of other similar products. Using this knowledge, the design process can
be assisted and guided in the selection of the best materials, components and so on.
3.2.1
Standard components of mechatronic products
The first step in the definition of eco-design guidelines and in the knowledge
management is a selection of the mechatronic products to which the study applies; in
particular two product families have been chosen: a cooker hood and a washing
machine, as they are considered to be illustrative of other mechatronic products.
Then for each of these products, functional groups and standard components are
defined. Standard components are those components that are common to each
model of a specific product family; functional groups represent each of the major
functions of a product, each of which is performed by a collection of different
components, as shown in the following tables. These tables present the functional
groups and standard components for a cooker hood and a washing machine.
Table 2: Functional groups and standard components for cooker hoods
FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Motor + Impeller
STANDARD COMPONENT
Electric Motor
Capacitor
Motor Impeller
Blower (to the right)
Blower
Blower (to the left)
Chimney
Cover
Cover
Aesthetic Panel
Electricity Supply
Transformer
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 45 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Electronic Control Board Electronic Board
Grease Filter
Filters
Carbon Filter
Lamps
Lamps
Support
Supports
Plastic Parts
Metal Parts
Others
Wiring & Connectors
Packaging
Table 3: Functional groups and standard components for washing machines
FUNCTIONAL GROUP
STANDARD COMPONENT
Frame
Cover
Support + Cover
Top Panel
Aesthetic Panel
Raer Panel
Electric Motor
Motor
Pulley
Belt
Drum
Rear Drum Flange
Front Drum Flange
Crociera
Washing Group
Crociera Shaft
Window Glass
Window Frame
Window Rubber Seal
Top Door
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 46 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Pressure Switch
Dispenser Hose
Cold Water Hose
Drainage Hose
Idraulic Group
Water Pump Hose
Water Pump
Water Tub
Water Tub Hub
Water Tub Flange
Soap Dispenser
Soap Dispenser
Heat Converter
Electric Resistance
Damper
Spring
Damping Group
Counterweights
Rubber Foot
Electronic Board
Electronic Board
Plastic Parts
Others
Metal Parts
Wiring & Connectors
Packaging
3.2.2
Eco-design guidelines classification
The second step of the study is the individuation and the selection of eco-design
guidelines. The definition of these eco-design guidelines is based on the state of the
art research, completed in Deliverable 1.1. From the literature it is possible to notice
that eco-design guidelines often provide general indications related to different
stages of the design process and to different phases of product life cycle. In this
analysis, each specific eco-design guideline is classified on the basis of the life cycle
phase to which it is related, the objective that the guideline aims to reach and the
standard component to which it is connected.
In order to facilitate the guideline consultation and to make it effective for designers, a
first subdivision is proposed. Eco-design guidelines can be, at first, subdivided in
guidelines related to products and to components.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 47 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Eco-design guidelines related to products are all those indications that can be
associated to different product families, and provide general recommendations valid
for different products. An example of guidelines related to product is “Minimize
components number”, which is applicable to all products in order to improve their
recyclability and minimize disassembly time. Through consideration of each of these
general eco-design guidelines, the designer is able to develop a global
understanding of the best design choices and identify critical areas upon which to
focus. This typology of these guidelines does not refer to a specific life cycle phase,
but can concern different stages of the product life cycle and design process. Ecodesign guidelines related to the product are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Eco-design guidelines related to products (Sources: see Eco-Design guidelines References)
GENERAL GUIDELINE
LIFE CYCLE PHASE
OBJECTIVE
Minimize component
number
Material selection,
Production process,
End of life
Improve product recyclability,
Minimize disassembly time
Minimize material types
used in the product
Material selection, End
of life
Improve product recyclability,
Minimize disassembly time
Optimize product
functionality
All
Increase product life time
Prefer simply, easily
dismountable and
reparable parts
Material selection,
Production process,
End of life
Improve product reparability,
improve disassemblability of the
product, Improve product reparability
Avoid painted parts of
plastic parts
Production process
Improve product reparability
Facilitate access to
product components
Use (maintenance),
End of life
Improve disassemblability of the
product, Increase product
recyclability
Optimize product
functionality
Use phase
Minimize resources and energy
consumption
Optimize product
efficiency under its most
common conditions
Use phase
Minimize resources and energy
consumption
Permit to use product and
its components as much
as possible
Use phase
Minimize resources and energy
consumption
Appropriate selection of
materials and their
compatibility (*)
End of life
Improve product reparability,
Improve disassemblability of the
product
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 48 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Prefer simply, easily
dismountable and
reparable parts
End of life
Improve product reparability,
Improve disassemblability of the
product
Minimize the number and
typology of fasteners used
in an assembly
End of life
Improve product reparability,
Improve disassemblability of the
product
Standardize fasteners
used
End of life
Improve product reparability,
Improve disassemblability of the
product
Facilitate access to
product components
End of life
Improve disassemblability of the
product,
Avoid the use of screws,
adhesives, welding, fast
coupling
End of life
Improve product reparability
Pay attention to the
complexity of disassembly
instruments
End of life
Minimize disassembly time
(*) Related to metals some indications can be suggested:
―
―
―
―
Unplated metals are more recyclable than plated ones.
Low alloy metals are more recyclable than high alloy ones.
Most cast irons are easily recycled.
Aluminium alloys, steel, and magnesium alloys are readily separated and
recycled from automotive shredder output.
― Contamination of iron or steel with copper, tin, zinc, lead, or aluminium
reduces recyclability.
― Contamination of aluminium with iron, steel, chromium, zinc, lead, copper or
magnesium reduces recyclability.
― Contamination of zinc with iron, steel, lead, tin, or cadmium reduces
recyclability
Eco-design guidelines related to components, instead, can be divided further on
general and specific indications. The general ones are applicable to almost all
components of different product families and provide suggestions about specific
components of a product. Designers can use this advice to understand how to
improve the environmental sustainability of the components they design. General
eco-design guidelines related to components are shown in Table 5.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 49 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Table 5: General guidelines related to components (Sources: see Eco-Design guidelines References)
GENERAL GUIDELINE
LIFE CYCLE PHASE
OBJECTIVE
Prefer high quality materials
Material selection, Use, End
of Life
Minimize component weight,
Reduce wear in the use
phase, increase product
lifetime.
Avoid toxic substances
Material selection
Minimize component toxicity
Use a low number of
material and prefer the use
of the same material in
different parts of the product
Material selection
Increase product recyclability
Avoid the use of alloy and
composite materials
Material selection
Increase product
recyclability, Minimize
disassembly operations
Use recycled materials
Material selection
Increase product recyclability
Identify component material
with code
Material selection
Increase product
recyclability, Minimize
disassembly time
Prefer materials with a high
level of recyclability
Material selection
Increase product recyclability
Prefer surface treatments or
structural arrangements to
protect products from dirty,
corrosion, and wear
Production process
Reduce maintenance,
Increase product life time
Consider emissions in air of
greenhouse effect gas,
volatile organic compounds,
and acidification phenomena
Production process
Minimize emission impact of
production process in air
Consider introduction in
water of heavy metals and
organic pollutions
Production process
Minimize emission impact of
production process in water
Consider ground introduction
of pollutions, leachate
Production process
Minimize emission impact of
production process in ground
Reuse in secondary
processes waste of primary
processes
Production process
Minimize waste generation in
production process
Prefer high efficiency
components
Use phase
Minimize resources and
energy input
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 50 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
.
It is possible to notice that the general eco-design guidelines for components
different life cycle phases of the product. Another important note is that not all
guidelines can be related to all the components, in fact the suggestion concerning
the use phase, like for instance “Prefer high efficiency components” can be referred
only to energy using components (e.g. electronic motor, lights) and not to the other
(e.g. covers, supports, etc). In order to avoid the visualization of useless information,
the implementation of the CBR tool will be organized to ensure that only relevant
indications, related to the specific component being analysed are presented, and
therefore selected, by designers.
Specific eco-design guidelines related to components, derive from EuP directives and
are associated to the specific components of the product family (cooker hoods,
washing machines). These guidelines refer to the use phase and aim to minimize the
energy consumption of the relevant components. These are shown in the Table 6.
Table 6: Specific guidelines related to components (Sources: see Eco-Design guidelines References)
SPECIFIC GUIDELINE
Prefer high efficiency motor
Prefer high efficiency pump
Prefer resistance with low
power absorbed
Prefer high efficiency motor
Maximize air flow rate for
the same quantity of
absorbed power
LIFE
CYCLE
PHASE
PRODUCT
CATEGORY
Use phase
Washing
machine
COMPONENT
OBJECTIVE
Electric Motor
Maximize
energy
efficiency
index
Use phase
Washing
machine
Water pump
Maximize
energy
efficiency
index
Use phase
Washing
machine
Electric
Resistance
Maximize
energy
efficiency
index
Electric Motor
Maximize
energy
efficiency
index
Motor Impeller
Minimize
energy
efficiency
index
Use phase
Use phase
Cooker hood
Cooker hood
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 51 of 116
Final Version 1.0
Prefer lamps characterized
by low energy consumption
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Use phase
Cooker hood
Lamps
Increase of
lighting
efficiency
These rules are all sourced from literature or from companies practice. To be
applicable during the design process, they have to be well described and help
designers make decisions. They should be classified depending on their importance
regarding the product under study. They should also be quantified to help designers
to measure improvements. Because they are context dependent (a designer won’t
choose a rule about which he has limited understanding) a procedure for selecting
the rules has to be developed.
3.2.3
Knowledge about past design choices
The knowledge is composed of all the design choices made by designers through
previous use of the G.EN.ESI Platform. During the design process, the designer
chooses the product family and assigns each component to a specific standard
component. In this way the tool is able to collect all the data selected in the platform
tools (materials, processes, third part components, transports, use information and
end of life strategies) for each product component and to store the knowledge in the
CBR database. Also environmental and cost indicators are stored in the database for
each component allowing classification under these factors. During the design
process a designer can consult both guidelines and knowledge; guidelines help him
to make the right choices in the different life cycle phases, the past experiences
permit him to evaluate the choices for the specific standard component. Given that
both guidelines and past choices are linked to standard components, a link between
guidelines and previous choices can be observed. Through this link it is possible for
the designer to easily identify the relevant eco-design guidelines, based on the
previous design choices stored in the CBR tool. This knowledge is visualised by the
designer each time a component is analysed and selected, retrieving the past
choices for the specific standard component. The users also have the ability to order
and show the knowledge from each different database query.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 52 of 116
Final Version 1.0
4
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
BRIEF APPLICATION OF THE G.EN.ESI ECO-DESIGN
METHODOLOGY TO IMPROVE ECO-SUSTAINABILITY
OF AN HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE: COOKER HOOD
CASE STUDY
This part exemplifies application of the G.EN.ESI methodology to a cooker hood,
redesigned through use of the previously described guidelines. It is not a complete
study, presenting only two indicators, but it is instead use to illustrate the application
of the methodology. The six main steps of the methodology are highlighted in the
different sections.
4.1
Functional analysis
The analysed cooker hood is a Faber product, a basic model with these principal
characteristics:
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
Maximum flow air: 660 m3/h
Maximum power consumption: 230W
Speed number: 4
Touch control
Lighting: 2 halogen lamps
Air filter: Aluminium
Noise emission: 68 dB(A)
The cooker hood standard components are those described in the previous
paragraph. For the S-LCA analysis the GRANTA CES Software is used and the
following scheme has been followed.
― Aim of the study: the S-LCA analysis has the purpose to identify the most
critical cooker hood components in order reduce the product environmental
impact by its redesign.
― Functional Unit: the functional unit analysed is a standard size, steel cooker
hood of medium-high category, both in terms of cost and of extraction
efficiency, with a maximum air flow of 660 m3/h, a maximum fan efficiency of
17%, an electrical motor consumption of 230W and two 20W lamps. The
considered lifetime is 9 years.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 53 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
― Modelling hypothesis: the phases that have been studied in the S-LCA of
the cooker hood are the following:
 Material: this phase concerns the analysis of all the processes that
come before the realization of a component, i.e. the raw materials
procurement, their extraction and their transportation to processing
sites.
 Manufacturing: this phase pertains to all the manufacturing processes
necessary for the realization of components.
 Transport: in the case of the analysed cooker hood, not all the
components are internally manufactured by Faber. Some of them are
bought from suppliers, and are subdivided into two categories, local and
foreign, on the basis of their distance from the manufacturing site. In
this phase, the transport of the finished product to the final user is not
included as is considered out of scope.
 Use phase: the information relative to the cooker hood use phase
comes from a preparatory EuP study and from Faber departments. The
use phase concerns the electrical energy consumption of a cooker
hood used for 2h/day for 9 years as ventilation and lighting devices.
The electrical energy consumption derives from the functioning of
electrical motor and lamps.
 End of Life: EoL phase has been analysed by hypothesizing product
disposal in line with the reports of the Italian consortiums that retrieve
and recycle household appliances (Liu et al., 2009; WEEE, 2002;
ECODOM, 2008).
― Simplification rules: the analysis did not take into consideration small parts
like screws and other parts whose percentage weight was negligible when
compared to the total hood weight. Another simplification was to omit the
manufacturing phase of the purchased components, due to the difficulty of
mapping their whole manufacturing cycle. For those components the
manufacturing phase is simplified by appropriate assumptions on materials
and processes.
― Indicators: The considered indicators are CO2 Footprint (Kg) and Energy
Consumption (MJ). Those indicators are those included in the GRANTA CES
software. The first one is an environmental impact (CO2 emission) and the
second one could be classified as a designer indicator (consumed energy).
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 54 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Due to their interdependency, we should define if it is pertinent to present the
both indicators but here, they provide a useful illustration of the results for both
kinds of indicators.
― Modelling: GRANTA CES Software is used to perform the S-LCA. This
software enables the designer to conduct an analysis of a product considering
all the life cycle phases.
4.2
Assessment and determination of environmental hot spots
This part aims to present the results of the cooker hood assessment, realised using
the Eco-Audit tool developed by GRANTA Design. Energy and CO2 footprint are the
only two indicators considered in this study.
The first two charts show the environmental impact in terms of Energy and CO2
Footprint, of the whole life cycle of the analysed cooker hood, subdivided into
Material, Manufacturing, Transport, Use and End-of-life phases.
Figure 5: Energy consumption for each life cycle phase of the cooker hood
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 55 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 6: CO2 Footprint for each life cycle phase of the cooker hood
Table 7: Values for Energy consumption and CO2 Footprint
Energy [MJ]
Energy [%]
CO2 [Kg]
CO2 [%]
Material
1680
9.7
99.3
9.5
Manufacture
106
0.6
8.03
0.8
Transport
147
0.8
10.4
1
Use
15400
88.8
927
88.7
Disposal
13.2
0.1
0.92
0.1
End of Life
-907
-43.8
These results are useful to help understand where the major environmental impacts
are located and as a consequence the environmental criticalities for the analysed
cooker hood. The first criticality is represented by the use phase, which has the most
important impact on the whole result. However in order to properly evaluate the the
other phases, the use phase has been excluded from the analysis. The results
obtained are summarized in the Figures 7 and 8.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 56 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 7: Energy consumption for life cycles (use excluded) of the cooker hood
Figure 8: CO2 Footprint for life cycles (use phase excluded) of the cooker hood
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 57 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Table 8: Values for Energy consumption and CO2 Footprint (use phase excluded)
Energy [MJ]
Energy [%]
CO2 [Kg]
CO2 [%]
Material
1680
86.3
99.3
83.7
Manufacture
106
5.4
8.03
6.8
Transport
147
7.6
10.4
8.8
Disposal
13.2
0.7
0.922
0.8
End of Life
-907
-43.8
We can notice that the environmental impact is due principally to materials used in
the cooker hood, which determine almost all the CO2 produced in the whole life cycle
of the product. In particular in order to identify the components with the highest
environmental impact, a chart with the environmental impact of material for each
component is presented.
Figure 9: Energy for cooker hood standard components in material selection
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 58 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 10: CO2 Footprint for cooker hood standard components in material selection
4.2.1
Determination of the environmental strategies and deployment in
indicators
We can conclude that the components that require attention are:
― Use Phase: Electric motor and halogen lamps (energy using components,
responsible of energy consumptions in the hood);
― Material Phase: Chimney, cover, aesthetic panel, and filter (which are the
components with the highest environmental impact related to materials).
(The deployment of indicators into quantitative targets are not realised here,
but would be done in a more complete study...)
4.3
Guidance
From the criticalities highlighted in the previous paragraph, the eco-design guidelines
are consulted. In this case, there is no possibility to use previous design choices,
which is why only the guidelines have been used.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 59 of 116
Final Version 1.0
4.3.1
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Analysis of components with high impact during the use phase
At first, the focus is on the energy using components. The specific eco-design
guidelines related to the use phase of the cooker hood are considered and applied in
addition to general guidelines related to the use phase. They are shown in the
following tables.
Table 9: General Guidelines referred to the use phase
GENERAL GUIDELINE
LIFE CYCLE PHASE
OBJECTIVE
Optimize product functionality
Use phase
Minimize resources and energy
consumption
Prefer high efficiency
components
Use phase
Minimize resources and energy
input
Table 10: Specific guidelines referred to cooker hood
SPECIFIC GUIDELINE
LIFE
CYCLE
PHASE
PRODUCT
CATEGORY
COMPONENT
OBJECTIVE
Prefer high efficiency motor
Use phase
Cooker hood
Electric Motor
Maximize
energy
efficiency
index
Prefer lamps characterize by
low energy consumption
Use phase
Cooker hood
Lamps
Increase of
lighting
efficiency
In order to reduce energy consumption the first suggestions provided by guidelines
are to use more efficiency components to optimize the product functionality. Then the
specific guidelines suggest focusing on specific components and in particular to use
a “high efficiency motor”. The motor currently mounted in the cooker hood (called in
the follow CS Motor =Current Solution motor) is a Single-phase AC asynchronous
motor (8/40x80 K 4V 220-240V 50Hz) with the following characteristics:
Table 11: Current Solution motor characteristics
Cooker hood motor CS
W
V
m3/h
rpm
Nm
Efficiency
Mechanic power
(W)
Single-phase AC
asynchronous motor
230
230
680
1800
1,22
24%
54,464
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 60 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
A possible alternative motor (referred to in this report as the AS Motor =Alternative
Solution motor) for this specific case is represented by a brushless motor, which in
these conditions of work can guarantee a higher efficiency and as a consequence a
lower energy consumption. The motor proposed has the following characteristics:
Table 12: Alternative Solution motor characteristics
Cooker hood motor AS
W
V
m3/h
rpm
Nm
Efficiency
Mechanic power
(W)
Brushless motor
150
230
680
1800
0.80
50%
75
In particular the proposed brushless motor can provide a mechanic power of 75 W
(close to the mechanic power provided by the CS motor mounted in the hood) by
absorbing a power of 150W (compared to the 230 W of the CS motor).
The second element taken into consideration in order to reduce the environmental
impact of the use phase, as it is suggest by the specific guideline for the cooker
hood, is the lighting device; the current lamps mounted in the hood are two halogen
lamps of 20W (Current Solution). The alternative lamps proposed are LED typology
ones, which guarantee a lower energy consumption (3W) while providing the same
luminous of the CS.
Table 13: Absorbed power for Current/Alternative lamps
Cooker hood lamps
Power (W)
Halogen lamps
20
LED lamps
3
In order to evaluate the overall reduction in environmental impact due to these two
substitutions the following chart has been developed, in which the Current Solution
(Single-phase AC asynchronous motor + halogen lamps) is compared in terms of
CO2 Footprint and Energy consumption with the Alternative Solution (Brushless
motor + LED lamps).
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 61 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 11: Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solution in the use phase
Figure 12: CO2 Footprint of Current/Alternative Solution in the use phase
It is possible to notice that the Alternative Solution has a lower environmental impact
than the Current Solution mounted in the cooker hood. In particular the CO2 Footprint
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 62 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
and the Energy consumption of the Alternative Solution is about the 58% of the
Current Solution.
The Alternative Solution proposed, defines a modification of the materials used to
make the motor. This modification also effects on the environmental impact of the
material selection, as is shown in the following chart. In particular due to the different
materials the impact of the material selection is higher for the alternative solution.
Figure 13: Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solution in the material selection
Figure 14: CO2 Footprint of Current/Alternative Solution in the material selection
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 63 of 116
Final Version 1.0
4.3.2
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Analysis of components with high impact in the material selection
phase
The second step of the cooker hood redesign is the analysis of eco-design
guidelines referring to the material selection phase. This analysis resulted in the
selection of the following suggestions
Table 14: General guidelines related to material selection phase
GENERAL GUIDELINE
LIFE CYCLE
PHASE
OBJECTIVE
Prefer high quality materials
Material
selection, Use,
End of Life
Minimize component weight,
Reduce wear in the use phase,
increase product lifetime.
Avoid toxic substances
Material
selection
Minimize component toxicity
Use a low number of material and
prefer the use of the same material
in different parts of the product
Material
selection
Increase product recyclability
Avoid the use of alloy and composite
materials
Material
selection
Increase product recyclability
Prefer materials with a high level of
recyclability
Material
selection
Increase product recyclability
These indications are considered and applied to those components of the hood with
the highest environmental impact.
Chimney, cover and aesthetic panel
The first components analysed are the chimney, cover and aesthetic panel. All these
components, which represent the highest contribution to the weight of product, are
realized in Anodized Steel AISI 430. By the use of the CES software is possible to
search an alternative material in the database, considering many characteristics,
such as chemical, physical and mechanical properties, cost, energy consumption and
emission during the manufacturing processes, energy consumption during the
dismantling processes. By considering all these data of several different
materials,Wrought Annealed AISI 410S was selected. This material can be
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 64 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
considered as a valid substitute of the current solution. The following chart shows the
results in term of CO2 Footprint and Energy consumption for the Current Solution
(cooker hood with Anodized Steel AISI 430) and Alternative Solution (Wrought
Annealed AISI 410S).
Figure 15: Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solutions in Material selection
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 65 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 16: CO2 Footprint for Current /Alternative Solutions in Material selection
It is possible to notice that the Alternative Solution has a lower environmental impact
both in terms of CO2 and Energy than the Current Solution.
Grease filter
From the Eco-Audit we identified the filters as critical elements contributing to the
impact of the product cooker hood; in fact the amount of energy consumption and
CO2 emissions, when compared to their weight, have significant value. The current
filter used by Faber, is manufactured in Aluminium 3103 wrought O, which has a high
level of environmental impact, due to the complexity of obtaining and producing the
raw materials, as well as the energy consumption required to produce the finished
product. Through reference tothe guidelines presented in the Table 11, different
material solutions for the filters are analysed. In particular two possible alternatives
are analysed, a Al 3103 O Mn filter and stainless steel 18/10 AISI 304 L –
X5CrNi1810 filter. In both cases, the alternative solutions, presented a higher
environmental impact than the current one. For this reason the material substitution is
not advised.
Reduction flange
In the particular model of hood analysed, this component has the scope to transport
air towards the filter and then outdoors. It is made from PPhp30%talc and the
redesign process aims to find a material with a lower environmental impact on the
overall life cycle of the product. The methodology followed in this research is the
same for the other materials: definition of physic, chemical and mechanical
properties, cost, energy consumption and emissions related to the alternative
materials and selection from different solutions of those that respect all the defined
property values. In this case, a possible alternative solution is another polymer, PPhp
40%talc that can be considered as a valid substitute of the current solution. The
following charts show the results in terms of CO2 Footprint and Energy consumption
for the Current Solution (Reduction flange with PPhp30%talc) and Alternative
Solution (Reduction flange with PPhp 40%talc).
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 66 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 17: Energy consumption for Current /Alternative Solutions in Material selection
Figure 18: CO2 emission for Current /Alternative Solutions in Material selection
It is possible to observe that in this particular cooker hood model, the function of
transporting air is realized only by the reduction flange, while in different models, in
particular for filtering cooker hood, this function is realized by a higher number of
components. For this reason, the small environmental improvement obtained with
this modification may be higher in different cooker hood designs.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 67 of 116
Final Version 1.0
4.3.3
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Analysis of components with criticality on disassembly
The application of Design for Disassembly principles can be summarized in specific
eco-design guidelines, as presented in the following table. These guidelines allow the
designer to consider a wide range of environmental impacts. For example the
consequences of operating on the basis of DfD rules, can have significant impacts on
the recyclability of a product, resulting in a reduction of environmental impacts of the
end of life phase.
Table 15: General guidelines related to end of life phase
GENERAL GUIDELINE
LIFE CYCLE PHASE
OBJECTIVE
Appropriate selection of
materials and their compatibility
End of life
Improve product reparability,
Improve disassemblability of the
product
Avoid the use of screws,
adhesives, welding, snap fit,
fast coupling
End of life
Improve product reparability
Pay attention to the complexity
of disassembly instruments
End of life
Minimize disassembly time
Prefer simply, easily
dismountable and reparable
parts
End of life
Improve product reparability,
Improve disassemblability of the
product
Facilitate access to product
components
End of life
Improve disassemblability of the
product,
By following these Eco-design guidelines, the relative cooker hood criticality is
highlighted. For thie model under analysis, a glass panel is used for the controls and
glued on to the hood. Because its total detachment from the metal sheet is impeded
by adhesive, thei prevents all the glass from being recycled,. In order to guarantee a
higher percentage of glass recyclability, a punctual fixing procedure, realized by
drilling of glass and inserting screws, is proposed. This solution allows all the glass to
be isolated from the hood by the simply unscrewing it from the metal. Furthermore
this glass processing is realized by an Italian company, so the environmental benefits
obtainable by this alternative solution are not only related to the end of life phase, but
also prevent the transportation impacts associated with the adhesive.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 68 of 116
Final Version 1.0
4.3.4
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Analysis of components with criticality on transport phase
The most critical components in terms of transportation impacts are the lamps and
motor, both of which are bought from Chinese suppliers. In order to apply the
indications suggested by general eco-design guidelines for the transport phase, the
alternative solution proposed is to acquire these two products from Italian suppliers.
The following charts show the results in term of CO2 Footprint for the Current
Solution (lamps and motor acquired from China) and Alternative Solution (lamps and
motor acquired from Italy). The graphs show the significant reduction of CO2
emissions by choosing local suppliers for the two commercial components, lamps
and motor.
Figure 19: CO2 emission related to transport phase for Current /Alternative Solutions of lamps in
transport phase
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 69 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 20: CO2 emission related to transport phase for Current /Alternative Solutions of motor in
transport phase
4.4
Sustainability check
It is useful to summarize all the modifications proposed for the cooker hood, by the
application of the eco-design guidelines. This allows us to compare the new solution
with the old one and check the potential improvements.
Table 16: Modifications proposed
Component
Modification
Description of modification
Chimney, cover and
aesthetic panel
Material
From Anodized Steel AISI 430 to Wrought
Annealed AISI 410S
Reduction flange
Material
From PPhp30%talc to PPhp 40%talc
Motor
Typology
From Single-phase AC asynchronous motor
to Brushless typology
Supplier
From Chinese to Italian
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 70 of 116
Final Version 1.0
Light
Glass
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Typology
From Halogen to LED
Supplier
From Chinese to Italian
Manufacturing
process
From glued to punctual fixed glass
In the following charts the LCA analysis results for the Current hood and for the
redesigned one are shown.
Figure 21: Comparison of energy emission for Current / Alternative solution
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 71 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Table 17: Values of Energy consumption for Current/Alternative Solution
Energy [MJ]
Current Solution
Alternative Solution
Material
1680
1690
Manufacture
106
121
Transport
147
49.8
Use
15400
8910
Disposal
13.2
13.8
Eol potential
-907
-970
Figure 22: Comparison of CO2 Footprint for Current /Alternative solution
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 72 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Table 18: Values of CO2 Footprint for Current/Alternative Solution
CO2 Footprint [Kg]
4.5
Current Solution
Alternative Solution
Material
99.3
99.8
Manufacture
8.03
9.13
Transport
10.4
3.54
Use
927
536
Disposal
0.92
0.963
Eol potential
-43.8
-48
Impacts of the decisions in the long term company strategy
This step is not developed in this case study but we can illustrate it with an example.
We have shown some components changes to environmentally improve the product.
We showed notably that we change suppliers from Chinese to Italian suppliers. The
change of supplier for a local one could become a long-term a company strategy.
4.6
Conclusion
The precedent analysis of this specific case study shows how specific and general
guidelines can be used for redesigning a product in order to improve its
environmental performance. The aim of the G.EN.ESI platform will be to link specific
and general guidelines with existing environmental data of the product, in order to
give the company new ways to integrate eco-design in the design of new products.
After defining the methodology of the G.EN.ESI platform through this specific case
study, the following parts of the document will present how this methodology could be
implemented within a company, in order to improve the environmental performance
of its products.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 73 of 116
Final Version 1.0
5
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
ECO-DESIGN APPROACH IN COMPANIES
This chapter presents the results of a survey carried out in companies aiming at
understanding their position on eco-design and at showing how eco-design is
implemented in the design process.
5.1
Research Methodology
From November 2010 until April 2011, the eco-design or recycling managers of five
companies located in France were interviewed. One of these companies was from
the automotive sector, and four from the electrical and electronic equipment.
The interviews were telephone based and lasted an hour, with the questions divided
into the following five sections:
 A – Presentation of company: a set of questions about the size and activity of
the company;
 B – Presentation of a product stated as an example for the corporate ecodesign practices
 C – Design practices: questions about the corporate design practices such as
main steps, average duration, persons involved, tools used (CAD, PLM, etc.);
 D – Eco-design objectives: what motivates the company into practicing ecodesign (regulations, labels, markets, etc.);
 E – Experience in eco-design: how eco-design is organised within the
company.
The aim of these questions was to establish an understanding of current design and
eco-design practices within companies, how they are integrated into design projects
and the motivations and goals behind their use.
From these interviews, a common pattern was aimed to be found and a SADT model
has been proposed to summarize these practices and the interactions between the
various actors involved in design projects.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 74 of 116
Final Version 1.0
5.2
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Outcome
Despite focusing on only five companies, the study showed in particular a high
diversity of practices and the difficulty to draw a generic eco-design process.
Consequently, it has been decided to focus on the identification of collaborative
activities observed in eco-design projects and means to support these activities. This
scenario is described in the following sections with IDEF0 diagrams.
5.2.1
Collaborative Activities During Eco-Design Projects
Due to the large number of different tools in the studied companies (guides,
guidelines, etc.), their format (PDF, MS Excel, etc.), and their use by corporate
experts or contractors, no generic scenario could be identified. However, a first
generalisation including alternatives has been possible; in particular all participants
declared that eco-design happens during preliminary and detailed design.
Figure 23: Level 0 for the eco-design process SADT representation
In Figure 23, the design steps (preliminary design and detailed design) indicated by
the interviewees as the steps when eco-design happens are represented. Basically,
both design steps are similar, only the level of details of the available data varies
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 75 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
along the design process. More precisely, the customers’ requirements enter as
specifications into the preliminary design step. This function is carried out by the joint
action of a design team and their design tools, an ecodesign guide, guidelines, an
ecodesign expert with knowledge about the integration of environmental criteria into
the product, and possibly contractors to carry out specific studies. The activities are
dependent on the decision to launch a design project, the use of technologies which
have never been used before by the company, the choice to hire a contractor to
perform environmental studies, and the corporate strategies. The outcome is a
design configuration which is then used during detailed design.
Detailed design involves the same mechanisms and controls and its output is the
detailed specification of the product. Finally, this specification is used during
production by the ecodesign expertise and the marketing department in ways
described later but still dependent of the corporate strategies and decisions. The
output is a gain in experience which upgrades the ecodesign guide, the dashboard,
and other design documents.
The ecodesign expertise is not necessarily a person per se but represents the
knowledge and know-how which can be owned by one of the members of the design
team. Another issue here is to determine whether the environmental assessment will
be carried out by a corporate expert or a contractor.
A closer look at the scenarios during preliminary design and detailed design is given
in the following Figure 24 and Figure 25.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 76 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 24: Level 1 for the eco-design process SADT representation (preliminary design)
Figure 25: Level 1 for the eco-design process SADT representation (detailed design)
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 77 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
The interactions between the different design actors do not change from one design step
to the next, whereas the level of details vary as the design project moves forward.
For the 5 case studies, the environmental assessment function was represented
graphically in Figure 26. Three tools, fed with the product bill of materials, were used.
Firstly, a life cycle assessment (LCA) can be performed by a corporate ecodesign expert.
The choice depends on the corporate strategies and the corporate policy in the choice of
contractor. Secondly, recyclability rates may need to be estimated with an internal or
commercial tool or data from recyclers. In this case also, corporate strategies and policy
for selecting a contractor is influential. Finally, the BOM is an opportunity to collect
information about the suppliers and to analyse the substances. These three functions end
up with the redaction of a specific environmental assessment report which is the outcome
of this phase.
Figure 26: Level 2 for the eco-design process SADT representation (environmental assessment activity)
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 78 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
During the production step, the outputs of the previous phases (environmental assessment
report, commitments, key results, final detailed design) are used in three ways (Figure 27).
Firstly, all the knowledge and experience gained is used by the corporate ecodesign
expert to update the ecodesign guide. Secondly, this information is translated according to
the corporate strategies in order to update the dashboard. Thirdly, it is used for external
communication after adaptation by the ecodesign expert and the marketing department,
which add value to the environmental assessments.
Figure 27: Level 1 for the eco-design process SADT representation (production)
5.3
Conclusion
This study provides an overview of eco-design practises for 5 companies in France. The
scenarios constructed are generic but describe the current actions needed in relation to
eco-design that should be supported by the GENESI platform.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 79 of 116
Final Version 1.0
6
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
DEFINITION OF THE NEW TO-BE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS FOR FABER AND VECTRON
This section aims at integrating the eco-design methodology into the traditional design
process. To achieve that, the G.EN.ESI. methodology described in section 2 and the
results highlighted in section 5 are used.
The IDEF methodology and the design process of FABER (see deliverable D.1.1) was
used to implement these steps. Many of the activities are common with VECTRON
(APPENDIX 1), thus the work is easy to implement in the VECTRON design process.
6.1
Resources
In this section, resources (Figure 29) required to implement the G.EN.ESI eco-design
methodology are briefly presented.
Environmental Design Manager
The environmental design manager is responsible for the introduction and integration of
environmental issues within the design process. This individual may come from the
existing design team following intensive training or from outside the company, either as a
new employee or a consultant. This will depend upon available man power and budget,
but should also consider the likelihood of acceptance by the wider design team, as some
may be resistant to change.
This manager would be required to understand the environmental perspective of the
product and development process and have knowledge of LCA and costing processes.
Their primary role would be to support the introduction of environmental issues throughout
the design development team. This would be achieved by working alongside existing
management and design teams, representing and discussing relevant environmental
issues with each department. This would include helping management define
environmental requirements, particularly during a company’s first environmental design
project; partaking in project kick-off meetings; working alongside design teams to perform
assessments and develop concepts; and communicating the environmental needs of the
product and design process to those outside the design development team.
In the long term the aim would be for this role to be removed once environmental
awareness had reached a level suitable for shared responsibility. At this point designers
would be able to integrate environmental considerations into their daily activities without
assistance. The environmental expert could then return to their original role or be given a
new role within the development team.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 80 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Eco-design Software Tools
As part of the introduction of the G.EN.ESI methodology and platform, companies will
need to familiarize themselves with a number of new software tools designed to help
streamline eco-design application and learning.
1) Calculation Module
The calculation module consists of the S-LCA, S-LCC and specific calculators for
ad-hoc indicators, such as recyclability rate, energy consumption in use, etc. These
are the primary software tools of the platform, calculating the environmental impact
and through life cost implications of a design. These tools are used in a very
simplified form during the feasibility phase of the product development process and
in a more detailed form during the development process.
2) Life Cycle Impact Tools
In addition to the whole life cycle tools, the platform also provides a suite of tools
dedicated to each life cycle phase; eco-material tool, in-use energy consumption
tool (DfEE), transportation tool (0km), and end of life tool (lean DfD). These tools
aim to reduce the burden of data collection required for life cycle design, by making
information from supplies, databases and previous experience available to
designers during the design process.
Due to the conceptual nature of the design at the feasibility phase, only the ecomaterial tool would be utilised for the low-detailed analyses, with the remaining life
cycle information coming from generic databases and previous experience. Once
component selection and design details become more concrete, the additional tools,
listed above, can be used to conduct first detailed environmental and cost analyses,
during the development phase. Due to the late stage at which some detailed
analyses takes place, their primarily function would be to inform the next product
generation (see Knowledge Feedback Loop in Section 1.5).
3) Life Cycle Information Tools
To power these tools information input tools are required. Within the G.EN.ESI
platform there are two specific tools for this function.
CBR Tool: The cased base reasoning tool (CBR) contains best practice eco-design
guidance and life cycle data from previous product generations or similar products,
informing target setting, benchmarking and design development activities.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 81 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Supplier Web Portal: This tool is vital to the operation of the platform and requires
suppliers to input life cycle information (both environmental and economic) about
the products they provide. To ensure the success of the web portal, it is essential
that trusting relationships are built between buyer and supplier. This will demand
considerable resource commitment and appreciation of the sensitivity surrounding
certain information requests.
4) Dashboard
The dashboard is embedded within the designers CAD package presenting
dynamic and visual feedback of the life cycle calculations. The purpose of this
dashboard is to help encourage environmentally considered design decisions during
the feasibility and development phases.
6.2
Inputs
Environmental Requirements
The environmental requirements for a new product will embody the environmental
business objectives set by the company management team. For the first environmental
project within the company, the environmental expert will be needed to help the
management team set objectives and define requirements. This process would be helped
through use of the case-based-reasoning tool, which will contain information relating to
existing LCA’s and best practice approaches within the relevant industry.
Once the company has completed their first environmental design process they will be
able to draw on this experience, and the understanding it has given them, to set
requirements for second generation eco-designed products.
Life Cycle Data
Life cycle data results from the assessment completed by each tool of the platform. For the
first low level assessment this data may need to come from the CBR tool, guidelines and
the knowledge of the environmental design manager. However, as progress is made
previous outputs from each of the dedicated tools will become available and will be
captured within the platform.
Environmental Report
Environmental reports detail the life cycle impacts of a product, focussing particularly on
the results of the check, to highlight the impact design changes have made.
Two environmental reports are developed during the product development process; a low
detailed report documenting the environmental process undertaken during the initial
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 82 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
preliminary design (A1.3) and identifying environmental hotspots for the current design
development project, and a high detail report documenting the environmental process
undertaken during the detailed design (A2.5) and identifying environmental hotspots for
the next design development project.
The first report is generated to inform the current design team. This report would include a
comparison to the previous generation where this exists. The results contained within this
report are used by the design team and environmental design manager to help shape the
development phase. The second report is generated to inform the eco-design objectives
and environmental requirements for the next product generation. Both reports are captured
in the CBR tool.
Cost report
This will summarise the cost data from the platforms LCC tool, detailing the cost
implications of the design decisions made. Again two reports would be produced from the
low and high detailed assessments, helping to steer project progression and inform next
generation development.
6.3
Design Process Stages
6.3.1
Feasibility (A.1) (Figure 31)
Kick-off meeting (A.1.1)
Design managers and environmental design manager meet to discuss the new
development project. The inclusion of the environmental design manager ensures that
environmental issues are addressed from the start of a project. As time goes on and
awareness of environmental issues within the management team increases, the need for
this environmental design manager should diminish.
Preliminary design (A.1.3) (Figure 32)
 Preliminary design (A.1.3.1): Design team and environmental design manager conduct
initial concept development with regards to all design requirements including
environmental requirements.
 Data extraction (A.1.3.2): Collection of the relevant design details from initial concepts
and, where computational collection is unavailable, input of these details into the
platform. This data collection enables the initial assessment. This would require
contribution from the design team, environmental design manager and BOM manager.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 83 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
 Preliminary assessment and determination of environmental hot spots (A.1.3.3): The
calculation module is used to perform a low detailed assessment (S-LCA and LCC) of
the preliminary design and compare this to previous generations where data is
available. The results of this assessment would be visually displayed to the design
team and captured in the first environmental and cost reports.
 Translation of the results in targets (A.1.3.4): The environmental design manager and
design team work together to understand the design implications of the preliminary
assessment and translate these into design targets for the next stage of development.
 Design Change (A.1.3.5): The design team and environmental design manager work
together to improve the environmental performance of the design concepts based on
the design targets defined in the previous steps (A.1.3.4). This can be supported by
input from the CBR tool and eco-design guidelines contained within the platform.
 Check (A.1.3.6): Environmental and cost implications of design changes are
dynamically represented to the design team allowing them to check against targets.
This is likely to result in iterative changes and checks until the team is happy with the
concept. The final output of this step is captured in the first environmental and cost
reports.
It should be noted that although these steps are described distinctly and at length, in
reality they relate to a dynamic and fluid process that takes place between the design team
and the software. As the tools would provide instant feedback and comparison to previous
generations, the design team is likely to repeat these steps, or at least a collection of them,
several times within one product development project.
6.3.2
Development (A-2) (Figure 33)
Detailed Environmental Development (A.2.5) (Figure 34)
 Data extraction (A.2.5.1): Extraction of relevant design data from each departments
design models and outputs from the low level LCA and LCC. This should be achieved
automatically by the platform software.
 Detailed assessment and determination of future environmental hot spots (A.2.5.2):
The calculation module is used to perform a high detailed assessment of the design
and compare this to previous targets. The results of this assessment would be visually
displayed to the design team and captured in the final environmental and cost reports.
 Translation of the results in targets (A.2.5.3): The environmental design manager and
design team work together to understand the design implications of the detailed
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 84 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
assessment and translate these into small design targets (those involving simple and
easy design changes) for the current design project and more complex design targets
to be carried through to the next product generation. It would be the environmental
design manager’s job to communicate these larger targets to higher level management;
those who set the environmental design objectives.
 Design Change (A.2.5.4): Where possible the design team and environmental design
manager work together to improvement the environmental performance of the detailed
design. This can be supported by input from the CBR tool included eco-design
guidelines contained within the platform.
 Check (A.2.5.5): Environmental and cost implications of design changes are
dynamically represented to the design team allowing them to check against targets.
This is likely to result in iterative changes and checks until the team is happy with the
final design. The outputs of this step are captured in the final environmental and cost
reports.
6.4
Knowledge Feedback Loop
As shown in the previous description this product development process aims to support a
gradual learning process within a company. This is done through capturing environmental
development between generations of a product. This allows assessments of completed
designs to set targets for the next generation of a product, it also ensures that knowledge
developed within the design team are communicated to management and integrated into
design specifications. This knowledge feedback loop is seen as essential to support a
continual reduction in environmental impacts. This feedback loop is shown in Figure 28.
Environmental
Design Objectives
Environmental
Requirements
Product Development
Process
Full LCA and
LCC data
A.0
Figure 28: Environmental Knowledge Feedback Loop
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 85 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
We also need to underline that if the objectives are not reachable with current
optimizations, we need to provide CBR for designers to change the paradigm related to
their products. Then new selling offers could be proposed for example.
6.5
Conclusion
This part highlighted the changes induced by the introduction of the G.EN.ESI ecodesign
methodology in the traditional product development process of a mechatronic product
manufacturer.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 86 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 29: General product development process with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 87 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 30: Product development process with the four major phases and with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 88 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 31: Feasibility phase with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 89 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 32: Preliminary design with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 90 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 33: Development process with the elements of the G.EN.ESI methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 91 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Figure 34: Detailed environmental development
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 92 of 116
Final Version 1.0
7
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
CONCLUSIONS
This deliverable has been realised to present the eco-design methodology developed in
the G.EN.ESI. project and to see how the G.EN.ESI methodology could be implemented in
a traditional development process within a company.
In Section 1 the context and the aims of the activities described in this deliverable are
reported.
Section 2 defined the G.EN.ESI eco-design methodology. The framework study permitted
to highlight the need to apply the methodology in a context of concurrent engineering and
specifically in an integrated design approach. Integrated design involves a multidisciplinary
team working together on the whole product life cycle. The cooperation between the
different individuals is essential and a project manager or a steering team is needed to
support the coordination. The changes induced by the introduction of eco-design into an
integrated design are then presented. These changes concern all the levels of the
company, from the design process to company policy, including the project management
team.
Section 2 went on to describe the different elements and steps of the methodology. The
need for an Environmental Design Manager to supervise environmental activities is
highlighted. This person is a member of the steering team and is responsible for the
introduction and integration of environmental issues within the design process. The
G.EN.ESI methodology is described in six phases:
-
Functional analysis
-
Determination of Environmental hot spots
-
Determination of the environmental strategies and deployment in indicators
-
Guidance
-
Sustainability check
-
Impacts of the decisions in the long term company objectives.
Section 3 is divided in two sub-sections: indicators for the S-LCA and design guidelines to
improve product sustainability. In the first sub-section, four indicators were highlighted:
resource depletion, climate change, water consumption and Cumulative Energy Demand
(CED). The second subsection provides the basis for the case-based reasoning (CBR)
database, which will be used to provide environmental design guidance The CBR tool is
divided into two groups: eco-design guidelines and knowledge about company design
choices.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 93 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
In Section 4, the eco-design methodology was succinctly applied to a cooker hood to
highlight the possible redesign choices.
All the results obtained in this deliverable will enable the team to define the G.EN.ESI
software platform.
Section 5 presents an analysis of the results obtained by a survey carried out in five
French companies. This part provides an overview of eco-design practises in these
companies. The scenarios constructed are generic but describe the currently needed to
eco-design actions that should be supported by the GENESI platform.
In section 6, the matching of the eco-design methodology and the current actions needed
to ecodesign (highlighted in a previous part) with the FABER design process were
presented in order to illustrate the way eco-design could be integrated.
All the results obtained in this deliverable will enable the team to define the G.EN.ESI
software platform. The different case study presented in this deliverable can be used as
examples in order to implement the G.EN.ESI methodology within a company. The next
step for the team is to define precisely the use scenarios of the G.EN.ENSI platform in
order to develop the software that will support this methodology. This will be the aim of the
next deliverable (D.1.4).
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 94 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
REFERENCES
Methodology References
Argyris C., 2000. Savoir pour agir. Surmonter les obstacles à l'apprentissage
organisationnel. Paris, Dunod.
Bertoluci G., Le Pochat S., Le Coq M., 2005. Intégrer l’éco-conception : quelles
implications pour les entreprises ?, 6ème Congrès International de Génie Industriel,
Besançon.
Blondaz L., 1999. Prise en compte de la fabricabilité, en conception intégrée de produits
mécaniques, PhD thesis of Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble.
Bovea M.D., Pérez-Belis V., 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating
environmental requirements into the product design process. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 20(1), p.61-71.
Brissaud D., 1992. Système de conception automatique de gammes d’usinage pour les
industries manufacturières, PhD thesis of Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble.
Dar F.H., Meakin J.R., Aspden R.M., 2002. Statistical methods in finite element analysis.
Journal of Biomechanics, 35(9), p.1155-1161.
Fine L., Remondini L., Léon J.C., 2000. Automated generation of FEA models through
idealisation operators, International Journal For Numerical Methods in Engineering n°49,
p. 83-108.
Gondran N., 2001. Système de diffusion d'information pour encourager les PME-PMI à
améliorer leurs performances environnementales. PhD thesis of INSA Lyon & Ecole des
Mines Saint Etienne.
Hauschild M.Z., Jeswiet J., Alting L., 2004. Design for Environment — Do We Get the
Focus Right? CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 53(1), p.1-4.
Jacqueson L., 2002. Intégration de l'environnement en entreprise : Proposition d'un outil
de pilotage du processus de création de connaissances environnementales, PhD thesis of
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Centre de Paris.
Janthong N., Brissaud D., Butdee S., 2010. Combining axiomatic design and case-based
reasoning in an innovative design methodology of mechatronics products. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2(4), p.226-239.
Jeantet A., Boujut J.-F., 1998. Approche socio-technique, in Conception de produits
mécaniques, Méthodes Modèles Outils, coordinated by M. Tollenaere, Editions Hermes,
Paris, 1998.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 95 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Jing H., Songqing L., 2011. The Research of Environmental Costs Based on Activity
Based Cost. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 10, Part A(0), p.147-151.
Kara S., Manmek S., Kaebernick H., 2007. An Integrated Methodology to Estimate the
External Environmental Costs of Products. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
56(1), p.9-12.
Le Pochat S., 2005. Integration de l’eco-conception dans les PME : Proposition d’une
méthode d’appropriation de savoir-faire pour la conception environnementale des produits,
PhD thesis of Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Centre de Paris .
Millet D., 1995. Prise en compte de l'environnement en conception : proposition d'une
démarche d'aide à la conception permettant de limiter les ponctions et rejets engendrés
par le produit sur son cycle de vie, PhD thesis of Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et
Métiers, Centre de Paris.
Millet D., 2003. Intégration de l'environnement en conception – L’entreprise et le
développement durable. Hermès Science Publications, Lavoisier, Paris.
Noel F., Brissaud D., 2003. Dynamic data sharing in a collaborative design environment.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 16(7-8), p.546-556.
Paris H., 1995. Contribution à la conception automatique des gammes d’usinage : le
problème du posage et du bridage des pièces, PhD thesis of Université Joseph Fourier,
Grenoble.
Poveda O., 2001.Pilotage technique des projets d’ingénierie simultanée, modélisation des
processus, analyse et instrumentation, PhD thesis of Institut National Polytechnique de
Grenoble.
Rejneri N., 2000. Détermination et simulation des operations d’assemblage lors de la
conception de systèmes mécaniques, PhD thesis of Institut National Polytechnique de
Grenoble.
Sarkis J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management,
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 11, p397-409 .
Sherwin C., Bhamra T., 2001. Early ecodesign integration experiences from a single cas,
The journal of design research, 1 (2).
Stamatis D.H., 2003. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: Fmea from Theory to Execution,
ASQ Quality Press.
Tonnelier P., 2002. Proposition d'une démarche d'intégration d'une nouvelle contrainte en
con-ception : cas de la valorisation des véhicules en fin de vie chez PSA Peugeot Citroën.
PhD thesis of Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Centre de Paris.
Zwolinski P., 1999. La simulation de l’activité comme outil d’aide à la conception et à
l’innovation, PhD thesis of Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 96 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Eco-Design Guidelines References
Wimmer W., Pamminger R., Stachura M., Grab R., 2005. ECODESIGN in the electronics
industry - achieving legal compliance with the EU-directives and environmentally improving
products by using the new EEE-PILOT. Fourth International Symposium on
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Eco Design 2005.
Luttropp C., Lagerstedt J., 2006. EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic advice
for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14 (15-16), pp.1396-1408.
Wever R., van Kuijk J., Boks C., 2008. User-centred design for sustainable behaviour.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1 (1), pp.9–20.
Rose C.M., Beiter K.A., Ishii K., 1999. Determining end-of-life strategies as a part of
product definition. Electronics and the Environment, 1999. ISEE-1999. Proceedings of the
1999 IEEE International Symposium on. pp. 219–224.
Rose C.M., 2000. Design for Environment: A Method for Formulating Product End-of-Life
Strategies. A dissertation submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the
Committee on Graduate Studies of Stanford University in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
http://www.ecodesign.at/pilot/ONLINE/ENGLISH/INDEX.HTM
Georgia Institute
Improve.ppt#3
of
Technology:
http://www.srl.gatech.edu/education/ME4171/DFR-
Design for disassembly, Co-design: the interdisciplinary journal of design and contextual
studies, Dowie-Bhamra, T., 1996 http://www.co-design.co.uk/design.htm
Design for Environment Guidelines, Active disassembly research, February 2005
Design for Disassembly Guidelines, Active disassembly research, January 2005
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 97 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
APPENDIX 1: ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF BONFIGLIOLI-VECTRON
In this section, the product development process of BONFIGLIOLI-VECTRON, an
electrical motors manufacturer is presented.
IDEF Methodology
The IDEF methodology has been used for the formalisation of the design process. Figure
35 illustrates the decomposition principle of an IDEF model.
Figure 35: IDEF0 methodology
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 98 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Description of the Bonfiglioli-Vectron Development Process
Basically this description refers to the main drive elements, including the software. It is
essential that the design of each element is dependent on the complete system. Only by
compliance with the rules of modularity and communication can interaction of units work
and economical solutions be possible. For example, the typical motor needs a control unit
(inverter) and corresponding software to enable operation as well as positioning.
The product development process is split into the following four distinct major phases;
these phases are also presented graphically and in more detail in Figure 37:

Feasibility

Development

Series production planning

Maturity phase
Description of resources
The following resources are used in the development process (Figure 36):

Test facility
… is involved in testing of prototypes and series product for life time and efficiency.

Mechanical design department
… is responsible for the design of mechanical parts and the coordination with
production.

Electrical design department
… has to design electric parts such as wires and connections.

Electronic design department
… is involved in the design of the control unit and electronic units.

Production and assembly
… has to check the feasibility and assemblability of new developed parts.

Series production preplanning
… is responsible for the PPS.

Rapid prototyping
… is involved in the design (forming, moulding).
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 99 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION

Supplier
… can take effect by appropriate products.

BOM
… will generate the different BOMs for mechanical, electrical and electronic units.

Product management
… is responsible for the comparison with competitors and the implementation of
minimum requirements.

Cost precalculation
… is responsible for the determination of preliminary manufacturing costs and monitors
the compliance with target costs.

Documentation (department)
… has to create the product documentation and manuals.

Quality department
… needs to create the conditions for compliance with quality and safety standards.
Used tools:

CAD system
… refers mainly to the mechanical design (e. g. motor parts and housings).

Energy efficiency software
… calculates the expected energy consumption under specified load conditions.

Simulation software
… calculates and simulates the mechanical and electrical “behaviour” of components
during interactions with typical applications.

Finite element calculation
… determines the different influences of mechanical stress and electrical fields.

E-CAD
… refers mainly to the layout of circuit boards.

Compiler
… compiles the source code of the controller software.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 100 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Feasibility (A-1)
The feasibility phase (Figure 38) determines which efforts are necessary, by what means
and in what time a project can be realized. The main target is the proof of the project
conception. If the result is negative the project will be rejected.
Production customization request (A-1-1)
During this phase, it is decided whether a customer request can be realised. In this initial
assessment the ,continued product development will be decided based on expected
profitability as well as on existing vicinity. This meeting is customer focused and is mainly
influenced by the distribution department.
Kickoff meeting (A-1-2)
During this meeting, concrete details for the realisation of the project will be made. For
example, it is decided how the development team is composed and what methods are
used to realise the product.
Requirement analysis (A-1-3)
The development departments determine the requirements of the product. At the end of
this process they create a list of specification.
Design conception (A-1-4)
Here initial concepts and models are presented. Depending on the effort of product
development, the models will be detailed or the test phase will start directly thereafter.
Prototyping (A-1-5)
If necessary more expensive prototypes will be produced and can be used for load tests. It
is also possible that an external supplier receives the order to machine special parts or
details.
Testing (A-1-6)
If necessary, some test can be performed. The main objective is to test critical parts or
new methods.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 101 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Cost Calculation (A-1-7)
The required production cost will be estimated. Especially if new machines are needed,
the investments will be crucial.
Feasibility release (A-1-8)
This is the formal release to start the product development.
Development (A-2)
The illustrated process (Figure 39) refers to the full range of drive technology. One main
goal can be to develop a complete drive package. However, it may be also possible that
only a limited series of products has to be developed (e. g. motors).
Design FMEA (A-2-1)
The FMEA is intended to prevent errors by problems and risks which have already been
identified early during the design process. Therefore, appropriate procedures are taken to
avoid errors. Ideally, the FMEA should be a process which promotes the innovation of a
product.
Mechanical design (A-2-2)
This phase includes the design and calculation of all mechanical motor parts like shafts,
bearings, housing, covers etc. The parts have to be defined in accordance to their
strength, life time, assemblability and compatibility. The material selection (and the
followed production) should enable the acceptable energy efficiency (e. g. copper instead
of aluminium) as well as the cost optimised solution. The primary software tools are CAD
and FE. As shown in Figure 40, this phase is as follows:

System coordination (A-2-2-1): Here the conditions are set, as the new products
can be integrated into an existing product system. This is important (for example) if
appropriate control units already should exist for new motors.

Preliminary design (A-2-2-2): First drafts and calculations (strength, life time, load
capacity, …) are made. Overall installed sizes and dimensions of product parts are
already foreseeable.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 102 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION

System matching (A-2-2-3): Final check whether the new products conform to the
system.

FEA and simulation (A-2-2-4): Finite element analysis (mainly mechanical parts like
shafts and bearings) and drive simulation.

Prototyping (A-2-2-5): Manufacturing of first prototypes for test (including rapid
prototyping).

Detailed design (A-2-2-6): Detailed drawings and BOM of all parts.
Electrical design (A-2-3)
Basically, this phase (Figure 41) includes electrical motor parts and connecting elements
for motor and electronic. The development takes also into account the design, calculation
and definitions of plugs, motor winding and similar hardware. Additionally the material
selection and basic design will be realised in accordance to the results of the required
motor efficiency.

System coordination (A-2-3-1): This development step includes the consideration
and completion of the different drive elements.

FEA and simulation (A-2-3-2): FE calculation of electrical motor elements and
definition of proper simulation models.

Mechatronic design (A-2-3-3): Adaptation to mechanical (e. g. couplings and gears)
and electronic (e. g. inverter) elements.
Electronic design (A-2-4)
This development phase is mainly related to electronic components such as circuit boards
for inverter. In accordance to Figure 42 the main steps are:

System coordination (A-2-4-1): This development step includes the consideration
and completion of the different drive elements.

Circuit design (A-2-4-2): The design of the circuits is done mainly by means of the
E-CAD software.

Wiring design (A-2-4-3): This relates mainly to the internal cabling and interfaces of
the control unit (inverter).

Model (A-2-4-4): Preparation of a model, mainly for inverters.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 103 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Software development (A-2-5)
This phase mainly refers to the programming of the software to operate the motor together
with the inverter. In some cases also the special programming for customers is required.
The main steps, as highlighted Figure 43, are:

System coordination (A-2-5-1): Definition of requirements to adapt the software to
the motor.

Simulation (A-2-5-2): This step is used to verify the software in a simulation
process.

Temporary software tool (A-2-5-3): This version of the program is tested internally
but is not released yet.

Final software tool (A-2-5-4): This program version is installed to the real application
and has to be accepted by the customer.
Specific testing (A-2-6)
Depending on the specific components the following tests are required (Figure 45):

Endurance test (A-2-6-1): This test is intended to demonstrate the calculated life
time of the components.

Overload test (A-2-6-2): Here, the drive elements are overloaded up to the limit at
which first damages occur.

Temperature test (A-2-6-3): Here, for example, the steady-state temperature at
rated load is determined.

Tightness test (A-2-6-4): Depending on the degree of protection the casings are
tested for leaks.

Corrosion test (A-2-6-5): This test will simulate the environmental conditions in time
lapse.

Noise test (A-2-6-6): The noise level of each unit will be measured under different
load conditions.
Final product release (A-2-7)

Certification (A-2-7-1): In this phase, the drive elements are certified to various
(international) standards. For special application internal certifications in
accordance to the customer specifications are possible.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 104 of 116
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION

Final acceptance (A-2-7-2): The departments and the customer accept the product.

Product release (A-2-7-3): Finally the product will be released by the product
management.
Series production planning (A-3)
During this phase, the necessary steps are taken so that the product can go into
production. These include adjustments to the production machines and the introduction of
new manufacturing processes. In practice the difficulties can still lead to small changes in
the product. After this process, all drawings and specification have been completed, all
parts are covered by the production planning system, assembly instructions and manuals
are created and the packaging procedure is described.
Maturity phase (A-4)
Within this phase the development is completed and the product is presented to the
market. The 0 series (pilot series) is then used by special customers for the planned
applications. Additionally, if the new development is not a very limited edition, it may be
necessary to create catalogues and service programs.
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 105 of 116
Page 106 of 116
Figure 36: General product development process
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Mechanical
design
department
Energy
efficiency
software
BONFIGLIOLI_IDEF0_GENERAL.EDX
Test facility
CAD system
Safety
requirements
Technical
requirements
Update
previous parts
Internal
proposal
Customer
request
New technical
standards
Market analysis
Electrical
design
department
Simulation
software
Knowledge
Electronic
design
department
Specific
calculation
Customer
agreement
Seriesproduction
preplanning
Compiler
Rapid
prototyping
Quality
department
Supplier
Cost
precalculation
Production
control
A-0
DEVELOPMEMT PROCESS
Production and
assembly
E-CAD
Cost control
BONFIGLIOLI-VECTRON
Schedule
Bonfiglioli-Vectron General Product Development Process
Software
development
Finite element
calculation
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
BOM
Documentation
Supplier
Node: A0
Product
management
0 series
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 107 of 116
Figure 37: Product development process with the four major phases
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_1.EDX
Technical
requirements
Update
previous parts
Internal
proposal
Customer
request
New technical
standards
Market analysis
Knowledge
FEASIBILITY
Competitor
A-1
Cost estimation
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Cost control
Special components
A-3
SERIES
PRODUCTION
PLANNING
Cost calculation
FMEA
Sample assembly
Prototypes
Schedule
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Product Development Process
A-2
DEVELOPMENT
Rapid prototyping
Customer
agreement
Production
control
A-4
MATURITY PHASE
Supplier
Node: A0 General
0 Series
Electronic/print
catalogue
Quality
certification
Packaging
Manual
Assembly
instruction
PPS
implementation
BOM
Calculation
report
Soft tool
(control unit)
Investment
Production cost
Project plan
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 108 of 116
Figure 38: Feasibility phase
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Electronic
design
department
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A1.EDX
Update
previous parts
Internal
proposal
Technical
requirements
New technical
standards
Market analysis
Software
development
group
PRODUCT
CUSTOMIZATION
REQUEST
A-1-1
Competitor
analysis
Customer
agreement
Cost control
Rapid
prototyping
A-1-4
DESIGN
CONCEPTION
Test facility
A-1-5
PROTOTYPING
Test planning
List of specifications
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Feasibility Study
Seriesproduction
preplanning
A-1-3
REQUIREMENT
ANALYSIS
Product
management
A-1-2
KICK OFF
MEETING
Mechanical
design
department
Knowledge
Supplier
Test report
A-1-7
COST
CALCULATION
A-1-6
TESTING
Schedule
Node: A1
A-1-8
FEASIBILITY
RELEASE
Production
cost
Investment
Rapid
prototyping
Project plan
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Simulation
software
Energy
efficiency
software
Rapid
prototyping
Figure 39: Development process
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Page 109 of 116
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2.EDX
Software
development
group
A-2-5
SOFTWARE
DEVEOLPMENT
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Mechanical
design
department
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Development Process
Supplier
ELECTRONIC
DESIGN
Quality
department
BOM
generator
A-2-3
ELECTRICAL
DESIGN
CAD
system
Finite element
calculation
A-2-2
MECHANICAL
DESIGN
Customer
agreement
A-2-4
E-CAD
A-2-1
DESIGN FMEA
FMEA documentation
Competitor
analysis
Production cost
evaluation
Technical
requirements
Customer
requirements
Rapid
prototypes
Project plan
Knowledge
Electronic
design
department
Test
facility
A-2-6
SPECIFIC
TESTING
Cost control
Production and
assembly
department
FINAL
PRODUCT
RELEASE
A-2-7
Node: A.2
Provisional
catalogue
Cerification
FMEA report
Service manual
Series
production
preplanning
Noise and efficiency test report
Electrical BOM
Mechanical
BOM
Calculation
(design) report
Provisional
production plan
System
compatibility
Prototypes
Software
conception
Electrical layout
Accessory
structure
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 110 of 116
Figure 40: Mechanical design phase
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Electrical
design
department
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2_2.EDX
Customer
requirements
Styling
requirements
System
requirements
Technical
requirements
CAD
system
A-2-2-1
SYSTEM
COORDINATION
Customer
agreement
Simulation
software
A-2-2-3
SYSTEM
MATCHING
Rapid
prototyping
machine
A-2-2-4
FEA AND
SIMULATION
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Mechanical Design Phase
Mechanical
design
department
A-2-2-2
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
Finite element
calculation
Knowledge
Supplier
conditions
A-2-2-5
PROTOTYPING
Cost control
A-2-2-6
FINAL
DESIGN
Time schedule
Node: A.2.2
BOM
Supplier order
Prototypes
Assembly
definitions
Simulation
report
Mechanical
system layout
Calculation
(design) report
System
structure
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 111 of 116
Figure 41: Electrical design phase
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2_3.EDX
Customer
requirements
System
requirements
Technical
requirements
Mechanical
design
department
A-2-3-1
SYSTEM
COORDINATION
Knowledge
CAD
system
Electrical
design
department
Calculation report
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Electrical Design Phase
E-CAD
system
A-2-3-2
FEA AND
SIMULATION
Customer
agreement
FE caculation
and
simulation
A-2-3-3
MECHATRONIC
DESIGN
Cost control
Energy
efficiency
calculation
Node: A.2.3
Prototypes
BOM
System
structure
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 112 of 116
Figure 42: Electronic design phase
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2_4.EDX
Customer
requirements
System
requirements
Technical
requirements
A-2-4-1
SYSTEM
COORDINATION
Mechanical
design
department
Knowledge
Electrical
design
department
A-2-4-3
WIRING DESIGN
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Electronic Design Phase
E-CAD
system
A-2-4-2
CIRCUIT
DESIGN
Customer
agreement
Software
development
Electronical
production
A-2-4-4
MODEL
Cost control
Node: A.2.4
Prototypes
Supplier order
BOM
System
structure
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 113 of 116
Figure 43: Software development phase
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2_5.EDX
Customer
requirements
Safety
requirements
System
requirements
Technical
requirements
Electronic
design
department
A-2-5-1
SYSTEM
COORDINATION
External
programmer
Knowledge
Simulation
software
Compiler
A-2-5-3
TEMPORARY
SOFTWARE TOOL
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Software Development Phase
Software
development
department
A-2-5-2
SIMULATION
Customer
agreement
A-2-5-4
FINAL SOFTWARE
VERSION
Node: A.2.5
Application
System
structure
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 114 of 116
Figure 44: Specific testing
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2_6.EDX
Customer
requirements
Safety
requirements
System
requirements
Technical
requirements
A-2-6-1
ENDURANCE
TEST
A-2-6-2
OVERLOAD TEST
Knowledge
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Specific Testing
A-2-6-4
TIGHTNESS
TEST
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Test facility
A-2-6-3
TEMPERATURE
TEST
Test planning
A-2-6-5
CORROSION
TEST
A-2-6-6
NOISE TEST
Node: A.2.6
Test report
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Page 115 of 116
Figure 45: Final product release
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
Bonfiglioli_IDEF0_A2_7.EDX
Customer
requirements
Safety
requirements
System
requirements
Technical
requirements
FMEA report
Electronic
design
department
A-2-7-1
CERTIFICATION
Project
schedule
Mechanical
design
department
A-2-7-3
PRODUCT
RELEASE
Quality
department
Standards (ISO,
DIN, IEC, ..)
Bonfiglioli-Vectron Final Product Release
Software
development
group
A-2-7-2
FINAL
ACCEPTANCE
Cost control
Supplier
Product
management
Node: A.2.7
Application
Project
documentation
Production cost
report
Certification
documents
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Final Version 1.0
D.1.3 G.EN.ESI METHODOLOGY DEFINITION
Used and planned tools in the product development process
Type of Tool
Name / Example Comments on its ability to be used
Solid works Substainability
Solid works to check Thermal and Mechanic simulation tools.
Different types
to check Energy consumption and cost calculation tool for (gear) motors.
Developed by Bonfiglioli‐Vectron
available
Energy consumption calculation for drives systems up to 40 axis.
Servo Soft available
Simulation software for drive units and mechanical elements. ITI SimulationX
test phase
LCA Database GABI to check Material Database Altium Designer to check Standards/ Directives / Regulatios RoHS 2011/65/EU
to interpret
Standards/ Directives / Regulatios REACH
to interpret
Standards/ Directives / Regulatios WEEE 2012/19/EU
to interpret
Standards/ Directives / Regulatios ISO14001
to interpret
Standards/ Directives / Regulatios Product safety 2006 / 95 / EG
to interpret
Standards/ Directives / Regulatios Electromagnetic compliance (EMC 2004/108/EG)
to interpret
Tool: Rapid Prototype
Alphacam dimensioning printing.
available
Tool: Heating and humitity cabinet Vötsch VC 4034
Two available
Tool: Heating cabinet Vötsch Thermo
available
Tool: Vibration tester
RMS Test manager 1200
available
This project is co-financed by the European Commission
and made possible within the VII Framework Programme
Page 116 of 116