Life Cycle Performance Assessment (LCPA) Tools

  • Matteo MaggioncaldaEmail author
  • Paola Gualeni
  • Chiara Notaro
  • Carlo Cau
  • Markos Bonazountas
  • Spyridon Stamatis


In this chapter, the assessment of both the economic and environmental performance of a vessel over its life cycle is addressed, having as a reference approach the Life Cycle Performance Assessment (LCPA) Tool under development in HOLISHIP project. First, on the basis of a literature review, the concepts of life cycle cost and life cycle assessment are briefly recalled. The ideal target is that these two issues shall be integrated and adapted into the ship design process within a circular economy perspective. Then, a separate reference is made to the end of ship’s life phase, explaining the possible strategies to be adopted and highlighting the limitation in estimating energetic and economic performances of this phase in an early design stage. The issue is nevertheless of increasing interest to this regard, as well. A brief review of Codes and Rules related to End-of-Life assessment procedures is also presented. After this, the selection of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) adopted for the LCPA tool is discussed. These KPIs have been divided in two separate categories: environmental and economic. A methodology to compare KPIs for different ship configurations is then proposed, with an attempt to perform an integrated assessment of environmental and economic aspects. Finally, the relation between KPIs and vessel characteristics is presented. Depending on the level of detail available, the calculation of KPIs and its accuracy are varying accordingly. Finally, issues of uncertainty of certain parameters (e.g. fuel price, freight rates) and their effect on the KPIs are briefly addressed, and ways to their consideration are outlined. Results of application of the HOLISHIP LCPA will be presented in the planned Volume II of the HOLISHIP project.


Life cycle Ship design LCC LCA Circular economy LCPA CER KPI Uncertainty 


  1. American Bureau of Shipping, ABS (2014) Summary of EU Regulation No. 1257/2013 on Ship RecyclingGoogle Scholar
  2. Asiedu Y, Gu P (1998) Product life cycle cost analysis state of the art review. Int J Prod Res 36(4):883–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard A, Rivest L, Dutta D (2013) Product lifecycle management for society. In: Proceedings 10th IFIP WG 5.1 international conference, PLM 2013Google Scholar
  4. European Commission (2013–2017) Joint operation for ultra low emission shipping (JOULES) projectGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission Directorate General Environment-ECDGE (2007) Ship dismantling and pre-cleaning of shipsGoogle Scholar
  6. European Parliament (2006) Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council on shipments and wasteGoogle Scholar
  7. European Parliament (2009) Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layerGoogle Scholar
  8. European Parliament (2010) Regulation (EC) No. 757/2010 amending Regulation (EC) No. 850/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on persistent organic pollutants as regards Annexes I and IIIGoogle Scholar
  9. Harries S, Cau C, Kraus A, Marzi J, Papanikolaou A, Zaraphonitis G (2017) Software platform for the holistic design and optimization of ships. In: Proceeding of annual general meeting of the German society of marine technology (Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft, STG), PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoogmartens R, Van Passel R, Van Acker K, Dubois M (2014) Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tool. Environ Impact Assess Rev 48:27–33 (Elsevier)Google Scholar
  11. Hueber C, Horejsi K, Schledjewski R (2016) Review of cost estimation methods and models for aerospace composite manufacturing. Adv Manuf Polym Compos Sci 2(1):1–13Google Scholar
  12. International Maritime Organization, IMO (2009) Hong Kong international convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of shipsGoogle Scholar
  13. International Maritime Organization, IMO (2012) Resolution MEPC.212(63)—guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained energy efficiency index (EEDI) for new ships. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. International Standard Organization (ISO) (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. In: ISO14040:2006(en)Google Scholar
  15. International Standard Organization (ISO) (2008) Buildings and constructed assets—service-life planning—Part 5: life-cycle costing. In: ISO standard, 156 86:5:2008(en)Google Scholar
  16. Jansson K (2016) Circular economy in shipbuilding and marine networks—a focus on remanufacturing in ship repair. In: Afsarmanesh H, Camarinha-Matos L, Lucas Soares A (eds) Collaboration in a hyperconnected World. PRO-VE 2016. IFIP Advances in information and communication technology, vol 480. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Kameyama M, Hiraoka K, Tauchi H (2007) Study on life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) for ships. Journal Article, NMRI, JapanGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamb T (ed) (2003) Ship design and construction. SNAME, Jersey City (NJ)Google Scholar
  19. Langdon D. (2006) Literature review of life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Davis Langdon Management Consulting, pp 32–59, 67–68Google Scholar
  20. Okano K (2001) An approach to life cycle cost management: a consideration from historical development. Asia Pac Manage Rev 6(3):317–341Google Scholar
  21. Plessas T, Papanikolaou A (2018) Optimization of ship design for life cycle operation with uncertainties. In: Proceeding of 13th international marine design conference (IMDC2018), HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  22. Shetelig H (2013) Shipbuilding cost estimation. Master Thesis, University of Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  23. Stopford M (2009) Maritime economics, 3rd edn. Routledge, Abingdon on Thames, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. United Nations (1989) Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposalGoogle Scholar
  25. Wurst S (2016) LCPA tool technical specification & user manual—JOULES Project version, BALANCEGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Maggioncalda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paola Gualeni
    • 1
  • Chiara Notaro
    • 2
  • Carlo Cau
    • 3
  • Markos Bonazountas
    • 4
    • 5
  • Spyridon Stamatis
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Naval Architecture, Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication EngineeringUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Operations—Platform Engineering and Research B.U.CETENA S.p.A.GenoaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Research Funding and NetworkingCETENA S.p.A.GenoaItaly
  4. 4.EPSILON Malta LtdBirkirkaraMalta
  5. 5.Hellenic BranchMarousiGreece

Personalised recommendations