NIST GCR 15-986-2 

Proceedings of the Measurement 

Science for Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing Workshop 

Volume II. Presentations 

Bilal M. Ayyub 

Gerald E. Galloway 

Richard N. Wright 

University of Maryland 

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR. 15-986-2 

 

 

 

NIST GCR 15-986-2 

Proceedings of the Measurement 

Science for Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing Workshop 

Volume II. Presentations 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Engineering Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600 

By 

Bilal M. Ayyub 

Gerald E. Galloway 

Richard N. Wright 

University of Maryland 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR. 15-986-2 

February 2015 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
 

This publication was produced as part of Cooperative Agreement #70NANB13H211 with 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The contents of this publication do 

not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology or the US Government. 
	 	

Organizing Committee

Bilal M. Ayyub, University of Maryland 

Robert Chapman, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Joannie Chin, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gerald E. Galloway, University of Maryland 

I. S. Jawahir, University of Kentucky 

Josh Kneifel, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Sudarsan Rachuri, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Jelena Srebric, University of Maryland 

Richard N. Wright, University of Maryland 

Sponsors

National Institute of Standards and Technology
 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

University of Maryland
 

Recommended Citations

Ayyub, B. M., Galloway, G. E., and Wright, R. N. (editors), 2014, Measurement Science for 

Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, Volume I. Position Papers, University of Maryland 

Report to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Applied Economics, 

NIST Grant/Contractor Report 15-986-1, Gaithersburg, MD. 

Ayyub, B. M., Galloway, G. E., and Wright, R. N. (editors), 2014, Measurement Science for 

Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, Volume II. Presentations, University of Maryland 

Report to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Applied Economics, 

NIST Grant/Contractor Report 15-986-2, Gaithersburg, MD. 
[This page is internationally left blank] 

iv 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

Ayyub,	Bilal	M.,	Galloway,	Gerald	E.,	and	Wright,	Richard	N.,	University	of	Maryland	

About the Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable
 

Construction and Manufacturing
 

1. Background 

Achieving long-term suitability poses a linked-systems challenge for policy makers to assess the 

consequences, trade-offs and synergies in economic, environmental and social domains. A 

sustainable society can be defined as the one that can thrive over generations; one that is farseeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine its economic, environmental 

and social systems of support. A major need for achieving sustainable construction and 

manufacturing is to establish meaningful measurements for the complex attributes of 

sustainability suitable for lifecycle considerations. What one can measure, one can manage. 

NIST, ASCE, ASME and the University of Maryland are hold this workshop to address this 

challenge. 

2. Objectives 

The objective of the workshop was to examine the measurement science needed to guide 

decisions for sustainability throughout the life cycle of design, construction/manufacturing, 

operations, and maintenance of facilities and systems of the built environment and manufactured 

products, and to guide NIST and other key stakeholders in developing a portfolio of related 

programs. The workshop engaged key international and domestic thought leaders and experts 

from stake-holding disciplines including construction, manufacturing, codes and standards 

development, economics, government, industry, and academia, and addressed trends and needs 

relating to sustainable construction and manufacturing. The results from this effort are 

documented herein in coordination with NIST, ASCE and ASME. 

3. Discussion Topics 

Discussion topics included: 

 Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings) 

 Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies) 

 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and 

energy efficiency), or 

 Economic, environmental and social aspects (valuation, impacts and behavior). 

4. Participants 

The workshop was attended by about 77 people. A complete list is provided in Appendix A. 

v 
       

                 

           

             

   

                           

             

             

       

         

             

     

                           

                     

                     

         

                       

                           

       

   

                       

                       

                       

                         

   

                       

           

                           

                   

             

      

             

            

           

      

           

             

                 

                       

       

           

       

           

                     

               

       

           

                       

               

   

                     

     

5. Agenda 

Day 1: June 12, 2014

Time Topic Duration Room Speakers

8:00‐8:30 Breakfast

8:30‐9:00

Welcome and Introduction

30 ASCE

Darryll Pines, Dean, School of Engineering, Un. Maryland (UMD)

Opening remarks Howard Harary, Acting Director, Engineering Laboratory, NIST

Symposium program

Bilal Ayyub, Director, Center for Technology & Systems Management,

CEE Professor, UMD

Perspectives on sustainability for the Nation

Nabil Nasr, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs & Director of Golisano

Institute for Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Tech., NY

9:00‐9:25 Sustainable manufacturing 20+5 ASCE

William Flanagan, Director, Ecoassessment Center of Excellence, GE

Global Research, General Electric Company

9:25‐9:50 Sustainable construction 20+5 ASCE Nancy Kralik, Fluor and Construction Industry Institute

9:50‐10:00 Break 10

10:00‐10:20 Sustainability metrics‐measurementscience 17+3 ASCE

Subhas Sikdar, Associate Director for Science, National Risk Management

Research Lab, EPA, and AIChE

10:20‐10:40 System sustainability: aggregation & linkages 17+3 ASCE Joseph Fiksel, Director, Center for Resilience at The Ohio State Un.

10:40‐11:00 Planning, design and supply chain 17+3 ASCE Gül Kremer, Professor, Industrial & Manufacturing Eng., Penn State

11:00‐11:20 Economic, environmental and social aspects 17+3 ASCE

Cliff Davidson, Director, Center for Sustainable Engineering, Thomas and

Colleen Wilmot CEE Professor, Syracuse University

11:20‐12:40 Quantified Urban Community at Hudson Yards 17+3 ASCE Constantine E. Kontokosta, NYUPolytechnic School of Engineering

11:40‐12:00 Population and Carrying Capacity: Metrics for

Sustainability 17+3 ASCE Eugenia Kalnay, NAE, Distinguished University of Maryland Professor ofAtmospheric and Oceanic Science

12:00‐1:00 Hosted Lunch (sandwiches) 60

1:00‐2:48

Perspectives on sustainable construction and

manufacturing 108 ASCE

Gerald Galloway (Moderator), NAE, Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor

of Engineering, UMD

Implementation and challenges for metrics 15+3 ASCE David Dise, Director of General Services, MD Montgomery County

A Case study on the role of metrics 15+3 ASCE Fulya Kocak, Clark Construction Group, Bethesda, MD

Perspectives of a federal agency on metrics 15+3 ASCE

Joe Cresko, Lead internal analysis and strategic planning, Advanced

Manufacturing Office, DOE

Metrics forsustainable products and process 15+3 ASCE

I. S. Jawahir, Director, Institute for Sustainable Manufacturing

James F. Hardymon Chair, University of Kentucky

Perspectives of owner and builder on metrics 15+3 ASCE

James Dalton, Chief, Engineering and Construction, Directorate of Civil

Works, USACE

International perspectives on metrics 15+3 ASCE

Bohumil Kasal, Director of Fraunhofer Institute at Braunsweig, Germany

and Professor at the Technical University of Braunschweig

2:48‐3:00 Break 12

3:00‐4:00 Panel 1 ‐ Perspectives from users 60 ASCE

Richard Wright (Moderator, Research Professor, UMD), Michele Russo

(McGraw Hill/ENR), Chris Pyke (US Green Building Council), William

Bertera (Instit. for Sustain. Infrastructure), William Flanagan (General

Electric Company)

4:00‐5:00 Panel 2 ‐ Perspectives from researchers 60 ASCE

Jelena Srebric (Moderator, Professor, UMD), Nabil Nasr (Rochester

Institute of Tech), Damon Fordham (TRB), Andrew Persily (NIST), Subhas

Sikdar(AIChE/ EPA)

5:00‐5:15 Second day breakout sessions 10 ASCE Richard Wright, NAE, Research Professor, UMD (NIST retired)

6:00‐8:30 Hosted Dinner (participants seated per breakouts) 150 Ballroom A Joannie Chin, Acting Deputy Director, Engineering Laboratory, NIST

Day 2: June 13, 2014

Time Topic Duration Room Speakers

8:00‐8:30 Breakfast

8:30‐8:45 Getting oriented and allocated to breakout sessions 15 ASCE Gerald Galloway, UMD

8:45‐9:45 Breakout 1: Measurementscience 60 CH2MHill Co‐moderators: I. S. Jawahir and Subhas Sikdar

8:45‐9:45 Breakout 2: Systems 60 Harris Co‐moderators: Joseph Fiksel & John Carberry (affiliation, invited)

8:45‐9:45 Breakout 3: Planning, design and supply chain 60 President Co‐moderators: Nabil Nasr (Rochester Instit. of Tech) and Fazleena

Badurdeen (U. Kentucky)

8:45‐9:45 Breakout 4: Economic, environmental and social aspects 60 ASCE Co‐moderators: Cliff Davidson and William Flanagan

9:45‐10:00 Break 15

10:00‐11:00 Breakout 1: Measurementscience 60 CH2MHill Co‐moderators: I. S. Jawahir and Subhas Sikdar

10:00‐11:00 Breakout 2: Systems 60 Harris Co‐moderators: Joseph Fiksel & John Carberry (affiliation, invited)

10:00‐11:00 Breakout 3: Planning, design and supply chain 60 President Co‐moderators: Nabil Nasr (Rochester Instit. of Tech) and Fazleena

Badurdeen (U. Kentucky)

10:00‐11:00 Breakout 4: Economic, environmental and social aspects 60 ASCE Co‐moderators: Cliff Davidson and William Flanagan

11:00‐11:15 Break to regroup 15

11:15‐12:15 Summaries of breakouts 1, 2, 3 and 4 60 ASCE By Co‐moderators, report requirements (facilitor Richard Wright, UMD)

12:15‐12:30 Expected products and adjournment 15 ASCE Bilal Ayyub, UMD

vi 
Disclaimer	 	 and Limitations

This report was prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereafter 

referred to as NIST) as the primary sponsor, and the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(hereafter referred to as ASCE), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (hereafter 

referred to as ASME), the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (hereafter referred to as 

AIChE) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers 

(hereafter referred to as ASHRAE) by the Center for Technology and Systems Management of 

the University of Maryland and its associates and subcontractors (hereafter referred to as the 

UMD). Although this product was prepared using the best available resources, NIST, ASCE, 

ASME, AIChE and UMD do not make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal 

liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, 

apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represent that its uses would not infringe on privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade 

name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its 

endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by NIST, ASCE, ASME, AIChE, ASHRAE and 

UMD. Opinions expressed in this report are personal opinions of the participants and do not 

reflect the opinions of the respective employers of the participants. 

vii 
[This page is internationally left blank] 

viii 
Table	 	 	 of Contents

[Presentation delivered are listed in the chronological order of presentation.] 

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing: Welcome, Background 

and Program 

 Bilal M. Ayyub 

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing: Opening Remarks

 Howard Harary 

Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing: 

Perspectives on Sustainability for the Nation

 Nabil Nasr 

Sustainable Manufacturing from a Life Cycle Perspective

 William P. Flanagan 

Sustainable Construction: An EPC Perspective

 Nancy K. Kralik 

How to Quantify Sustainability in Construction and Manufacturing, and the Need for Standards 

Subhas Sikdar 

A Systems Approach to Sustainability and Resilience 

Joseph Fiksel 

Sustainability Improvement at the Supply Chain Level Through Product Architecture 

Optimization 

 Gül E. Okudan Kremer 

Economic, Environmental, and Social Aspects 

 Cliff I. Davidson 

The Quantified Community: Measuring, Modeling, and Understanding the Urban Environment 

Constantine E. Kontokosta 

Population and Carrying Capacity: Metrics for Sustainability 

Eugenia Kalnay, Jorge Rivas, and Safa Motesharrei 

Challenges and Metrics in Public Buildings and Infrastructure

 David Dise 

ix 
Measuring Sustainable Construction 

Fulya Kocak 

Technology Analysis: Efficiency, Manufacturing, Processes & Materials 

Joe Cresko 

Metrics for Sustainable Products and Processes 

I. S. Jawahir 

Perspectives of an Owner & Builder on Metrics

 James Dalton 

Perspectives of an Owner & Builder on Metrics

 Bohumil Kasal 

High Performance Green Buildings 

Chris Pyke 

Introduction to Breakout Sessions 

Richard Wright 

Charge to the Breakout Groups 

Joannie Chin 

Concluding Remarks and Adjournment 

 Bilal M. Ayyub 

x 
     

   

       

       

       

         

     

     

     

     

   

   

       

         

   

       

                   

Measurement Science for

Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing June 12 and 13, 2014

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

2

Welcome and Introduction Bilal Ayyub, CEE Professor, UMD*

Darryll Pines, Engineering Dean, UMD

Opening remarks Howard Harary, Acting Director,

Engineering Laboratory, NIST

Symposium program Bilal Ayyub, CEE Professor, UMD

Perspectives on sustainability

for the Nation

Nabil Nasr, Associate Provost for

Academic Affairs & Director of

Golisano Institute for Sustainability,

Rochester Institute of Tech., NY

8:30‐9:00 am

* CEE Chair Professor Charles Schwartz, and ME Chair Professor Balakumar Balachandran
   

           

   

             

             

         

     

         

   

     

       

     

       

           

     

     

3

Symposium Objectives

• Examine measurement science for

sustainability throughout the lifecycle of the

built environment and manufactured products

• Guide NIST and other key stakeholders in

developing a portfolio of related research and

development programs

• Engage key international and domestic

thought leaders and experts from stake‐

holding disciplines

• Document in coordination with NIST, ASCE and

ASME

4

Discussion Topics

• Measurement science (definition, standards,

metrics, indicators and ratings)

• Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of

systems, sustainability‐resilience synergy and

interdependencies)

• Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle

analyses and treatments, and material and

energy efficiency)

• Economic, environmental and social aspects

(valuation, impacts and behavior)
       

       

   

       

     

         

     

     

     

       

       

   

   

     

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

5

Opening Welcome, introduction & national needs

Keynotes Two on manufacturing & construction

Breakout presentations Four sessions

Case studies Two cases

Lunch Cutoff time for breakout assignments

Six Ted‐like lectures Perspectives on manufacturing &

construction

Discussion panels Two from users and researchers

Orientation for day 2 Presentation & banquet

Program – June 12, 2014

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

6

Orientation All participants

Four concurrent sessions Problem lists

Problem descriptions

Summary All participants by the co‐moderators

Expected products and

adjournment

Proceedings

Recommendations

Program – June 13, 2014
   

     

         

       

   

       

       

       

       

       

     

       

     

       

         

               

     

   

       

     

         

7

Sustainable manufacturing

William Flanagan, Director,

Ecoassessment Center of Excellence,

GE Global Research, General Electric

Company

Sustainable construction Nancy Kralik, Fluor and the

Construction Industry Institute

Break

9:00‐10:00 am

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

8

10:00‐11:20 am

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

Sustainability metrics‐

measurement science

Subhas Sikdar, Associate Director for

Science, National Risk Management

Research Lab, EPA, and AIChE

System sustainability:

aggregation & linkages

Joseph Fiksel, Director, Center for

Resilience at The Ohio State University

Planning, design and supply chainGül Kremer, Professor, Industrial &

Manufacturing Eng., Penn State

Economic, environmental and

social aspects

Cliff Davidson, Director, Center for

Sustainable Engineering, Thomas and

Colleen Wilmot CEE Professor, Syracuse

University
       

       

     

   

       

     

     

     

   

         

         

       

       

   

       

       

                   

     

                   

                       

                       

   

         

             

         

                   

       

   

         

             

   

9

11:20‐12:00 am

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

Quantified Urban Community

at Hudson Yards

Constantine E. Kontokosta, NYU

Polytechnic School of Engineering

Population and Carrying

Capacity: Metrics for

Sustainability

Eugenia Kalnay, NAE, Distinguished

University of Maryland Professor of

Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, and

Sofa Motesharrei, Systems Scientist at

SESYNC, PhD candidate in

Econophysics at UMD

Hosted Lunch (sandwiches)

10

1:00‐2:48 pm

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

Perspectives on sustainable construction and

manufacturing

Gerald Galloway (Moderator), NAE, Glenn L. Martin

Institute Professor of Engineering, UMD

Implementation and challenges for metricsDavid Dise, Director of General Services, MD Montgomery

County

A Case study on the role of metricsFulya Kocak, Clark Construction Group, Bethesda, MD

Perspectives of a federal agency on metricsJoe Cresko, Lead internal analysis and strategic planning,

Advanced Manufacturing Office, DOE

Metrics for sustainable products and process

I. S. Jawahir, Director, Institute for Sustainable

Manufacturing

James F. Hardymon Chair, University of Kentucky

Perspectives of owner and builder on metricsJames Dalton, Chief, Engineering and Construction,

Directorate of Civil Works, USACE

International perspectives on metrics

Bohumil Kasal, Director of Fraunhofer Institute at

Braunsweig, Germany and Professor at the Technical

University of Braunschweig
       

       

   

     

  

       

     

   

   

     

       

       

               

                   

Workshop on Measurement Science

for Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing 3:00‐5:15 pm

Richard Wright (Moderator, Research Professor,

UMD), Michele Russo (McGraw Hill/ENR), Chris

Panel 1 ‐ Perspectives from users	 Pyke (US Green Building Council), William Bertera

(Instit. for Sustain. Infrastructure), William Flanagan

(General Electric Company)

Jelena Srebric (Moderator, Professor, UMD), Nabil

Nasr (Rochester Institute of Tech), Damon Fordham Panel 2 ‐ Perspectives from researchers (TRB), Andrew Persily (NIST), Subhas Sikdar (AIChE/
 

EPA)
 

Richard Wright, NAE, Research Professor, UMD
 Second day breakout sessions (NIST retired)
 

Hosted Dinner (participants seated per Joannie Chin, Acting Deputy Director, Engineering
 

breakouts) Laboratory, NIST
 

11
   

     

     

Measurement Science for 

Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing 

Dr. Howard Harary

Acting Director

Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce
        

     

         

       

     

   

        

                 

         

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

By: Prof. Nabil Nasr

Associate Provost for Academic Affairs &

Director, Golisano Institute for Sustainability

Rochester Institute of Technology

June 12, 2014

Workshop on Measurement Science 

for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing 

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

Sustainability Science1 

• Defined by problems it addresses rather than by

disciplines it employs 

• Seeks understanding of fundamental interactions

between nature and society2 

• Has a goal of creating and applying knowledge in 

support of decision making for sustainable development 

• Energy systems, ecosystem resilience, industrial 

ecology, earth system complexity 

1Term established by National Research Council, 1999, Our Common Journey. 2Kates et al. 2004. Science 292:641‐642; 3Clark & Dickson, 2003. PNAS 100:8059‐8062.
        

        

       

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

Sustainability Science 

Society &

Economics

Environmental

Science

& Management

Business

Strategies

Technology 

Science of

Sustainability

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

The Japanese Model – Inverse Manufacturing
        

Figure 5. Conceptual relationships between sustainable manufacturing and eco

innovation

         

        

                   

                           

         

             

                     

             

                 

                           

       

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

‐

Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation, OECD, 2010 

Conceptual Relationship between Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco‐Innovation

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

EU Initiatives

“In a world with growing pressures on resources and the

environment, the EU has no choice but to go for the transition to a

resource‐efficient and ultimately regenerative circular economy”

Manifesto for a Resource Efficient Europe, December 2012

Transforming waste into high value resources is a high priority in

today’s global economy. ResCoM is an European Commission co‐

funded project working on the development of closed‐loop product

systems. The project will focus on some of the key ways to do this

including remanufacturing, reuse and multiple lifecycles.
© 2014  Rochester Institute of Technology

                   

   

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

GDP 

[trillion (10^12) international dollars] 

Material extraction 

[Billion tons] 

Global Material Extraction & GDP 

Ores and industrial minerals 

Fossil energy carriers 

Construction minerals 

Biomass 

GDP 

Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects, The 2008

Revision.

Population Growth (1950‐2050)
        

        

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

OECD Project on Sustainable 

Manufacturing & EcoInnovation 

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

Process overview 

• Formed an Advisory Expert Group (AEG) 

• 50 members from 17 countries + EC 

• Web-forum for ongoing discussions 

• Supported questionnaire surveys & focus group meetings 

• Review of report drafts prepared by the Secretariat ... 

DSTI/IND(2009)5/PART1-5 
        

 

   

   

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

Existing Metrics Approaches 

Product | process | facility | corporation | sector | country | global 

Measurement unit 

Technical Detail 

High 

Medium 

Low 

LCA 

GRI MFA 

IPCC 

PRTRs 

EMAS 

EF 

OECD 

Toolkit 

Indicator Categories 

Sustainability

components

Issue Areas

Indicators category

Social

responsibility

Material use

Water use

Energy use

GHGs

Residuals

Costs

Labor

Social

costs/benefit

scope

of the

current

indicator set

internal

data

elements

and future

work

Environment

Economy

Society

Resource

Productivity

Climate

Change

By‐products

Financial

performance

Employees

Social

responsibility
        

     

                         

                         

                         

                     

                 

         

                                 

                       

                       

                       

                     

                     

   

        

	 	 	

	 	

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

• Recycling rates of metals – According to the United Nations, recycling rates of metals are often far lower

than their potential for reuse. Less than one‐third of some 60 metals studied

have an end‐of‐life recycling rate above 50% and 34 elements are below 1%

recycling, yet many are crucial to promising clean technologies ranging from

hybrid car batteries to the high‐efficiency magnets in wind turbines.

• Decoupling natural resource use and

environmental impacts from economic growth – By 2050, humanity could devour 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels

and biomass per year – 3X its current appetite – unless the economic growth

rate is “decoupled” from the rate of natural resource consumption. We need

to rethink the links between resource use and economic prosperity and invest

in technological, financial and social innovation to at least freeze per capita

consumption in wealthy countries and help developing nations follow a more

sustainable path.

© 2014 Rochester Institute of Technology

Prof. Nabil Nasr

Caterpillar	Professor	

Associate	Provost	for	Academic	Affairs

&	Director,	Golisano	Institute for	Sustainability	(GIS)	

Rochester	Institute	of	Technology

Rochester, NY USA

Email:	nasr@rit.edu

Phone:	+1	585‐475‐5106

http://www.sustainability.rit.edu/
   

     

   

           

   

   

           

       

       

   

       

         

       

   

ecoassessment center of excellence

Sustainable Manufacturing from a

Life Cycle Perspective

William P. Flanagan, PhD

Director, Ecoassessment Center of Excellence

General Electric Company

GE Global Research

Niskayuna, NY

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction & Manufacturing

NIST – ASCE – ASME – University of Maryland

ASCE Bechtel Center, Reston, VA

June 12‐13, 2014

ecoassessment center of excellence 2

June 12, 2014

GE today

Power & Water Energy Management Oil & Gas

Healthcare Aviation Transportation Home & Business Solutions

GE Capital

Aligned for growth
       

         

   

  

       

   

                             

                           

         

       

ecoassessment center of excellence 3

June 12, 2014

GE ... A heritage of innovation

1879

Carbon

Filament

Incandescent

Lamp

1895

World’s

Largest

Electric

Locomotive

1920

Portable

X‐Ray

Machine

1921

The

Magnetron

1941

Entering

the Jet Age

1998

LightspeedTM

CT Scanner

2002

Wind Power

2003

Evolution®

Locomotive

2009

VscanTM

2010

WattStationTM

2012

DurathonTM

Battery

ecoassessment center of excellence 4

June 12, 2014

The Hush Hush Boys

http://www.gereports.com/post/86230911910/the‐most‐important‐10‐pages‐in‐the‐history‐of‐aviation

In 1941, a group of GE engineers called the Hush Hush Boys (pictured left) worked in

secret on a jet engine design developed by Britain’s Sir Frank Whittle (pictured right)

and built America’s first jet engine.

http://www.gereports.com/post/77296347909/the‐hush‐hush‐boys‐ge‐engineer‐speaks‐about‐a‐top

GE’s Hush Hush Boys Sir Frank Whittle
       

                 

                 

     

             

   

       

                           

                           

           

ecoassessment center of excellence 5

June 12, 2014

WWII

The U.S. War Department picked GE to build the

country’s first jet engine because of its research and

innovation in turbine technology.

The first GE jet engine powered Bell’s

experimental XP‐59 aircraft.

http://www.gereports.com/post/77296347909/the‐hush‐hush‐boys‐ge‐engineer‐speaks‐about‐a‐top

ecoassessment center of excellence 6

June 12, 2014

GE Aviation

That engine, called I‐A (pictured on left), launched GE’s aviation business and started an

engine dynasty culminating today in the largest and most powerful jet engines ever built:

the GE90, GE9X, and GEnx (pictured on right).

I‐A GEnx
       

     

   

       

   

           

       

         

     

         

     

   

   

ecoassessment center of excellence 7

June 12, 2014

Star Wars Episode VII

Coming May 2015

ecoassessment center of excellence 8

June 12, 2014

CFM LEAP Engine

Coming 2016

•CFM International is a 50/50 joint venture

between GE and France's Snecma

•The LEAP engine is CFM's next‐generation

high‐bypass turbofan jet engine

•3D‐printed fuel nozzles offer: o>20% weight reduction

o5x longer part life

http://www.industrial‐lasers.com/articles/2012/07/cfm‐ge‐

making‐jet‐engine‐parts‐using‐additive‐manufacturing.html

3D‐printed fuel nozzle

CFM LEAP engine
       

       

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

       

           

     

     

         

       

     

       

     

   

                   

LCA and systems level thinking

ecoassessment center of excellence 10

June 12, 2014

GE Ecoassessment

Center of Excellence

Key Roles:

•Expertise and guidance

 Life cycle assessment (LCA)

 Life cycle management (LCM)

 Carbon, energy, water footprint

 ecoDesign / Design for Environment

•Tools and resources

•Education and awareness

•External networks

Support:

•Policy and advocacy

•Business strategies / integration

•Stakeholder engagement

•Drive business perspective on sustainability

•Create & maintain momentum toward real change

Thought leadership

•Customize to business context

•Identify opportunities for real improvement

Drive eco further into product development

•Product LCA + LCM toolkits

•Strategic & selective application

Technical credibility & product support

•Strategic engagement

•Environmental and operational savings

Deliver customer value

Ron Wroczynski, Bill Flanagan, Angela Fisher (with GE CTO Mark Little)
       

     

                  

   

       

         

             

         

‐

‐  

‐      

‐  

       

       

     

                   

                     

     

                 

               

   

             

         

               

ecoassessment center of excellence 11

June 12, 2014

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Assess overall environmental impact throughout a product or service’s life cycle

More than just

carbon footprint

Ecosystem

quality

Natural

resources

Human health

Areas of Protection (damage categories)

Understanding the net environmental impact

of a product/service across its value chain,

how and where to make improvements

Differentiate products

Evaluate alternatives

Prioritize opportunities for improvement

Mitigate environmental issues

ecoassessment center of excellence 12

June 12, 2014

LCA is not a panacea

Holistic, but not comprehensive

• In practice, limited to existing impact categories and characterization factors

• Difficult to address specific effects and emerging issues (e.g., endocrine disruptors,

nano materials)

Global vs. local perspective

• Difficult to address region‐specific or application‐specific impacts (e.g., regional

species impacts, actual vs. potential exposures, other localized issues)

Water impacts under‐represented

Social / economic / behavioral aspects often missing

Difficult to apply to emerging technologies (R&D)

LCA is an excellent tool, but is not comprehensive
       

       

                 

     

           

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

       

   

               

ecoassessment center of excellence 13

June 12, 2014

A tiered life cycle management strategy

Strategic | Comprehensive | Efficient | Effective

Environmental Product LCM Tool

(qualitative)

Apply level 1 tool early in

product development across

broad product portfolio

Screening LCA

Address identified issues

Substances of concern

Material scarcity

Toxicology assessments

Environmental risk assessment

Nanomaterial EH&S

Product regulatory compliance

Etc.

Streamlined LCA

Detailed LCA per ISO 14044

1

2

3

4

Tool rapidly

identifies follow‐

up needs

ecoassessment center of excellence 14

June 12, 2014

Anticipatory LCA

Wender et al.

Wender et al., SNO 2013, Santa Barbara, CA:

http://www.susnano.org/images/sessions2013/2B_1wender%20SNO%202013.pdf
       

     

             

   

           

         

     

   

                 

       

                 

     

           

   

   

             

             

Additive manufacturing

ecoassessment center of excellence 16

June 12, 2014

Billet vs. additive manufacturing

Conventional

Start with a pre‐formed billet, which gets

formed and machined

Material properties unchanged and cannot be

location specific

Limited to known set of geometries

Design constrained by manufacturing

Requires extensive tooling

Additive

Starts with a powder or wire and produces part

layer upon layer upon layer

Build material properties as you build the part ...

location specific

More complex geometries possible

Allows for faster iterations between design,

materials and manufacturing

Minimal tooling required

Ability to design new materials & implement them

during the manufacturing process will create paradigm change
       

     

   

     

   

       

               

           

       

       

         

           

       

           

           

   

                 

           

             

           

             

             

     

             

   

         

ecoassessment center of excellence 17

June 12, 2014

EADS Additive Case Study

Hinge Redesign

Conventional Steel Design

Ti ALM Optimized Design

Uses less raw material: optimised design, net shaping, DMLS and 

not casting, titanium and not steel 

Leads to important energy consumption/CO2 emissions 

reduction during the transport phase (a hundred times better): less 

material to be transported, based on a European supply chain 

Energy consumption is higher compared to Steel Casting, but less 

waste produced. 

Allows 10 kg weight reduction per a/c, equivalent to €35K savings

in fuel consumption and carbon tax 

No significant differences. 

Raw Material

Transportation

Manufacturing

Use Phase

End of Life

Courtesy EADS and EOS GmbH

In this case, additive manufacturing has higher energy consumption

during manufacturing, but lower overall life cycle impact

ecoassessment center of excellence 18

June 12, 2014

GE Aviation Additive Case Study

Fan Blade Metal Leading Edge (MLE)

PROBLEM

• Composite fan blades enable significant engine

performance vs. titanium forged blades

• Composites require metal leading edge for

erosion protection

• Cost of machining Ti and other superalloys

OBJECTIVE OR SOLUTION

• Form inner face of MLE from sheet stock and

laser clad (or other additive) bulk material

APPROACH

• Establish bulk and hybrid laser clad material

properties

• Perform static impact testing of scaled hybrid

• Perform rotational impact on FAA cert program

engines

Composite Fan BladeMetal Leading Edge

Laser Clad

on Sheet

• Cost reduction over extensive machining cycles of

near net shape forging

• Laser cladding, cold spray, wire technologies and

hybrids (e.g., forging/additive) emerging

• Establish new Supply Chain and footprint
       

     

             

         

               

   

           

         

               

       

                       

                 

           

         

     

       

   

               

       

       

         

       

     

           

           

   

   

                 

       

       

     

     

ecoassessment center of excellence 19

June 12, 2014

US Department of Defense

Understand and build capability for emerging acquisition criteria

http://www.denix.osd.mil/esohacq/

• Defense industry consortium: Mission Ready Sustainability Initiative

oGE Aviation, Lockheed Martin, BASF, 3M, General Dynamics, others

• Aimed at DoD sustainability initiatives:

oDoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, Air Force Energy Plan,

Presidential Executive Orders 13514 / 13423

oSustainability tools and metrics may be imposed on DoD acquisitions

• Strong, active engagement from DoD:

oOffice of Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of Chemical & Material Risk

Management

• DoD Streamlined LCA / LCC methodology developed for use in

defense acquisitions

oPilots underway: GE, 3M, BASF, Lockheed Martin

oMethod integrates environmental and cost aspects

oTotal Cost of Ownership

ecoassessment center of excellence 20

June 12, 2014

CFM LEAP engine

Additive Manufacturing of Fuel Nozzles

Pilot of US DoD streamlined LCA/LCC methodology

Traditional fuel nozzles are manufactured

via forging and machining processes

Fuel nozzles manufactured by additive

manufacturing processes offer:

• >20% weight reduction

• 5x longer part life

Potential for significantly reduced life cycle

environmental impact and total cost of

ownership due to:

• Reduced part weight:

o Reduced fuel consumption over the life of the aircraft system

o Increased mission capability (load capacity)

• Net lower raw material consumption

• Enhanced performance

Direct metal laser sintering

Courtesy EADS Innovation Works
       

   

       

     

             

                   

             

       

     

       

             

       

           

   

     

       

                 

                 

ecoassessment center of excellence 21

June 12, 2014

Pilot project benefits

Clear need for trade‐off assessment

o Environmental impact

o Total cost of ownership

o Trade‐offs relevant to supplier: design, supply chain, manufacturing, performance

o Trade‐offs relevant to US DoD: total cost, mission, sustainment & operations

Opportunity to pilot methodology early in product development

o Ability to leverage insights gained

Focus on additive manufacturing

o Understand trade‐offs before paradigm shift

Understand net benefit and trade‐offs associated with

paradigm shift to advanced manufacturing processes

LCA XIV, San Francisco, Oct 6‐8, 2014

Special session: “Streamlined

LCA/LCC in Defense Acquisitions”

ecoassessment center of excellence 22

June 12, 2014

Additive manufacturing offers the potential for unique part geometries or performance

that can yield environmental benefit across the full life cycle

Sustainable manufacturing

Sustainable manufacturing should consider all life cycle stages 

Different manufacturing processes may: 

 enable novel material choices 

 have different material and energy efficiencies 

 enable unique part geometries or other features affecting performance 

 offer enhanced repair-ability, re-usability, recyclability at end of life 

Different materials may have different: 

 supply chain impacts 

 manufacturability 

 performance properties (e.g., thermal, mechanical) 

 end of life options (e.g., recyclability, re-usability) 
ecoassessment center of excellence 23

June 12, 2014

Bill Flanagan

flanagan@ge.com

Acknowledgements

Angela Fisher

GE Ecoassessment

Ron Wroczynski

GE Ecoassessment

Todd Rockstroh

GE Aviation
   

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Nancy Kralik 

Senior Director, Health, 

Safety, Environment & 

Sustainability 

Fluor Corporation 

June 12, 2014 

Sustainable Construction: An EPC Perspective Sustainable Construction: An EPC Perspective 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Influence Curve 

Planning

Design

Construction

Turnover

Procurement

Project

Expenditures

Level of

Influence

Project Life Cycle

Adapted from CII Constructability Primer 

2 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Construction Phase 

3 

Design Construction Operation

Site Planning Final Commissioning

Report

Construction Phase

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Safety Metrics (Social) 

Lagging 

– Lost time incidence rate 

– Recordable incident rate 

– Etc. 

Leading 

– Audits 

– Inspections 

– Training 

– Etc. 

4 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Economic Metrics 

Budget 

Schedule 

Cost of energy 

Cost of raw materials 

Water consumed 

5 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Environmental Metrics 

Brownfield 

Greenfield 

6 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Social Metrics 

Human Rights 

Labor Practices 

Community Impact and Involvement 

Worker Safety 

7 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Construction Industry Institute 

Guidance on sustainability during construction 

– RT304 

Compendium of sustainability practices 

– RT250 

8 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Sustainability Action Catalog 

– Sustainability Impacts 

– Project Conditions 

– Output Metrics 

9 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Sustainability Action Screening Tool 

2 types of Input: 

– Relative priorities/weightings of 

desired Sustainability impacts 

– Applicability of project conditions 

10 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation

Screening Tool Output 

Also available 

for Tablet or 

Smart Phone 

11 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Implementation Index 

12 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Predominant Output Metrics 

Percent of projects with Sustainability Performance

section in project reports; 

Cost savings; 

Portion or volume of total waste recycled or diverted 

from a landfill; 

Street value of recycled material; 

Equipment environmental performance; 

Size of carbon footprint from project; and 

Number of complaints from community, agency, or 

camp residents. 

13 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

7-Step Implementation Process 

1 • Establish Objectives 

2 • Rank Top Actions 

3 • Select Actions 

4 • Plan Action Implementation 

5 • Implement Actions 

6 • Measure Outcomes 

7 • Improve Process 

14 
© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Gaps & Research Needs 

Quantitative social metrics 

Easy-to-generate life-cycle assessments 

Industrial Sustainability Index Metrics 

Case studies for identified sustainability actions 

– New metrics? 

– Benchmarking 

Field use 

15 

© 2014 Fluor Corporation 

Questions and Comments Welcome 

16 
         

         

       

     

           

                      

                      

How to Quantify Sustainability in Construction

and Manufacturing, and the Need for Standards

Subhas Sikdar, US EPA, and

Humberto S. Brandi, INMETRO, Brazil

NIST‐ASCE‐ASME Sustainability Workshop, Rockville, MD, June 12‐13, 2014

Sustainability is like the proverbial elephant. We, much like blind people,

describe it in terms that depend on our field of expertise. Thus ‐‐‐‐
     

     

                             

                     

               

                             

                 

                         

                       

           

                           

                         

       

                     

                       

             

         

   

               

                   

                     

                         

           

3

Many Men, Many Minds 

Sustainability through disciplinary lenses 

• For an economist, sustainability is at first related to new economic models of growth and

regulation, taking into account not only the traditional quantifiable components of welfare,

but also a lot of environmental “externalities” and qualitative assets.

• For an ecologist, sustainability means the use of natural resources to the extent that the

carrying and regenerative capacities of the ecosystems are not jeopardized.

• For a physicist, sustainability means the ability of biological systems to fight against

degradation of energy and resources (entropy) by creating new forms of order (negentropy)

using the various inputs of solar energy.

• For a chemist or an engineer, the challenge of sustainability is to complete material and

energy life cycles created by human activities, through new techniques for material design,

re‐use, recycling and waste management.

• For a social scientist, sustainability implies the social and cultural compatibility of human

intervention in the environment with its images constructed by different groups within

society.

J. Pop-Jordanov, in Technological Choices for Sustainability, Ed. Sikdar, Glavic and Jain, Springer 2004, p. 305 

Bruntlund Sustainability 

Economic development (i.e. by technology application) with decreasing

environmental impact and improving societal benefit

An Engineering Definition:

For a man‐made system, sustainable development is continual improvement in

one or more of the three domains of sustainability, i.e., economic,

environmental, and societal without causing degradation in any of the rest,

either now or in the future, when compared with quantifiable metrics, to a

similar system it is intended to replace.

Economy 

Society 

Environment 

Sustainable 

Development 

Three Dimensions 

of Sustainability 
                       

             

            

        

                 

            

     

     

   

     

   

   

                         

                   

                  

Industrial 

Ecology 

Watershed 

Protection 

Ecosystems 

Modeling 

Standards

Scale and Nesting of Sustainable Systems Five levels of scales for sustainable systems:

Level I: Global Systems (e.g. global CO2 budgeting)

Level II: National Systems (energy system, material flow)

Level III: Regional Systems (e.g. watersheds, Brownfields)

Level IV: Business Systems (e.g. business networks, waste exchange networks)

Type V: Sustainable technologies (e.g. green materials, sustainable products)

I: Global Scale

(e.g. global CO2 budgeting)

III: Regional Scale

(e.g. watersheds) IV: Business or Institutional Scale

(e.g. eco‐industrial park)

V: Sustainable Technologies

Scale

(e.g. sustainable products)

II. National Scale (e.g. energy)

System‐Surrounding Paradigm

Sustainability analysis is essentially an accounting of what impacts

(environmental, economic, and societal) the system is causing to itself

and to the surrounding, and how these impacts can be minimized.
   

       

       

         

             

               

   

       

   

Measurement and Standards

Quality, Uniformity, Confidence: Three Pillars of Sustainable Development

Clear understanding of what is wanted:

Standardization – Documentary standards

Proceeding to implement “ what is wanted”:

Conformity Assessment ‐ Certication, labelling, supliers declaration, auditing. Accreditation

Guaranty that “what one has is what is wanted”:

Trust in measurements:

Metrology – Measurement standards

Example: GHG emision standards require:

Harmonize knowledge

Harmonize measurements

Harmonize methodologies

Harmonize inventories

Metrics and Indicators
   

     

   

       

   

 

                       

                 

                   

     

BASF Eco‐efficiency analysis: combines

Environmental and Economic Dimensions

Of Sustainability

BASF Sustainability Analysis: combines

All three dimensions of sustainability

(called socio‐eco‐efficiency)

0 

5 

10 toxicity potential 

energy 

emissions and 

waste 

raw materials 

process risk 

land area 

BASF Eco‐efficiency Analysis

Methods of Sustainability Analysis:

10 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

natural ecosystem ecosystem with 

res to red s erv ic es 

co nv entio nally 

manag ed cro p land 

Ecosystem Services 

Eco services indicator is a qualitative composite of 8 indicators: crop production,

forest production, preserving habitats and biodiversity, water flow regulation,

water quality regulation, carbon sequestration, regional climate and air quality

regulation, infectious disease mediation.

Metrics Aggregation for a Sustainability View 
       

               

                     

       

	 	 	 	

		

   

   

               

Construction of aggregate index: 

hypothesis: sustainability footprint De or D = f(xi , i=1 to n),

represents the overall state of the system as revealed by the

set of chosen indicators

     

















 

n

j jj

jj

e j xy

xy D c

2 

max 0 

0 

Sustainability footprint

or perfect sustainability, the

value of

Sustainability Footprint is

zero

  

 

  iii offset

iii offset

n n

i

iii

Cxxx

Cxyy

D xyc

 

 







 





   

0 

0 

1 

• Euclidean Distance Method

• Canberra Index Method

• Others

Process

options

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9

Option 1 X1,1 X1,2 X1,9

Option 2 X2,1 X2,2 X2,9

Option 3 X3,1 X3,2 X3,9

Option 4 X4,1 X4,2 X4,9

Option 5 X5,1 X5,2 X5,9

Option 6 X6,1 X6,2 X6,9

Option 7 X7,1 X7,2 X7,9

Indicators, Xi

Typical Data Matrix for m options and n indicators
       

 

PCA-PLS-VIP 

RQ  Q

Starting point: mxn data matrix X, m options, n indicators 

PCA designs n-dimensional unit vectors (q’s) and 

a correlation matrix R (nxn), such that the following eigen value 

Problem represents the data set. 

Mapping √λ onto Q, we get the loading matrix L. The product of 

L and X is called score matrix T (XL = T) 

(Finding Redundant Indicators, and Rank Order)

PCA-PLS-VIP, contd. 

PLS-VIP is based on projecting the information from data with more 

variables to that with fewer. 

Using the score of X, PLS develops a regression model between X and 

De . In a reduced subspace of dimension a (a ≤ n) 

X  TLT  E  tj j1 

a

 lj

T  E

T is score matrix, L is load matrix, E, the residual. Score matrix 

T can be related to response vector De through a regression matrix 

B. 

Each option vector x from X can be related to the score vector tj

Through weight vectors wj as tj  wj

T xi

VIPK  n

bj

2

tj

T

tj

wkj

wj













 j1 

a



2 

bj

2

tj

T

tj j1 

a



VIP for k is 
   

Treatment strategy EI MI WC LU GW HT TC

y ST LT ST LT

Landfill 1.8 3.6 1.7 8.7 637 3844 472 533 106

Recycle+Landfill ‐13.1 ‐408 ‐4.3 ‐3.6 ‐641 1614 ‐675 ‐2617 161

Energy recovery ‐24.6 ‐48.2 ‐5.2 ‐11.5 841 841 12 ‐383 133

recycle+Energy Recovery ‐26 ‐438 ‐7.8 ‐14.6 ‐325 ‐325 ‐812 ‐3000 177

Minimum ‐26 ‐438 ‐7.8 ‐14.6 ‐641 ‐325 ‐812 ‐3000 106

y'

Landfill‐Minimum 27.8 441.6 9.5 23.3 1278 4169 1284 3533 0

Recycle+Landfill‐Minimum 12.9 30 3.5 11 0 1939 137 383 55

Energy recovery‐Minimum 1.4 389.8 2.6 3.1 1482 1166 824 2617 27

recycle+Energy Recovery‐Minimum 0 0 0 0 316 0 0 0 71

Maximum 27.8 441.6 9.5 23.3 1482 4169 1284 3533 71

Normalized Root Square D’

Landfill 1 1 1 1 0.86235 1 1 1 0 2.78

Recycle+Landfill 0.464029 0.067935 0.36842 0.472103 0 0.4651 0.1067 0.108406 0.774648 1.19

Energy recovery 0.05036 0.882699 0.27368 0.133047 1 0.279683 0.64174 0.74073 0.380282 1.75

recycle+Energy Recovery 0 0 0 0 0.21323 0 0 0 1 1.02

Best‐‐>Worst D,B,C,A

Case: Automotive Shredder Residue Treatment (Catholique U, Leuven) 

(where improvement is described as negative) 
     

       

     

         

       

                              

PLS‐VIP

The PLS-VIP score shows that Total Cost (TC) has the maximum contribution to 

overall sustainability. 

0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 

1.2 

1.4 

1.6 

TC HTST HTLT WC MI GWLT LU EI GWST 

VIP 

Variable 

Environmental

sustainability of OECD

countries using UN MDG

data and indicators

Only 6 Indicators could be

used because of data

availability:

CO2/$GDP, CO2/capita, CO2

giga tons, ODP Metric tons,

Population NOT using safe

drinking water, and

wetlands protection

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

De United States Chile Australia Canada Korea, Republic of 

Greece Denmark Japan Spain Netherlands 

Italy United Kingdom France Germany 

Case: Comparison of Sustainability Footprint (De) for OECD Countries 

over 20 Years 
   

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

0 

1 

2 

VIP

CO2/$GDP CO2/Capita CO2, Thousand Metric Tons 

Pop. Not Using Imprv. Drinking H2O Pop. Not Using Imprv. Sanitation Terr. And Mar. Area not Protected 

Comparison of VIP Scores for OECD Indicators for 20 Years 

Future Research Needs

• Needed a Methodology to confirm if all necessary indicators

have been chosen for analysis (e.g., cost frequently not

included as an indicator but should be)

• A method to determine the sensitivity of Sustainability

Footprints (De or D) to individual indicators

• Method for identifying which indicators and their underlying

variables can be manipulated to make further sustainability

advances of systems

• System optimization of Sustainability Footprint with respect

to the indicators by process integration techniques
         

         

       

     

           

How to Quantify Sustainability in Construction

and Manufacturing, and the Need for Standards

Subhas Sikdar, US EPA, and
 

Humberto S. Brandi, INMETRO, Brazil
 

NIST‐ASCE‐ASME Sustainability Workshop, Rockville, MD, June 12‐13, 2014
       

     

     

       

   

           

     

                                           

     

       

     

       

         

     

Joseph Fiksel

Executive Director, Center for Resilience

The Ohio State University

Special Assistant for Sustainability

Office of Research & Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction & Manufacturing

June 12‐13, Reston Virginia

The content of this presentation reflects the views of the author and does not represent the policies or position of the U.S. EPA.

Resilience is the capacity

for complex, adaptive systems

(e.g., cities, business enterprises)

to survive, adapt, and flourish

in the face of turbulent change...

much like living systems

Operational resilience – 

coping with the risk of 

disruptions that threaten 

continuity and well being 

Strategic resilience – 

sensing and responding 

to external pressures 

and opportunities 
	 	

     

       

     

   

     

   

             

       

Indicators Urban community Enterprise supply chain

Diversity Economic	sectors,	resource	

channels,	workforce	skills

Markets,	suppliers,	facilities,	 and	

employee	capabilities

Cohesion Community	identity, social	

networks,	local	coordination

Corporate	identity,	stakeholder	

relations,	collaboration

Adaptive

capacity

Ability	to	rapidly modify	urban	

services, management	practices

Ability	to	modify	products,	

technologies,	or	processes

Resource

productivity

Quality	of	life	(security, peace)	

relative to	ecological	footprint

Shareholder	value	(profits,	

assets)	vs.	ecological	footprint

Vulnerability

to Change

Disruptive forces	that	threaten	

safety	and	well	being

Disruptive forces	that	threaten	

business	continuity	

Stability Ability	to continue	normal	

activities	if	disruptions	occur

Ability	to continue	normal	

activities	if	disruptions	occur

Recoverability Ability	to	overcome	disruptions,	

restore	critical	public	services

Ability	to	overcome	disruptions,	

restore	key	business	operations

Source: J. Fiksel, I. Goodman, A. Hecht, “Navigating Toward a Sustainable Future,” Solutions, Oct. 2014 

Sustainability is the capacity for:

• human health and well being

• economic vitality and prosperity

• environmental resource abundance

Resilience is the capacity to:

• overcome unexpected problems

• adapt to change (e.g., sea level rise)

• prepare for and survive catastrophes
       

         

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

• Energy systems—smart grid, distributed, renewable, PHEV

• Eco‐efficiency—green buildings, local sourcing, waste reuse

• Water systems—rainwater harvesting, green infrastructure

• Mobility—alternative transport, vehicle sharing

• Urban renewal—brownfields, affordable housing

• Smart growth—land use, resource stewardship

• Education—STEM careers, workforce retraining

• Economic development—incubators, business clusters

• Emergency preparedness—early detection, evacuation plans

More

resilient

(adaptive

capacity)

Less

resilient

Less sustainable

More sustainable

(ecological footprint)

Nuclear energy

Rain harvesting

Lean production

Smart grid

Grey water use

Local sourcing

Corn ethanol

Bottled water

Business as usual

Diesel backup

Desalination

Redundancy

Source: J. Fiksel, I. Goodman, A. Hecht, “Navigating Toward a Sustainable Future,” Solutions, Oct. 2014 
   

         

   

     

             

     

             

         

   

       

   

     

  

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

       

• A comprehensive methodology for understanding

the interactions and feedback loops among

• Economic systems—companies, supply chains....

• Ecological systems—forests, watersheds....

• Societal systems—cities, networks....

• Reveals consequences (sometimes unintended)

of human interventions, such as new policies,

technologies, and business practices

• Case in point: Degraded ecosystems threaten the

sustainability and resilience of human communities

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

Environment (natural capital)

waste and emissions may

degrade the environment

ecological goods

and services are

utilized in industry

ecosystem services

provide sustenance

for communities

some waste

is recovered

and recycled

toxic or hazardous

releases may harm

humans

natural resources

may be depleted

Community

(human & social capital)

Economy

(economic capital) economic value

is created for society

talent is utilized in industry

J. Fiksel, “A Systems View of Sustainability: The Triple Value Model,” Environmental Development, June 2012. 
   

               

             

         

   

Environment

Economy Community

J. Fiksel, “A Systems View of Sustainability: The Triple Value Model,” Environmental Development, June 2012. 

Green Products

Curbside

Recycling

Waste Treatment

Pollution

Prevention

Carbon

Mitigation

Renewable

Feedstocks

Green

Buildings

By‐Product

Synergy

Brownfields

Redevelopment

Green

Infrastructure

Product

Take‐back

Ecosystem Restoration

Resource

Productivity

Smart

Growth

Environmental

Health & Safety

Nutrient Mitigation

Smart

Grids

Energy

Efficiency

Carbon sequestration

Apply “systems thinking” to the problems of nutrient

pollution and coastal resilience in New England,

working closely with Region 1 stakeholders

Narragansett Bay Watershed
   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

products & services

   

   

   

recreational

and cultural uses

Environmental Resources

• Surface water

• Ground water

• Coastal areas

• Fish & shellfish

• Regional ecosystems

• Atmosphere & climate

Community Stakeholders

• Consumers & residents

• State & local agencies

• Water & energy utilities

• Regional businesses

• Septic tank users

• Private well users

industrial &

commercial uses

runoff and

wastewater

water supply

Economic Activities

• Agriculture

• Commercial Fisheries

• Energy & Transportation

• Land Development

• Recreation & Tourism

• Water Treatment
   

   

   

   

   

ls

     

           

        

      

     

   

14

Stormwater

runoff

Fishing &

Tourism

Surface water

conditions

Fish kill

likelihood

Dissolved

oxygen

Watershed

GDP

Aquatic

ecosystem

impairment

Wastewater

treatment

Municipal tax

revenue

Nutrient

loadings

Disposable

income

Atmospheric

deposition

Agricultural

fertilizer use

Near‐shore

turbidity

Property

values

Resident

beach visits

Septic tanks

& cesspoo

Algae

blooms

Climate

change

Pathogen

loadings

Rain

Economy

Society

Energy

demand

Finfish & shellfish

abundance

Recreational

fishing

Environment

Legend

Sustainability

Indicator

Causal link

Potential

Intervention

Emissions & VMT

reductions

BMPs

Aquaculture

ISDS

improvements

Waterway

engineering

Improved

treatment

CSO tunnels

LID and GI

Define interventions Foresee consequences
           

               

             

         

               

               

             

     

         

EPA Region 1: Curt Spalding (Regional Administrator),
 

Ira Leighton, Beth Termini, Margherita Pryor, Ken Moraff,
 

Sheryl Rosner, Matt Hoagland, Johanna Hunter, Ellen Weitzler
 

EPA Office of Research & Development:
 

Paul Anastas (Assistant Administrator), Lek Kadeli, Gary Foley,
 

Alan Hecht, Ramona Trovato, Marilyn ten Brink, Nick Ashbolt
 

Model implementation team:

Eric Ruder and Nadav Tanners, Industrial Economics, Inc.

Andrea Bassi, Millennium Institute

Chien‐Chen Huang, The Ohio State University
Sustainability Improvement at the 

Supply Chain Level Through 

Product Architecture Optimization

Gül E. Okudan Kremer 

Professor of Industrial Engineering & Engineering Design 

Summaries of collaborative work with Profs. Karl Haapala, Kyoung-yun Kim, Ratna 

Chinnam, Leslie Monplaisir, Alper Murat and current and former ADAPS Group Members: 

Saraj Gupta, Ming-Chuan Chiu, Wu Hsun Chung, Nirup Philip, Ting Lei and Junfeng Ma 

Outline 

• ADAPS Group 

• Sustainable Product Collaboratory Project 

• Lessons Learned 

• Research Directions 
 

Applied Decision Analysis for Improved Products & 

Systems Group (ADAPS Group) 

http://www.personal.psu.edu/gek3

Sustainable Product 

Development 

DfX

Supply chain integration 

Design for Assembly & 

Remanufacturing 

Product Family Design & 

Optimization 

Design Complexity 

Systematic Design Ideation 

(TRIZ, SmartPens) 

Smart Health (Triage 

improvement through MAUT, 

GT) 

Sustainable Product Collaboratory 

• Low life cycle cost 

• Low life cycle

environmental impact 

Design for Life Cycle 

Retirement Stage 
 

 

What is Sustainability? 

For the business enterprise, sustainable 

development means adopting business strategies 

and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise 

and its stakeholders today, while protecting, 

sustaining and enhancing the human and natural 

resources that will be needed in the future 

International Institute for Sustainable Development (2011) 

IISD, 2011, “Business Strategies for Sustainable Development,” 

International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 

Manitoba, CA, www.iisd.org/business/pdf/business_strategy.pdf 

Sustainability in the Design Stage 

The design stage determines 70% of life cycle costs. 

It is important that design concurrently considers 

manufacturing of the product and its supply chain so that a 

company may gain: 

▫ The ability to reduce waste or increase recyclability of materials 

▫ Supplier selection insight 

▫ Integrated modularity options 

▫ End of life product recovery plans 

▫ Flexibility 

▫ Reduced costs 

▫ Sustainability for profitability 
 

 

 

Sustainable Supply Chain Management 

 The strategic, transparent integration and 

achievement of an organization’s social, 

environmental, and economic goals in the systemic 

coordination of key inter-organizational business 

processes for improving the long-term economic 

performance of the individual company and its 

supply chains. 

 Carter and Rogers (2008) 

C.R. Carter and D.S. Rogers (2008). "A framework of sustainable supply chain 

management: moving toward new theory," International J. of Physical 

Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5) 360 – 387. 

Broader Methods for Sustainable Design 

• General goals for sustainability are to eliminate waste, 

improve energy efficiency, design products for reuse or 

recycling, conserve natural habitats and move toward zero 

consumption of non-renewable resources. 

• Stakeholders should be considered including the 

customers, energy and material suppliers, 

community, waste contractors, trade associations, 

environmental agency, professional institutions, employers, 

local council, manufacturers, and end users. 
 

Optimization Challenge 

Chiu, M-C. and Okudan, G.E. (2011). “Investigation of the Applicability of Design for X Tools 

during Design Concept Evolution: A Literature Review”, International Journal of Product 

Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.132-167. 

Collaborative R&D Framework 

Jointly developed R&D Framework for Sustainable 

Product Collaboratory with colleagues from Wayne 

State & Oregon State 
 

CAD Tool 

CAD Tool 

CAD Tool 

 

 

 

Tasks 

1. Exploitation of existing and evolving design 

repositories (including component specifications, 

interaction matrices) to automatically generate 

conceptual design variants. 

 The research extends functional decompositionbased concept generation to integrate modularity and 

hybrid design architectures, which enables 

customization (at the architecture level) to better 

serve life cycle concerns. 

1.1 Design 

template 

1.3 Material 

2.2 Design requirement 

ontology 

1.5 Design optimization 

engine 

(Modularity + hybrid 

design architecture) 

1.6 Design alternatives 

(Conceptual design variants) 

Recycle Reuse 

Remanufacture Dispose 

5.1 Environmental knowledge base 

2.3 Semantic design 

reasoning 

Designer 

1.2 Design 

template 

repository 

(e.g., bicycle 

frame) 

1.4 Material 

repository 

(e.g., 

aluminum 

alloy) 

2.1 Semantic requirement 

reasoning 

• Best subset of design variants 

• Design specifications 

• Assembly method & process 

 information 

5.2 Ontology 

manager 
 

Tasks 

2. Evaluating customer needs and design specifications 

(design requirements) using semantic design and 

interaction requirements reasoning with ontologies. This 

ontology-based semantic reasoning approach can facilitate 

efficient selection of the best subset of design 

variants for their impact on procurement, manufacturing, 

assembly, distribution, sustainment, collection, and 

disposal. 
Tasks

3. Modeling of supply chain processes through 

empirical/experimental investigations. This will allow 

prediction of cost and carbon footprint of life cycle 

processes (e.g, manufacturing, assembly, and transportation) 

to evaluate different product architectures. 

Ecosystem 

Pull Push Manufacturing 

Process 

Energy, Materials, 

Gases 

Solid, Liquid, and 

Gaseous Emissions 

Unit Process Model 

Part or Material 

Design 

Sustainability 

Performance 

Tasks 

4. Optimization of the product architecture variants while 

balancing the impact on procurement, manufacturing, 

distribution, sales/demand, sustainment, collection, and 

disposal. The algorithms will facilitate joint 

optimization of the best subset of design variants 

and configurations with mathematical models of 

life cycle processes. The research will develop 

hierarchical optimization models to jointly address the 

life cycle processes and product architecture 
17 

Functions 

Product 

Integrated View 

Product architecture should be decided for its broader implications

on product functions, its manufacturing and supply chain

Manufacturability 

and Sustainability 

Processes Suppliers Architecture 

Supply Chain 

Network 

Lessons Learned 

1. Product architecture & supply chain should be 

optimized simultaneously 

2. Realistic case studies show that cost, lead time and 

carbon footprint minimization goals favor different 

type of product architectures 

3. Existing modularity methods favor different 

performance measures 

4. Robust modularity methods need to be developed to 

optimize life cycle costs & a proposed approach 
Case Study 









Lesson 1. Product architecture & supply chain should 

be optimized simultaneously 

Bicycle case study developed in collaboration with 

input/data from industry 

▫ Content expertise pertaining to the components & assembly relations

▫ Supplier data and locations 

▫ Part data (material, dimensions, cost, etc.)

Software architecture used to minimize bias in generating 

conceptual designs 

▫ Uses functional decomposition of a product to build the product from 

bottom-up 

▫ Energy-Material-Signal Diagram defines flows 

▫ Generated designs are modularized based on Decomposition Approach, 

Design for Assembly filtering is used. 

Unbiased experimentation requires automated generation of all design 

variants. This is accomplished through conceptualizing the 

product through Energy-Signal-Material modeling and Design for 

Assembly (DfA) filtering. 
 

Case Study DfA filtering 

involves the 

following criteria: 

1)weight, 2) number of 

unique component, 

3) stiffness, 4) length, 

5) presence of the base 

component, 

6) vulnerability hardness, 

7) shape, 8) size, 

9) composing ment, move

10) composition direction, 

11) symmetry, 

12) alignment, and 

13) joining method. 

Road Bicycle Design 

• Sample case, medium complexity 

• 6 components with two alternatives 

• Yields 64 design combinations with various DfA scores 
 

Case Study 

Concept generation & Modularization 

Completed in a Dedicated Software 

Environment 

Gupta, S. and Okudan, G. (2008). “Computational Modularized Conceptual 

Designs with Assembly and Variety Considerations”, Journal of Engineering 

Design, Vol. 19, No. 6, December, pp. 533 - 551. 

Sample Design Combinations 

Sample 2-module architecture Sample 3-module architecture 
Supply Chain Structure 

Supplier Optimization for Specific 

Designs 
 

 

Case Study 

¦ 1

k

X pk

Proposed Method Mixed Integer Programming for Centralized Supply Chain 

Optimization 

Objective Function 

 Min [Process costs (C1) + Transportation cost(C2) + Inventory cost(C3)] 

Subject to 

1) Upstream and downstream loading balance 

2) Product architecture module 

3) For each component, select one component supplier 

4) For each module, select one module supplier 

5) For final product, select one final supplier 

6) Time constraint from decision maker 

7) Cost constraints from decision maker 

Chiu, M-C. and Okudan, G.E 2011 "An Integrative Methodology for Product 

and Supply Chain Design Decisions at the Product Design Stage", ASME 

Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133, pp. 0211008-1-15. 

Measures Only Design is 

Considered 

Both Design & 

Supply Chain are 

considered 

Component Cost ($USD) 500.60 500.60 

Assemble Cost ($USD) 39.00 31.00 

Transportation Cost ($USD) 53.23 34.13 

Inventory Cost ($USD) 15.42 15.19 

Total Cost ($USD) 608.25 580.92 

Diff 4.70% 

Total Lead Time (days) 159.5 128.2 

Diff 24% 

Number of suppliers 9 8 

Chiu, M-C. and Okudan, G.E 2011 "An Integrative Methodology for Product 

and Supply Chain Design Decisions at the Product Design Stage", ASME 

Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133, pp. 0211008-1-15. 
¦ 1

k

X pk

 

 

Case Study 

 

Case Study Part Type Supplier (Process #)

ABCDEF X-bike(2)

ABC 

DEF

AB ADK(8)

BC

CD X-bike(10) 

EF Campagno(11)

A Selle Roy l(12) a

B Topkey(13) 

C Advanced(14) 

D HB(15) 

E Shimano(16) 

F Tien Hsin(17) Optimum Solution for the case where 

only design is considered 

Part Type Supplier (Process #) 

ABCDEF X-bike(1) 

ABC Topkey(3) 

DEF Sram(4) 

AB 

BC 

CD 

EF 

A Selle Royal(12) 

B Topkey(13) 

C Advanced(14) 

D HB(15) 

E Shimano(16) 

F Tien Hsin(17) Optimum Solution for the case where 

both design & supply chain are considered 
Case Study 

 

 

Case Study 2-Module Versus 3-Module Product Architecture in MIP 

MIN Cost (Cost)

400

500

600

700

800

2 Module v.s. 3 Module

$USD

MIN Cost (Time)

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2 Module v.s. 3 Module

DAYS

 

Cost($USD) Time (Day) 

2 module_ Cost 3 module_ Cost 2 module_ Time 3 module_ Time 

Avg. 627.02 631.55 120.88 135.30 

Diff  ̄ 1%  ̄ 12% 

STD 84.630 86.351 21.983 24.823 

Does modularity level impact the design performance? 

2-Module Versus 3-Module Product Architecture in MIP 

MIN Lead tim e (Time) 

84 

86 

88 

90 

92 

94 

2 Module v.s. 3 Module 

MIN Lead tim e (Cost) 

Days 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

1000 

1100 

1200 

2 Module V.S. 3 Module 

$ USD 

Cost($USD) Time (Day) 

2 module 3 module 2 module 3 module 

Avg. 851.42 852.17 89.14 88.13 

Diff  ̄ 0.09%  ̄ -1.13% 

STD 186.859 187.045 0.958 0.701 

Chiu, M-C. and Okudan, G.E. 2014 “An Investigation on the Impact of Product 

Modularity Level on Supply Chain Performance Metrics: An Industrial Case 

Study”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 25(1), pp. 129-145. 
 

 

 

Lesson 1. Product architecture & supply chain should 

be optimized simultaneously 

3⁄4 The difference of supply chain consideration 

5% in cost and 24% in lead time. 

3⁄4 The influence of modularity: 

3⁄42-module architecture dominates in MIN Cost condition,

3⁄43-module is superior in time in MIN Lead time condition. 

Chiu, M-C., and Okudan, G.E. (2013). “An Investigation on Centralized and 

Decentralized Supply Chain Scenarios at the Product Design Stage to Increase 

Supply Chain Performance”, IEEE Engineering Management, in press. 

Lesson 2. Cost, lead time and carbon footprint 

minimization goals favor different type of product 

architectures 

• Previous work 

▫ Included cost and lead time 

▫ Design for Assembly (DfA) rankings 

▫ Product architecture and modularity 

• Previous work is expanded to include kg CO2 

equivalent as a sustainability metric accounting for: 

▫ Material extraction 

▫ Material processing 

▫ Transportation 
 

Components and Supplier Options 

Component Type 1 Type 2

Saddle Comfortable 

saddle

Light weight 

saddle

Frame Steel frame w/ 

suspension

Steel frame w/ 

suspension

Fork Steel fork w/o 

suspension

Steel fork w/ 

suspension

 Supplier Location

 2-Hip CA, USA

 BBB Holland

 Bombshell CA, USA

 ATOM LAB CA, USA

 Axxis CA, USA

 SRAM IL, USA

Transmission Single speed 

transmission 

Transmission w/ 

six fly wheels 

Brake Reverse brake 

rotor 

Braking system 

with brake shoes 

Wheels Wheels w/ steel 

spokes 

Wheels w/ plastic 

spokes

 Velo Taiwan

 Tektro Taiwan

 Shimano Japan

 ALEX Taiwan

 Spinner Taiwan

 Falcon Taiwan 

Analysis Tools 

• SimaPro LCA software used to calculate kg CO2 

equiv. for materials, processing, and transportation 

▫ Life cycle inventory: ecoinvent database 

▫ Impact assessment: IPCC 2007 GWP 20a V1.02 

• LINGO software used to find the combination of 

components, suppliers, and product architecture 

using non-linear programming to optimize: 

▫ Cost 

▫ Lead time 

▫ Sustainability 
 

 

 

 

Example: Actual Processes to Produce Steel Fork 

Fork Materials and Processes for Life Cycle Inventory 

Sustainability: Material Compositions 

Material mass (kg) B13 B54 SimaPro Process (ecoinvent database) 

Medium carbon steel components 

(e.g., frame, fork) 7.5294 5.3464 Steel, low-alloyed, at plant/RER U 

Alloy and stainless steel components 

(e.g., bearings) 2.47 2.784 Steel, electric, chromium steel 18/8, at plant/RER U 

Composite nylon wheels 1.88 Nylon 66, glass-filled, at plant/RER U 

Rubber components (e.g., tires and 

brake pads) 1.52 1.554 Synthetic rubber, at plant/RER U 

Saddle support structure (shell) 0.41 0.4 Polypropylene, granulate, at plant/RER U 

Saddle cover 0.08 0.07 Polyvinylchloride, suspension polymerised, at 

plant/RER U 

Saddle padding 0.033 0.024 Polyurethane, flexible foam, at plant/RER U 

Saddle thread 0.006 0.006 Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U 

Paint 0.06 Alkyd paint, white, 60% in H2O, at plant/RER U 

Saddle glue 0.02 Acrylic binder, 34% in H2O, at plant/RER U 
 

Sustainability: Manufacturing Process 

Mass (kg) or Length (m) processed B13 B54 SimaPro Process (ecoinvent

database) 

Steel component manufacturing (e.g., 

sprocket cutting/assembly) 9.9994 8.238 Steel product manufacturing, average 

metal working/RER U 

Tube drawing (e.g., frame tubes) 4.9114 4.0254 Drawing of pipes, steel/RER U 

Injection molding (e.g., saddle shell and 

tires) 1.93 3.834 Injection moulding/RER U 

Wire drawing (e.g., springs and spokes) 0.54 0.775 Wire drawing, steel/RER U 

Forming of medium carbon steel flat 

stock (e.g., for brackets) 1.044 0.546 Sheet rolling, steel/RER U 

Forming of alloy/stainless steel flat stock 

(e.g., for sprockets) 1.38 0.035 Sheet rolling, chromium steel/RER U 

Welding of frame (estimated overall 

weld length) 1 (m) 1 (m) Welding, gas, steel/RER U 

Sustainability - Comparison of carbon 

footprint 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

B54 

B13 

CO2 Equivalent (kg) 

Co al, hard , unsp ec if ied , in g ro und Oil, crud e, in ground 

Gas , natural, in g ro und Co al, brown, in ground 

Graph shows the carbon footprint difference of two 

design variants 
 

 

 

Mathematical Model 

Objective Function 

 Min [Processing (MPCF) + Transportation (TCF)] 

Optimization Results 

NUMERICAL RESULTS COST: Product Architecture 

Part or 

Module Supplier Location 

ABCDEF X-Bike PA, USA 

AB 2 Hip CA, USA 

CD SRAM IL, USA 

EF BBB Holland 

(A) Saddle ATOM LAB CA, USA 

(B) Frame 2 Hip CA, USA 

(C) Fork X-Bike PA, USA 

(D) Brake SRAM IL, USA 

(E) Wheel BBB Holland 

(F) Trans. BBB Holland 

Optimizing(Minimizing)

Cost

(US Dollars)Lead Time(Days)Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 eq.) 

Cost 83.74 54.20 60.48 

Lead 

Time 

109.3 38.80 65.85 

Carbon 

Footprint 

99.94 172.80 44.18 
 

 

 

 

Optimization Results - 2 

LEAD TIME CARBON FOOTPRINT

Part or 

Module Supplier Location

ABCDEF X-Bike PA, USA

ABC X-Bike PA, USA

Part or 

 Module Supplier Location

ABCDEF X-Bike PA, USA

ABC X-Bike PA, USA

DEF ATOM LAB CA, USA 

EF Shimano JAPAN 

(A) Saddle ATOM LAB CA, USA 

(B) Frame Axxis CA, USA 

(C) Fork X-Bike PA, USA 

(D) Brake SRAM IL, USA 

(E) Wheel Shimano Japan 

(F) Trans. BBB Holland 

DEF BBB Holland 

(A) Saddle BBB Holland 

(B) Frame X-Bike PA, USA 

(C) Fork SRAM IL, USA 

(D) Brake BBB Holland 

(E) Wheel ATOM LAB CA, USA 

(F) Trans. BBB Holland 

Lesson 2. Cost, lead time and carbon footprint 

minimization goals favor different type of product 

architectures 

• Optimization results point to different product 

architectures for cost, lead time and CF 

• Development of computational artificial intelligence 

is needed to: 

▫ Analyze more complex products 

▫ Exploit objective tradeoffs 

▫ Improve customization for products 

Olson, E., Okudan, G. E., Chiu, M-C., Haapala, K. R. (2011) “Positioning Product 

Architecture As the Driver for Carbon Footprint & Efficiency Trade-offs in A Global 

Supply Chain”, 4th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems 

Management (IESM 2011), Metz, France. 

Olson, E., Haapala, K. and Okudan, G.E. "Integration of Sustainability Issues during 

Early Design Stages in a Global Supply Chain Context", AAAI Spring Symposium 

Series, March 21–23, 2011, at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 
Lesson 3. Existing modularity methods (logic) favor 

different performance measures 

Modularity has implications on: 
We applied Stone et al.’s approach (FHM), Zhang et al.’s approach (BFES), and Huang and Kusiak’s (DA) for modularity on the same 

product. 

The final values for the three 

concepts are: 12.32 for DA, 14.40 

for B-FES, and 23.41 for FHM. 

Based on these results, we observe 

that the DA is better in comparison 

to B-FES and FHM approaches with 

regards to DfA and DfV index values. 

Okudan, G.E. and Gupta, S. (2013). “Analysis of Modularity Implementation 

Methods from an Assembly and Variety Viewpoint”, International Journal of 

Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 6(9), pp. 1959-1976. 
 

Reuse Recycle Disposal 

Reuse Strongly desired Desired Strongly

undesired 

Recycle Desired Strongly desired Undesired 

Disposal Strongly

undesired 

Undesired Strongly

desired 

Can we modularize for 

sustainability? 

Module 

DA 

(component 

numbers 

within module) 

Carbon 

Footprint 

(465.66 kg 

CO2 eq.) 

MC(I) 

Interaction weight 

0.35; End of life 

weight 0.65 

Carbon 

Footprint 

(461.53 kg 

CO2 eq.) 

MC(II) 

Interaction weight 

0.65; End of life 

weight 0.35 

Carbon 

Footprint 

(466.16 kg 

CO2 eq.) 

1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 25.2 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 21.2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 25.2 

2 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 30.8 5, 10 0.01 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 30.8 

3 12, 13, 26 323 7, 8, 9, 11 30.5 12, 13, 321 

4 14 13.6 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 

22, 26 

352.6 14, 21, 22 24.3 

5 15, 16, 17, 18 40.3 15, 16, 17, 23 40.3 15, 16, 17 37.7 

6 20 6.07 18 1.72 18 1.72 

7 21, 22 9.03 19, 24, 25 15.2 19, 23, 24, 25 17.7 

8 23, 24 3.26 20, 26 7.74 

9 19, 25 14.4 

Comparison of DA & Multivariate Clustering 

Results show reduction in carbon footprint. 
 

Module DA Module End 

of Life 

MC(I) Module End

of Life

MC(II) Module End 

of Life

1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Recycle/Disposal 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Recycle 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Recycle/Disposal

2 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Recycle/Disposal 5, 10 Disposal 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Recycle/Disposal

3 12, 13, 26 Recycle 7, 8, 9, 11 Recycle 12, 13, Recycle

4 14 Recycle 12, 13, 14, 20, 

21, 22, 26

Recycle 14, 21, 22 Recycle

Comparison of DA & Multivariate Clustering 

5 15, 16, 17, 18 Recycle/Reuse 15, 16, 17, 23 Reuse 15, 16, 17 Reuse 

6 20 Recycle 18 Recycle 18 Recycle 

7 21, 22 Recycle 19, 24, 25 Recycle 19, 23, 24, 25 Recycle/Reuse 

8 23, 24 Recycle/Reuse 20, 26 Recycle 

9 19, 25 Recycle 

Results show easy to separate subassemblies 

for disposal and recycle. 

Design ADAPS.2 

Implemented within 

the dedicated software 

environment. 
Implemented within 

the dedicated software 

environment. 

Product 

Connectivity Graph Modularity for Sustainability 

1 2 

3 

5 

* 

4 

* 

6 

7 

9 

8 

Reuse module 

Recycling module Service module 

Reuse 

module 

Lesson 4. Robust modularity methods need to be 

developed to optimize life cycle costs & a proposed 

approach 
 

Methodology Flow 

Construct a connectivity graph for the product based 

on component interactions and component attributes 

Use the SC model to evaluate the initial modular 

structure

Step2

Step3

Step4

Step1

Construct a universal supply chain (SC) optimization 

model for possible modular structures 

Form an initial modular structure on the connectivity

graph 

Chung, W.H., Okudan 

Kremer, G. and Wysk, R. 

(2014) Modular Design 

Approach to Improve 

Product Life Cycle 

Performance Based on 

the Optimization of a 

Closed-Loop Supply

Chain”, ASME Journal of 

Mechanical Design

A near-optimal modular structure 

Can the objective value 

be improved? 

Yes 

No 

Use the heuristic based on the output of SC model to 

generate promising modular structures for evaluation 

Use the SC model to evaluate the promising modular 

structures generated 

Update the modular structure with 

the one having the min. value 

Step6 

Step5 

Step7 

Connectivity Graph 

1 2

3 5

4

Component Attributes (Vertices) 

Component Interactions (Edges) 

Function relationship 

Joining relationship 

Disjoining relationship 

Or 

RU: Reuse 

RC: Recycling 

D: Disposal 

Product 

1

Connectivity Graph 

R 

Design Structure Matrix 

Vertex/ 

Component 

Mfg. 

cost 

($) 

Mfg. 

energy 

(kWh) 

Weight 

(g) 

MTBF 

(month) 

Reuse 

value 

($) 

Recycli 

ng value 

($) 

End-oflife 

option 

Service 

intent 

Component 

1 19.10 8.3 2693 336 19.2 0.78 RU/RC/ 

D Y/N 

Edge 

/Interaction Function 

Manufacturing Service Retirement 

Assembly 

time 

(sec) 

Assembly 

cost ($) 

/energy 

(kWh) 

Assembly 

time 

(sec) 

Assembly 

cost ($) 

/energy 

(kWh) 

Disassem. 

time 

(sec) 

Disassem. 

cost ($) 

/energy 

(kWh) 

Disassem. 

time 

(sec) 

Disassem. 

cost ($) 

/energy 

(kWh) 

Component 1-

Component 3 1 20 0.184 

/0.15 20 0.084 /0.07 20 0.084 /0.07 20 0.084 /0.07 
 

 

 

 

Closed-Looped Supply Chain Network 

Demand Locations

Assembly Facilities

Component Suppliers

1

2

1

2

1

1 2

1

Disassembly Facilities

Disposal Facilities

Recycling Facilities

...

n

3 2 2 

2 

1 3 

..

..

.

n

..

..

.

n

..

..

.

n

..

..

.

n

..

..

.

n

..

..

.

n

Rebuild Facilities 

2 

1 

..

.

n

Service Facilities 

Formulation of the Supply Chain 

Optimization Model 

Objective 

Constraints 

Σoutbound product/module flow from the facilities in the forward flows= 

Σinbound component/module/product flow to the facilities in the forward flows 

Forward Logistics Balance (Pull) 

Σoutbound module flow from the facilities in the reverse flows= Σinbound 

component/module/product flow to the facilities in the reverse flows 

Reverse Logistics Balance (Push) 

Min ZLCC 

where 

ZLCC the life cycle cost in the supply chain ($)

 ZLCEC the life cycle energy consumption in the supply chain 

(kWh) 

Min ZLCEC 
Formation of an Initial Modular Structure 

Initial service module Finished service module

1 2

3

5

4

6

7

9

8

1 2

3

5

4

6

7

9

RU/RC/D 8

RC/D 

D 

9

Component Attributes 

for Service and EOL 

Service intent 

1 2 

3 

5 

4 

6 

7 

9 

8 

Initial reuse module 

Service module 

1 2 

3 

5 

4 

6 

7 

9 

8 

Service module 

Finished reuse module 

1 2 

3 

5 

4 

6 

7 

9 

8 

Recycling module 

Reuse module 

Disposal module 

Initial Modular Structure 

The Criteria for Evaluating Potential 

Modular Structures in Costs 

When the capacity is 

insufficient, the 

reuse/recycling value 

is divided by the 

resource required 
Numerical Examples: 

Refrigerator & Coffee Maker 

11. Door1 

15. Liner1 

6. 1. Cabinet frame 

Evaporator 

18. Heater 

5. Fan unit2 17. Control

 The product data set for the refrigerator is based on data from

Umeda et al.’s work (2000) and is supplemented by data from

websites. 

 The data set for the coffee maker (Product Model: Mr. Coffee PR15) 

is based on product dissection and supplemented by the literature. 

t

d suppleme

13. Gasket1 

12. Door2 

14. Gasket2 

16. Liner2 

9. Condenser 

4. Fan unit1 

8. 

Compressor 

20. Shelf 

set 

7. Rear board 

10. Base 

unit 

2. Cabinet 

et 1 

Connectivity Graph of the Refrigerator 

4.Fan unit1 

6.Evaporator 8.Compressor

9.Condenser 

17.Control 

unit 

18.Heater 

19.Dryer 

3.Duct in 

room 5.Fan unit2 1.Cabinet 

frame 

11.Door1 12.Door2 

13.Gasket 

1 

15.Door 

liner1 

16.Door 

liner2 

14.Gasket 

2 

7.Rear 

board 

20.Shelf set 

2.Cabinet 

10.Base 
Component Interactions in DSM

Disassembly times

Disassembly costs 

Assembly times 

Assembly costs 

Function relations 

Processing Facilities 

Process Process description Location 

P1 Product and module assembly F1, F2, F3 

P2 Service (maintenance) F4, F5 

P3 Product collection and disassembly F6, F7 

P4 Module inspection and rebuild F8, F9 

P5 Material recycling F10, F11 

P6 Disposal D1, D2 
Criteria for the Performance of SCEM

Effectiveness Efficiency 

Effectiveness refers to how good 

the quality of the modular 

structure found by ASCEM is. It 

indicates how far the life cycle 

performance (LCC or LCEC) of the 

modular structure is from the true 

Efficiency refers to how quickly a 

near-optimal modular structure 

can be found and is measured by 

the number of iterations taken by 

the supply chain optimization 

model to reach the near-optimal 

optimal modular structure, and is 

measured by LCC or LCEC 

difference in percentage. 

modular structure. 

True 

Optimal 

Near 

Optimal 

Initial 

Distance 

True Optimal 

Near 

Optimal 

Initial 

7 edges or 

transitions 

Performance of ASCEM - Refrigerator Modular Structures for LCC Modular Structures for LCEC 

Effectiveness Efficiency 

650 

700 

750 

800 

850 

900 

LCC Comparison 

Max LCC 

LCC-SCEM 

Min LCC 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

LCEC Comparison 

Max LCEC 

LCECSCEM 

0% 

100% 

Iteration Comparison 

Iterations 

taken by SCEM 

Total number 

of feasible 

structures 

0% 

100% 

Iteration Comparison 

Iterations 

taken by SCEM 

Total number 

of feasible 

structures 

Difference: 

0.03% 

Difference: 

0.44% 
Performance of ASCEM - Coffee Maker for LCC

Effectiveness Efficiency 

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

LCC Comparison

Max LCC

LCC-SCEM

Min LCC

1% 

99% 

Iteration Comparison 

Iterations taken

by SCEM

Total number of

feasible

structures

Difference:

0.00%

Modular Structures Modular Structures for

LCEC 

15.5 

7.8 

8 

8.2 

8.4 

8.6 

8.8 

LCEC Comparison 

Max LCEC 

LCEC-SCEM 

Min LCEC 

1% 

99% 

Iteration Comparison 

Iterations taken 

by SCEM 

Total number of 

feasible 

structures 

Difference: 

0.02% 

Lesson 4. Robust modularity methods should be 

developed to optimize life cycle costs 
Active Research Directions 

GIS Enabled Design Architecture/Supply Chain Optimization Utilizing Open 

Source GIS tools and Optimization Software

Goal is to seamlessly infuse data sources into decision making (e.g., 

World Bank data on countries’ capabilities in manufacturing, 

logistics, and business operations. 

Lei, T. and Okudan Kremer, G.E. “GIS-Based Hierarchical Multi-Objective Supply 

Chain Network Design: A Proposed Tool & Case Study”, Industrial and Systems 

Engineering Conference (ISERC 2013), May 18-22, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
For more information on these works, contact information is 

provided below.

Gül E. Okudan Kremer 

Professor of Engineering Design & Industrial Engineering

Fellow ASME 

213T Hammond Building 

University Park 

The Pennsylvania State University
 

University Park, PA 16802
 

Tel: 814 8631530 

Email: gkremer@psu.edu 
Measurement Science for Sustainable 

Construction and Manufacturing 

Breakout 4 

Economic, Environmental, 

and Social Aspects 

Cliff I. Davidson 

Thomas & Colleen Wilmot Professor of Engineering

Director, Center for Sustainable Engineering

Syracuse University 

ASCE, Reston, Virginia 

June 12, 2014 

2

Outline 

Economic, Environmental, and Social Issues 

summarized from papers by participants of 

Breakout 4: 

• Individual buildings 

• Infrastructure projects 

• Entire urban areas 

• Overarching issue: Changing Human Behavior 
3

Individual Buildings 

Design  Construction  Operation & Use  Demolition 

• Ability to incorporate sustainability decreases as we 

move forward 

• Previously: cost dominated design considerations.

New software includes sustainability, but 

not used much (Athena Sust. Materials Inst.) 

• Could apply current knowledge of sustainable product manufacturing to buildings (RFID tags

to track logistics) 

4

Individual Buildings 

• Data collection during construction

-- Energy, materials, water, social issues

-- Embedded energy and water in materials 

• Data collection during use phase

-- Sensors for microclimate, HVAC, lighting, 

electricity, appliance use, flow of people

-- Personal monitors – air quality, noise, 

vibrations 

-- Monitors for interaction with natural 

environment – wind, temp, humidity,

rain runoff, vegetation growth 
Individual Buildings 

• Data collection during demolition 

-- Degradation of building envelope over time 

-- Differences in degradation for different parts 

of the building 

-- Re-use, recycle building components 

5

Infrastructure Projects 

Design  Construction  Operation & Use  Demolition 

• As with individual buildings, ability to incorporate

sustainability decreases as we move forward 

• Indicators of safety are well-established – need the 

equivalent for sustainability 

• Need for quantifiable social sustainability metrics 

6
7

Infrastructure Projects 

Design  Construction  Operation & Use  Demolition 

• Need to make infrastructure more resilient 

-- Performance of infrastructure during 

disasters such as severe storms, terrorist

attacks, evacuation

-- Avoiding increase in vulnerability due to 

human development close by – buildings 

adjacent to a major roadway

-- Avoiding increase in vulnerability by not 

accounting for natural processes – beach 

erosion 

8

Urban areas 

• Establish ability to obtain large data sets for metabolism of a city 

-- Flows of energy, materials, water, people, 

information 

• Can we use such data to improve Quality of Life and 

resilience? 

-- Energy balance, material balance, water 

balance 

-- How people are spending their time in cities:

Performing services, engaged in

recreation, engaged with family, etc.

-- Health monitoring of people in cities 
9

Urban areas 

Reduce social inequity 

• Low income and minority residents in cities are 

generally under-represented in decision making 

-- distrust of government

-- language problems

-- previously marginalized 

• Necessary for engineers to make special effort to

bring these people into discussion 

10

Changing Human Behavior 

Habits are difficult to break 

• Change requires several steps: first step is the

desire to change 

• Do most people understand the impact of their dayto-day activities? 

• To explore the answer for one example situation,

survey was conducted 

• Questions involved estimating the energy

consumption for normal household activities. 
11

Changing Human Behavior 

Question 1: 

“A 100-watt incandescent light bulb uses 100 

units of energy in one hour. How many units of 

energy do you think each of the following devices 

typically uses in one hour?” 

 A compact fluorescent light bulb that is as 

bright as a 100-watt incandescent light bulb 

 An electric clothes dryer 

 A portable heater 

 A room air conditioner 

 A central air conditioner 

 A dishwasher 

12

Changing Human Behavior 

Question 2: 

“Turning off a 100-watt incandescent light bulb 

for one hour saves 100 units of energy. How 

many units of energy do you think each of the 

following changes will save?” 

 Replacing one 100-watt incandescent bulb 

with equally bright compact fluorescent bulb 

that is used for one hour 

 Replacing one 100-watt kitchen bulb with a 

75-watt bulb that is used for one hour 

 Drying clothes on a clothes line for one load 

 Turning up the thermostat on your air 

conditioner by 5oF in summer 
13

Human perceptions of home energy use 

Attari, Dekay, Davidson, Bruine de Bruin (PNAS, 2010) 

Human perceptions of home energy use 

1414

 Perception curve is relatively flat 

 Slight overestimate for low energy appliances 

 Large underestimate for high energy 

appliances where perceptions are most 

important 

 Overall perceptions show an underestimate of a 

factor of 2.8 
Conclusions
 

• We have the capability to collect large quantities of

technical data, but we need to determine which 

technical data are most important for 

understanding sustainability in manufacturing 

and infrastructure development. 

• It is much more difficult to collect data to quantify 

social sustainability and assess our progress. 

• Achieving change in human behavior in the correct

direction will require educational efforts for

people understand the impacts of their

activities and how to reduce them. 

15
   

         

   

               

   

             

                   

     

       

         

             

           

               

           

           

         

           

       

       

       

         

             

       

     

The Quantified Community:

Measuring, Modeling, and Understanding the

Urban Environment

NIST‐ASCE‐ASME

June 12, 2014

Dr. Constantine E. Kontokosta, PE, AICP, LEED AP, FRICS

Deputy Director, NYU‐CUSP

Director, NYU Center for the Sustainable Built Environment

Associate Research Professor, NYU‐Polytechnic School of Engineering

Head, Quantified Community Research Initiative

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 1

The CUSP vision includes

New York City as its laboratory

The Center for Urban Science and Progress

(CUSP) is a unique public‐private research

center that uses New York City as its

laboratory and classroom to help cities

around the world become more productive,

livable, equitable, and resilient. CUSP

observes, analyzes, and models cities to

optimize outcomes, prototype new

solutions, formalize new tools and

processes, and develop new

expertise/experts. These activities will make

CUSP the world’s leading authority in the

emerging field of “Urban Informatics.”

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 2
   

                       

       

   

   

         

   

   

   

       

       

         

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

     

   

       

   

           

         

     

   

       

     

       

      

     

     

   

     

The CUSP Partnership

A diverse set of other organizations have expressed interest in joining the partnership.

National Laboratories

• Brookhaven

• Lawrence Livermore

• Los Alamos

• Sandia

Industrial Partners

• IBM

• Microsoft

• Xerox

• Cisco, Con Edison, Lutron,

National Grid, Siemens

• AECOM, Arup, IDEO

University Partners

• NYU/ NYU‐Poly

• The City University of New York

• Carnegie Mellon University

• University of Toronto

• University of Warwick

• IIT‐Bombay

City & State Agency Partners

• The City of New York

• Metropolitan Transportation Authority

• Port Authority of NY & NJ

 Buildings

 City Planning

 Citywide Administrative

Services

 Design and Construction

 Economic Development

 Environmental Protection

 Finance

 Fire Department

 Health and Mental Hygiene

 Information Technology

and Telecommunications

 Parks and Recreation

 Police Department

 Sanitation

 Transportation

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 3

• Organic data flows

– Administrative records (census, permits, ...)

– Transactions (sales, communications, ...)

– Operational (traffic, transit, utilities, health system, ...)

– Twitter feeds, blog posts, Facebook, ...

• Sensors

– Personal (location, activity, physiological)

– Fixed in situ sensors

– Crowd sourcing (mobile phones, ...)

– Choke points (people, vehicles)

• Opportunities for “novel” sensor technologies

– Visible, infrared and spectral imagery

– RADAR, LIDAR

– Gravity and magnetic

– Seismic, acoustic

– Ionizing radiation, biological, chemical

– ...

4

Urban Data Sources

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION
           

     

   

     

             

             

     

     

             

       

       

           

     

                 

     

               

           

           

         

               

                 

               

             

• Optimize operations

– traffic flow, utility loads, services delivery, ...

• Monitor infrastructure conditions

– bridges, potholes, leaks, ...

• Infrastructure planning

– zoning, public transit, utilities

• Model the dynamics of land use and neighborhood change

• Public health

– Nutrition, epidemiology, environmental impacts

• Identify and respond to abnormal conditions and shocks

– Hazard detection, emergency management

• Data‐driven formulation of performance‐based policies

– Energy use, road pricing and congestion charging, etc.

• Improve regulatory compliance (“nudges”, efficient enforcement)

• Inform, empower, and engage residents

5

What can cities do with the data?

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION

The Quantified Community (QC)

Understanding the Patterns of Urban Life

6 KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION

The CUSP “Quantified Community” (QC) will be a fully

instrumented urban neighborhood that uses an integrated,

expandable sensor network and citizen engagement to support

the measurement, integration, and analysis of neighborhood

conditions. Through an informatics overlay, data on physical and

environmental conditions and use patterns will be processed in

real‐time to maximize operational efficiencies, improve quality of

life for residents and visitors, and drive evidence‐based planning.
   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

Images: Related Companies

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 7

Buildings

Resource consumption;

indoor air quality;

productivity, health

measures

People

Behavior; mobility;

health; activity;

social networks,

metagenomics

Environment

carbon emissions; air

pollution and particulates;

noise; climate

Infrastructure

Solid waste, storm‐water

management, power

generation/distribution

Safety and Security

Network Security,

Situational Awareness,

Emergency Management

Integration, Event

Forecasting

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 8

Image:

Related

Companies
   

  

   

           

   

                 

   

             

                

         

     

     

9

Data

management,

integration

Analytics,

Modeling and

Simulation

Impact

System

optimization

Behavior

change

Economic

models

Residents/

visitors/

workers

Operators

Evaluation

and

Monitoring

Information Flows

in the QC

Environment KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION

Next Steps

• Pilot project underway

– Initial data by Fall 2014; simulation and modeling by

early Spring 2015

• Planning of “informatics overlay” at Hudson Yards

underway

– Focus on district infrastructure and first building to be

completed

– Data‐driven construction safety, mobility, and logistics

optimization project In development

• Hiring postdocs/research scientists

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 10
     

Thank you
 

ckontokosta@nyu.edu
 

cusp.nyu.edu

NYUCUSP

@NYU‐CUSP

KONTOKOSTA 2014 ‐ NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION 11
Population and Carrying Capacity: 

Metrics for Sustainability 

Eugenia Kalnay1, Jorge Rivas2, 

and Safa Motesharrei1,3 

1University of Maryland; 2University of Minnesota; 

3National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SEYSNC) 

Presentation at the NIST-UMD Workshop on 

Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12, 2014 

Growth of Population and GDP/Capita: 

Consumption of Resources is their Product! 

1AD 0.3b 

1650 0.5b 

1804 1.0b 

1927 2.0b 

1960 3.0b 

1975 4.0b 

1987 5.0b 

1998 6.0b 

2011 7.0b Maddison, (2001) 
Why was the population able to grow so fast 

since the 1950’s? 

Two reasons: 

1) Sanitation and Antibiotics (Public Health → living longer) 

2) Use of fossil fuels in agriculture starting in the 1950’s: 

- fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, mechanization (Green 

Revolution). 

1950 to 1984: production of grains increased by 250% and the 

population doubled 

Without fossil fuels population would be much smaller! 

• Growth in grain production is now flattening out 

• Industrial farming is destroying forests, soil 

• Urban and suburban sprawl is overrunning best farmland 

This is not sustainable: “We are drawing down the stock of 

natural capital as if it was infinite” (Herman Daly) 

Standard Neoclassical Economic Model 

The standard Neoclassical Economic Model does not account for: 

• Inputs (resources) 

• Outputs (pollution) 

• Stocks of Natural Capital 

• Dissipation of Energy (i.e., a Perpetual Motion Machine) 

• Depletion, Destruction or Transformation of Matter 

Therefore, no effects on the Earth System, and No Limits to Growth. 

Firms: Households: 

Labor and Capital 

Goods and Services 

As Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, and other scholars in the field of Ecological Economics describe, 
Realistic Ecological Economic Model (Herman Daly) 

Sinks: 

Oceans, 

Atmosphere 

Land 

Population Technology 

Population growth rate 

Energy Use / Capita 

Resource Use / Capita 

Emissions / Capita 

Waste / Capita 

Economic expansion / Capita 

Outputs: 

1. Emissions 

CO2, Methane, etc 

2. Waste Products 

Garbage, Toxics, etc 

3. Surface Changes 

Urbanization, 

Deforestation, 

Desertification, etc 

Inputs: 

1. Energy 

Oil, Coal, Gas, 

Nuclear, Biomass, 

Renewables, etc 

2. Matter 

Soil, Minerals, 

Lumber, and 

Other Material 

Resources 

Sources: 

Stock of Natural Capital 

Flows of Energy 

• Incorporates INPUTS, including DEPLETION of SOURCES 

• Incorporates OUTPUTS, including POLLUTION of SINKS 

“Empty World” Model 

• Throughout most of human history, the Human Economy was so small relative to 

the Earth System, that it had little impact on the Sources and Sinks. 

• In this scenario, the standard isolated economic model might have made sense. 

Sinks: 

Inputs: 

Sources: 

Outputs: 
Sources: 

Inputs: 

“Full World” Ecological Economic Model 

• Today, the Human Economy has grown so large, it has very large Effects 

on the Earth System, Depleting the Sources and Filling the Sinks. It is 

clear that growth cannot continue forever. 

Sinks: 

Outputs: 

Population & Demographics 

Global Atmosphere 

Prototype Earth System - Human System Feedbacks 

Earth System 

UMD/ICTP SPEEDY-VEGAS model 

Fisheries 

(Region n) Human System 

Policies 

Migration 

Land (Region n) 

Cropland Grassland 

Forest 

Urban 

Areas 

Leaf, root, wood, fast & slow soil carbon pools 

Land-Vegetation Model 

Energy 

1. Fossil 

2. Non Fossil 

Water (Region n) 

(Oceans, Rivers, 

Aquifers, Glaciers) 

Waste 

Emissions 

Desert 

Industry 

Agriculture 

Waste 

Water Pollution 

Effects and Feedbacks 

Policies 

Population 

Waste 

Food/cap 

Population Vulnerabilities 

Trade 

Land-Use 

Others 

Water 

Resources 

(Temp, Wind, Fluxes, Rain, CO2) 
Could an advanced society like ours collapse? 

• Collapses of many advanced societies have taken 

place in the last 5000 years! 

• A recent study of the many collapses that took place in 

Europe has excluded climate forcing, war, and disease 

as the root cause of such collapses, so that it 

concluded: 

• The collapses were due to overrunning the Carrying 

Capacity 

• We developed a “Human and Nature Dynamical model” 

(HANDY) to start understanding the nonlinear 

feedbacks between the Earth and the Human System. 

HANDY: Human and Nature Dynamical model 

with Rich and Poor: for Thought Experiments 

Commoner Population 

Elite Population 

Nature 

Wealth 
Population 

(Elite & 

Commoner) 

Nature 

Wealth 

Births Deaths 

Regeneration Depletion 

Production 

(= Depletion) Consumption 

State Variables (Stocks) and Flows in HANDY1 

Carrying Capacity 

• Carrying Capacity: The population level that the 

resources of a particular environment can sustain over 

the long term 

Carrying Capacity in HANDY 

Maximum Carrying Capacity 
Experiments for an Egalitarian Society 

High depletion rate can lead to collapse. 

What if we introduce Inequality? 

Up until t = 500, 

both scenarios show the exact same dynamics. 
An otherwise sustainable society could collapse 

if there is high inequality (κ = 100). 

What happens if we have both high inequality 

and high depletion rate? 

Typical Collapse: High Depletion Rates and High 

Inequality at the same time 

Is there any hope for an unequal society to survive? 
If we reduce the depletion per capita and inequality, 

and slow down the population growth, it is possible to 

reach a steady state and survive well. 

Reaching this equilibrium requires changes in policies: 

• Reduce depletion per capita 

• Reduce inequality (κ = 10) 

• Reduce population growth 

Classic3Full3Collapse33qRegenerative3Nature3OnlyW 80,000 ppl 

100 ecoT 

100 ecoT 

4,000 ecoT 

0 ppl 

0 ecoT 

80 ecoT 

0 ecoT 

0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 630 700 

Time3qYearW 

Commoners 

qEquivalentW3Elites 

qRegenerativeW 

Nature 

Wealth 

Could a collapse be prevented if we have 

large stocks of Nonrenewable Energy? 

This is the classic HANDY1 full 

collapse scenario, with only 

regenerating Nature 

We then add to the 

regenerating Nature a 

nonrenewable Nature 

What happens 

when we add 

fossil fuels? 
Classic3Full3Collapse33qRegenerative3Nature3OnlyW 80,000 ppl 

100 ecoT 

100 ecoT 

4,000 ecoT 

0 ppl 

0 ecoT 

80 ecoT 

0 ecoT 

0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 630 700 

Time3qYearW 

Commoners 

qEquivalentW3Elites 

qRegenerativeW 

Nature 

Wealth 

Impact of adding fossil fuels 

(nonrenewable energy resources) 

Regenerating Nature Only Both Regenerating and 

Nonrenewable 

Resources 

46M ppl Full6Collapse6with6Regene rative6and6Nonrenewable6Stocks

100 eco3 

100E000 eco3 

60E000 eco3 

0 ppl 

0 eco3 

0 eco3 

0 eco3 

0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 630 700 

Time6mYear( 

Commoners 

mEquivalent( 

Elites mRegenerative( 

Nature 

Wealth 

Nonrenewables 

The collapse is postponed by ~250 years and the 

peak population increases by a factor of ~25! 

80K 4Million 

Population 

(Elite & 

Commoner) 

Nature 

Wealth 

Births Deaths 

Regeneration Depletion 

Production 

(= Depletion) Consumption 

State Variables (Stocks) and Flows in HANDY1 
Metrics for Sustainability 

The conditions for sustainability of resources depend on their type: 

1. Regenerating resources (e.g., forests, fisheries, herds): 

Total Depletion Rate ≤ Regeneration Rate 

2. Renewable resources (e.g., Flows of solar and wind): 

Sustainable by definition, since the total extraction rate is always smaller 

than the flow rate. 

Also, consumption of Accumulated Wealth must be sustainable 

to ensure societal sustainability, therefore: 

Total Consumption ≤ Total Production 

But what about Nonrenewables? Could their extraction 

be sustainable? 

We define a new metric Time to Depletion, TN(t), for 

Nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels, aquifers, minerals): 

For extraction of nonrenewables to be sustainable, Time to 

Depletion has to increase with time: 

It can be shown that this is equivalent to: 

This also means that the net depletion rate of nonrenewables 

must decrease with time if their extraction is to be sustainable. 

A Metric for Sustainability of Nonrenewables 
CONCLUSIONS
 

•	 The Human System has dominated the Earth System. 

•	 In order to assess Societal Sustainability and issues like Climate 

Change, we need to couple the Earth System with Population, 

include bidirectional (two-way) feedbacks, and take into account the 

impact of policies on longer time scales (>50 years, >2 generations). 

•	 Carrying Capacity is a widely applicable measure for societal 

sustainability. 

•	 Additional sustainability metrics are also derived for all three types 

of resources. 

• For Regenerating resources, net depletion must be within net 

regrowth rate of the resource. 

•	 Extraction of Renewables is inherently sustainable. 

• For Nonrenewables, Time to Depletion must increase with time. 

•	 Therefore, net depletion of Nonrenewables has to decrease. 

•	 This means if population is relatively steady, depletion per capita of 

nonrenewables must decrease with time. 
National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Measurement Science for Sustainable 

Construction and Manufacturing 

Challenges and Metrics in Public 

Buildings and Infrastructure 

David Dise, Director 

Department of General Services 

david.dise@montgomerycountymd.gov 

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES 

• Completed over 50 capital projects since 2007 

• $1.2 billion in planning, design and construction costs 

• Project range from $1M to $100M+ 

• More than 50 active projects in design or construction 

• Custodian of 412 buildings, 9.5 million square feet 
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES 

Priorities for facility performance: 

• Low environmental impact 

• Durability 

• Low, long-term O&M 

• Long operating hours 

• Flexibility for varying uses 

• Resiliency 

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES 

Sustainability priorities in new capital projects: 

• Passive solar design 

• Daylight harvesting 

• Geothermal 

• Designed for future active solar 

• Water capture/reuse 

• Reduced impervious surface 

• Use of rapidly renewable/recycled materials 
Example Projects: 

CHALLENGES 

Competing priorities 

Budget vs. ROI 

Environmental Impact 

Durability 

Community concerns and interests 

Regulatory requirements 

Internal client expectations 
 . 

Equipment Maintenance and Transit Operations 

Center 

Case Study: Equipment Maintenance and 

Transit Operations Center 

• Multiple buildings 

• 200+ transit buses, highway 

trucks and equipment, and 

some light duty fleet 

• Fueling facility 

• LEED Gold 

• Tight site conditions 

• Plan for future capacity 

• Energy efficiency 

• Light harvesting 

• 400 kW of Onsite Solar – 

potential for expansion. 

• 4 acres of vegetative roof 

• Continuing measurement and 

verification 

• On-site compressed natural gas 
Future Efforts 

More aggressive solar photovoltaic/thermal 

Combined Heat and Power/Microgrids 

Expanded occupant education/engagement 

Innovative P3 opportunities 
Needed Metrics to Facilitate Sustainable Construction 

Contacts: 

David E. Dise, Director, Department of General Services
 

David.Dise@montgomerycountymd.gov
 

Eric R. Coffman, Chief, Office of Energy and Sustainability 

Eric.Coffman@montgomerycountymd.gov 

Rassa Davoodpour, Manager, Office of Special Projects 

Rassa.Davoodpour@montgomerycountymd.gov 
           

   

   

           

By Fulya Kocak, LEED AP, BD+C, GGP

Clark Construction Group, LLC

Measuring Sustainable Construction

How do we measure Sustainability in

Construction Industry?
     

   

But first...

What is Sustainable

Construction?

Constructing Green Buildings?
     

       

Capabilities in LEED Certification?

Health & Well Being ?
Environmental Compliance?

Environmental Management Systems?
     

   

Greening the Supply Chain?

Research and Innovation
   

         

Education and Awareness?

Reducing disruption to land & habitats?
         

Minimized transportation?

Progress in new green technologies &

products?
     

     

Minimizing pollution during construction

operations?

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Construction

Waste?
       

       

Making green buildings cost effective?

Assisting the clients build green?
       

       

Supporting local communities &

businesses?

Tracking carbon emissions from

construction operations?
Walking    the Talk?

Competitive Advantage?
Marketing?

Profitability?
     

     

All of the above?

Washington 

D.C. adopted IgCC 

by amendments 

What metrics exist today?
         

     

       

   

     

Various meanings and priorities for sustainability

Lack of client demand

High cost, low tangible benefits

Lack of awareness

Limited resources

Long‐term commitment

Slow progress

Challenges?

Opportunities

Profitability,

Competitive Advantage,

Reduced liability and risk,

Employee satisfaction.
           

   

By Fulya Kocak, LEED AP, BD+C, GGP

Clark Construction Group, LLC

Questions?

fulya.kocak@clarkconstruction.com
Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

     

         

   

           

       

   

   

   

   

               

           

         

               

               

     

     

     

         

           

       

         

                             

     

Technology Analysis:

Efficiency, Manufacturing, Processes & Materials

Joe Cresko, Strategic Analysis Technology Manager

Advanced Manufacturing Office

US Department of Energy

Presentation at:

NIST‐ASCE‐ASME Workshop on

Measurement Science for Sustainable

Construction and Manufacturing

June 12, 2014

United States Manufacturing Industry

Source: Manufacturing Energy and Carbon Footprint, derived from 2006 MECS 

AMO programs target:

• Research, Development and Demonstration of new, advanced processes and

materials technologies that reduce energy consumption for manufactured

products and enable life‐cycle energy savings

• Efficiency opportunities through deployment of known technologies to existing

manufacturing practices, especially for energy‐intensive steam, process heating,

and machine drive end‐uses

Manufacturing industry

• Constitutes 11% of GDP

• Employs 12 million people

• Employs 60% of engineers and scientists

• Accounts for ~30% of primary energy

consumption in the United States1

6,380

29%

6,100

28%

5,420

25%

2,260

10%

1,820

8%

Primary TBtus per year of energy use

Steam

Process heat

Machine

drive

Non‐process

Other

processes*

1historically program has communicated in terms of site energy use; little precedent for materials flows, cross‐sector

impacts, economics & competitiveness. 2
Advanced Manufacturing Office      

             

                       

                     

                   

             

                         

                         

                   

                     

                 

             

                     

           

                     

               

                       

               

             

   

         

   

             

                 

   

Manufacturing and Advanced Manufacturing

Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council

Remarks at the Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing, March 27, 2012

“The economic evidence is increasingly clear that a strong manufacturing sector

creates spillover benefits to the broader economy, making manufacturing an

essential component of a competitive and innovative economy.”

“There is a close connection between R&D and manufacturing in many of the

emerging sectors ....... R&D engineers may have to stay close to manufacturing to

develop new strategies for making processes more efficient. The tighter

integration of innovation and production may also present opportunities to bring

design closer to end users, as advanced manufacturing technologies make it

possible to produce higher‐value goods at lower volume.”

Professor Suzanne Berger, co‐chair of MIT’s Production in the Innovation Economy (PIE)

“Advanced Manufacturing involves both: new ways to manufacture existing

products, and especially the manufacture of new products emerging from new

advanced technologies.”

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,

“Report to the President on Ensuring America’s Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing,” June 2011

3

Advanced Manufacturing

Making things in a manner such that technology

provides a competitive advantage over the practices

widely in use.

Advanced Manufacturing and Clean Energy at DOE

Clean Energy Manufacturing

Making things such that environmental impact is

reduced in the making, use, or disposal of the

product made.

4
   

           

             

       

   

   

   

   

               

       

     

             

       

       

         

       

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

The “Missing Middle”

•Leverage Federal support of basic research

•Partner with the private sector to accelerate commercialization

Technology Maturity (TRL; MRL; etc.)

R&D Investment level ($ log)

Governments and Universities Private sector

Gap

DOE Energy

Innovation Hubs

NSF Engineering

Research Centers

NSF IUCR Centers

SBIR/STTR

NIST Manufacturing

Extension Partnership

AMO

R&D

Facilities

R&D

Projects

Concept Proof of Concept Lab scale development Demonstration and scale‐up Product Commercialization

Technical

Assistance

Target: Reduce life‐cycle energy

consumption of select manufactured

products by 50% within 10 years of

the start of each development effort

Target: Reduce manufacturing energy

intensity by 25% over ten years

5

Advanced Manufacturing Office – focus on Technologies

Existing

•Technologies and

materials that already

exist and no further

improvements are

required

Emerging

•Technologies and

materials that are

incrementally improving

their performance and

are under continuing

improvement

Advanced

•New generation

technologies and

materials that offer

“breakthrough”

performance

advancements

Technologies 

Processes, Materials, Enabling 

6
     

   

   

   

         

                 

               

                 

             

   

         

       

Advanced manufacturing and supply chains

Future supply

chains dependent

upon advanced

manufacturing

technologies

7

EERE’s Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative (CEMI):

1. Increase U.S. competitiveness in the production of clean energy products

2. Increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness across the board by increasing

energy productivity and use of clean and low‐cost fuels and feedstocks

Products that generate

clean energy

Products that save energy

and increase efficiency

g

Advanced

Manufacturing

Technologies

Combined Heat &

Power

Industrial Energy

Efficiency

Low‐Cost

Natural Gas

Supply chains and U.S. manufacturing competitiveness

8
                             

                                     

     

     

Market Analysis of Supply Chain Developments

             

     

             

                     

       

      

           

                             

                   

   

Sources: Lippman Consulting, U.S. Energy Information Administration. The Washington Post. Published on November 14, 2012, 8:00 p.m.

“.......natural gas is likely to remain 50 to 70 percent cheaper in the U.S. than in Europe and Japan ... ”

Boston Consulting Group analysis

Drivers affecting US Manufacturing

9

1. Characterize the current industry structure (develop a benchmark)

2. Map the value stream

3. Develop a high‐level understanding of manufacturing cost drivers

4. Identify areas where the United States has (or may have) viable manufacturing opportunities

5. Select technologies for analytical “deep dive”

• Refine market analysis

• Develop cost models

• Assess qualitative factors driving factory location decisions

Evaluating US Manufacturing competitiveness

Solar, wind batteries, carbon fiber, WBG semiconductors

Source: Industry Experts (2013). Carbon Fiber & Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics (CFRP) – A Global Market Overview

NA

$2.8/40

Europe

$3.8/47 Japan

$1.0/2

Asia

$2.4/17

ROW

$0.3/5

Regional carbon fiber reinforced plastics market values (billion $/# mfg. sites)

North

America

27%

Europe

37%

Japan

10%

Asia

23%

ROW

3%

Market Value Distribution

10
Advanced Manufacturing Office

             

         

               

             

         

          

     

                  

                 

       

           

     

       

       

   

   

     

     

   

   

  

       

         

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

         

         

     

• Transformative: Results in significant change in the life‐cycle

impact (energetic or economic) of manufactured products

• Pervasive: Creates value in multiple supply chains, diversifies the

end use/markets, applies to many industrial/use domains in both

existing and new products and markets

• Globally Competitive: Represents a competitive/strategic capability

for the United States

• Significant in Clean Energy Industry: Has a quantifiable energetic

or economic value (increase in value‐added, increase in export

value, increase in jobs created)

AMO targets investments in high impact technologies

Evaluating competitiveness starts with technologies

11

Wide range of metrics

Technology risks/uncertainties

Availability of verifiable testing capabilities

High capital cost

High material cost

Material supply chain insecurity

Lack of customer demand

Technical limitations

Lack of knowledge

Insufficient tools

Workforce availability

Other?

Internal assets (R&D; technology

experts, etc.)

Consultants

Commercial labs

Technology vendors

Universities

Shared R&D facility (capable of

precompetitive and protected work)

Other?

High level drivers:

Enabling?

Add‐value?

Add quality?

Reduce energy use?

Reduce materials waste?

Improve production speed?

Others?

More detailed metrics:

Production volume (units per year)

Process cycle time (time per unit)

Percent cost reduction (relative to current)

Percent weight reduction (relative to current)

Energy cost savings target?

Others?

Barriers

Relevant

Technology

Characteristics

Existing

Approaches

12
           

           

Life cycle approach to better understand system‐wide impacts

13

Flow of Energy through the U.S. Economy

14
Energy Use

gy

                   

   

               

               

       

       

   

         

     

   

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

     

  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

         

     

   

   

Ener

Production

The opportunity space: economy‐wide energy impacts resulting from

clean energy manufacturing.

Improve energy

production

Products for clean & efficient energy generation & delivery

Primary Energy Consumption by sectors, 2012 (Total 95 Quads)

Opportunity space impacted by

manufacturing:

• More effective utilization of

37 Q used

• Reduction of the 58 Quads

wasted * >30% is feedstock

Industrial Energy Use

23.9 Q Input*

19.1 Q used

4.8 rejected

Products for clean &

efficient

manufacturing

Manufacturing

Electricity

production

40 Q Input

14.3 Q

generated

25.7 Q

rejected

Products to

improve energy

use in buildings

Products to

improve

energy use in

transportation

Electricity

delivered

Improve energy

utilization

Non‐electricity

production

Energy

delivered

Improve energy

delivery

Transportation Energy

Use

26.7 Q input

5.6 Q used

21.1 rejected

Buildings Energy Use

18.9 Q input

12.3 Q used

6.6 Q rejected

15

16

Carbon Intensity, e.g.:

Feedstock substitution

Green chemistry

Biomass‐based fuels

Process changes

Energy Intensity e.g.:

Process Efficiency

Electrotechnologies

Process integration

Waste heat recovery

Supply chain integration

Use Intensity e.g.:

Recycling

Reuse and remanufacturing

Material efficiency and substitution

By‐products

Behavioral change

Product‐Service‐Systems

Systems Approach – What affects the system?

Drivers to reduce

energy &

emissions

through the

product lifecycle
                   

       

           

   

               

               

         

       

     

        

       

• National sample survey that collects information on the stock of

U.S. manufacturing establishment, their energy‐related building

characteristics, and their energy consumption and expenditures.

– 250,000 U.S. manufacturing plants

– Statistical sample of approximately 15,500 establishments are surveyed

representing 97% ‐ 98% of U.S. manufacturing payroll and energy

consumption

• MECS data released every four years

– Past footprints (1998, 2002, 2006)

– Current footprint (2010)

Where do we start? Energy data...

17

Fuel End Use by Sector

18
       

   

       

     

     

   

                 

                   

                   

   

   

         

             

Electrical End Use by Sector

19

Advanced Manufacturing

• Manufacturing energy/emissions

reductions

• Increased manufacturing efficiency

(lower energy, faster throughput, etc.)

• New and improved processes/product

enable

• Use and re‐use energy/emissions

reductions (e.g. light‐weighting)

• Increased value‐added

• Improved quality

• Improved service

Illustrative

enable

Target Technologies

• Identify opportunities for manufacturing impacts in clean energy production and use.

• Target timely, high‐impact, foundational clean energy technologies with the potential to

transform energy use and accelerate their introduction into the US economy.

Materials Manufacture Transport Use Disposal

/Re‐use Clean energy

technologies

• Wind

• Solar

• Hydro

• Geothermal

• CHP

Expand clean

energy production

Reduce energy use across the lifecycle

Economy‐wide lifecycle energy impacts – starts with technology

20
   

       

     

     

   

                 

                   

                   

   

   

         

             

   

   

       

Practical State of Current

Advanced Manufacturing

• Manufacturing energy/emissions

reductions

• Increased manufacturing efficiency

(lower energy, faster throughput, etc.)

• New and improved processes/product

enable

• Use and re‐use energy/emissions

reductions (e.g. light‐weighting)

• Increased value‐added

• Improved quality

• Improved service

Illustrative

enable

Target Technologies

• Identify opportunities for manufacturing impacts in clean energy production and use.

• Target timely, high‐impact, foundational clean energy technologies with the potential to

transform energy use and accelerate their introduction into the US economy.

Materials Manufacture Transport Use Disposal

/Re‐use Clean energy

technologies

• Wind

• Solar

• Hydro

• Geothermal

• CHP

Expand clean

energy production

Reduce energy use across the lifecycle

Bandwidth Studies

Economy‐wide lifecycle energy impacts – starts with technology

21

Current

Average

(CA)

State of

the Art

(SOA)

Practical

Minimum

(PM)

Thermodynamic

Minimum (TM)

Chemical Bandwidths ‐ CA, SOA, PM and TM

22

SB1 
   

Slide 22 

SB1 Julie, 

I would like to create a new slide before this one that helps viewers understand this figure. 

I would like to show the single pie chart first, maybe start with one generic colored pie labeled Current Savings by Process Area with 

Process Area 1, Process Area 2...thru 6. 

Then show the bar showing generic current opp, future opp, impr opp, no numbers in generic version. 

Finally link the two pies with the bar, maybe animation showing connecting expansion lines. 

All generic, no sector, no numbers. You can just use one of existing to mock up numbers. 

Sabine Brueske, 5/18/2014 

Energy Intensive Industries ‐ Bandwidths

23
             

Advanced Manufacturing Office              

       

                 

         

   

       

         

      

   

   

   

           

Expanding the perspective... Materials Flows through Industry (MFI)

24

Economy‐wide lifecycle energy impacts – starts with technology

Industry Energy Use Non‐Industry Energy Use

“...in our lifetime at least 50% of the engine

will be made by additive manufacturing”

– Robert McEwan GE

Reduces material use and

costs by up to 90%

Source: The Economist.

www.economist.com/node/18114221

• Lighter components

• Novel, energy‐efficient

designs

• Dramatically increased buy:fly

for complex components

• Less process heating

AeroMet process. Boeing, Northrup Grumman, NavAir W. Coblenz, DARPA/DSO 2000

Lifecycle Impact

25
   

       

     

     

   

                 

                   

                   

   

   

         

             

   

       

     

     

   

                 

                   

                   

   

   

         

             

     

             

Advanced Manufacturing

• Manufacturing energy/emissions

reductions

• Increased manufacturing efficiency

(lower energy, faster throughput, etc.)

• New and improved processes/product

enable

• Use and re‐use energy/emissions

reductions (e.g. light‐weighting)

• Increased value‐added

• Improved quality

• Improved service

Illustrative

enable

Target Technologies

• Identify opportunities for manufacturing impacts in clean energy production and use.

• Target timely, high‐impact, foundational clean energy technologies with the potential to

transform energy use and accelerate their introduction into the US economy.

Materials Manufacture Transport Use Disposal

/Re‐use Clean energy

technologies

• Wind

• Solar

• Hydro

• Geothermal

• CHP

Expand clean

energy production

Reduce energy use across the lifecycle

Economy‐wide lifecycle energy impacts – continues with technology

26

Advanced Manufacturing

• Manufacturing energy/emissions

reductions

• Increased manufacturing efficiency

(lower energy, faster throughput, etc.)

• New and improved processes/product

enable

• Use and re‐use energy/emissions

reductions (e.g. light‐weighting)

• Increased value‐added

• Improved quality

• Improved service

Illustrative

enable

Target Technologies

• Identify opportunities for manufacturing impacts in clean energy production and use.

• Target timely, high‐impact, foundational clean energy technologies with the potential to

transform energy use and accelerate their introduction into the US economy.

Materials Manufacture Transport Use Disposal

/Re‐use Clean energy

technologies

• Wind

• Solar

• Hydro

• Geothermal

• CHP

Expand clean

energy production

Reduce energy use across the lifecycle

Lifecycle Industry, Greenhouse gas, Technology, & Energy

through the Use‐Phase (LIGHTEn‐UP)

Economy‐wide lifecycle energy impacts – continues with technology

27
           

   

                 

                           

                         

                 

         

   

           

   

     

   

   

LIGHTEn‐UP Tool – Publically Available U.S. Energy Consumption Data

28

12 AEO† Tables

83 MECS†† Manufacturing ClassificaƟons, 6 Energy Sources x 22 End‐Use Types

2 AEO † Tables covering 11 Building Types, 5 Energy Sources x 10 End‐Use Types

2 AEO† Tables covering 3 Building Types, 6 Energy Sources x 14 End‐Use Types

20 AEO† Tables covering 17 Modes x 13 Energy Sources

† Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Tables

†† Manufacturing Energy ConsumpƟon Survey

Protocol – Distilling scenarios to Three Key Variables

Analyst’s Homework

Where?

(Sector & end‐use)

What?

(Energy Impact)

When?

(Start & End years)

Three Key Variables

For LIGHTEn‐UP Tool

Documentation

29
Where will the impact be?
 

AEO Sectors Industrial Commercial Residential Transportation

Reported in AEO

AEO Industrial

Food Paper Chemicals Steel Misc.

Sub‐Sectors

Disaggregated

By MECS Share‐weights

MECS

Grains Corn Sugar Dairy Tobac. Sub‐Sub‐Sectors

Disaggregated

By MECS Share‐weights

AEO Energy Sources by Electricity NG Pet Coal Steam Other

MECS Share‐weights

Disaggregated

By MECS Share‐weights

MECS End‐Use Boilers Process Machines Other

Of AEO Energy

What will the impact be?

Technical Adoption Potential % & Relative Energy Savings %

Measure Total Energy Consumption n,F,E‐U 1 Technical Adoption Potential M1, n,F,E‐U (M1) Relative Energy Savings M1, n,F,E‐U

Sector

(List)

Sub‐ Fuels Sub‐ Sector 1 (List)

(List) Sector n End‐Use T = End Year (List) (Energy)

௎ିா,ி,௡,ெଵ݈݅ܽݐ݁݊ݐ݋ܲ ݊݋݅ݐ݌݋݀ܣ

௎ିா,ி,௡݊݋݅ݐ݌݉ݑݏ݊݋ܥ ݕ݃ݎ݊݁ܧ

݄݈ܶ݁ܿ݊݅ܿܽ

ݏ݅݊݃ݒܵܽ ݕ݃ݎ݊݁ܧ	݁ݒ݅ݐܴ݈݁ܽ

݄݈ܶ݁ܿ݊݅ܿܽ

݈ܽݐ݋ܶ ൌ %	݈݅ܽݐ݁݊ݐ݋ܲ ݊݋݅ݐ݌݋݀ܣ

௎ିா,ி,௡,ெଵݏ݅݊݃ݒܵܽ ݕ݃ݎ݊݁ܧ ݁ݒ݅ݐܴ݈݁ܽ ൌ %

௎ିா,ி,௡,ெଵ ݈݅ܽܲݐ݁݊ݐ݋ ܣ݊݋݅ݐ݌݋݀ ݄݈ܶ݁ܿ݊݅ܿܽ

30

31
           

             

   

       

         

         

     

           

             

       

   

   

                               

                                   

   

                       

                  Sector

& Sub‐Sector

& End‐Use

Time – and when will the impact occur...?

32

Where: Which Sector & End‐Use? What Impact at End Year When?

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

Transportation

Sub‐Sector End‐Use

Technical

Adoption

Potential %

Relative

Energy

Savings %

Growth

Rate

Assumption

Start

Year

End

Year

Time

Energy

Start Year (Y1) End Year (Y2)

Technical Adoption Potential at End Year

Relative Energy Savings at End Year

Growth

Energy Impacts

Eq. 1

Eq. 2

Equations:

1) E t=Y2 = E t=0 x GR

2) E (TP) t=Y2 = E t=Y2 x % (TP)

3) E (RS) t=Y2 = E (TP) x % (RS)

Energy Impact = green area

Eq. 3

Base Year (Y0)

Where? What? When?

• LIGHTEn_UP shows fleet annual net energy impact (black line) increasing in initial years as CFRP production ramps up

• Beyond year 2030, net energy savings are realized as use phase benefits accrue (i.e. black line falls below x‐axis)

• Within industrial sector:

– Energy increases in carbon fiber and resin sectors due to increased CFRP production

– Energy decrease in steel sector due to avoided steel production

Output:

33
                           

                               

                       

       

     

             

           

         

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

• Per vehicle savings of 2600 MJ per PAN vehicle and 11,500 MJ per PO vehicle

• Net energy impact of PO (dashed line) in US LDV fleet also compared with PAN (dotted line)

• Significantly greater materials and manufacturing energy investment with PAN – net energy savings

temporally delayed and lesser magnitude

Energy Consumption Savings from Lightweighting

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics (CFRP) vs. Steel;

Improved CF (polyolefin) vs. current CF (polyacrylonotrile)

The importance of improving materials

and manufacturing energy use

The importance of

use phase energy

savings

Why manufacturing energy

use matters – accounting for

vehicle turnover.

34

Thank You!

Joe Cresko

Joe.cresko@ee.doe.gov

Team:

Alberta Carpenter – NREL

Sujit Das – ORNL

Diane Graziano ‐ANL

Maggie Mann – NREL

William Morrow – LBNL

Eric Masanet ‐ Northwestern

Sachin Nimbalkar ‐ ORNL

Arman Shehabi ‐ LBNL

35
 – 

-

 

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Copyright © 2014 University of Kentucky 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

• Sustainability is a global phenomenon 

• Sustainability IS NOT Sustainment, but is the basis for sustainable growth 

and value creation 

• Designing sustainable products and developing sustainable manufacturing 

processes have been a major research focus in sustainable manufacturing 

Introduction: 

Sustainability as the Basis for Sustainable Growth and Value Creation 
 – 

-

 – 

-

   

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainability is the driver for innovation 

Innovation promotes accelerated growth in manufacturing 

Manufacturing is the engine for wealth generation and 

societal well-being 

Societal well-being and economic growth heavily depend on the 

level and quality of education and training 

Innovation-based Sustainable Manufacturing 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Environment Society

Economy 

Technology 

and 

Human Resources 

Education & Training

Innovation Creativity

The Foundation of Sustainable Development 
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainable Manufacturing: Definitions 

 Numerous definitions and descriptions exist for sustainable manufacturing: 

• US Department of Commerce, 2009 

• NACFAM, 2009 

• NIST, 2010 

• ASME, 2011, 2013 

• NSF 2013 

 Almost all definitions fall short of showing the connectivity among the integral 

elements – No connectivity shown between sustainability and 

innovation or value creation 

 Sustainable manufacturing offers a new way of producing functionally 

superior products innovative sustainable technologies and 

manufacturing methods through the coordination of capabilities across the 

entire supply chain, not just the process chain 

 Sustainable manufacturing must enable sustainable value creation for all 

stakeholders. 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainable Manufacturing: Definition 

Source: Jayal et al. (201o) and Jawahir (2012) – Adapted from US Department of Commerce (2009) 

Sustainable manufacturing must: 

• demonstrate reduced negative environmental impact, 

• offer improved energy and resource efficiency, 

• generate minimum quantity of wastes, 

• provide operational safety, and 

• offer improved personal health 

while maintaining and/or improving the product and 

process quality 

Sustainable Manufacturing: Revised Definition 
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainable Manufacturing: Basic Elements 

Expectations: 

• Reducing energy consumption 

• Reducing waste 

• Reducing material utilization 

• Enhancing product durability 

• Increasing operational safety 

• Reducing toxic dispersion 

• Reducing health hazards/Improving health conditions 

• Consistently improving manufacturing quality 

• Improving recycling, reuse and remanufacturing 

• Maximizing sustainable sources of renewable energy 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainable 

Manufacturing 

Products Processes 

Systems 

ISM Focus 
 – 

-

         

 – 

-

         

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Emphasis on all four product life‐cycle stages

Manufacturing

Pre‐

manufacturing

Use

Post‐use

Holistic and Total Life-cycle Approach 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Closed-loop Material Flow – The 6R Approach 

3R

CONCEPT

6R

CONCEPT

Source: Jawahir et al. (2006)
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainable Manufacturing 

(Innovative, 6R-based) 

Innovation Elements 

Remanufacture 

Redesign 

Recover 

Recycle 

Reuse 

Reduce 

Evolution of Sustainable Manufacturing 

Lean Manufacturing 

(Waste Reduction-based) 

Green Manufacturing 

(Environmentally-benign, 3R-based) 

Traditional Manufacturing 

(Substitution-based) 

Time 

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

Stakeholder Value, $ 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

PM M U Recoverable 

? 

Recover Reusable 

? 

Remanufacturable 

? 

Remanufacture 

Redesign 

(for next generation 

product) 

Recycle 

Reduce 

Reuse 

Landfill 

PU 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes No 

Total Life-cycle 6R Applications for Sustainable Products 
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Overview of Existing Sustainability Measurement Systems 

A list of existing measurement systems 

Indicator Set components 

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 70 indicators 

Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) 12 criteria based single indicator 

2005 Environmental Sustainability Indicators 76 building blocks 

2006 Environment Performance Indicators 19 Indicators 

United Nations Committee on Sustainable Development Indicators 50 indicators 

OECD Core indicators 46 indicators 

Indicator database 409 indicators 

Ford Product Sustainability Index 8 indicators 

GM Metrics for Sustainable Manufacturing 46 Metrics 

ISO 14031 environmental performance evaluation 155 example indicators 

Wal-Mart Sustainability Product Index 15 questions 

Environmental Indicators for European Union 60 indicators 

Eco-Indicators 1999 3 main factors based single indicator 

(Feng et al. 2010) 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Overview of Existing Sustainability Measurement Systems (Cont.) 

Comparison of the existing measurement systems 

(Feng et al. 2010) 

NIST‐UK
 – 

-

 

• 

 – 

-

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Product and Process Metrics for 

Sustainable Manufacturing: NIST-sponsored Project 

Project Title: Development of Metrics, Metrology and a Framework for Product-Process Ontology for 

Interoperability in Model-Based Sustainable Manufacturing 

Project Team: Faculty: Dr. I.S. Jawahir, Dr. F. Badurdeen, Dr. O.W. Dillon, Jr., Dr. K. Rouch 

Graduate Students: T. Lu, M. Shuaib, X. Zhang, A. Huang, C. Stovall 

Sponsor: Industry partners: 

Project Objective: To develop and implement tools and principles for quantitative evaluation of 

manufactured products and their manufacturing processes from the aspect of 

sustainable manufacturing 

Metrics for Sustainable Manufacturing 

• Manufacturing is an engine for wealth generation, and 

achieving sustainability in manufacturing is crucial to economy 

• There is a critical need for developing improved metrics to 

evaluate the sustainability performance of a product and its 

manufacturing processes 

• Metrics can help to improve decision-making with optimized 

product and process design for sustainable manufacturing 

Project Summary 

• The major sustainability elements 

and metrics of products and 

processes for sustainable 

manufacturing identified 

• A framework for developing 

comprehensive product and 

process metrics for sustainable 

manufacturing developed 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Design for

Environmental

Impact

Design for

Recyclability/

Remanufacturability

Design for

Societal

Impact

Design for

Functionality

Design for

Manufacturability

Design for

Resource

Utilization

and

Economy

Design for

Sustainability

(DFS)

Regional and

Global Impact

Energy Efficiency/

Power Consumption

Assembly

Service Life/

Durability

Social Impact

Product Design for Sustainability 

Jawahir et al., 2006 
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Hierarchical Structure of Product Sustainability 

Evaluation Method 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Product Clusters 
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Metrics Clusters Example Metrics 

Unit 

(D/L 

dimensionless) 

PM 

(premfg.) 

M 

(mfg.) 

U 

(use) 

PU 

(postuse) 

Residues Emissions Rate (carbon-dioxide, sulphuroxides, nitrous-oxides etc.) mass/unit √ √ √ √

Energy Use and Efficiency Remanufactured Product Energy kWh/unit √ √ √

Maintenance/ Repair Energy kWh/unit √

Product End-of-Life 

Management Design-for-Environment Expenditure $/$ (D/L) √

Material Use and efficiency Restricted Material Usage Rate mass/unit √ √ √

Water Use and Efficiency Recycled Water Usage Rate gallons/unit √ √ √

Cost Product Operational Cost $/unit √

Innovation Average Disassembly Cost $/unit √

Profitability Profit $/unit √

Product Quality 

Defective Products Loss $/unit √

Warranty Cost Ratio $/unit √

Education Employee Training Hours/unit √ √ √

Customer 

Satisfaction 

Repeat Customer Ratio (D/L) √ √

Post-Sale Service Effectiveness (D/L) √

Product End-of-Life 

Management Ease of Sustainable Product Disposal $/unit √

Product Safety 

and Societal Well-being 

Product Processing Injury Rate incidents/unit √ √ √

Landfill Reduction mass/unit √ √ √ √

Example Metrics for Product Clusters and Life-cycle Stages 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Personnel

Health

Energy

Consumption

Environmental

Friendliness

Operational

Safety

Manufacturing

Cost

Sustainable

Manufacturing

Processes

Waste

Management

(Wanigarathne et al., 2004) 

Process Sustainability Elements 
 – 

-

 

 

 

 

 – 

-

- 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Environmental Impact Energy Consumption Cost 

GHG emission from energy consumption of the 

line (ton CO2 eq./unit) 

Ratio of renewable energy used (%) 

Total water consumption (ton/unit) 

Mass of restricted disposals (kg/unit) 

Noise level outside the factory (dB) 

In-line energy consumption (kWh/unit) 

Energy consumption on maintaining facility 

environment (kWh/unit) 

Energy consumption on transportation into/out of 

the line (kWh/unit) 

Ratio of use of renewable energy (%) 

Labor cost ($/unit) 

Cost for use of energy ($/unit) 

Cost of consumables ($/unit) 

Maintenance cost ($/unit) 

Cost of by-product treatment ($/unit) 

Indirect labor cost ($/unit) 

Operator Safety Personnel Health Waste Management 

Exposure to Corrosive/toxic chemicals 

(points/person) 

Exposure to high energy components 

(points/person) 

Injury rate (injuries/unit) 

Chemical contamination of working environment 

(mg/m3) 

Mist/dust level (mg/m3) 

Noise level (dB) 

Physical load index (dimensionless) 

Health related absenteeism rate (%) 

Mass of disposed consumables (kg/unit) 

Consumables reuse ratio (%) 

Mass of mist generation (kg/unit) 

Mass of disposed chips and scraps (kg/unit) 

Ratio of recycled chips and scraps (%) 

Process Sustainability Metrics 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Line Level 

In line energy 

consumption 

Workstation Level 

Energy consumption of 

machine operations 

Energy consumption of 

communication / controlling 

system 

Energy consumption of 

illumination 

Energy consumption of in 

line transportation 

Operation Level 

Energy consumption of the 

centrifuge 

Energy consumption of the 

main spindle motor 

Energy consumption of the 

coolant supply pump 

Energy consumption of the oil 

pressure pump 

Energy consumption of the 

mist collector, cooler and 

control unit 

Energy consumption of the 

servos 

Three-level Process Sustainability Metrics for Energy Consumption 
 – 

-

 – 

-

 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Process Sustainability Clusters and Sub-clusters 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

  



















 







 

13 

9 

3 

1 

8 

4 3 

1 

3 

1 

i i 

cC

i w 

i i C i 

c 

i w i 

cC

i Pr odS I Ec Ev So w

SC jM w

C SC w j

m 

n kk

sc 

m jj

 

 





ProdSI and ProcSI Evaluation 





    



        

23 

22 

21 

19 

18 

15 

14 

10 

21 

6 

1 2 

1 

3 

1 

4 

1 

5 

1 

6 

1 

6 

1 

i 

i 

sc 

i 

i 

i 

sc 

i 

i 

i 

sc 

i 

i 

i 

sc 

i 

i 

ProcSI i CCC w SC w SC w SC w SC

SC j jw Mm 

n   j 
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Machining

cost

Energy

consumption

Waste

management

EnvironmentalImpact

PersonnelHealth

Operator

safety

Economy

6.50 Society

8.00

Environment

9.00

(a) ProdSI (b) ProcSI 

Examples of ProdSI and ProcSI 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Sustainability Improvement in Products and Processes 

Case studies were conducted on three major manufactured products 

‐
 – 

-

 – 

-

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

Current State: 

• Considerable effort in the manufacturing industry, with corporate commitment to 

sustainability 

• Promotion of dedicated educational and training programs and workforce development 

Limitations: 

• Slow progress and limited effectiveness in implementing sustainable practices --- No 

economic benefits shown, and no standards despite significant push for regulatory 

measures 

• Difficulty in identifying relevant tools and techniques for evaluation 

• Complexity in measuring and quantifying sustainability elements in manufactured 

products and manufacturing processes 

Outlook and Opportunity: 

• Metrics-based evaluation of sustainable products and processes offers an new 

opportunity for quantitative evaluation of sustainability in manufacturing 

• Sustainability is the driver for innovation 

• Significantly improved manufacturing productivity through product/process innovation 

Implementing Product and Process Sustainability Metrics 

NIST UMD Workshop on Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing 

June 12 13, 2014 

• Project Sponsor: NIST (Award No: 60NANB10D009) 2010-13 

• Industry Participants: 

GE-Aviation 

Toyota Motor Manufacturing 

Lexmark International 

Acknowledgements 
Perspectives of an 

Owner & Builder 

on Metrics 

June 12, 2014 

James Dalton, P.E., SES 

Chief, Engineering & Construction 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

An Owner-Builder 

Perspective 

As we design and build... 

 Data measured from prior project informs new design 

efforts 

 Energy models are not predictive of energy use 

 Holding designers, builders and users to a meter 

reading is difficult 

 Smart Meters and digital control system architectures 

can be a challenge 

 Maintaining new technologies is difficult 

 Struggling with mechanical systems 
Some additional thoughts ...... 

 Measure only what we need to know 

 How are we informed what that is? 

 Are dashboards more effective than meters? 

 Is there a role for BIM? 

 Require measures that hold a designer/builder 

accountable 

 We have had success with air tightness and infrared testing 

 Help us discern Designer/Building/User affects on building 

performance 

 Need something more.... 

An Owner-Builder 

Perspective (continued) 

Sample Army MDMS Display 

work in progress 

Compare against 

reference building monthly 

consumption to detect 

seasonal trends 

Compare annual EUI of ‘your’ 

building with reference building 

Compare across 

climate zones for 

same building type 

Compare 

across 

building 

types in 

same 

climate 

zone 
Questions? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Workshop on Measurement Science for

Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

International perspectives on metrics

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Bo Kasal, 

Fraunhofer WKI, Braunschweig, 

Germany 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

The Fr aunhof er-Gesellschaf t 

Resear ch an d d ev el o pm en t 

 Application-oriented research of direct use to businesses and for the benefit to 

society 

 Application-oriented basic research 

 Departmental research for the German Federal Ministry of Defense 

Busi ness co m mu n i t y 

 Institutes work as profit centers 

 One-third of the budget consists of income from industrial projects 

 Spinoffs by Fraunhofer researchers are encouraged 

Con t r act ing par t n er s/ client s 

 Industrial and service companies 

 Public sector 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fraunhofer is the largest organization for applied

research in Europe

 66 Fraunhofer institutes and independent research units

 More than 24,000 employees, the majority educated in the natural

sciences or engineering 

 An annual research volume of 2.1 billion euros,

© Fraunhofer WKI 

of which 1.7 billion euros is generated through contract research. 

 2/3 of this research revenue derives from contracts with industry 

and from publicly financed research projects. 

 1/3 is contributed by the German federal government and the 

Län d er governments in the form of institutional financing. 

 International collaboration through representative offices in Europe, 

the US, Asia and the Middle East 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

J o s e p h v o n 

F r a u n h o f e r 

D i r e c t o r a n d p a r t n e r 

i n a g l a s s w o r k s 

D i s c o v e r y o f t h e 

“ F r a u n h o f e r l i n e s ” i n 

t h e s o l a r s p e c t r u m 

N e w m e t h o d s f o r 

p r o c e s s i n g l e n s e s 

R e s e a r c h v o l u m e : 

a p p r o x . 2 . 0 b i l l i o n 

e u r o s a n n u a l l y 

R e s e a r c h a n d 

d e v e l o p m e n t o n 

b e h a l f o f i n d u s t r y 

a n d s t a t e 

m p 3 m u s i c f o r m a t , 

w h i t e L E D , h i g h -

r e s o l u t i o n t h e r m a l 

c a m e r a 

R e s e a r c h e r 

I n v e n t o r 

E n t r e p r e n e u r 

T h e F r a u n h o f e r -

G e s e l l s c h a f t 
 

 

 

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Human Resources

2008 - 2012

© Fraunhofer WKI 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Adaptronics 

Ambient Assisted Living AAL 

Building Innovation 

Digital Cinema 

E-Government 

Energy 

Additive Manufacturing Food Chain Management 

Cloud Computing 

Advancer 

Nanotechnology 

Simulation 

Optic Surfaces 

Photocatalysis 

Cleaning Technology Polymer Surfaces POLO 

Water Systems (SysWasser) 

Traffic and Transportation 

Vision 

Automobile Production 

Lightweight Structures 

Embedded Systems 

Fraunhof er Alliances 
 

 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

© Fraunhofer WKI 
© Fraunhofer WKI 

 

Braunschw eig

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Phases of co nst ruct i on 

 land development phase 

 material production phase 

 construction phase 

 building function/use phase 

 maintenance and repair phase 

 deconstruction and recycling phase 
 

 

Land development

 parcel into lots

 storm water management

 roads

 sewer, water, power

© Fraunhofer WKI 

 communication 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

M at er ial p r o duct ion ph ase 

 production of building materials 

 can be speculative if not defined for a specific project with known 

suppliers 

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5988100,00.html 
 

 

Construction phase

 can be speculative if not defined for a specific project with known

suppliers and manufacturers of goods

© Fraunhofer WKI 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Bui ldi ng f u nct io n/ use phase 

 can be measured/quantified 

 building can be instrumented and data collected 

 energy use 

 water use 

 building comfort parameters....... 
 

 

 

Maintenance and repair phase

 speculative

 no good data available

 hard to predict

© Fraunhofer WKI 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Deconst ruct ion 

 speculative 

 no good data avaiable 

 hard to predict 
 

 

 

 

 

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Reliabilit y © Fraunhofer WKI 

0 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

So urces of un cer t ai n t y 

 Random error and statistical variation (measurement error) 

 Systematic error and subjective judgment 

 Linguistic imprecision (Assigning quantitative parameter estimates based 

on qualitative descriptors) 

 Variability (data variability) 

 Inherent randomness and unpredictability 

 Expert uncertainty and disagreement 

 Approximation 

1 Shannon M. Lloyd and Robert Ries. (2007) Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life-Cycle Assessment A Survey of Quantitative 

Approaches. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Vil. 11.1. 
 

 

Parameters and frequency of

measurements – building envelope

Parameters measured

Frequency

Component/Parameter

Temperature RWVP Acceleration/

Vibrations

Noise

intensity

Formaldehyd 

concentration

VOC

concentration

Light

intensity

Air

exchange

continuously continuously triggered triggered daily/weekly or 

random

daily/weekly or 

random

hourly random

Building envelope

Walls x x

Openings x x

Roof x x

Interior partitions x

© Fr aunhof er WKI 

Ceilings/Floors x x x 

Indoor climate Rooms x x x x x x x 

Energy 

consumption/mechanical 

systems (HVAC) 

Rooms 

Mech. 

systems 

x x x x 

Ageing of materials x x x x x 

Water consumption 

Wastewater discharge 

Building continuously 

Exterior environment 

(weather station) 

wind, rain, 

snow fall, 

sun 

radiation 

x x x x x 

© Fr aunhof er WKI 
 

 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

© Fraunhofer WKI 
 

 

 

 

Indoor air quality

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Salthammer (2013) Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 52, 3320-3327 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Ind oor ai r q ualit y-exam ple of 

inconsist enci es (HCHO) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indoor air quality-example of

inconsistencies (HCHO)

© Fraunhofer WKI 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

Assesment o f bu i ldi ng sust ai n abil it y 

 considered „soft science“ 

 number of standards available 

 many parameters subjective or speculative 1 

 using of materials from renewable resources makes the building not 

automatically sustainable 

 stochastic approaches desirable 1,2 

Zeit [h] 

0 100 200 300 400 500 

Emissionsrate [μg HCHO / h] 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

1. Shannon M. Lloyd and Robert Ries. (2007) Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing 

Uncertainty in Life-Cycle Assessment A Survey of Quantitative Approaches. Journal of Industrial 

Ecology. Vil. 11.1. 

2. 2. Miller, Shelie A., Stephen Moysey, Benjamin Sharp and Jose Alfaro. (2013) “A Stochastic 

Approach to Model Dynamic Systems in Life Cycle Assessment.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 

17(3): 352–362. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

International prospective

 7 billion people on the planet

 5.9 billion living in developing world

 44% (3 billion) no access to sanitation

 24% of people living under $1.25/day

 80% of people living under $10/day

© Fraunhofer WKI 

 people in rich countries use 10x more natural resources than those in 

poor countries 

Ou r ab i l i t y t o m o v e t o w ar d s su st a i n ab i l i t y m ay b e l i m i t ed . 

Sources: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2011/Table01.pdf; http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/default.htm (table 

1c); http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf; http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010e/i3010e.pdf (State of the World’s 

Forests 2012); Williams, M. 2002. Deforesting the earth: from prehistory to global crisis. Chicago, USA, University of Chicago Press. 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html; 

http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1; http://www.prb.org/pdf12/2012-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf 

Per h ap s, o u r so l u t i o n s sh o u l d b e a d j u st ed t o t h e n eed s o f t h e 8 0 % 

o f t h e p o p u l at i o n 

© Fraunhofer WKI 

From Barry Goodell, VPI&SU 
HIGH PERFORMANCE 

GREEN BUILDINGS 

CURRENT & FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEASURES OF 

RESULTS ON THE 

GROUND 

A DECADE OF GREEN BUILDING 
>2,000 GREEN ATTRIBUTES 

AND PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 

LEED AND ENERGY STAR: 74,265 BUILDINGS WITH 
ENERGY 

ASHRAE 90.1 

TITLE 24 

ENERGY STAR 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

GREEN POWER 

WATER 

FIXTURE EFFICIENCY 

LANDSCAPING 

PROCESS 

SITE DESIGN 

ACCESSIBILITY 

STORMWATER 

HEAT ISLAND 

MATERIALS 

SOURCE 

RECYCLED CONTENT 

END-OF-LIFE 

OCCUPANTS 

SATISFACTION 

COMFORT 

CONTROL 

IMPLIED VALUE OF METRICS 

RANK RATING SYSTEMS 

1 OPERATIONAL ENERGY 

2 OPERATIONAL WATER 

3 MATERIALS 

4 OCCUPANT BEHAVIOR & PERFORMANCE 
IMPLIED VALUE OF METRICS 

RANK RATING 

SYSTEMS ENV IMPACT 

1 OPERATIONAL ENERGY OCCUPANT BEHAVIOR & 

PERFORMANCE 

2 OPERATIONAL WATER OPERATIONAL ENERGY 

3 MATERIALS MATERIALS 

4 BEHAVIOR & 

SATISFACTION OPERATIONAL WATER 

IMPLIED VALUE OF METRICS 

RANK RATING 

SYSTEMS 

ENV 

IMPACT 

FINANCIAL 

IMPACT 

1 OPERATIONAL 

ENERGY 

OCCUPANT 

BEHAVIOR & 

PERFORMANCE 

OCCUPANT 

BEHAVIOR & 

PERFORMANCE 

2 OPERATIONAL 

WATER 

OPERATIONAL 

ENERGY 

OPERATIONAL 

ENERGY 

3 MATERIALS MATERIALS OPERATIONAL 

WATER 

4 BEHAVIOR & 

SATISFACTION 

OPERATIONAL 

WATER MATERIALS 
0 

350 

700 

1,050 

1,400

Relative Data Availability 

Human performance 

Energy 

A SCENARIO OF FUTURE 

DATA AVAILABILITY 

EXPLORE: INSIGHT.GBIG.ORG 

CONTACT: CPYKE@USGBC.ORG 

FOLLOW @CHRISPYKE 

INTERESTED IN THIS CHALLENGE? 
Introduction to Breakout 

Sessions 

Richard N. Wright, Dist.M.ASCE, NAE 

June 12, 2014 

Sustainability in Construction 

and Manufacturing 

• No separation between construction and 

manufacturing because constructed facilities 

are manufactured products. 

• For both, we are interested in sustainability 

over their whole life cycles. 

• Generally similar measurement issues are 

expected, but distinctions should be noted 

as they occur to a breakout session team. 

2 
Objectives of Breakout 

Sessions 

• Identify knowledge gaps and research needs relating to 

measurement science for sustainable construction and 

manufacturing 

• Provide suggestions in the form of problems, 

descriptions, analyses, recommendations and actions 

for the consideration of NIST 

3 

Breakout Sessions 

1. Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, 

indicators and ratings) 

2. Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, 

sustainability-resilience synergy and interdependencies) 

3. Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses 

and treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

4. Economic, environmental and social aspects (valuation, 

impacts and behavior). 

4 
Breakouts Are Not Silos 

We expect synergies to arise as similar or identical 

issues/problems are identified and dealt with in two or 

more breakouts. 

Breakouts do provide different starting foci. 

We hope this helps capture the most important 

measurement science needs. 

Draw upon the workshop papers and presentations and 

your own experiences. 

5 

Breakout Forms 

1. Problem Definition: Problem Name, Problem 

Description (Drafted in advance by the co-moderators) 

2. Recommendation: Name, Root Cause, 

Recommendation, Action Plan, Roles 

3. Breakout Team: Name, Affiliation, Email, Phone 

6 
1. Problem Description 

Problem Title Problem Description 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

2. Problem Analysis 

Problem or Issue: 

Root Cause: 

Recommendation: 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Industry 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
3. Breakout Team 

Name/Affiliation Email/Phone 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Schedule 

In advance, co-moderators select a person to provide a summary of 

outcomes at the closing session. 

8:45: Problem definitions -identify, describe and assign key problems/issues 

to working groups (one or more participants) 

9:15: Problems analysis - working groups analyze individual 

problems/issues 

9:45: Break 

10:00: Presentation/discussion of analyses 

10:45: Working groups complete analyses responding to discussions. 

11:00: Breakouts end. 

10 
   

NIST-UMD Workshop on 

Measurement Science for 

Sustainable Construction 

and Manufacturing 

Dr. Joannie Chin

Acting Deputy Director

Engineering Laboratory

NIST

Charge to the 

Breakout Groups 

NIST’s Mission 

To promote U.S. 

innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by 

advancing measurement 

science, standards, 

and technology in ways 

that enhance economic 

security and improve our 

quality of life 
NIST Laboratories 

Engineering Lab (EL) Mission 

To promote U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness in areas of critical national 

priority by anticipating and meeting the 

measurement science and standards needs 

for technology-intensive manufacturing, 

construction, and cyber-physical systems in 

ways that enhance economic prosperity and 

improve the quality of life. 
Nataliya Hora/Shutterstock

EL Core Capabilities 

Pryzmat/Shutterstock Pryzmat/Shutterstock 

Four Oaks/Shutterstock 

Nataliya Hora/Shutterstock 

ssuaphotos/Shutterstock 

Intelligent 

sensing, control, 

robotics and 

automation 

Systems integration, 

information modeling, 

model-based 

engineering 

Building and 

renewable energy, 

indoor environment, 

and building systems 

performance 

measurement 

Sustainability, 

durability, and 

service life 

prediction of 

engineered 

materials 

Fire protection, 

fire physics, 

materials 

flammability 

Structural 

analysis, disaster 

and failure studies 

Partnering Strategies with Industry, 

Academia and Other Federal Agencies 

• Planning and Roadmapping 

Workshops 

• Testbeds, Facilities, 

and Tools 

• Codes and Standards 

Engagement 

• Cooperation Mechanisms 

• NIST Sponsored Events 
  

   

     

   

Engineering Laboratory

Strategic Goals

• Smart Manufacturing, Construction,

and Cyber‐Physical Systems

• Sustainable and Energy‐Efficient

Manufacturing, Materials, and

Infrastructure

• Disaster‐Resilient Buildings,

Infrastructure, and Communities

Sustainable and Energy-Efficient 

Manufacturing, Materials, and 

Infrastructure 

• Sustainable Manufacturing 

• Sustainable Engineered 

Materials 

• Net-Zero Energy, HighPerformance Buildings 

• Embedded Intelligence in 

Buildings 
NZEHPB, 

Sustainable 

Engineered

Materials, 

Fire-safe 

Materials 

Current Sustainability 

Programs in EL 

BEES and BIRDS 

• Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability (BEES) 

– Sustainability Performance of Similar Building 

Products 

• Building Industry Reporting and Design 

for Sustainability (BIRDS) 

– Sustainability Performance of Whole Building 

Designs 

Energy 

Simulation 

Life Cycle 

Assessment

Life Cycle 

Costing 

Sustainability 

Economic

Energy Environment 
Research Facilities and 

Testbeds 

• Virtual Cement and Concrete 

Testing Laboratory 

• Integrating Sphere for Service 

Life Prediction of Materials 

• Virtual Cybernetic Building 

Testbed 

• Smart Grid Testbed Facility 

• Solar Photovoltaic Systems 

Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility 

• Demonstrate net-zero energy for 

residence similar in appearance 

to surrounding homes 

• Provide a test bed for in-situ 

measurements of advanced 

components and systems 

• Quantify energy use reductions 

using embedded intelligence 

• Compare actual installed 

performance to controlled 

laboratory measurements 
Breakout Groups 

• Workshop Objective: 

Identify knowledge gaps and research needs in 

measurement science for sustainable construction and 

manufacturing. 

•	 Measurement Science: 

–	 Scientific and technical basis for standards, codes, and 

practices 

–	 Includes: performance metrics; measurement and testing 

methods; predictive modeling and simulation tools; test 

and calibration protocols; reference materials, artifacts 

and data; evaluation of technologies, systems, and 

practices (including uncertainty analysis); devices and 

instruments 

Breakout Groups 

• Breakout Categories: 

– Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, 

indicators and ratings) 

– Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, 

sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies) 

– Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses 

and treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

– Economic, environmental and social aspects 

(valuation, impacts and behavior). 
Anticipated Outcomes 

•	 Guidance document that will serve as a 

roadmap for NIST’s future programs in 

sustainability, and help facilitate our technology 

transfer and implementation mission. 

•	 Document will include: 

– Definition of sustainability relevant to construction and 

manufacturing 

–	 Appropriate sustainability metrics 

–	 Systems level considerations 

–	 Economic valuation and impacts 

–	 Research gaps and needs 
1. Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, 

indicators and ratings) 

Problem Title Problem Description 

Sustainability science is 

unclear 

Bring together physical, natural, and social sciences and 

engineering for defining sustainability 

Measuring is challenging 

(2a) 

Not all things we care about 

are measurable (2b) 

Identify metrics and requirements for assessing 

sustainability 

Find ways of introducing weights of these things we care 

about 

Value issues need further 

vetting 

Develop a framework for incorporating different value 

judgments 

Uncertainty in measurement Develop methodologies for assessing uncertainty 

NIST Workshop on Measurement ScieNo all things we care are measurable (2b) 

Find ways of introducing weights of these things we care about 

Breakout Team 1 Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings) 

Problem or Issue: Sustainability 

science is unclear 

Bring together physical, natural, and social 

sciences and engineering for defining 

sustainability 

Root Cause: Not all aspects of sustainability is measurable 

Multi-facets of sustainability exist 

Subjectivity and selectivity involved 

Recommendation: Integration of multi-disciplinary aspects 

Develop quantitative methodologies for evaluating sustainability 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

1. Identify experts in social, economic and 

behavioral sciences along with urban 

planners(e.g. dedicated workshops, meetings, 

etc.) 

2. Integrate deterministic and non-deterministic 

methodologies 

3. Promote educational and training programs 

(need for new knowledge and data) 

Industry 

All stakeholders to collaborate. All segments of 

construction and manufacturing industries must be 

engaged. 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 1 Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings) 

Problem or Issue: Value issues need further 

vetting 

Identify or develop a framework for incorporating different 

value judgments 

Value judgments quantify the relative importance of 

components of sustainability 

Science needs to include and quantify consequences of 

impact of those components; combining disciplines to 

accomplish this task is hard because of disciplinary norms 

Root Cause: Sustainability & decisions are a combination of science and value judgments. 

It is critical to assure that these are distinguished. 

Recommendation: Provide frameworks for prioritizing and valuing the relative importance of the 

components or elements of sustainability. 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Assess the state of the science and application as 

well as identify research gaps needed by industries 

Fund research on value framework that is 

translational, multidisciplinary and includes elements 

of sustainability that are challenging to measure and 

prioritize 

Demonstrate and apply the framework in construction 

and manufacturing 

Industry 

Collaborate with researchers, fund, define 

challenges 

Government 

Fund, prioritize, conduct assessment 

Academia 

Conduct research, assess, demonstrate, and 

disseminate 

NGO 

Fund, collaborate and demonstrate 

Software/Hardware 

Develop algorithms, measurement/data collection 

Breakout 

Team 1 

Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings) 

Problem or 

Issue: 

Measuring is challenging (2a) 

Not all things we care about are 

measurable (2b) 

Identify measurements and requirements for 

assessing sustainability 

Find ways of introducing weights of these things we 

care about 

Root Cause: Dynamics of the multidimensional nature of issues 

Values are relative and not easily quantifiable 

Recommenda 

tion: 

Create a framework for system identification 

Identify metrics and indicators 

Identify or create methodology for assigning relative weights to values that we care about 

Identify or create assessment methodology for decision making 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Create a framework for system identification 

Identify metrics and indicators 

Identify or create methodology for assigning relative 

weights to values that we care about 

Identify or create assessment methodology for 

decision making 

Industry 

All stakeholders to collaborate 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 1 Measurement science (definition, standards, metrics, indicators and ratings) 

Problem or Issue: Uncertainty in 

measurement 

Develop methodologies for assessing 

uncertainty 

Root Cause: Sources: Definition, time horizon, interactions (systems) 

Types: Variability, lack of information, approximations 

Quantification methods: Probabilistic & non-probabilistic frameworks 

Recommendation: Identify sources, Identify types, Develop frameworks/methods to assess 

uncertainty 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Primary Roles 

1. Identify high-value problem areas as anchors for 

uncertainty-related tasks. 

2. For each problem area, follow recommendation 

above. 

3. Generalize Step 2 outcomes. 

4. Formalize best practices, guidelines and 

standards. 

5. Disseminate and educate. 

6. Obtain feedback and improve steps 1 to 5. 

Industry 

Establish relevance, feasibility 

Government 

Provide leadership, policy, investment and incentives 

Academia 

Fundamental research, training 

Human resource development 

NGO 

Provide liaison among society, researchers and 

practitioners 

Software/Hardware 

Software needed to implement methods 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Team 1. Measurement science 

Name/Affiliation Email/Phone 

Anne Caldas/ANSI acaldas@ansi.org/212-642-4914 

Subhas Sikdar/EPA Sikdar.subhas@epa.gov/513-569-7528 

Daniel Castro/Georgia Tech dcastro@gatech.edu/404-385-6964 

I.S. Jawahir/University of Kentucky is.Jawahir@uky.edu/859-323-3239 

Bilal Ayyub/University of Maryland ba@umd.edu/301-405-1956 

Stephen Mawn/ASTM smawn@astm.org/610-832-9726 

Sankaran Mahadevan/Vanderbilt Sankaran.mahadevan@Vanderbilt.edu/ 

615-322-3040 

Melissa Kenney/University of Maryland Melissa.kenney@noaa.gov/202-419-3477 

Nasim Uddin/University of Alabama nuddin@uab.edu/205-934-8432 

Mohammad Heidarinejad/University of 

Maryland 

muh182@umd.edu/301-405-1624 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainabl Joannie Chin/NIST e Construction and Manufact Joannie.chin@nist.gov/301-975-6815 uring, June 12-13, 2014 
2. Systems Break-Out Session: Selected 3 Problems 

Problem Title Problem Description 

System boundary 

setting 

Since all systems are connected from micro to macro scale, 

how can one establish boundaries for analysis? 

Loss of fidelity in 

aggregation 

How can one perform aggregated, high-level system-level 

analysis without losing important fine-grain details? 

Coupling of human and 

natural processes 

What methods are useful for characterizing the linkages 

among mechanistic processes designed by humans and 

organic processes that have evolved in nature? 

Predictive assessment 

for sustainability and 

resilience 

How can decision makers assess the potential ecological, 

economic, and social impacts of new policies or technologies 

a priori without empirical knowledge? 

Understanding crossscale interactions Are there tractable methods available for practitioners to 

understand the complex interactions within a system of 

systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales? 

General vs. specified 

resilience 

Can systems be designed for “inherent” resilience to 

disruptions in general, rather than to specified threats? 

Justification of need for 

systems approach 

How can issues that require systems thinking be identified 

and communicated, with an appropriate business case? 

Establishment of 

accepted practice 

How can we establish commonly accepted, credible methods, 

practices, and data, with compelling examples? 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Team 2 Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies) 

Problem or Issue: What methods are useful for characterizing the linkages among mechanistic 

processes designed by humans and organic processes that have evolved in nature? 

Root Cause: Economic development has led to undesired ecological impacts, leading to greater 

awareness of interdependence between human and natural systems. 

Recommendation: Improve quantification of resource flows, emissions, and other interactions between 

human and natural systems. 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

1. Identify ecological constraints, such as scarce 

minerals, land availability, that influence 

construction and manufacturing decisions 

2. Develop full understanding of resource depletion 

and other ecological impacts of human activities 

3. Identify ecological conditions, such as biodiversity, 

soli quality, nutrient cycling, that are disrupted by 

human activities 

4. Characterize beneficial ecosystem services that 

enhance sustainability of construction and 

manufacturing, e.g., stormwater management 

5. Develop early warning indicators of change, such 

as indicator species. 

6. Develop indicators of resilience to unexpected 

shocks, e.g., diversity, buffering 

Industry 

(see following) 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 2 Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies) 

Problem or Issue: How can decision makers assess the potential ecological, economic, and social 

impacts of new policies or technologies a priori without empirical knowledge? 

Root Cause: In an age of rapid innovation and globalization, systems are becoming more 

complex, and their emergent properties are poorly understood. 

Recommendation: Develop possible future scenarios, and utilize advanced measurement science tools 

and techniques to monitor and interpret observable outcomes. 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

1. Engage stakeholders in developing scenarios to 

understand envelope of possible futures 

2. Characterize relevant baseline system conditions 

and historical changes 

3. Enable extensive data collection, validation, and 

interpretation, using “big data analytics” 

4. Inventory available system modeling tools and 

identify appropriate applications 

5. Utilize multi-criteria decision-making tools to 

establish collective stakeholder priorities 

6. Adopt an adaptive management approach to 

respond to changing conditions and unexpected 

outcomes 

7. Encourage development of a common ontology 

for indicators to characterize sustainable and 

resilient systems 

Industry 

(see following) 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Team 2 Systems (aggregation, linkages, system of systems, sustainability-resilience synergy and 

interdependencies) 

Problem or Issue: Are there tractable methods for practitioners to understand the complex interactions 

within a system of systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales? 

Root Cause: Complex, dynamic, non-linear systems are heavily influenced by cross-scale 

linkages, from micro to macro and vice versa (e.g., climate change drives local 

flooding, isolated incidents can cascade into large-scale supply disruptions) 

Recommendation: 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

1. Develop guidance for establishing system 

boundaries for analyzing broader implications of 

manufacturing or construction design decisions 

(beyond conventional “life cycle”) 

2. Expand concepts of energy, water, and material 

balance beyond individual structures and 

processes to a regional or even global scale 

3. Encourage research on how to perform 

aggregated, high-level system-level analysis 

without losing important fine-grain details 

4. Utilize analytic methods to understand the 

sensitivity of system sustainability or resilience 

indicators to key variables at higher or lower 

scales of resolution. 

5. Develop meta-data standards to assure 

compatibility and interoperability 

Industry 

Provide needed level of transparency (e.g., carbon 

disclosure), Identify important decision criteria and 

data needs, and validate new techniques 

Government 

Federal: Provide research priorities and funding 

State & local: Test-beds and outcome priorities 

Academia 

Innovation, research, education, advocacy, 

partnerships with industry 

NGO 

Consensus building, education, advocacy, standards, 

partnerships with industry & government 

Software/Hardware 

Measurement tools, technologies, models, methods, 

integration to respond to above needs 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 2. Systems 

Name/Affiliation Email/Phone 

Joseph Fiksel* Fiksel.2@osu.edu 614-226-5678 

John Carberry* johncarberry01@comcast.net 302-738-4063 

Vilas Mujumdar V_mujumdar41@yahoo.com 703-938-2117 

Chris Renschler rensch@buffalo.edu 716-645-0480 

Bill Anderson wanderson@tisp.org 202-302-9170 

Matthew Dahlhausen Matthew.dahlhausen@gmail.com 216-618-0753 

Eric Coffman Eric.coffman@montgomerycountymd.gov 240-777-5595 

Ryan Colker 

(comments via e-mail) 

rcolker@nibs.org 202-289-7800 

* co-moderators 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
3. Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and 

material and energy efficiency) 

Problem Title Problem Description 

How to apply systems thinking during planning 

and design of systems that considers 

interdependencies & trade-offs between 

economic, environmental and societal impacts? 

Sustainability-oriented interventions often involve trade-offs between 

various activities along the value chain. Without a systems-oriented 

approach, the impact of these interdependencies are difficult to evaluate. 

How to develop predictive models that can 

realistically estimate future cross-company and 

cross-supply chain economic, environmental or 

societal impacts? 

Sustainability improvements often take a long-term to materialize and 

benefits are likely to accrue across the supply chain. However, existing 

frameworks do not lend themselves to accurately determine crosscompany benefits, economic or otherwise. Can predictive models be 

developed to realistically predict the influence of such improvement 

efforts? Can models be developed to predict impacts of emergent and 

future conditions; to evaluate and design adaptive alternatives? 

How to ensure designed systems have the 

resilience to withstand disruptive events and 

operational turbulence? 

Global supply chains are increasingly exposed to uncertain events and 

disruptions. The sustainability performance of supply chains is 

catastrophically affected when such unpredictable events occur. 

Quantitatively models for evaluating interdependent risks between supply 

chain partners and methods to analyze their propagation through the 

supply chains are lacking. 

How to develop a common nomenclature and 

terminology related to sustainability that can be 

across the supply chain? 

Sustainability is a relatively new concept and common language for 

talking about it does not yet exist. The definition of sustainability itself 

varies from person to person, making it difficult to address the aspects of 

the issue and develop effective ways to measure it. Establishing 

consistent, standard terminology for talking about sustainability will help 

to align researchers and manufacturers communicating about common 

issues and designing products that address those needs. 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

3. Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and 

material and energy efficiency) 

Problem Title Problem Description 

How to increase data sharing and In this electronic age, companies amass considerable data related to their 

interoperability between relevant stakeholders products, processes and systems. However, this data is not used 

across the supply chain? effectively to produce actionable information; in situations where such 

information is available, it is not shared across the supply chain to increase 

benefits to all stakeholders. 

How to design products, processes and To enable closed-loop material flow across multiple life-cycles of products, 

systems to increase remanufacturing, they must be designed and manufactured to enable better 

recycling and end-of-life management? remanufacturing, recycling and end-of-life management. 

How to routinely optimize reverse logistics The uncertainties in the quality and quantity of product flow in reverse 

operations given uncertainty in quality and supply chains makes it difficult for companies to engage in these activities 

quantity of end-of-life products? profitably. What strategies can be implemented to encourage OEMs to 

engage in reverse logistics operations? 

How to ensure material and energy efficiency Assessment categories currently being used in standard LCA analyses 

become integral steps during the planning don’t allow for a comprehensive analysis of material and energy efficiency. 

and design of products, processes and What tools can be used and how can LCA be complemented? 

systems/supply chains? 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and 

treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: Design for EOL – 

Remanufacturing, recycling 

Root Cause: Lack of design 

methodologies, incentives, tools 

Recommendation: Metrics, methods, 

measurements 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

• Lead/support development of design tools and 

methodologies for design for EOL with metrics and targets 

• Support development of sector based metrics for design for 

EOL 

• Benchmark data (design and implementations) sharing 

• Lessons learned from EOL products 

Industry 

Participate in development, provide 

data, validation 

Government 

Lead development, provide 

incentives, fund research 

Academia 

Development, research 

NGO 

support 

Software/Hardware 

Integrative software, validation 

equipment 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and 

treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: Reverse logistics/ 

Reverse supply chains 

How to increase data sharing and interoperability between 

relevant stakeholders across the supply chain? 

Root Cause: Lack of Integrated 

approaches, incentives, tools 

Recommendation: Metrics, methods, 

measurements 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

• Developments of frameworks for reverse logistics and 

metrics for measuring effectiveness 

• Support development of standard data exchange 

Industry 

Participate in development, provide 

data, validation 

Government 

Lead development, provide 

incentives, fund research 

Academia 

Development, research 

NGO 

support 

Software/Hardware 

Integrative software, validation 

equipment 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
 

 

Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: Sustainability impacts improvements often occur at different points during the life of the product or structure and may take a 

long-term to materialize and as benefits are likely to accrue across the supply chain. However, existing frameworks do not lend 

themselves to accurately determine time dependent cross-company benefits (environmental, economic or societal). Can 

predictive models be developed to realistically predict the influence of such improvement efforts? Can models be developed to 

predict impacts of emergent and future conditions; to evaluate and design adaptive alternatives? 

Root Cause: Analysis approaches tend to take a unit process view and overall impacts are treated on an additive basis rather than a time 

series, integrated system view. 

Recommendation: 1) Not only collect LCI/LCA data for materials and products in a national database but also typical use statistics such as 

recovery and reuse rates, typical product lifespans, and incremental impacts to assembly or building operational cycles. 

2) Research should be conducted on developing a system of prioritization matrices that quantify the trade offs of various 

impacts over time and “present-values” those impacts into a comparable form. Note: this may seem to be impossible but only if 

it is looked at in absolute terms rather than a tool that could be used to assess a variety of scenarios. 

3) Develop a tool to utilize these matrices in relation to product and building design decisions across the cradle-to-cradle 

lifecycle of the product or building as a contribution to the initial decision making process. 

Action Plan: Possible steps 

towards the goal 

Roles 

Industry 

Industry should be prepared to collect and share necessary data (reuse and recovery rates, operational impacts and typical 

lifespans) just as EPD data is shared. 

Government 

Serve as a catalyst to this process through further definition of the issues involved, sponsoring research projects and promoting 

the concept. Government should maintain and manage the database. Perhaps the tool development should be driven through 

an organization such as NIST so that the base level of the tool is cross-disciplinary, cross-industry and extensible,. 

Academia 

Engage in meaningful, creative research 

NGO 

Industry trade organizations need o take the lead in collection of industry wide data and support the effort. 

Software/Hardware 

Tool has to be credible but not overly complex in order to encourage its utilization. 

Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: How to apply systems thinking during planning and design of systems that considers interdependencies & trade-offs 

between economic, environmental and societal impacts? 

Root Cause: Lack of information about the total life cycle issues of, materials, processes, and products, data 

ownership, lack of understanding of process capabilities in terms of energy, material, and water 

Perception that sustainability cost more 

Recommendation: Develop Design for sustainable supply chain for risk-based better multi-criteria decision making. 

Develop data standards, analytical tools that can readily consume data, 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Develop industry challenge problems for 

benchmarking and understanding of process 

capabilities in terms of energy, material, and water 

Seamless information flow across supply network 

for all lifecycle phases through data standards 

Promote code for America makes (crowd sourcing) 

for developing analytical tools for risk-based better 

multi-criteria decision making 

Promote better life cycle thinking of cradle to 

cradle process and explain it in terms of value 

system than first cost. 

Robust and adaptable models of life cycle analysis 

and synthesis for spatial and temporal uncertainties 

Industry 

Challenge problems, change perspective on sustainability as competitiveness 

Government 

Promote and enable standards, better informed policy instruments, consumer 

awareness, promote high risk research for long term benefits 

Academia 

Education and training, work with industry to develop science for sustainable 

construction and manufacturing, develop curriculum that reflects industry and 

society needs and requirements 

NGO 

Industry and technology roadmap, help develop better policy instruments, better 

balance of public and private good. And partnership 

Software/Hardware 

Open architecture platforms for s/w and h/w to enable life cycle information flow, 

Information models, implementation of data standards and development tools 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and treatments, and material and energy 

efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: Resilience - How to ensure designed systems have the resilience to withstand disruptive 

events and operational turbulence? 

Root Cause: Lack of: 1) Performance criteria at a component level 2) Performance data of components 

against the climate change spectrum 3) Sensitivity of matrices in life cycle cost analysis and 

risk assessment modeling 

Recommendation: NIST should define performance criteria against the climate change spectrum at the 

component and building levels. This will allow decision makers to use the appropriate 

indicators for better decisions. 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the 

goal 

Roles 

1. Develop and publish 

component-level performance 

criteria. 

2. Evaluate and compare US 

regional codes to develop 

climate change spectrum. 

3. See “Roles” section for 

further actions. 

Industry 

1) Provide all the basis of design at a molecular level to NIST so they can test and define 

criteria. 2) Provide system integration modeling so NIST can complete testing. 

Government 

Use and enforce criteria through acquisition regulation. 

Academia 

Provide criteria to students, the future implementers and building owners. 

NGO 

Use criteria to propose changes to policy and regulation. 

Software/Hardware 

Tools utilizing NIST performance criteria to allow for users to predict for better decision 

making. 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Team 3, question 8, Joe Cresko 

and Kathi Futornick 

Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and 

treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: restating: “Data sharing and 

interoperability between relevant stakeholders across the 

supply chain is insufficient to enable improvements in EE and 

ME” 

How to increase data sharing and interoperability between 

relevant stakeholders across the supply chain? 

Root Cause: Benefits through a supply chain are unknown and/or diffuse (principal 

agent type problem). 

Supply chains are highly variable, and estimating as well as allocating 

benefits is complicated. 

Recommendation: Build off of existing, appropriate tools/models, and ultimately standardize 

underlying data and tool architectures. 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

1. Define materials efficiency and energy efficiency in this context. 

2. Identify existing, appropriate tools/models – possibly include embodied energy; 

materials flows through the economy; cross-sector energy impacts; energy use of 

(specific) products through their lifecycle; 

3. Build upon those tools/models (one example framework could be embodied energy 

and cross-sectoral energy impacts tools being develop by DOE; another could be 

BEES tool at NIST). 

4. Materials certification – currently, certifications are required for products marketed 

to EU; underlying data analysis should be standardized/verified and then could be 

utilized 

5. Include in the existing tools/models, or develop additional model frameworks to 

include other materials-associated “externalities” that directly or indirectly impact 

costs such as environmental, labor, regulatory, risks. 

Industry 

Examples: engage in standards development, and 

implementation 

Government 

Examples: NIST work with standards groups (ISO, 

ANSI, etc.); DOE work with industry on voluntary 

programs; USG to collaborate on 

tools/models/databases 

Academia 

Examples: engage in standards development, and 

work with local regulatory agencies. Take 

leadership role in defining sustainability, materials 

efficiency, etc., and develop training/tools/etc. 

useful to industry and society. 

NGO 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
 

Problem or Issue: How to develop a common nomenclature and terminology 

related to sustainability that can be used across the supply 

chain? 

Root Cause: No consistent definition for sustainability 

Recommendation: 

Define common grounds for sustainability in both construction 

and manufacturing industries based on their needs to sustain 

business and operations while reducing impact on critical 

environmental areas. 

Quantify uncertainties in statements and criteria. Account for 

subjectivity such as social aspects. 

Define needs and impacts (tangible, intangible) 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Defined Needs to sustain business and impact on the env.: 

Resources 

1. energy, fossil fuels 

2. water 

3. raw materials 

Tangible impacts 

Environmental <impact 

1. climate (carbon emissions and ozone) 

2. land 

3. water 

4. pollution 

Economic impact 

1. profits 

2. Investment 

3. Risk 

4. Life cycle costs 

Intangible impacts 

1. social justice 

2. health and well being 

Industry 

Prrovide sets of criteria relevant to their operations and 

ensure practicabilty. 

Government 

Definine priorities and fund accordingly. 

Academia 

Develop scientific framework to minimize subjectivity and 

deal with uncertainty. 

NGO 

Supporting role. 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and 

treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: How to develop predictive models that can realistically estimate 

future cross-company and cross-supply chain economic, 

environmental or societal impacts? 

Root Cause: 

Recommendation: 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Industry 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 

Breakout Team 3 Planning, design and supply chain (lifecycle analyses and 

treatments, and material and energy efficiency) 

Problem or Issue: How to ensure designed systems have the resilience to 

withstand disruptive events and operational turbulence? 

Root Cause: 

Recommendation: 

Action Plan: Possible steps towards the goal Roles 

Industry 

Government 

Academia 

NGO 

Software/Hardware 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014 
Breakout Team 3. Planning, design and supply chain
 

Name/Affiliation Email/Phone 

NIST Workshop on Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and 

Manufacturing, June 12-13, 2014
 
     

   

   

   

     

   

         

       

   

     

Measurement Science for

Sustainable Construction and

Manufacturing

Concluding Remarks and Adjournment

June 13, 2014

Summary

• Workshop: Measurement Science for

Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing

– Background, context, challenges, problems and

needs

– Knowledge gaps and research needs

• By the numbers

– 80 participants

– 38 papers

– 25 speakers and panelists
   

       

Workshop Outcomes

• Problem lists

• Problem descriptions

• Breakout reports

• Proceedings

• Opportunity

– Send comments

– Send papers

Next Steps

• Publication of proceedings – public domain
This                publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR. 15‐986‐2