A questionnaire-based methodology to assist non-experts in selecting sustainable engineering analysis methods and software tools

摘要

Currently, there are limited techniques for non-experts to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of different methods and software tools developed by industry and academia for assessing each aspect of product sustainability performance. Moreover, the variety of available methods and software tools makes it challenging for non-experts to identify the most appropriate analysis option. This research aims to assist non-experts in selecting the most appropriate set of analysis methods and software tools prior to conducting sustainable engineering analysis (SEA) based on life cycle data accessible to them. A questionnaire-based ranking methodology is developed for non-experts, which reduces their time investment in examining the myriad SEA methods and tools and avoids non-value added effort. The questionnaire uses an interaction matrix within a general mathematical modeling approach to map a given set of methods and tools to user responses. Relevance weights are integrated within the matrix to rank available environmental, economic, and social assessment methods and tools for user consideration. To demonstrate the application of the methodology, a pilot project was conducted to improve the design of a hexacopter. Results were compared using lower- and higher-fidelity software tools to demonstrate the effectiveness of the relevance weights assigned to each tool. Assigned weights were determined to enable differentiation between low and high fidelity methods and tools, but as new methods and tools enter into use, these weights must be updated. The process of selecting SEA methods and software gives insight into the utility of the interaction matrix implemented within the tool developed in this research. Moreover, non-experts can compare various design alternatives using the selected analysis methods and software tools to arrive at a solution with improved sustainability performance. 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.