Design of a Framework for Integrating Environmentally Sustainable Design Principles and Requirements in Train Modernization Projects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Recent Trends in Sustainable Railway Transportation
- Elimination of hazardous materials and substances;
- Use of design for disassembly, reuse, and remanufacture;
- Optimization for energy efficiency;
- The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) to facilitate more environmentally sustainable decision-making.
1.2. Problem Identification and Motivation
- The integration of environmentally sustainable design principles in (early) design stages;
- The integration of environmental sustainability-focused design criteria.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design Science Research
2.2. Design Objectives and Criteria
- The framework should enable the integration of environmental sustainability in train modernization processes.
- The framework should facilitate the discovery of improvement opportunities for environmental sustainability in train modernization.
2.3. Framework Design and Development
2.3.1. Overview of Existing EcoDesign Tools
2.3.2. Selected EcoDesign Tools
3. Results
3.1. EcoDesign Framework for Train Modernization
3.1.1. Stage 1: Preliminary Study
3.1.2. Stage 2: Project Start
3.1.3. Stage 3: Early Design
3.1.4. Stage 4: Design Evaluation
3.2. Application Context
3.3. Demonstration of the Design-for-Environment Framework
3.3.1. Stage 1: Preliminary Study
3.3.2. Stage 2: Project Start
3.3.3. Stage 3: Early Design
3.3.4. Stage 4: Design Evaluation
4. Discussion
Limitations, Recommendations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Question | |
---|---|
A1 | Are lightweight materials used in the train where possible? |
A2 | Have structural reinforcements for making parts more lightweight been considered? |
A3 | Is the train energy efficient according to current standards? |
A4 | If possible, is energy regenerated in the train’s systems and used in another system or fed back to the catenary? |
A5 | Is friction in the train’s systems or at the system boundaries minimized? |
A6 | Is electrical resistance in the systems minimized? |
A7 | Is a proper energy monitoring system installed and certified? |
A8 | Is it possible to switch off systems when not in use? Is it possible to do this remotely or automatically? |
B1 | Does the train use materials with low embedded GHG emissions? |
B1 | Are suppliers selected based on or encouraged in their energy conservation practices? |
C1 | Are the used components vandalism proof? |
C2 | Is environmental impact considered when choosing materials? |
C3 | Does the train use renewable materials when possible? |
C4 | Is the amount of material used by the system kept to a minimum? |
C5 | Is the amount of parts that are reused during modernization as high as possible? |
D1 | Are recycled materials used when possible? |
E1 | Are used materials easily recyclable at the end of their life cycle? |
E2 | Are used materials easily separated? |
E3 | Are components easily disassembled? |
E4 | Is the amount of different materials used kept to a minimum? |
E5 | Is recyclability of components demanded from suppliers? |
E6 | Are the origin and composition of materials well documented? |
F1 | Is information regarding recycling well documented? |
F2 | Are parts easy to source or reproduce, even years after production has ended? |
F3 | Is compatibility of components with other train series maximized? |
F4 | Are the train’s systems designed to be easily repairable? |
F5 | Is the system architecture modular, so that damaged components can easily be exchanged? |
F6 | Is the train designed in such a way that the use of disposable components is avoided? |
F7 | Is the lifespan of the train’s systems and their components optimized for the train life cycle? |
G1 | Is the train designed to minimize the use of lubricants, grease, and oils? |
G2 | Is the train designed to minimize the use of cleaning products? |
G3 | Does the train facilitate the use of nonhazardous cleaning products? |
G4 | Is the train designed to minimize contact with and emission of harmful materials during maintenance? |
G5 | Is the train designed to minimize the application and impact of graffiti? |
H1 | In case a hazardous substance is used, have alternatives been thoroughly investigated? |
H2 | In case a hazardous substance is used, is a closed material loop facilitated? |
H3 | Are suppliers selected based on or encouraged in their reduction of the use of hazardous substances? |
H4 | Are wear-resistant materials used to avoid emissions from wear during use? |
H5 | Are components that include hazardous substances isolated and protected from leakage and corrosion? |
H6 | Is information regarding toxicity of the train well documented? |
I1 | Is discarded material from the old train 100% recycled or reused? |
I2 | Are proper precautions taken to mitigate the effects of any spills of hazardous substances during disassembly? |
J1 | Is the amount of energy used during manufacturing minimized? |
J2 | Is waste heat in manufacturing used for other processes? |
J3 | Is waste material from manufacturing minimized and when possible reused or recycled? |
J4 | Is a proper ventilation system for particulate matter in place in the manufacturing process? |
J5 | Does the manufacturing site use renewable energy for its processes and vehicles? |
K1 | Are components sourced as closely to the assembly site as possible? |
K2 | Is the logistics process optimized for as few truck movements as possible? |
K3 | Is the amount of packaging used to ship components minimized by suppliers? |
K3 | Is the same packaging used multiple times during the project? |
K4 | Is reused or recycled material used for the packaging? |
K5 | Is the number of unusable products kept to an absolute minimum? |
L1 | Does the train use any showcase environmental techniques? |
L2 | Does the train include features to stimulate its use over cars? |
L3 | Is the use of reused and recycled material visible in the train? |
L4 | Are the taken energy reduction or generation measures visible in the train? |
References
- Elkington, J. Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1997; ISBN 190096127X. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, P.; de Barros, A.G.; Kattan, L.; Wirasinghe, S.C. Public transportation and sustainability: A review. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eldeeb, G.; Mohamed, M. Understanding the transit market: A persona-based approach for preferences quantification. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eliasson, J.; Kopsch, F.; Mandell, S.; Wilhelmsson, M. Transport mode and the value of accessibility-a potential input for sustainable investment analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stjernborg, V.; Mattisson, O. The role of public transport in society-A case study of general policy documents in Sweden. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goodland, R.; Daly, H. Environmental sustainability: Universal and non-negotiable. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 6, 1002–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banister, D. Sustainable transport: Challenges and opportunities. Transportmetrica 2007, 3, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanke, P.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, X.; Antunes, J. Sustainability efficiency and carbon inequality of the Chinese transportation system: A robust bayesian stochastic frontier analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 110163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Wu, J.; Zong, Y. The impact of the freight transport modal shift policy on China’s carbon emissions reduction. Sustainability 2020, 12, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García-Olivares, A.; Solé, J.; Samsó, R.; Ballabrera-Poy, J. Sustainable European transport system in a 100% renewable economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.K.; Kim, Y.K.; Pruitichaiwiboon, P.; Kim, J.S.; Lee, K.M.; Ju, C.S. Assessing environmentally friendly recycling methods for composite bodies of railway rolling stock using life-cycle analysis. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2010, 15, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, M.; Cheong, A. Energy efficiency in Singapore’s rapid transit system. In Journeys: Sharing Urban Transport Solutions; LTA Academy: Singapore, 2012; pp. 38–47. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, J.P.; González-Gil, A.; Palacin, R. Experimental assessment of the energy consumption of urban rail vehicles during stabling hours: Influence of ambient temperature. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 66, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azzouz, L.; Jack, A. Benchmarking the sustainability reporting of high-speed railways (HSRs): Towards a state-of-the-art benchmarking and reporting framework for HSRs. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, N.; Roth, E.; Reim, W. Smart and sustainable emaintenance: Capabilities for digitalization of maintenance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manojlović, A.V.; Papić, V.D.; Filipović, S.M.; Jovanović, V.D. Fleet renewal: An approach to achieve sustainable road transport. Therm. Sci. 2011, 15, 1223–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicola, D.A.; Rosen, M.A.; Bulucea, C.A.; Brandusa, C. Some sustainability aspects of energy conversion in urban electric trains. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1389–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ander, Å.; Bergendorff, M.; Carlson, R.; Dewulf, W.; Duflou, J.; Forsberg, P.; Gernez, L.; Glivberg, G.; Granholm-Thorén, A.; Grimadell, N.; et al. Integrating Eco-Efficiency in Rail Vehicle Design: Final Report of the RAVEL Project; Dewulf, W., Duflou, J., Ander, A., Eds.; Leuven University Press: Leuven, Belgium, 2001; ISBN 9058671763. [Google Scholar]
- Överstam, U. Applying eco-design guidelines when designing rolling stock. In Proceedings of the 13th UIC Sustainability Conference, Vienna, Austria, 12–14 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, J.S.; Gomes, J.D.O. A framework to integrate the end-of-life aircraft in preliminary design. Procedia CIRP 2014, 15, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Towle, I.; Johnston, C.; Lingwood, R.; Grant, P.S. The Aircraft at End of Life Sector: A Preliminary Study; Department of Materials, Oxford University: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Merkisz-Guranowska, A.; Merkisz, J.; Jacyna, M.; Pyza, D.; Stawecka, H. Rail vehicles recycling. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2014, 135, 425–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaewunruen, S.; Lee, C.K. Sustainability challenges in managing end-of-life rolling stocks. Front. Built Environ. 2017, 3, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garnier de Falletans, T. Levers for recyclable trains. In Proceedings of the 13th UIC Sustainability Conference, Vienna, Austria, 12–14 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, R.F.; Kaewunruen, S. Recycling of rolling stock. Environments 2017, 39, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hauschild, M.; Jeswiet, J.; Alting, L. From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: Status and perspectives. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2005, 54, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jajac, N.; Kilič, J.; Rogulj, K. An integral approach to sustainable decision-making within maritime spatial planning-A DSC for the planning of anchorages on the Island of Šolta, Croatia. Sustainability 2018, 11, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cross, N. Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Des. Issues 2001, 17, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Aken, J.; Chandrasekaran, A.; Halman, J. Conducting and publishing design science research: Inaugural essay of the design science department of the Journal of Operations Management. J. Oper. Manag. 2016, 47–48, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hevner, A.R. A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 19, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
- Wieringa, R.J. Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-662-43838-1. [Google Scholar]
- Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.; Chatterjee, S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 45–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pigosso, D.C.A.; Zanette, E.T.; Filho, A.G.; Ometto, A.R.; Rozenfeld, H. Ecodesign methods focused on remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, M.; Germani, M.; Zamagni, A. Review of ecodesign methods and tools. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 129, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseaux, P.; Gremy-Gros, C.; Bonnin, M.; Henriel-Ricordel, C.; Bernard, P.; Floury, L.; Staigre, G.; Vincent, P. “Eco-tool-seeker”A new and unique business guide for choosing ecodesign tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 546–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bovea, M.D.; Pérez-Belis, V. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crul, M.R.M.; Diehl, J.C. Design for Sustainability: A Step-by-Step Approach; United Nations Environment Program: Paris, France, 2009; ISBN 92-807-2711-7. [Google Scholar]
- Hauschild, M.; Wenzel, H.; Alting, L. Life cycle design—A route to the sustainable industrial culture? Ann. CIRP 1999, 48, 393–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luttropp, C.; Lagerstedt, J. EcoDesign and the ten golden rules: Generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 1396–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagerstedt, J. Functional and Environmental Factors in Early Phases of Product Development-Eco Functional Matrix. Ph.D. Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 24 January 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Schöggl, J.P.; Baumgartner, R.J.; Hofer, D. Improving sustainability performance in early phases of product design: A checklist for sustainable product development tested in the automotive industry calls for papers-upcoming special issues and books on sustainable business models view project AKRosA. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1602–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yarwood, J.M.; Eagan, P.D. Design for the Environment: A Competitive Edge for the Future - Toolkit; Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance: Minnesota, USA, 2001.
- Mathieux, F.; Froelich, D.; Moszkowicz, P. ReSICLED: A new recovery-conscious design method for complex products based on a multicriteria assessment of the recoverability. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 277–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cerdan, C.; Gazulla, C.; Raugei, M.; Martinez, E.; Fullana-I-Palmer, P. Proposal for new quantitative eco-design indicators: A first case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1638–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duflou, J.R.; Dewulf, W. Eco-Impact Anticipation by Parametric Screening of Machine System Components: An introduction to the EcoPaS Methodology. In Product Engineering; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
- Umeda, Y.; Takata, S.; Kimura, F.; Tomiyama, T.; Sutherland, J.W.; Kara, S.; Herrmann, C.; Duflou, J.R. Toward integrated product and process life cycle planning—An environmental perspective. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 61, 681–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryu, J.; Kim, I.; Kwon, E.; Hur, T. Simplified life cycle assessment for eco-design. In Proceedings of the EcoDesign 3rd International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, 8–11 December 2003; pp. 459–463. [Google Scholar]
- Hauschild, M.Z. Introduction to LCA methodology. In Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 59–66. ISBN 9783319564753. [Google Scholar]
- Priddy, R.D. Sustainability: The train has left the station. MRS Energy Sustain. 2017, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahaux, M.; Heymans, P.; Saval, G. Discovering sustainability requirements: An experience report. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Essen, Germany, 28–30 March 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 6606, pp. 19–33. [Google Scholar]
Topic | Criterion | Description |
---|---|---|
Usability | U1 | The framework should not require extensive knowledge about environmental sustainability for its application |
Process | P1 | The framework should include environmental impact in all relevant stages of train modernization projects |
P2 | The integration of the framework should not significantly disrupt existing decision-making processes within the organization | |
P3 | Environmental sustainability should be implemented in a SMART way (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-based) | |
Function | F1 | The application of the framework should allow for a clear overview of environmental sustainability efforts |
F2 | The framework should provide a means for evaluating the efficacy of the design choices with respect to environmental sustainability |
Tool | Description | Advantages | Disadvantages | Selected |
---|---|---|---|---|
D4S Strategy Wheel and Rules of Thumb [37] | Qualitative tool used to select and visualize strategies to be taken for making the design more environmentally sustainable. Provides a list of simple rules of thumb to follow in order to ensure a more environmentally sustainable design, providing practical guidance for improving the product based on these strategies. | • Ease of use • Clear visualization of what path to take •Provides practical advice | • No way to measure the product • Only provides general guidance | No, the more specific guidance of Ten Golden Rules was preferred |
MECO Matrix [38] | Simple qualitative assessment based on materials, energy, chemicals, and other aspects in order to compare the impact of two design alternatives during the life cycle. | • Ease of use • Forces designers to think about a range of different issues • Provides a means for comparison | • Very general • Does not suggest solutions | No, due to lack of solution focus |
Ten Golden Rules [39] | Ten qualitative rules that can be used as guidance for making the overall product design more environmentally sustainable. | • Ease of use • Can promote environmental sustainability awareness for employees | • Very general • Some rules can be contradictory | Yes |
Eco-functional Matrix [40] | Semiqualitative linking technique based on QFD using a matrix that links functional and environmental aspects of a product. Identifies which aspects are important for the product and which aspects correlate in order to highlight critical points. | • Combines functionality with environmental performance • Clearly links different issues | • Issues are considered at a high level; outcome for a train is always similar • Does not suggest solutions | No, due to high abstraction level of application |
SCPD [41] | Semiqualitative checklist for environmentally sustainable product design consisting of 49 yes/no questions that encourage engineers to think about the whole life cycle. Generates a task list of follow-up actions based on the answers. | • Possibility to score and compare products • Generates clear task list of follow-up actions • Dialogic approach improves communication | • Environmental sustainability expertise required to reach full potential | No, based on expertise requirement |
Design for Environment Matrix (DfE) [42] | Semiqualitative matrix with questions about various environmental factors grouped according to life cycle stage. Each cell consists of one or more questions and is worth 5 points. Answering all questions provides a score for each issue and makes it possible to compare products. | • Scores products without needing very specific information • Questions can raise awareness of environmental sustainability issues | • Questions can be hard to answer at the train level (but is suitable for subsystem level) | Yes |
ReSICLED [43] | Quantitative assessment of the recoverability of a product based on the weight and economic and environmental costs or benefits. Accounts for both material attributes and product design characteristics. | • Quantitative assessment makes comparison easy • Accurate description of recyclability | • Complexity • Involves a lot of data gathering and calculations • Only takes into account the EOL stage | No, due to limitations in usability |
Simple Eco-indicators [44] | Set of simplified quantitative indicators of the environmental attributes of a product. Easy to calculate figures that correlate with indicators of a more complicated LCA. | • Easy method for quantifying product characteristics • Can be used to compare design alternatives | • Noncomprehensive list of indicators • May induce oversimplification when applied at train level | No, DfE matrix was deemed more usable for the framework |
EcoPaS [45] | Quantitative model for calculating environmental impact using basic product parameters. So-called eCERs (eco-cost estimating relationships) are used to link basic parameters to environmental impact. | • Comprehensive quantification of product characteristics based on available information • Can be used to compare design alternatives | • eCERs have to be defined for each system • Realistic representation of a train is challenging | No, due to limitations with usability |
Rule | Description |
---|---|
1 | Do not use toxic substances and utilize closed loops for necessary but toxic ones |
2 | Minimize energy and resource consumption in the production phase and transport through improved housekeeping |
3 | Use structural features and high-quality materials to minimize weight in products. If such choices do not interfere with necessary flexibility, impact strength, or other functional priorities |
4 | Minimize energy and resource consumption in the usage phase, especially for products with the most significant aspects in the usage phase |
5 | Promote repair and upgrading, especially for system-dependent products. (e.g., cell phones, computers, and CD players) |
6 | Promote long life, especially for products with significant environmental aspects outside of the usage phase |
7 | Invest in better materials, surface treatments, or structural arrangements to protect products from dirt, corrosion, and wear, thereby ensuring reduced maintenance and longer product life |
8 | Prearrange upgrading, repair, and recycling through access ability, labelling, modules, breaking points, and manuals |
9 | Promote upgrading, repair, and recycling by using few, simple, recycled, not blended materials and no alloys |
10 | Use as few joining elements as possible and use screws, adhesives, welding, snap fits, geometric locking, etc. according to the life cycle scenario |
Theme | Issue | Questions (See Appendix A) | Score | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Issue | Theme | |||
Energy, CO2 and climate | Energy use | A | 20% | 10% | 38% | 20% | 56% | 100% | 0% | 86% | 41% | 41% |
Embedded GHG emissions | B | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||
Circularity | Material use | C | 70% | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 70% | 70% | |||
Recycled material | D | N/A | N/A | |||||||||
Recyclability of new components | E | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
Maintainability | Efficiency in maintenance | F | 100% | 60% | 80% | 20% | 100% | 80% | 73% | 71% | ||
Hazardous substances in maintenance | G | 50% | 40% | 90% | 100% | 60% | 68% | |||||
Toxicity | Use of hazardous substances | H | N/A | N/A | N/A | 83% | 78% | 0% | 54% | 54% | ||
Overhaul process | Sustainable disassembly | I | 0% | 100% | 50% | 41% | ||||||
Sustainable manufacturing | J | 0% | 0% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 40% | |||||
Sustainable logistics | K | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 33% | ||||
Experience | Customer experience | L | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Theme | Issue | Questions (see Appendix A) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
Energy, CO2 and climate | Energy use | A | yes | yes | yes | no | no | No | yes | yes |
Embedded GHG emissions | B | yes | yes | |||||||
Circularity | Material use | C | yes | yes | no | yes | no | |||
Recycled material | D | yes | ||||||||
Recyclability of new components | E | yes | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | ||
Maintainability | Efficiency in maintenance | F | no | no | no | no | no | yes | ||
Hazardous substances in maintenance | G | no | yes | no | no | yes | ||||
Toxicity | Use of hazardous substances | H | no | no | no | no | yes | no | ||
Overhaul process | Sustainable disassembly | I | yes | no | ||||||
Sustainable manufacturing | J | yes | no | no | no | yes | ||||
Sustainable logistics | K | no | no | no | no | no | yes | |||
Experience | Customer experience | L | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Theme | Requirement | Budget | Unit |
---|---|---|---|
Energy, CO2, and climate | Auxiliary energy | 22.436 | kWh/year |
Embedded GHG emissions | 56.807 | kg CO2-eq. | |
Circularity | Material use | 103.837 | kg Fe-eq. |
Recycled material | 0 | kg Fe-eq. | |
Recyclability | 93.453 | kg Fe-eq. |
Energy, CO2 and Climate | Circularity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Auxiliary Energy (kWh/year) | Embedded GHG Emissions (kg CO2-eq.) | Material Use (kg Fe-eq.) | Recycled Material (kg Fe-eq.) | Recyclability (kg Fe-eq.) | |
Total budgets: | 0 | 36.717 | 25.061 | 0 | 22.555 |
Floors and stairways, vestibules | 0 | 9.989 | 7.150 | 0 | 6.435 |
Compartments | 0 | 17.861 | 12.675 | 0 | 11.408 |
Toilet/sanitary system | - | 2.864 | 1.845 | 0 | 1.661 |
Catering/galley | - | - | - | 0 | - |
HVAC | 117.445 | 6.002 | 3.391 | 0 | 3.052 |
Driver’s cab | - | - | - | 0 | - |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Haanstra, W.; Martinetti, A.; Braaksma, J.; van Dongen, L. Design of a Framework for Integrating Environmentally Sustainable Design Principles and Requirements in Train Modernization Projects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156075
Haanstra W, Martinetti A, Braaksma J, van Dongen L. Design of a Framework for Integrating Environmentally Sustainable Design Principles and Requirements in Train Modernization Projects. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156075
Chicago/Turabian StyleHaanstra, Willem, Alberto Martinetti, Jan Braaksma, and Leo van Dongen. 2020. "Design of a Framework for Integrating Environmentally Sustainable Design Principles and Requirements in Train Modernization Projects" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 6075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156075