Farinha, J.T.; Raposo, H.D.N.; de-Almeida-e-Pais, J.E.; Mendes, M. Physical Asset Life Cycle Evaluation Models—A Comparative Analysis towards Sustainability. Sustainability2023, 15, 15754.
Farinha, J.T.; Raposo, H.D.N.; de-Almeida-e-Pais, J.E.; Mendes, M. Physical Asset Life Cycle Evaluation Models—A Comparative Analysis towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15754.
Farinha, J.T.; Raposo, H.D.N.; de-Almeida-e-Pais, J.E.; Mendes, M. Physical Asset Life Cycle Evaluation Models—A Comparative Analysis towards Sustainability. Sustainability2023, 15, 15754.
Farinha, J.T.; Raposo, H.D.N.; de-Almeida-e-Pais, J.E.; Mendes, M. Physical Asset Life Cycle Evaluation Models—A Comparative Analysis towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15754.
Abstract
Having as objective to reach a circular economy, it is important to maximize the Physical Asset’s Life Cycle. The evaluation of Physical Assets Life Cycle may have several approaches which may provide different results. These differences may not be very significant, but must be taken into consideration, because they have consequences in the manager decision. This permits to have a wider time interval to decide when to withdrawal the Physical Asset or to renewal it, and or if this ought to continue functioning because the profits are higher than the expenses, what allows to diminish waste and increase sustainability. These are some aspects that are discussed in this paper, which presents several models to evaluate the Physical Assets Life Cycle, considering the market value, devaluations methods and a more generalized way of Fisher’s Equation, which can include the Risk tax, among others. The results are discussed supported in data for simulation, which are used for each Econometric Model aiming to evaluate the differences among them. In all Models they are considered not only the expenses, namely of Investment and Functioning, but also the Profits, which permit to evaluate the Physical Asset Life Cycle in a holistic way. The models are very versatile, allowing to evaluate quantitatively the changing in the maintenance policies, the energy prices variations, the risk evaluation, the variation of profits according to the real market, and so on. The results demonstrated the robustness of the approach described and that maximize the Physical Assets Life Cycle allowing to minimize the consumption of world resources and, by consequence, it contributes for a more sustainable world.
Engineering, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
