Comparison of Direct Operating Cost and Life Cycle Cost-Benefit Methods in Aircraft Technology Assessment

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad A. Pohya ◽  
Kai Wicke ◽  
Johannes Hartmann
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Operating Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Direct Operating Cost

scholarly journals Asphalt Concrete Overlay Optimization Based on Pavement Performance Models

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Mikolaj ◽  
Lubos Remek ◽  
Marian Macula
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Asphalt Concrete ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Cycle Length ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Road User ◽  
Pavement Performance

The life cycle length of pavement with asphalt concrete material (ACM) surfacing is significantly influenced, in addition to transport loading and climatic conditions, by design method and rehabilitation timing. Appropriate overlay thickness calculation and estimation of optimal rehabilitation time are crucial to maximizing life cycle length and, concurrently, reducing road administration costs and road user costs. This article describes a comprehensive method of ACM rehabilitation design. For optimization of life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) based design, mathematical analytical solution in combination with experimental verification of physical, mechanical, and fatigue characteristics is utilized. Pavement performance, that is, functions mathematically describing pavement’s degradation characteristics of operational capability, is represented by longitudinal and transverse unevenness; these are used to describe relations between traffic loading and pavement’s bearing capacity on 1 : 1 scale. Optimizing of rehabilitation plan is carried out by making a cost benefit analysis (CBA) for several rehabilitation scenarios in which different rehabilitation timing produces different capital cost requirements and social benefits. Rehabilitation scenarios differ in technology, the design of which needs to be mathematically optimized, and timing of rehabilitation execution. This article includes a case study for the sake of illustration of practical results and verification of applicability of used methodology.

Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie E. Padgett ◽  
Kristina Dennemann ◽  
Jayadipta Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit

Optimal Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Design and Allocation for Minimum Life Cycle Cost, Petroleum Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching-Shin Norman Shiau ◽  
Scott B. Peterson ◽  
Jeremy J. Michalek
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Hybrid Electric Vehicle ◽  
Operating Cost ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vehicle Design ◽  
Battery Capacity ◽  
Hybrid Electric

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) technology has the potential to help address economic, environmental, and national security concerns in the United States by reducing operating cost, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and petroleum consumption from the transportation sector. However, the net effects of PHEVs depend critically on vehicle design, battery technology, and charging frequency. To examine these implications, we develop an integrated optimization model utilizing vehicle physics simulation, battery degradation data, and U.S. driving data to determine optimal vehicle design and allocation of vehicles to drivers for minimum life cycle cost, GHG emissions, and petroleum consumption. We find that, while PHEVs with large battery capacity minimize petroleum consumption, a mix of PHEVs sized for 25–40 miles of electric travel produces the greatest reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions. At today’s average US energy prices, battery pack cost must fall below $460/kWh (below $300/kWh for a 10% discount rate) for PHEVs to be cost competitive with ordinary hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Carbon allowance prices have marginal impact on optimal design or allocation of PHEVs even at $100/tonne. We find that the maximum battery swing should be utilized to achieve minimum life cycle cost, GHGs, and petroleum consumption. Increased swing enables greater all-electric range (AER) to be achieved with smaller battery packs, improving cost competitiveness of PHEVs. Hence, existing policies that subsidize battery cost for PHEVs would likely be better tied to AER, rather than total battery capacity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document