Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorRandolph E. Kirchain.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNicholson, Anna L. (Anna Louise)en_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-03-25T15:03:36Z
dc.date.available2010-03-25T15:03:36Z
dc.date.copyright2009en_US
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/53119
dc.descriptionThesis (S.M. in Technology and Policy)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program; and, (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 2009.en_US
dc.descriptionOn title page "[Allen]" penciled in.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (p. 75-79).en_US
dc.description.abstractUtilizing alternative materials is an important tactic to improve the environmental performance of products. Currently a growing array of materials candidates confronts today's product designer. While life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods provide quantitative input into this selection decision, their implementations are evolving and disparate. The goal of this paper is to explore several major analytical variations of LCA implementations and the implications of these variants across a range of application contexts. Specifically, this thesis examines analytical variations in valuation method and treatment of recycling by exploring allocation methods that affect product end-of-life. An abstracted case study across a range of materials is presented, including materials that exhibit a spectrum in variation of environmental performance and material degradation between primary and secondary applications. To date, research has shown that the amount of recycled material delivered by, or used in, the life cycle of a product will affect the environmental burdens of other product life cycles. However, explicit consideration has not been given to the question of whether end-of-life allocation methods can lead to different materials selection decisions in early stage product development cycles. Similarly stemming from this question is the issue of, if so, how do these allocation methods differentially favor certain material classes? Results indicate that the choice of analytical method as well as its underlying parameters can have substantial impact on individual metrics that determine environmentally preferred material and that there are sets of analytical variation over which strategic results are strongly affected.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Anna L. Nicholson.en_US
dc.format.extent94 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectEngineering Systems Division.en_US
dc.subjectTechnology and Policy Program.en_US
dc.subjectMechanical Engineering.en_US
dc.titleMethods for managing uncertainly in material selection decisions : robustness of early stage life cycle assessmenten_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.en_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.in Technology and Policyen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
dc.contributor.departmentTechnology and Policy Program
dc.identifier.oclc503139191en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record