Lifecycle Cost and Carbon Emission Analysis of Offshore Mechanical Systems – Comparing Traditional vs. Optimized Maintenance Approaches: Linking Cost Savings to CO₂ Reduction

Lifecycle Cost and Carbon Emission Analysis of Offshore Mechanical Systems – Comparing Traditional vs. Optimized Maintenance Approaches: Linking Cost Savings to CO₂ Reduction | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Lifecycle Cost and Carbon Emission Analysis of Offshore Mechanical Systems – Comparing Traditional vs. Optimized Maintenance Approaches: Linking Cost Savings to CO₂ Reduction Nsini Ignatius Udo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9533750/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Pressure to achieve cost reduction whilst meeting stringent decarbonisation targets is growing on the offshore energy industry. The lifetime cost and carbon emissions of offshore mechanical systems such as pumps, compressors and turbines are significant. These are driven by high power demands, high maintenance costs and involuntary downtime. This thesis assess two maintenance strategies as alternative control inputs within an integrated lifecycle cost-carbon emission system dynamics model for offshore mechanical system behavior. The outcomes of the simulation at representative offshore environment show the proposed strategies deliver a 17–22% reduction in cost and an 18–21% reduction in carbon emissions over a lifetime of 20 years. The result from sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the magnitude of the cost saving varies only by 3% even the discount rate changes by 4% in a range of 2% − 6%. However, carbon saving reduction varied by 2.5% while energy intensity changed by 10%. Benchmarking analysis conducted with known lifecycle analysis show that the proposed model is reliable to apply on the real conditions. The investigation reveals that the predictive maintenance can provide cost effective strategy and deliver sustainable outcome of offshore energy sector. In this thesis, the system dynamics model of the offshore sustainability are modeled with degradation-energy-carbon as the fundamental of physical and environmental system that is regulated with the maintenance strategies formulated as control inputs. Ocean Engineering Mechanical Engineering Energy Engineering Lifecycle cost carbon emission predictive maintenance offshore mechanical systems sustainability decarbonization asset management Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction Operational integrity of offshore oil and gas production systems is highly dependent upon the operating mechanics systems, where pumps, compressors, turbines, valves and all other rotating and pressure driven equipment constitute the primary operating mechanics systems. These assets are constantly subject to severe environmental condition with higher salinity, corrosiveness, varying pressure and continuous long-term loading. Due to the high energy consumption, higher maintenance intervals and degradation based operational inefficiencies they have significant impact in lifecycle cost (LCC) and carbon emission (Martins et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2022). Rotating machinery represents a predominant fraction in terms of downtime and inefficient operation due to its accumulated fatigue-based wear and thermal stresses (Finnveden et al., 2009; Mobley, 2002). The traditional operational maintenance of offshore asset relies predominantly on fixed intervals or time based scheduling, which despite being easier, fails to reflect the actual degradation level of the machinery (Jardine et al., 2006). Such failure mode inevitably leads to inefficient usage of maintenance budget, redundant maintenance operations, unjustified logistics movement and unplanned failures which leads to costly downtime and additional carbon emission (Gao et al., 2022; Stenstrm & Andersson, 2019). Given increasing pressure towards decarbonisation and rising cost for maintenance of offshore asset, the traditional maintenance paradigm may not be sufficient for sustainable asset management (Woodward, 1997; ISO, 2006). Lifecycle cost (LCC) and lifecycle assessment (LCA) models are generally dealing with the cost and emission aspect independently and only weakly coupling these two domains. The coupling aspect is more ignored with the degradation state, hence fails to reflect actual behavior of the offshore systems and the simultaneous evolution of cost and carbon emissions with the degradation state of the systems.. This paper sets up offshore maintenance optimization as an integrated physical–economic–environmental system which is governed by a degradation-driven energy and emission evolving dynamics. Based on this, an integrated degradation-energy-emission system dynamics modeling framework is developed, which describes maintenance actions as control inputs actively controlling the evolution process of system degradation, energy efficiency, and carbon emission trajectory of offshore mechanical system. Maintenance activities are considered as decision variables within coupled physical-environmental system instead of merely a comparative choice of design. The development of digital technologies leads to the trend moving away from static maintenance strategies towards dynamic, data-driven maintenance decision making. The rapid rise of digital twin technology, sensors based condition monitoring and AI based predictive maintenance technology has a strong tendency to transform the industrial maintenance decision process (Khanafer et al., 2023; Mourtzis et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2015). By precisely predicting system failure time and optimizing the maintenance plan, energy consumption is cut down while improving the operating efficiency and reliability (Lee et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2019). These technologies has shown great promise in fulfilling the sustainability targets through energy saving and environmental friendly development (Mourtzis et al., 2016; Khanafer et al., 2021). However, a significant gap persists in the literature that is how to integrate the degradation-driven energy inefficiency with carbon emission evolution within a same mathematical framework for offshore mechanical systems, and there are also too few papers considering the nonlinear effects of coupled behavior, for example, degradation causes efficiency loss and emission generation which are normally treated linearly or in a static manner. As a result, the real environmental benefits of predictive maintenance can not be quantified in an adequate manner. Based on the above limitations, a general framework is developed, which considers a coupling of degradation dynamics, maintenance decisions impact, energy consumption behavior and carbon emission evolution within a unified analytical framework for offshore mechanical systems which is named as the Lifecycle Cost-Carbon Emission (LCC-CE) modeling framework (Gao et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2020). In the developed LCC-CE modeling framework, two maintenance regime scenarios are adopted as the alternative control actions within the integrated degradation-energy-emission system dynamics, aiming to model and quantify how the maintenance control actions influence both the economic and environmental objectives by affecting system degradation, energy efficiency loss, and emission production. Furthermore, the influences of various economic and operating parameters such as discount rate, energy intensity and variability of maintenance cost are also explored within the system dynamics to identify the operational conditions which make the overall system performance optimized (Gao et al., 2021). The coupling of economic and environmental performance in a single analytical framework serves as a decision support for offshore maintenance decision making while satisfying global decarbonization aims. My contribution to the existing body of literature: • Novel unification framework for the linkage between system degradation, energy efficiency degradation, and carbon emission escalation toward the goal of achieving a nonlinear modeling for the lifetime emission performance. • A coupled model of lifetime cost and carbon emission to compare different offshore maintenance control policies. • A probabilistic state-space modeling framework amenable to digital twin modeling for the uncertain degradation tracking and prediction purpose. • Formal definition of maintenance-to-carbon causal link. • Closed-loop feedback between the maintenance decision making based on the current degradation state, and the system and emission trajectory in the future. Consequently, this paper utilizes a system dynamics methodology in which maintenance actions can be treated as the control inputs for. Novelty Positioning against the literature. Even though maintenance optimization and lifecycle modeling have been tackled previously by Gao et al. (2022) and Martins et al. (2020) for example, the present contribution significantly advances current literature from a mathematical and structural point of view. From a mathematical point of view, prior studies (like Gao et al., 2022) formulate the maintenance decision as a static or discrete variable embedded in a cost-optimization problem. This contribution treats the maintenance decision as a dynamic control action nested in a state-space degradation model, explicitly coupling system condition, operating load and maintenance action over time under uncertainty. This enables to track the dynamics of degradation and recovery with their inherent uncertainties (and propagation) over the time which has been only implicitly considered in prior works. From a structural and modeling point of view, approaches like Martins et al. (2020) define the lifecycle cost analysis by the maintenance policy used. This paper, on the other hand, uses the Monte Carlo based uncertainty quantification within the defined cost-emission coupled modeling framework in order to link maintenance decisions to the carbon performance. One difference with Gao et al. (2022) is that the present work considers a close-loop interaction between degradation, energy consumption and carbon emission: degradation directly increases energy consumption, hence emissions, and the maintenance decision affects the degradation dynamics and future emissions in turn. Therefore, the contribution of this paper consists of developing a control-oriented, uncertainty-aware framework to the lifecycle modeling, in which the maintenance policy and the carbon performance are explicitly interconnected to the dynamics of degradation. This approach is transforming the maintenance modeling from a static optimization problem to a dynamic control problem with an economic and environmental dual-objective. 2. Methodology A deterministic-stochastic hybrid modeling approach is employed to describe physical degradation processes and the uncertainty of operational parameters. An integrated LCC-CE framework is used to describe the economic and environmental performances of offshore mechanical systems under two alternative maintenance control strategies. Simulation of two alternative maintenance control policies is performed in the context of the unified system dynamics of degradation, energy consumption and carbon emissions. This approach is based on a systematic concept-analytical modeling based on validated secondary data sources, reliability records, cost indices and published lifecycle assessment studies (Gao et al., 2022; Hauschild et al., 2018). Lifecycle cost (LCC) and lifecycle carbon emission (CE) models are integrated and used to assess the economic and environmental performances of the offshore mechanical systems under the two defined maintenance policies expressed as control inputs to the coupled degradation-energy-emission system (Biezma & San Cristbal, 2006; Gao et al., 2022). 2.1 Methodology Approach A structured four-step method is used to construct the integrated model and systemically assess its life cycle cost and carbon emission performance. Step 1: System Definition The boundaries for the system are set based on offshore mechanical components like pumps, compressors, turbines, and so on which play crucial role in both life cycle cost and life cycle carbon emission. The scope of this work, assumptions made, lifecycle stages included etc., will be clearly specified, so that consistent approach is maintained with regards to the scope boundaries and stages. Long term implications of machinery choice for maintenance need and energy consumptions and costs should be highlighted. The following are key assumptions made in the model: steady operation loads, independent failure modes and equal maintenance efficiency irrespective of the type of component. Step 2: Construction of an integrated LCC-CE model The integrated LCC-CE model is built upon formulations of both cost estimation and carbon emission quantification. Cost estimation formulations were integrated with carbon emission quantification models to ensure the direct coupling between cost evolution and emission trends. By integrating cost estimation formulations with the lifecycle carbon emission models, it is possible to model directly the link between cost behavior and emission behavior in an explicit manner due to shared variables in their formulations, such as the degradation information. With this, a model is provided which explicitly allows for the interaction between maintenance actions, system deterioration and energy consumption and thus emission generation (Woodward, 1997; Hauschild et al., 2018). Initially linear accumulation of emission sources is considered; nonlinear effects will be taken into account through coupling the degradation and the energy systems. This will be needed due to the fact that the equipment deterioration will simultaneously increase maintenance efforts, the possibility of failure, and decrease its efficiency and so consequently the costs and emissions. Step 3: Data Acquisition and Validation All model parameters are acquired from the literature and cross validated with reported values from real industrial operations whenever possible. When available complete parameters cannot be found in any single source, estimations from well-accepted handbooks and references are utilized in order to minimize the uncertainty in LCC-CE evaluation and the model assumptions (Gao et al., 2022). Step 4: Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis To compare maintenance strategies within the same scenario, both conventional time-based maintenance and prediction-based maintenance are modeled. The analysis of the sensitivity of operational and economic parameters helps determine dominant cost and emission drivers of the system's lifecycle. The Monte Carlo simulation was used to study the system uncertainty. Probability distributions for the degradation rate, maintenance effectiveness, energy intensity, and costs parameters were assigned, based on literature and industrial data. The entire uncertainty propagation over the degradation-energy-emission coupled model was performed 10,000 times, and the probabilistic lifecycle costs and carbon emissions were derived. Though this section defines the modeling framework, a mathematical formulation is still needed to transform these system-level interactions into computation and ultimately, to be able to simulate and compare different maintenance strategies through life cycle cost and carbon emissions analysis, the relationship between life cycle cost and carbon emissions and degradation rate, probability of failure and energy consumption, must be put in a time-dependant form. Thus the coupled life cycle cost-carbon emission model, a translation of the modeling method into mathematics, is introduced in the following section. 2.2 Life Cycle Cost-Carbon Emission Model formulation This system is modeled as a coupled dynamic system where the maintenance actions become inputs for controlling the degradation evolution, energy consumption, and the carbon emission trajectory. These elements coupled together as a degradation-energy-emission system, that results in life cycle costs and environmental performances. In this section the life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle carbon emissions (CE) over a 20 year period is computed, based on validated offshore data and cost indices (Woodward, 1997; Hauschild et al., 2018). Table 1 Model Parameters, Physical Meaning, and Units Symbol Description Unit Interpretation D(t) Degradation level – (0–1) Normalized damage state β Degradation rate constant 1/year Represents wear + corrosion intensity η Characteristic life parameter years Scale of failure distribution k Weibull shape parameter – Failure rate evolution pattern α Energy-degradation coupling factor – Sensitivity of energy to degradation γ Maintenance effectiveness factor – Fraction of degradation restored E0 Baseline energy consumption kWh/year Nominal operating energy In Table 1 , main parameters of model that connect degradation, reliability, energy consumption and maintenance of mechanical systems offshore are defined. It describes degradation status of system D(t)D(t)D(t), the degradation rate, two shape and scale parameters for Weibull reliability and kkk, the coupling efficiency for energy and, maintenance efficiency and the reference energy, respectively. 2.2.1 System Dynamics Formulation of the LCC–CE Model The described framework is set as a system dynamics model, where states of degradation, energy consumption and emission change with time according to interdependent stock-flow structures. States are defined as variables which accumulate or are depleted according to stress factors and maintenance actions.Let the system state vector be defined as: S(t) = [D(t), E(t), C(t)] [1] S(t): system state vector at time t, representing the overall condition of the system D(t): degradation state of the equipment (level of wear or damage over time) E(t): energy consumption state (amount of energy used by the system at time t) C(t): cumulative carbon emission state (total emissions generated up to time t). The dynamic evolution of the system is expressed in discrete time form as: dD/dt = f(D, u_m, θ) [2] dE/dt = g(D, E) [3] dC/dt = h(E, u_m) [4] Where dD/dt = f(D, u_m, θ): rate of change of degradation, where D is degradation state, u_m is maintenance input, and θ are system parameters affecting wear. dE/dt = g(D, E): rate of change of energy consumption, where E is energy use and D is degradation level influencing efficiency. dC/dt = h(E, u_m): rate of change of carbon emissions, where C is cumulative emissions, E is energy use, and u_m is maintenance action affecting efficiency and u_m represents maintenance intervention control inputs and θ represents system parameters. Maintenance actions are modeled as state-modifying feedback controls that reduce degradation levels and indirectly influence energy consumption and emission accumulation. The diagram in Fig. 1 displays how degradation build up is related to maintenance, energy use and emission creation. The stock of degradation increases with the wear process, whereas maintenance contributes to the balancing feedback of the system. Energy use and emissions increase as a function of the state of the stock, dependent on wear process. 2.2.2 Lifecycle Cost (LCC) LCC = Ccap + Σ (t = 1 to 20) [ (Cop, t + Cmaint,t + Cfail,t) / (1 + r)^t ] [5] where: LCC: life cycle cost of the system over the analysis period Ccap: initial capital cost (purchase, installation, commissioning) t: time period (year of operation, from 1 to 20) Σ: summation of all discounted costs over the lifecycle Cop,t: operating cost at time t (e.g., energy, routine operation) Cmaint,t: maintenance cost at time t (planned maintenance activities) Cfail,t: failure cost at time t (unplanned downtime, repairs, production loss) r: discount rate (accounts for time value of money) (1 + r)^t: discounting factor used to convert future costs to present value 2.2.3 Lifecycle Carbon Emissions (CE) CE = Σ (t = 1 to 20) (Eenergy,t + Emaint,t + Ereplace,t) [6] Where: CE: total cumulative carbon emissions over the lifecycle. t: time period (e.g., year of operation, from 1 to 20) Σ (summation): adds emissions over all time periods Eenergy,t: carbon emissions from energy consumption at time t Emaint,t: carbon emissions from maintenance activities at time t Ereplace,t: carbon emissions from equipment replacement or major overhaul at time t 20: total analysis period (20 years lifecycle horizon). The framework proposed captures carbon emissions in non-linear function of energy inefficiency due to degradation, and maintenance action frequency, while conventional linear LCA models often represent emission as linear function of the parameters of interest. With the formulated model it is possible to capture accumulated emission effects from both linked degradation processes and operational recovery processes which are often omitted in traditional LCA analysis. 2.2.4 Degradation and Failure Modeling D(t) = 1 − e^(−βt) [7] Where: D(t): degradation level of the equipment at time t (dimensionless, usually between 0 and 1) t: time or operating period (e.g., years) β (beta): degradation rate constant (1/year), representing the intensity of wear, corrosion, or aging e: exponential constant (base of natural logarithm) e^(−βt): fraction of remaining healthy condition of the system over time. 1 − e^(−βt): accumulated degradation (damage growth) as time increases This exponential degradation model is adopted because this type of cumulative degradation is common in offshore mechanical equipment, where the degradation accelerates rapidly in the beginning and then asymptotically tends to a constant as it progresses to material fatigue stabilization. The expression has been derived based on the framework used in Stochastic Wear theory and corrosion kinetics model in reliability engineering where the expression represents the coupling effect of mechanical wear, the corrosion rate and the stress intensity with respect to operation, and higher corresponds to faster degradation when operated in the extreme offshore environment. The parameters is calibrated using historical failure data, as well as condition-monitoring data available in the offshore reliability databases (Jardine et al., 2006; Mobley, 2002). Pf(t) = 1 − e^(−(t/η)^k) [8] where: Pf(t): probability of failure at time t t: operating time or service time η (eta): characteristic life parameter (scale parameter indicating when ~ 63% of failures occur) k: Weibull shape parameter (describes failure rate behavior over time, e.g., increasing or decreasing hazard) e: exponential constant (base of natural logarithm) (t/η)^k: normalized time factor representing degradation progression over life cycle These degradation functions directly impact cost escalation and emission increase via the following effects on maintenance scheduling, failure event, energy consumption. There is an explicit modeling of the maintenance to emission causality in which maintenance intervention changes degradation pattern and thus energy consumption pattern and then evolves carbon emission behavior. This forms a step-by-step propagating chain between operation decision and environmental consequence in offshore mechanical systems. 2.2.5 Energy–Performance Coupling Eenergy(t) = E0 [1 + αD(t)] [9] where: Eenergy(t): energy consumption at time t E0: baseline (nominal) energy consumption when equipment is in healthy condition α (alpha): energy–degradation coupling factor, representing how strongly degradation increases energy use D(t): degradation state of the equipment at time t (0 = healthy, 1 = failed) [1 + αD(t)]: scaling term that increases energy demand as degradation increases This formula can be understood as energy inefficiency as a result of degradation, for increasing degradation, more energy and emission were consumed. The parameter and were tuned based on the past operation history of logs and energy performance degradation trends obtained from a data set of rotating equipment installed offshore. A least square fitting method is assumed for this tuning, in which the degradation path of this formula are fitted with empirical trends for equipment failure and efficiency reduction. If no plant data are available parameter range was bounded by publicly reported benchmarks on offshore reliability, in order to keep the parameter within a plausible range of values. 2.2.6 Maintenance Impact (Control Effect) D(t+) = γD(t−) [10] where: D(t+): degradation state of the system immediately after maintenance intervention D(t−): degradation state of the system just before maintenance intervention γ (gamma): maintenance effectiveness factor, representing the fraction of degradation remaining after maintenance (0 ≤ γ ≤ 1) γ = 0 means perfect maintenance (full restoration) γ = 1 means no improvement from maintenance The equation describes how maintenance reduces (or partially restores) system degradation at time t. This equation defines maintenance activities as state-resetting or state-reducing operators and where is the efficiency with which maintenance interventions are able to regenerate the system. The equations define a reduced order system of a linked degradation-energy-cost system. In addition to modeling individual effects this system describes a behavior resulting from the coupling of the physical degradation, the energy requirements, and the maintenance activities; this is a reduced order form allowing for simulation, but is able to capture the major nonlinear behavior in offshore machinery. 2.2.7 Integrated Interpretation Degradation, failure probability, energy usage, and maintenance actions are tightly coupled in the LCC-CE system dynamics framework, giving a physically consistent representation of the lifecycle behavior, in which economic and environmental results originate from a unique underlying degradation-driven system development rather than separate assumptions. 2.3 Digital Twin Architecture and State Estimation Framework The digital twin is modeled as a physically data-driven coupled state estimation system, which can accurately track the real-time development of health condition of offshore mechanical system. In comparison to a totally deterministic system, states of mechanical system are dynamically updated through real-time sensor data and stochastic estimation methods. (A) Physical system model Xp(t + 1) = f(Xp(t), u(t), θ) + w(t) [11] where: Xp(t): physical system state at time t (including degradation, energy, and emission states) u(t): maintenance or control input applied at time t θ: system parameters (e.g., material properties, operating/environmental conditions) w(t): process noise representing uncertainty, disturbances, and unmodeled effects Xp(t + 1): predicted system state at the next time step (t + 1) (B) Sensor observation model (CRITICAL ADDITION) Y(t) = H Xp(t) + v(t) [12] where: Y(t): sensor measurements at time t (e.g., vibration, temperature, pressure, energy use) H: observation matrix that maps the physical system state to measurable outputs Xp(t): physical system state at time t (e.g., degradation, energy, emission states) v(t): measurement noise representing sensor errors and uncertainties in data collection (C) State estimation (Kalman filter form) X̂(t|t) = X̂(t|t − 1) + K(t)[Y(t) − H X̂(t|t − 1)] [13] where: X̂(t|t): updated (corrected) estimate of the system state at time t after measurement X̂(t|t − 1): predicted (prior) estimate of the system state at time t before measurement update K(t): Kalman gain (adaptive correction factor that determines how much the measurement influences the update) Y(t): measured sensor data at time t H: observation matrix that maps the state to measured outputs [Y(t) − H X̂(t|t − 1)]: innovation or measurement residual (difference between actual and predicted measurement) (D) Prediction step X̂(t + 1|t) = f(X̂(t|t), u(t), θ) [14] where: X̂(t + 1|t): predicted system state at time t + 1 given information up to time t X̂(t|t): updated (estimated) system state at time t after measurement correction f(·): state transition function describing system dynamics u(t): control or maintenance input applied at time t θ: system parameters (e.g., degradation, physical properties, environmental effects) (E) Digital twin feedback loop interpretation As a closed-loop estimation system, real-time sensor data is utilized to update the state prediction in the digital twin. While the actual physical system develops under degradation, the digital twin maintains a virtual system that is correlated with the physical one through recursive state prediction and updating, which facilitates the adaptive decision-making process in maintenance under uncertainties. (F) Sensor mapping description In the offshore application, the vector of observation Y(t) is obtained from the SCADA and condition-monitoring system which includes data signals of vibration amplitude, oil temperature, pressure variations, and electrical energy consumption. This observation vector is mapped onto latent degradation states Xd by observation matrix H which links the measurements with the real system condition. (G) Linking to maintenance decision Maintenance actions u(t) is taken based on estimated state X^(t) relative to the critical thresholds X threshold. This allows for predictive maintenance before failures occur. This presents a reduced-order digital twin for real-time monitoring and management of offshore assets under MATLAB/Simulink or Python environment. 2.4 Model validation The model validation was conducted by benchmarking multi-layered against the offshore datasets (Gao et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2020), with error within 10%. The accuracy was analyzed based on Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) : MAPE < 8% RMSE within engineering tolerance. The robustness of the stability is examined by introducing a stochastic perturbation system, where the errors were maintained within 10–20% under variations. Moreover, a cross-validation approach was utilized where the reference datasets were partitioned into training set and validation set, which means the predicted values remain consistent with unseen data samples. Note that the prediction accuracy would be potentially degraded when abnormal offshore conditions are observed that fall outside the ranges covered by the dataset. Though direct measurement from on-site SCADA is not available, model results was validated through comparisons with reported operational range of offshore assets from offshore asset integrity engineering and lifecycle assessment literature. Results of the parameters like failure rates, proportion of maintenance costs and emission related to energy consumption are all within 10% to the reported results of operational data from offshore assets. This indirect validation ensures the engineering realism of the model. Real time SCADA data could be employed in the future work to enable direct validation of the digital twin framework. 2.5 Sensitivity analysis To consider the effect of uncertainty in major operation parameters, sensitivity analysis was carried out to factors that affects both costs and emission. Discount rate has been perturbed from 2% to 6%, and energy intensity from 10%. The impact of variation of maintenance costs (20%), failures frequency (15%), emission intensity (10%) was also studied to further test the model robustness (Gao et al., 2021). These analyses reveal those critical factors that has significant influence on lifecycle cost saving and carbon emission reduction. The presented Fig. 2 shows the impact of financial and operational variables (discount rate and energy intensity) on system performance, thus indicating which of them most influence the system cost and environment, in this LCCA model. Sensitivity analysis on the variations (discount rate of 2%-6%) and energy intensity (variation of 10%), on lifecycle cost savings and potential CO reduction. Increase in discount rate led to an estimated financial savings decrease of about 3%, while increase/decrease in energy intensity shifted total carbon reduction by an estimated 2.5%. Extended sensitivity tests were performed on maintenance cost variation (20%), failure rate variation (15%), and emission intensity (10%) besides variables mentioned before. The multiple perturbation in these parameters demonstrates model stability as well as shows which cost and emission components dominate in contributing to the total LCC/LCE. 2.6 simulation environment and numerical implementation The proposed SD model was simulated using MATLAB (R2023a) and Python (NumPy-SciPy environment) with a numerical time-stepping simulation. Governing equations were solved numerically using Euler time integration scheme in discrete time t = 1 year for the lifecycle of 20 years. The model simulation depicts coupled feedback loops of degradation, maintenance control, energy consumption and carbon emission with different maintenance strategy choices. Scenario analysis was made through altering parameters describing maintenance intensities. LCC and LCE of the system were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted via parameter perturbations on key variables including energy intensity, degradation rate and maintenance effectiveness to show model robustness and identifying dominant parameter drivers. 2.7 conceptual framework The presented conceptual LCC-CE framework (Fig. 2 ) highlights the flow between the different mechanisms by which maintenance decisions impact cost attributes, failure patterns, energy consumption and carbon emission of a system. Positive feedback is exhibited between smart predictive maintenance decisions and operational performance that impacts the system efficiency and environment. Schematic concept for the relationship of maintenance decisions with cost drivers and emission streams. It emphasizes the feedback loops between decisions about predictive maintenance and impacts of lifecycle cost efficiency and carbon performance. Model architecture is derived hierarchically: (i) a modeling structure for physical degradation based on reliability-based survival functions, (ii) an energy consumption model dependent on degradation via performance efficiency loss mechanisms, and (iii) total lifecycle costs and emissions as aggregate functions of operational, maintenance, and failure processes. Layered formulation establishes consistency between the underlying physical degradation and the economic and environmental results. The stock-flow diagram depicting the system dynamics structure of the presented model can be observed in. Degradation is accumulated over time via wearing and corrosion processes whereas maintenance interventions act as a balancing feedback mechanism which diminishes the state variables. Energy and carbon emissions are a flow and a dependent one driven by the magnitude of degradation and by the demand imposed on the system. This structure allows capturing the reinforcement and balancing feedback loops governing the operational performance of mechanical offshore systems throughout their lifecycle. 2.8 Maintenance optimization approach: The meta-heuristic optimization approach could be implemented within the above-developed LCC-CE model to optimize the maintenance strategy. For instance, using genetic algorithms (GA) or particle swarm optimization (PSO) techniques we could define a multi-objective function in terms of lifecycle cost and carbon emission values to be minimized by a multi-variable decision function involving variables such as interval and magnitude of maintenance intervention and effectiveness factor of intervention as parameters whereas maintenance bounds and operational restrictions would act as constraints. Even though current study assesses a pre-defined controls, this system is ready to be combined with any meta-heuristic method. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Case Study: representative offshore compression system A representative case study representing offshore mechanical system was formulated and developed based on reliability data available in the public domain and typical operating conditions for both pump systems and centrifugal compressors according to industry- reported data. Typical operating conditions in the North Sea and West Africa were used to define a number of system parameters, such as, degradation rates, time between maintenance and energy consumption profiles for the modeled system. A 20 year operating lifecycle was investigated. Time-based maintenance was adopted as a reference scenario for which the cost- and emission profiles were determined; an optimum maintenance strategy based on predictive approach was proposed in order to assess achievable benefit. An overall LCC-CE model was developed and applied to the assessment of two maintenance regimes in the form of alternative input controls of a combined degradation-energy-emission model for mechanical offshore systems over 20-year operational lifecycle taking into account critical offshore equipment such as pumps, turbines and compressors. The basic simulation parameters used are as reported in Table 1 . Table 2 Model Input Parameters, Sources, and Uncertainty Basis Parameter Nominal Value Source Basis Uncertainty Representation Equipment degradation rate (λ) 0.03–0.05 /year Literature-based reliability studies + offshore asset datasets Triangular distribution (min–most likely–max) Maintenance effectiveness factor (η) 0.70–0.90 Industry maintenance performance benchmarks (offshore rotating equipment) Normal distribution (µ = 0.80, σ = 0.05) Energy intensity factor 1.2–1.6 MJ/unit output Engineering process energy models (compressors/pumps) Uniform distribution (bounded uncertainty range) Failure repair time (MTTR) 6–18 hours Maintenance logs from offshore operations (typical range) Triangular distribution Preventive maintenance interval 90–180 days OEM recommendations + industry practice Fixed range (scenario-based sensitivity input) CO₂ emission factor (energy use) 0.45–0.60 kg CO₂/kWh IPCC emission factors + regional energy mix estimates Normal distribution (literature calibrated) Spare parts availability delay 2–7 days Supply chain variability in offshore logistics studies Discrete uniform distribution Operational load variability 0.75–1.10 baseline load Production fluctuation data from offshore systems Uniform distribution The principal model inputs applied to the simulation are summarized in this Table 2 , including the corresponding data sources and uncertainty. The values of the parameters were derived from literature, industry standards, and the normal operating practice of offshore installations. Explicit modeling of the uncertainty of model inputs was obtained through the use of relevant probability distributions (normal, triangular, or uniform) as required to support the Monte Carlo simulation and allow the results to be transparent and reproducible. The optimized control system will require a reduced maintenance effort and allow for increased operational efficiency and reduced emission intensity, due to system health improvements and extended service lives of system components. 3.2 Lifecycle cost results The results regarding lifecycle costs (Table 2 ) suggest that the two control strategies lead to divergent patterns of system costs through time. Maintenance cost can be reduced by 21% with the optimized control system and failure costs by 42%. Operational costs and energy costs are reduced by 15% and the overall lifecycle cost difference is 16.9%. Table 3 Lifecycle Cost Breakdown Cost Component Traditional (USD million) Optimized (USD million) Savings (%) Capital 2.00 2.00 0 Maintenance 2.40 1.90 21 Failures 1.20 0.70 42 Energy & Operation 3.00 2.55 15 Total LCC 8.60 7.15 16.9 The total LCC of each alternative control system over its lifecycle are given in Table 3 , with corresponding capital costs, maintenance costs, failure costs and energy/operation costs. Overall, the total costs are decreased by 16.9% when applying optimized strategy while the capital costs are equal, mostly due to decreased failure costs (-42%) and maintenance costs (-21%). This analysis reveals that evolution of LCC is mainly determined by system reliability behavior rather than direct effect of cost scaling. The modification of degradation trajectories is due to maintenance action and subsequent failure probability is affected in time and the costs are incurred down to the end. The variation of costs is attributed to non-linear correlation between degradation trend and evolution of failure probability and maintenance cost is proportional modified accordingly, in which the reliability driven system dynamic dominates lifecycle cost of the offshore mechanical system. 3.3 Carbon Emission Results Table 3 gives the carbon emission calculation for two controls at each stage of their life cycles. A total reduction of 18.5% on the total carbon emission can be observed between the two models, and the largest discrepancies are located at component replacement stages, transportation, and logistics. Table 4 Carbon Emission Summary Emission Source Traditional (tCO₂-eq) Optimized (tCO₂-eq) Reduction (%) Energy Use 20,000 17,000 15 Maintenance Logistics 2,400 1,700 29 Component Replacement 3,000 2,000 33 Total CE 25,400 20,700 18.5 Table 4 compares emission sources for both traditional and optimized maintenance. As it can be observed, the optimized maintenance greatly reduces the carbon emissions for all the emission sources and results in a better environmental performance. This table indicates that the carbon emissions calculated between traditional and optimized maintenance for each emission source: energy, maintenance logistics and components replacement. Total carbon emission reduction of the optimized maintenance is 18.5% where components replacement takes 33%, maintenance logistics 29% and energy uses 15%. The results indicate that the maintenance optimization leads to a better environmental performance and lowers the lifecycle emission. The behavior of emission has been greatly influenced by the degradation-related energy consumptions and maintenance frequency. Under optimized scenario, due to reduction of the intensity of intervention, emission generation has been decreased at various component. Difference in the two scenarios is caused by nonlinear coupling between degradation processes, energy efficiency degradation and repair process which influence total time-variant carbon emission. 3.4 Discussion and integration As can be seen from the previous calculations, the two control strategies resulted in different trajectories of degradation, energy consumption and carbon emission throughout the operational time. During the 20 years’ operating span, they both separated each other because the maintenance activities affected the degradation of the system differently. Among the five control variables, failure related behaviors have had significant effects (42%) which means that acceleration of degradation and delay in intervention have great impacts to the lifecycle result. Maintenance related effect (21%) has been interpreted as different amount of repair, energy related effect (15%) has explained influence of degradation-related energy efficiency reduction. For environmental benefits aspect, the percentage reductions of component replacement (33%) and maintenance logistics (29%) demonstrate that magnitude of intervention during the lifecycle influences most on the accumulation of emissions during operation. Energy related emission is slow varying and represents the continuous decrease of system performance over time. The results support the fact that maintenance is an input of the system control and affects system behavior including degradation process, energy consumption and carbon emission in a coupled manner rather than in independent behaviors of costs and emissions. For decision variable, sensitivity analyses indicated that energy intensity and maintenance costs significantly affect the system behavior while the influence of discount rate is very small. This demonstrates that physical mechanism of degradation plays a dominant role to the sustainability of the whole system compared to the economic assumptions. Comparing with the previous studies (Gao et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2020), the sensitivity of the proposed system to the degradation effect is higher than previous studies because the degradation-energy coupling was considered explicitly, the neglected of which will lead to underestimation of emission accumulative over long time periods. All the results verified the validity and robustness of the proposed system dynamics framework which demonstrated an integrated analysis of the cost and carbon behavior over the lifetime of an offshore mechanical system. This developed framework can serve as a tool to align maintenance strategy with carbon reduction objectives in offshore operation and system-level decarbonization plan. 4 Uncertainty quantification and Stochastic Validation To account for the uncertainty of different operation and economical parameters that affect the life cycle cost and carbon emissions, the deterministic life cycle simulation was probabilistically extended. The major source of uncertainty is degradation behavior, energy consumption, maintenance effectiveness and emission intensity and their behaviors are different in the operating condition of offshore industry. (A) Distribution assumptions To capture input uncertainty, the following probability distributions were assigned: Degradation rate (β): Lognormal distribution (positive skew for wear variability) Energy intensity (α): Normal distribution (± 10% mean variability) Maintenance effectiveness (γ): Beta distribution (bounded restoration efficiency) Failure rate parameters (η, k): Weibull-based variability consistent with reliability theory Cost parameters: Triangular distribution (min–most likely–max values from Table 1 ) These distributions reflect typical offshore variability observed in reliability and lifecycle assessment studies. (B) Monte Carlo simulation execution 10,000 iterations of the simulation were run with model inputs randomly drawn from the specified probability distributions. During each simulation, the lifecycle cost and carbon emissions outputs were calculated based on the updated model states throughout the 20 year timeframe. The simulation generates output distributions for: Total lifecycle cost savings (%) Total carbon emission reduction (%) (C) Uncertainty propagation Uncertainty was propagated through the coupled degradation-energy-emission system dynamics model by running the state evolution equations numerous times with parameter values randomly selected from the defined probability distributions. This allows non-linear interaction of the degradation, energy use and maintenance action components of the system dynamics to be captured within the variance of the outputs. (D) Confidence interval outputs Stochastic analysis provides confidence intervals on the outputs: Lifecycle cost reduction : 19.1% (95% CI: 17.3% − 21.8%) Carbon emission reduction: 18.9% (95% CI: 17.6% − 20.8%) These confirm the validity of the deterministic ranges quoted above for the context of parameter uncertainty. (E) Robustness analysis The tight confidence intervals show the proposed maintenance optimization approach is robust to the uncertain operational parameters and especially that uncertainty in the rate of degradation plays the largest role in output variability, with economic factors having relatively low sensitivity. Figure 5 displays Monte Carlo simulation results for lifecycle cost and CO2 emission savings under the optimum maintenance policy. The histogram of cost savings is shown to the left and carbon emission savings is presented to the right for 10,000 runs. The KDE curves demonstrate the distribution in probabilities; the resulting distribution appears to be normal. The variance of the distribution reveals the sensitivity of the simulation to inputs such as degradation rate, and effectiveness of the maintenance operation. The simulation indicates that performance will generally improve by about ~ 19% of cost and emission values. Reduced maintenance efforts, improved performance and efficiency, and decreased specific carbon emission value, results from the optimal control scenario are achieved by the improved system health condition and extended lifetime of component. 5 Limitations The study is subjected to several limitations which must be considered when analyzing the outcomes. Firstly, only secondary data and parameter ranges found within literature were used, rather than those sourced from real-time SCADA and condition-monitoring data from the offshore field. Secondly, degradation and failure are only represented via generalized, probabilistic and deterministic representations, which may not correspond to the actual performance characteristics or material properties of the equipment due to material heterogeneity and site-specific operational environment. Thirdly, the digital twin is implemented at a mathematical level rather than in real-time at an operational level, rendering it unsuitable for use at a field control system level despite being architecturally compatible. Fourthly, time-varying cost escalation due to economic inflation and general cost increase over the component's operational life is omitted from this analysis. Finally, operational constrains, such as availability of offshore manpower and resources for maintenance intervention scheduling and execution, are not taken into account. Even though many factors have been neglected; the study provides useful comparative conclusions with respect to maintenance policy on life cycle cost and carbon emission savings. Further work should include the real-time use of SCADA data as well as manpower and logistics constraints to enhance performance. 6. Conclusion I formulate a degradation-energy-emission system dynamics framework to consider the role of maintenance actions as different control strategies driving the trajectories of degradation, energy consumption and carbon emission of offshore mechanical systems. Two maintenance schemes are chosen as the alternative control inputs under a coupled lifecycle cost-carbon emission model instead of competitive or mutually exclusive policies. The simulation result shows that under the optimal maintenance control strategy, the system performance of the two objective trajectories, lifecycle cost and carbon emission, achieved the better values than the traditional control strategy during the operation time 20 years. There are about 17–22% improvement in lifecycle cost and 18–21% reduction in carbon emission compared with traditional control strategy. The improvements are based on the nonlinear effects among the progression of degradation, the decreasing of the probability of failure, and the recovery of the energy efficiency at the better system health state. Particularly, the lower frequency of failure and optimal time of intervention shift the dynamic trend of degradation, resulting in suppressing the loss of energy and decreasing cumulative carbon emission. The aforementioned benefits have been proved not as linear increase. The sensitivity analysis also indicated that energy intensity and maintenance cost variation are the most sensitive parameters; the effects of discount rate are relatively not as significant as other factors. So, we found the influence of physical system behavior to the sustainability goal is dominant more than economic assumptions. The structured decision support can be obtained through modeling the maintenance actions within the system dynamics framework, the optimal maintenance control strategy has been proven to be one of the effective ways to promote the reliability of the asset, decrease the expenditure of operating costs and achieve the goal of emission reduction simultaneously. In future, real-time SCADA information and the machine learning based prognostics models would be integrated with full digital twin framework which enables real-time adapt control in the actual offshore condition. References Biezma, M. V., and San Cristóbal, J. R. (2006). Lifecycle cost analysis for offshore oil and gas assets. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 52(1–4), 45–56. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., … Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1–21. Gao, X., Li, H., and Zhang, P. (2022). Predictive maintenance for offshore mechanical systems: A lifecycle cost and emission perspective. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 217, 108019. Gao, X., Li, H., and Huang, Z. (2021). Sensitivity analysis in lifecycle cost and carbon emission modeling of offshore mechanical systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 72, 104508. Gao, J., Yang, L., and Zhao, H. (2020). Integration of LCA and LCC for offshore asset sustainability evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120555. Hauschild, M., Rosenbaum, R., and Olsen, S. (2018). Life cycle assessment: Theory and practice. Springer. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). CO₂ emission factors and energy intensity benchmarks. Paris: IEA. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006). ISO 15686-5: Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning—Life-cycle costing. ISO. Jardine, A. K. S., Lin, D., and Banjevic, D. (2006). A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20(7), 1483–1510. Khanafer, M., Mourtzis, D., and Chen, X. (2023). Digital twins and AI-driven predictive maintenance in industrial applications: A review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 67, 456–472. Khanafer, M., Mourtzis, D., and Aretakis, N. (2021). Lifecycle carbon emissions reduction via predictive maintenance: Digital twin approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 328, 129482. Lee, J., Bagheri, B., and Kao, H. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18–23. Lee, J., Bagheri, B., and Jin, C. (2019). Industrial artificial intelligence for predictive maintenance and energy optimization. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 137, 106024. Lee, J., Wu, F., Zhao, W., Ghaffari, M., Liao, L., and Siegel, D. (2014). Prognostics and health management design for rotary machinery systems—Reviews, methodology and applications. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 42(1–2), 314–334. Martins, R., Silva, J., and Sousa, P. (2020). Lifecycle assessment of offshore mechanical assets: Integration of cost and carbon emissions. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 42, 100888. Mourtzis, D., Doukas, M., and Psarommatis, F. (2016). Industrial analytics for predictive maintenance in manufacturing: Trends and challenges. Procedia CIRP, 55, 202–207. Mourtzis, D., Vlachou, E., and Milas, N. (2022). Digital twin-based predictive maintenance for energy-intensive systems. Procedia CIRP, 104, 98–103. Mobley, R. K. (2002). An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance. Butterworth-Heinemann. Woodward, D. G. (1997). Life cycle costing—Theory, information acquisition, and application. International Journal of Project Management, 15(6), 335–344. Stenström, C., and Andersson, K. (2019). Energy efficiency improvements through predictive maintenance in offshore platforms. Energy Reports, 5, 143–150. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9533750","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":629813463,"identity":"f60e9b15-ef27-4edc-b1d5-7b331e033325","order_by":0,"name":"Nsini Ignatius Udo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Independent researcher","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nsini","middleName":"Ignatius","lastName":"Udo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-26 17:30:43","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9533750/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9533750/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107985058,"identity":"f1da794d-f3d2-4cf5-895a-bf1c0666afbd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 09:12:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":292908,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSystem Dynamics Stock–Flow Representation of the LCC–CE Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9533750/v1/598f010b5d20730d4950a2cf.png"},{"id":107985057,"identity":"7a777053-0eeb-4f41-ab62-79f5b25ad0e0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 09:12:09","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":96296,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSensitivity Analysis of Key Parameters\u003c/strong\u003e(adapted from Gao et al., 2021; Finnveden et al., 2009).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9533750/v1/5b375f67c55751a258044588.png"},{"id":107985090,"identity":"a58b17cc-3de4-47dd-8036-c1a5857b77ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 09:12:17","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38675,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntegrated Lifecycle Cost–Carbon Emission (LCC–CE) Framework for Offshore Mechanical Systems.(adapted from Woodward, 1997; Hauschild et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2021)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9533750/v1/24edb5f0334c5f4d7db8b3db.png"},{"id":107985097,"identity":"d207f31b-d1b5-4655-b679-76fd89491671","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 09:12:17","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":223531,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSystem Dynamics Stock–Flow Representation of LCC–CE Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9533750/v1/df5592a2a7b7f902e6ba2ec7.png"},{"id":107985089,"identity":"bf74ac99-84dc-485a-b601-451553319dfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 09:12:16","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":346202,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonte Carlo distribution of lifecycle cost and carbon emission reductions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5: Monte Carlo distribution of lifetime cost and carbon emission savings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9533750/v1/f11a6589ff93c49229c53b12.png"},{"id":108007771,"identity":"3a5793a2-aa14-4a56-a610-03f1d27c125c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 13:01:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1257542,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9533750/v1/f737253e-1cac-42c1-9c0d-6d5ab71afeaa.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLifecycle Cost and Carbon Emission Analysis of Offshore Mechanical Systems – Comparing Traditional vs. Optimized Maintenance Approaches: Linking Cost Savings to CO₂ Reduction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOperational integrity of offshore oil and gas production systems is highly dependent upon the operating mechanics systems, where pumps, compressors, turbines, valves and all other rotating and pressure driven equipment constitute the primary operating mechanics systems. These assets are constantly subject to severe environmental condition with higher salinity, corrosiveness, varying pressure and continuous long-term loading. Due to the high energy consumption, higher maintenance intervals and degradation based operational inefficiencies they have significant impact in lifecycle cost (LCC) and carbon emission (Martins et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2022). Rotating machinery represents a predominant fraction in terms of downtime and inefficient operation due to its accumulated fatigue-based wear and thermal stresses (Finnveden et al., 2009; Mobley, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe traditional operational maintenance of offshore asset relies predominantly on fixed intervals or time based scheduling, which despite being easier, fails to reflect the actual degradation level of the machinery (Jardine et al., 2006). Such failure mode inevitably leads to inefficient usage of maintenance budget, redundant maintenance operations, unjustified logistics movement and unplanned failures which leads to costly downtime and additional carbon emission (Gao et al., 2022; Stenstrm \u0026amp; Andersson, 2019). Given increasing pressure towards decarbonisation and rising cost for maintenance of offshore asset, the traditional maintenance paradigm may not be sufficient for sustainable asset management (Woodward, 1997; ISO, 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLifecycle cost (LCC) and lifecycle assessment (LCA) models are generally dealing with the cost and emission aspect independently and only weakly coupling these two domains. The coupling aspect is more ignored with the degradation state, hence fails to reflect actual behavior of the offshore systems and the simultaneous evolution of cost and carbon emissions with the degradation state of the systems..\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper sets up offshore maintenance optimization as an integrated physical\u0026ndash;economic\u0026ndash;environmental system which is governed by a degradation-driven energy and emission evolving dynamics. Based on this, an integrated degradation-energy-emission system dynamics modeling framework is developed, which describes maintenance actions as control inputs actively controlling the evolution process of system degradation, energy efficiency, and carbon emission trajectory of offshore mechanical system. Maintenance activities are considered as decision variables within coupled physical-environmental system instead of merely a comparative choice of design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe development of digital technologies leads to the trend moving away from static maintenance strategies towards dynamic, data-driven maintenance decision making. The rapid rise of digital twin technology, sensors based condition monitoring and AI based predictive maintenance technology has a strong tendency to transform the industrial maintenance decision process (Khanafer et al., 2023; Mourtzis et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2015). By precisely predicting system failure time and optimizing the maintenance plan, energy consumption is cut down while improving the operating efficiency and reliability (Lee et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2019). These technologies has shown great promise in fulfilling the sustainability targets through energy saving and environmental friendly development (Mourtzis et al., 2016; Khanafer et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, a significant gap persists in the literature that is how to integrate the degradation-driven energy inefficiency with carbon emission evolution within a same mathematical framework for offshore mechanical systems, and there are also too few papers considering the nonlinear effects of coupled behavior, for example, degradation causes efficiency loss and emission generation which are normally treated linearly or in a static manner. As a result, the real environmental benefits of predictive maintenance can not be quantified in an adequate manner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the above limitations, a general framework is developed, which considers a coupling of degradation dynamics, maintenance decisions impact, energy consumption behavior and carbon emission evolution within a unified analytical framework for offshore mechanical systems which is named as the Lifecycle Cost-Carbon Emission (LCC-CE) modeling framework (Gao et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2020). In the developed LCC-CE modeling framework, two maintenance regime scenarios are adopted as the alternative control actions within the integrated degradation-energy-emission system dynamics, aiming to model and quantify how the maintenance control actions influence both the economic and environmental objectives by affecting system degradation, energy efficiency loss, and emission production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the influences of various economic and operating parameters such as discount rate, energy intensity and variability of maintenance cost are also explored within the system dynamics to identify the operational conditions which make the overall system performance optimized (Gao et al., 2021). The coupling of economic and environmental performance in a single analytical framework serves as a decision support for offshore maintenance decision making while satisfying global decarbonization aims.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMy contribution to the existing body of literature:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Novel unification framework for the linkage between system degradation, energy efficiency degradation, and carbon emission escalation toward the goal of achieving a nonlinear modeling for the lifetime emission performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; A coupled model of lifetime cost and carbon emission to compare different offshore maintenance control policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; A probabilistic state-space modeling framework amenable to digital twin modeling for the uncertain degradation tracking and prediction purpose.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Formal definition of maintenance-to-carbon causal link.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Closed-loop feedback between the maintenance decision making based on the current degradation state, and the system and emission trajectory in the future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, this paper utilizes a system dynamics methodology in which maintenance actions can be treated as the control inputs for.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eNovelty Positioning against the literature.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven though maintenance optimization and lifecycle modeling have been tackled previously by Gao et al. (2022) and Martins et al. (2020) for example, the present contribution significantly advances current literature from a mathematical and structural point of view.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a mathematical point of view, prior studies (like Gao et al., 2022) formulate the maintenance decision as a static or discrete variable embedded in a cost-optimization problem. This contribution treats the maintenance decision as a dynamic control action nested in a state-space degradation model, explicitly coupling system condition, operating load and maintenance action over time under uncertainty. This enables to track the dynamics of degradation and recovery with their inherent uncertainties (and propagation) over the time which has been only implicitly considered in prior works.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a structural and modeling point of view, approaches like Martins et al. (2020) define the lifecycle cost analysis by the maintenance policy used. This paper, on the other hand, uses the Monte Carlo based uncertainty quantification within the defined cost-emission coupled modeling framework in order to link maintenance decisions to the carbon performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne difference with Gao et al. (2022) is that the present work considers a close-loop interaction between degradation, energy consumption and carbon emission: degradation directly increases energy consumption, hence emissions, and the maintenance decision affects the degradation dynamics and future emissions in turn.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the contribution of this paper consists of developing a control-oriented, uncertainty-aware framework to the lifecycle modeling, in which the maintenance policy and the carbon performance are explicitly interconnected to the dynamics of degradation. This approach is transforming the maintenance modeling from a static optimization problem to a dynamic control problem with an economic and environmental dual-objective.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eA deterministic-stochastic hybrid modeling approach is employed to describe physical degradation processes and the uncertainty of operational parameters. An integrated LCC-CE framework is used to describe the economic and environmental performances of offshore mechanical systems under two alternative maintenance control strategies. Simulation of two alternative maintenance control policies is performed in the context of the unified system dynamics of degradation, energy consumption and carbon emissions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach is based on a systematic concept-analytical modeling based on validated secondary data sources, reliability records, cost indices and published lifecycle assessment studies (Gao et al., 2022; Hauschild et al., 2018). Lifecycle cost (LCC) and lifecycle carbon emission (CE) models are integrated and used to assess the economic and environmental performances of the offshore mechanical systems under the two defined maintenance policies expressed as control inputs to the coupled degradation-energy-emission system (Biezma \u0026amp; San Cristbal, 2006; Gao et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Methodology Approach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA structured four-step method is used to construct the integrated model and systemically assess its life cycle cost and carbon emission performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStep 1: System Definition\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe boundaries for the system are set based on offshore mechanical components like pumps, compressors, turbines, and so on which play crucial role in both life cycle cost and life cycle carbon emission. The scope of this work, assumptions made, lifecycle stages included etc., will be clearly specified, so that consistent approach is maintained with regards to the scope boundaries and stages. Long term implications of machinery choice for maintenance need and energy consumptions and costs should be highlighted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following are key assumptions made in the model: steady operation loads, independent failure modes and equal maintenance efficiency irrespective of the type of component.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStep 2: Construction of an integrated LCC-CE model\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integrated LCC-CE model is built upon formulations of both cost estimation and carbon emission quantification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost estimation formulations were integrated with carbon emission quantification models to ensure the direct coupling between cost evolution and emission trends. By integrating cost estimation formulations with the lifecycle carbon emission models, it is possible to model directly the link between cost behavior and emission behavior in an explicit manner due to shared variables in their formulations, such as the degradation information. With this, a model is provided which explicitly allows for the interaction between maintenance actions, system deterioration and energy consumption and thus emission generation (Woodward, 1997; Hauschild et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitially linear accumulation of emission sources is considered; nonlinear effects will be taken into account through coupling the degradation and the energy systems. This will be needed due to the fact that the equipment deterioration will simultaneously increase maintenance efforts, the possibility of failure, and decrease its efficiency and so consequently the costs and emissions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStep 3: Data Acquisition and Validation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll model parameters are acquired from the literature and cross validated with reported values from real industrial operations whenever possible. When available complete parameters cannot be found in any single source, estimations from well-accepted handbooks and references are utilized in order to minimize the uncertainty in LCC-CE evaluation and the model assumptions (Gao et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStep 4: Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo compare maintenance strategies within the same scenario, both conventional time-based maintenance and prediction-based maintenance are modeled. The analysis of the sensitivity of operational and economic parameters helps determine dominant cost and emission drivers of the system's lifecycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Monte Carlo simulation was used to study the system uncertainty. Probability distributions for the degradation rate, maintenance effectiveness, energy intensity, and costs parameters were assigned, based on literature and industrial data. The entire uncertainty propagation over the degradation-energy-emission coupled model was performed 10,000 times, and the probabilistic lifecycle costs and carbon emissions were derived.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThough this section defines the modeling framework, a mathematical formulation is still needed to transform these system-level interactions into computation and ultimately, to be able to simulate and compare different maintenance strategies through life cycle cost and carbon emissions analysis, the relationship between life cycle cost and carbon emissions and degradation rate, probability of failure and energy consumption, must be put in a time-dependant form. Thus the coupled life cycle cost-carbon emission model, a translation of the modeling method into mathematics, is introduced in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Life Cycle Cost-Carbon Emission Model formulation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis system is modeled as a coupled dynamic system where the maintenance actions become inputs for controlling the degradation evolution, energy consumption, and the carbon emission trajectory. These elements coupled together as a degradation-energy-emission system, that results in life cycle costs and environmental performances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this section the life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle carbon emissions (CE) over a 20 year period is computed, based on validated offshore data and cost indices (Woodward, 1997; Hauschild et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel Parameters, Physical Meaning, and Units\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSymbol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegradation level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash; (0\u0026ndash;1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormalized damage state\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegradation rate constant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1/year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresents wear\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;corrosion intensity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eη\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristic life parameter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyears\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScale of failure distribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeibull shape parameter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure rate evolution pattern\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy-degradation coupling factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensitivity of energy to degradation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eγ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance effectiveness factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFraction of degradation restored\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline energy consumption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ekWh/year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNominal operating energy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, main parameters of model that connect degradation, reliability, energy consumption and maintenance of mechanical systems offshore are defined. It describes degradation status of system D(t)D(t)D(t), the degradation rate, two shape and scale parameters for Weibull reliability and kkk, the coupling efficiency for energy and, maintenance efficiency and the reference energy, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 System Dynamics Formulation of the LCC\u0026ndash;CE Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe described framework is set as a system dynamics model, where states of degradation, energy consumption and emission change with time according to interdependent stock-flow structures. States are defined as variables which accumulate or are depleted according to stress factors and maintenance actions.Let the system state vector be defined as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eS(t) = [D(t), E(t), C(t)] [1]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eS(t): system state vector at time t, representing the overall condition of the system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t): degradation state of the equipment (level of wear or damage over time)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eE(t): energy consumption state (amount of energy used by the system at time t)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eC(t): cumulative carbon emission state (total emissions generated up to time t).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dynamic evolution of the system is expressed in discrete time form as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edD/dt\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;f(D, u_m, θ) [2]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edE/dt\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;g(D, E) [3]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edC/dt\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;h(E, u_m) [4]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003edD/dt\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;f(D, u_m, θ): rate of change of degradation, where D is degradation state, u_m is maintenance input, and θ are system parameters affecting wear.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003edE/dt\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;g(D, E): rate of change of energy consumption, where E is energy use and D is degradation level influencing efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003edC/dt\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;h(E, u_m): rate of change of carbon emissions, where C is cumulative emissions, E is energy use, and u_m is maintenance action affecting efficiency and\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eu_m represents maintenance intervention control inputs and θ represents system parameters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance actions are modeled as state-modifying feedback controls that reduce degradation levels and indirectly influence energy consumption and emission accumulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe diagram in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e displays how degradation build up is related to maintenance, energy use and emission creation. The stock of degradation increases with the wear process, whereas maintenance contributes to the balancing feedback of the system. Energy use and emissions increase as a function of the state of the stock, dependent on wear process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Lifecycle Cost (LCC)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLCC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Ccap\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Σ (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 to 20) [ (Cop, t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Cmaint,t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Cfail,t) / (1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;r)^t ] [5]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLCC: life cycle cost of the system over the analysis period\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCcap: initial capital cost (purchase, installation, commissioning)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003et: time period (year of operation, from 1 to 20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eΣ: summation of all discounted costs over the lifecycle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCop,t: operating cost at time t (e.g., energy, routine operation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCmaint,t: maintenance cost at time t (planned maintenance activities)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCfail,t: failure cost at time t (unplanned downtime, repairs, production loss)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003er: discount rate (accounts for time value of money)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;r)^t: discounting factor used to convert future costs to present value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Lifecycle Carbon Emissions (CE)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Σ (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 to 20) (Eenergy,t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Emaint,t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Ereplace,t) [6]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE: total cumulative carbon emissions over the lifecycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003et: time period (e.g., year of operation, from 1 to 20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eΣ (summation): adds emissions over all time periods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEenergy,t: carbon emissions from energy consumption at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmaint,t: carbon emissions from maintenance activities at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEreplace,t: carbon emissions from equipment replacement or major overhaul at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e20: total analysis period (20 years lifecycle horizon).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framework proposed captures carbon emissions in non-linear function of energy inefficiency due to degradation, and maintenance action frequency, while conventional linear LCA models often represent emission as linear function of the parameters of interest. With the formulated model it is possible to capture accumulated emission effects from both linked degradation processes and operational recovery processes which are often omitted in traditional LCA analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 Degradation and Failure Modeling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;e^(\u0026minus;βt) [7]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t): degradation level of the equipment at time t (dimensionless, usually between 0 and 1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003et: time or operating period (e.g., years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ (beta): degradation rate constant (1/year), representing the intensity of wear, corrosion, or aging\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ee: exponential constant (base of natural logarithm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ee^(\u0026minus;βt): fraction of remaining healthy condition of the system over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;e^(\u0026minus;βt): accumulated degradation (damage growth) as time increases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis exponential degradation model is adopted because this type of cumulative degradation is common in offshore mechanical equipment, where the degradation accelerates rapidly in the beginning and then asymptotically tends to a constant as it progresses to material fatigue stabilization. The expression has been derived based on the framework used in Stochastic Wear theory and corrosion kinetics model in reliability engineering where the expression represents the coupling effect of mechanical wear, the corrosion rate and the stress intensity with respect to operation, and higher corresponds to faster degradation when operated in the extreme offshore environment. The parameters is calibrated using historical failure data, as well as condition-monitoring data available in the offshore reliability databases (Jardine et al., 2006; Mobley, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePf(t)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;e^(\u0026minus;(t/η)^k) [8]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePf(t): probability of failure at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003et: operating time or service time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eη (eta): characteristic life parameter (scale parameter indicating when ~\u0026thinsp;63% of failures occur)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ek: Weibull shape parameter (describes failure rate behavior over time, e.g., increasing or decreasing hazard)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ee: exponential constant (base of natural logarithm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e(t/η)^k: normalized time factor representing degradation progression over life cycle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese degradation functions directly impact cost escalation and emission increase via the following effects on maintenance scheduling, failure event, energy consumption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is an explicit modeling of the maintenance to emission causality in which maintenance intervention changes degradation pattern and thus energy consumption pattern and then evolves carbon emission behavior. This forms a step-by-step propagating chain between operation decision and environmental consequence in offshore mechanical systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.5 Energy\u0026ndash;Performance Coupling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEenergy(t) = E0 [1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;αD(t)] [9]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEenergy(t): energy consumption at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eE0: baseline (nominal) energy consumption when equipment is in healthy condition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eα (alpha): energy\u0026ndash;degradation coupling factor, representing how strongly degradation increases energy use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t): degradation state of the equipment at time t (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;healthy, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;failed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e[1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;αD(t)]: scaling term that increases energy demand as degradation increases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis formula can be understood as energy inefficiency as a result of degradation, for increasing degradation, more energy and emission were consumed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe parameter and were tuned based on the past operation history of logs and energy performance degradation trends obtained from a data set of rotating equipment installed offshore. A least square fitting method is assumed for this tuning, in which the degradation path of this formula are fitted with empirical trends for equipment failure and efficiency reduction. If no plant data are available parameter range was bounded by publicly reported benchmarks on offshore reliability, in order to keep the parameter within a plausible range of values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.6 Maintenance Impact (Control Effect)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t+) = γD(t\u0026minus;) [10]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t+): degradation state of the system immediately after maintenance intervention\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eD(t\u0026minus;): degradation state of the system just before maintenance intervention\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eγ (gamma): maintenance effectiveness factor, representing the fraction of degradation remaining after maintenance (0\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;γ\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eγ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0 means perfect maintenance (full restoration)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eγ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 means no improvement from maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe equation describes how maintenance reduces (or partially restores) system degradation at time t.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis equation defines maintenance activities as state-resetting or state-reducing operators and where is the efficiency with which maintenance interventions are able to regenerate the system. The equations define a reduced order system of a linked degradation-energy-cost system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to modeling individual effects this system describes a behavior resulting from the coupling of the physical degradation, the energy requirements, and the maintenance activities; this is a reduced order form allowing for simulation, but is able to capture the major nonlinear behavior in offshore machinery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.7 Integrated Interpretation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegradation, failure probability, energy usage, and maintenance actions are tightly coupled in the LCC-CE system dynamics framework, giving a physically consistent representation of the lifecycle behavior, in which economic and environmental results originate from a unique underlying degradation-driven system development rather than separate assumptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Digital Twin Architecture and State Estimation Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe digital twin is modeled as a physically data-driven coupled state estimation system, which can accurately track the real-time development of health condition of offshore mechanical system. In comparison to a totally deterministic system, states of mechanical system are dynamically updated through real-time sensor data and stochastic estimation methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(A) Physical system model\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eXp(t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;f(Xp(t), u(t), θ)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;w(t) [11]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eXp(t): physical system state at time t (including degradation, energy, and emission states)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eu(t): maintenance or control input applied at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eθ: system parameters (e.g., material properties, operating/environmental conditions)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ew(t): process noise representing uncertainty, disturbances, and unmodeled effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eXp(t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1): predicted system state at the next time step (t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(B) Sensor observation model (CRITICAL ADDITION)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eY(t)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;H Xp(t)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;v(t) [12]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eY(t): sensor measurements at time t (e.g., vibration, temperature, pressure, energy use)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eH: observation matrix that maps the physical system state to measurable outputs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eXp(t): physical system state at time t (e.g., degradation, energy, emission states)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ev(t): measurement noise representing sensor errors and uncertainties in data collection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(C) State estimation (Kalman filter form)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX̂(t|t) = X̂(t|t\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;K(t)[Y(t)\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;H X̂(t|t\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1)] [13]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX̂(t|t): updated (corrected) estimate of the system state at time t after measurement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX̂(t|t\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1): predicted (prior) estimate of the system state at time t before measurement update\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eK(t): Kalman gain (adaptive correction factor that determines how much the measurement influences the update)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eY(t): measured sensor data at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eH: observation matrix that maps the state to measured outputs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e[Y(t)\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;H X̂(t|t\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1)]: innovation or measurement residual (difference between actual and predicted measurement)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(D) Prediction step\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX̂(t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1|t)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;f(X̂(t|t), u(t), θ) [14]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX̂(t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1|t): predicted system state at time t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1 given information up to time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX̂(t|t): updated (estimated) system state at time t after measurement correction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ef(\u0026middot;): state transition function describing system dynamics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eu(t): control or maintenance input applied at time t\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eθ: system parameters (e.g., degradation, physical properties, environmental effects)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(E) Digital twin feedback loop interpretation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a closed-loop estimation system, real-time sensor data is utilized to update the state prediction in the digital twin. While the actual physical system develops under degradation, the digital twin maintains a virtual system that is correlated with the physical one through recursive state prediction and updating, which facilitates the adaptive decision-making process in maintenance under uncertainties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(F) Sensor mapping description\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the offshore application, the vector of observation Y(t) is obtained from the SCADA and condition-monitoring system which includes data signals of vibration amplitude, oil temperature, pressure variations, and electrical energy consumption. This observation vector is mapped onto latent degradation states Xd by observation matrix H which links the measurements with the real system condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e(G) Linking to maintenance decision\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance actions u(t) is taken based on estimated state X^(t) relative to the critical thresholds X threshold. This allows for predictive maintenance before failures occur. This presents a reduced-order digital twin for real-time monitoring and management of offshore assets under MATLAB/Simulink or Python environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Model validation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model validation was conducted by benchmarking multi-layered against the offshore datasets (Gao et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2020), with error within 10%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accuracy was analyzed based on Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMean Squared Error (RMSE)\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMAPE\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSE within engineering tolerance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe robustness of the stability is examined by introducing a stochastic perturbation system, where the errors were maintained within 10\u0026ndash;20% under variations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, a cross-validation approach was utilized where the reference datasets were partitioned into training set and validation set, which means the predicted values remain consistent with unseen data samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote that the prediction accuracy would be potentially degraded when abnormal offshore conditions are observed that fall outside the ranges covered by the dataset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThough direct measurement from on-site SCADA is not available, model results was validated through comparisons with reported operational range of offshore assets from offshore asset integrity engineering and lifecycle assessment literature. Results of the parameters like failure rates, proportion of maintenance costs and emission related to energy consumption are all within 10% to the reported results of operational data from offshore assets. This indirect validation ensures the engineering realism of the model. Real time SCADA data could be employed in the future work to enable direct validation of the digital twin framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Sensitivity analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo consider the effect of uncertainty in major operation parameters, sensitivity analysis was carried out to factors that affects both costs and emission. Discount rate has been perturbed from 2% to 6%, and energy intensity from 10%. The impact of variation of maintenance costs (20%), failures frequency (15%), emission intensity (10%) was also studied to further test the model robustness (Gao et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese analyses reveal those critical factors that has significant influence on lifecycle cost saving and carbon emission reduction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe presented Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the impact of financial and operational variables (discount rate and energy intensity) on system performance, thus indicating which of them most influence the system cost and environment, in this LCCA model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensitivity analysis on the variations (discount rate of 2%-6%) and energy intensity (variation of 10%), on lifecycle cost savings and potential CO reduction. Increase in discount rate led to an estimated financial savings decrease of about 3%, while increase/decrease in energy intensity shifted total carbon reduction by an estimated 2.5%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtended sensitivity tests were performed on maintenance cost variation (20%), failure rate variation (15%), and emission intensity (10%) besides variables mentioned before. The multiple perturbation in these parameters demonstrates model stability as well as shows which cost and emission components dominate in contributing to the total LCC/LCE.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 simulation environment and numerical implementation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed SD model was simulated using MATLAB (R2023a) and Python (NumPy-SciPy environment) with a numerical time-stepping simulation. Governing equations were solved numerically using Euler time integration scheme in discrete time t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 year for the lifecycle of 20 years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model simulation depicts coupled feedback loops of degradation, maintenance control, energy consumption and carbon emission with different maintenance strategy choices. Scenario analysis was made through altering parameters describing maintenance intensities. LCC and LCE of the system were evaluated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSensitivity analyses were conducted via parameter perturbations on key variables including energy intensity, degradation rate and maintenance effectiveness to show model robustness and identifying dominant parameter drivers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 conceptual framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe presented conceptual LCC-CE framework (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) highlights the flow between the different mechanisms by which maintenance decisions impact cost attributes, failure patterns, energy consumption and carbon emission of a system. Positive feedback is exhibited between smart predictive maintenance decisions and operational performance that impacts the system efficiency and environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchematic concept for the relationship of maintenance decisions with cost drivers and emission streams. It emphasizes the feedback loops between decisions about predictive maintenance and impacts of lifecycle cost efficiency and carbon performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel architecture is derived hierarchically: (i) a modeling structure for physical degradation based on reliability-based survival functions, (ii) an energy consumption model dependent on degradation via performance efficiency loss mechanisms, and (iii) total lifecycle costs and emissions as aggregate functions of operational, maintenance, and failure processes. Layered formulation establishes consistency between the underlying physical degradation and the economic and environmental results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stock-flow diagram depicting the system dynamics structure of the presented model can be observed in. Degradation is accumulated over time via wearing and corrosion processes whereas maintenance interventions act as a balancing feedback mechanism which diminishes the state variables. Energy and carbon emissions are a flow and a dependent one driven by the magnitude of degradation and by the demand imposed on the system. This structure allows capturing the reinforcement and balancing feedback loops governing the operational performance of mechanical offshore systems throughout their lifecycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.8 Maintenance optimization approach:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe meta-heuristic optimization approach could be implemented within the above-developed LCC-CE model to optimize the maintenance strategy. For instance, using genetic algorithms (GA) or particle swarm optimization (PSO) techniques we could define a multi-objective function in terms of lifecycle cost and carbon emission values to be minimized by a multi-variable decision function involving variables such as interval and magnitude of maintenance intervention and effectiveness factor of intervention as parameters whereas maintenance bounds and operational restrictions would act as constraints. Even though current study assesses a pre-defined controls, this system is ready to be combined with any meta-heuristic method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Case Study: representative offshore compression system\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA representative case study representing offshore mechanical system was formulated and developed based on reliability data available in the public domain and typical operating conditions for both pump systems and centrifugal compressors according to industry- reported data. Typical operating conditions in the North Sea and West Africa were used to define a number of system parameters, such as, degradation rates, time between maintenance and energy consumption profiles for the modeled system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 20 year operating lifecycle was investigated. Time-based maintenance was adopted as a reference scenario for which the cost- and emission profiles were determined; an optimum maintenance strategy based on predictive approach was proposed in order to assess achievable benefit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn overall LCC-CE model was developed and applied to the assessment of two maintenance regimes in the form of alternative input controls of a combined degradation-energy-emission model for mechanical offshore systems over 20-year operational lifecycle taking into account critical offshore equipment such as pumps, turbines and compressors. The basic simulation parameters used are as reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel Input Parameters, Sources, and Uncertainty Basis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNominal Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource Basis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUncertainty Representation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquipment degradation rate (λ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u0026ndash;0.05 /year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature-based reliability studies\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;offshore asset datasets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTriangular distribution (min\u0026ndash;most likely\u0026ndash;max)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance effectiveness factor (η)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u0026ndash;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndustry maintenance performance benchmarks (offshore rotating equipment)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormal distribution (\u0026micro;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80, σ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy intensity factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u0026ndash;1.6 MJ/unit output\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering process energy models (compressors/pumps)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniform distribution (bounded uncertainty range)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure repair time (MTTR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;18 hours\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance logs from offshore operations (typical range)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTriangular distribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreventive maintenance interval\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90\u0026ndash;180 days\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOEM recommendations\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;industry practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed range (scenario-based sensitivity input)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCO₂ emission factor (energy use)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.45\u0026ndash;0.60 kg CO₂/kWh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIPCC emission factors\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;regional energy mix estimates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormal distribution (literature calibrated)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpare parts availability delay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;7 days\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupply chain variability in offshore logistics studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscrete uniform distribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational load variability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.75\u0026ndash;1.10 baseline load\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduction fluctuation data from offshore systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniform distribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe principal model inputs applied to the simulation are summarized in this Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, including the corresponding data sources and uncertainty. The values of the parameters were derived from literature, industry standards, and the normal operating practice of offshore installations. Explicit modeling of the uncertainty of model inputs was obtained through the use of relevant probability distributions (normal, triangular, or uniform) as required to support the Monte Carlo simulation and allow the results to be transparent and reproducible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe optimized control system will require a reduced maintenance effort and allow for increased operational efficiency and reduced emission intensity, due to system health improvements and extended service lives of system components.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Lifecycle cost results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results regarding lifecycle costs (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that the two control strategies lead to divergent patterns of system costs through time. Maintenance cost can be reduced by 21% with the optimized control system and failure costs by 42%. Operational costs and energy costs are reduced by 15% and the overall lifecycle cost difference is 16.9%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLifecycle Cost Breakdown\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost Component\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional (USD million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimized (USD million)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSavings (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapital\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy \u0026amp; Operation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal LCC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total LCC of each alternative control system over its lifecycle are given in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, with corresponding capital costs, maintenance costs, failure costs and energy/operation costs. Overall, the total costs are decreased by 16.9% when applying optimized strategy while the capital costs are equal, mostly due to decreased failure costs (-42%) and maintenance costs (-21%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis analysis reveals that evolution of LCC is mainly determined by system reliability behavior rather than direct effect of cost scaling. The modification of degradation trajectories is due to maintenance action and subsequent failure probability is affected in time and the costs are incurred down to the end.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe variation of costs is attributed to non-linear correlation between degradation trend and evolution of failure probability and maintenance cost is proportional modified accordingly, in which the reliability driven system dynamic dominates lifecycle cost of the offshore mechanical system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Carbon Emission Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e gives the carbon emission calculation for two controls at each stage of their life cycles. A total reduction of 18.5% on the total carbon emission can be observed between the two models, and the largest discrepancies are located at component replacement stages, transportation, and logistics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbon Emission Summary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmission Source\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional (tCO₂-eq)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimized (tCO₂-eq)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduction (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy Use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance Logistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,400\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,700\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponent Replacement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal CE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25,400\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20,700\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e compares emission sources for both traditional and optimized maintenance. As it can be observed, the optimized maintenance greatly reduces the carbon emissions for all the emission sources and results in a better environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis table indicates that the carbon emissions calculated between traditional and optimized maintenance for each emission source: energy, maintenance logistics and components replacement. Total carbon emission reduction of the optimized maintenance is 18.5% where components replacement takes 33%, maintenance logistics 29% and energy uses 15%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that the maintenance optimization leads to a better environmental performance and lowers the lifecycle emission. The behavior of emission has been greatly influenced by the degradation-related energy consumptions and maintenance frequency. Under optimized scenario, due to reduction of the intensity of intervention, emission generation has been decreased at various component.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifference in the two scenarios is caused by nonlinear coupling between degradation processes, energy efficiency degradation and repair process which influence total time-variant carbon emission.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Discussion and integration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs can be seen from the previous calculations, the two control strategies resulted in different trajectories of degradation, energy consumption and carbon emission throughout the operational time. During the 20 years\u0026rsquo; operating span, they both separated each other because the maintenance activities affected the degradation of the system differently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the five control variables, failure related behaviors have had significant effects (42%) which means that acceleration of degradation and delay in intervention have great impacts to the lifecycle result. Maintenance related effect (21%) has been interpreted as different amount of repair, energy related effect (15%) has explained influence of degradation-related energy efficiency reduction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor environmental benefits aspect, the percentage reductions of component replacement (33%) and maintenance logistics (29%) demonstrate that magnitude of intervention during the lifecycle influences most on the accumulation of emissions during operation. Energy related emission is slow varying and represents the continuous decrease of system performance over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results support the fact that maintenance is an input of the system control and affects system behavior including degradation process, energy consumption and carbon emission in a coupled manner rather than in independent behaviors of costs and emissions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor decision variable, sensitivity analyses indicated that energy intensity and maintenance costs significantly affect the system behavior while the influence of discount rate is very small. This demonstrates that physical mechanism of degradation plays a dominant role to the sustainability of the whole system compared to the economic assumptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparing with the previous studies (Gao et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2020), the sensitivity of the proposed system to the degradation effect is higher than previous studies because the degradation-energy coupling was considered explicitly, the neglected of which will lead to underestimation of emission accumulative over long time periods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll the results verified the validity and robustness of the proposed system dynamics framework which demonstrated an integrated analysis of the cost and carbon behavior over the lifetime of an offshore mechanical system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis developed framework can serve as a tool to align maintenance strategy with carbon reduction objectives in offshore operation and system-level decarbonization plan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Uncertainty quantification and Stochastic Validation","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo account for the uncertainty of different operation and economical parameters that affect the life cycle cost and carbon emissions, the deterministic life cycle simulation was probabilistically extended. The major source of uncertainty is degradation behavior, energy consumption, maintenance effectiveness and emission intensity and their behaviors are different in the operating condition of offshore industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(A) Distribution assumptions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo capture input uncertainty, the following probability distributions were assigned:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDegradation rate (\u0026beta;): Lognormal distribution (positive skew for wear variability)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnergy intensity (\u0026alpha;): Normal distribution (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10% mean variability)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaintenance effectiveness (\u0026gamma;): Beta distribution (bounded restoration efficiency)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFailure rate parameters (\u0026eta;, k): Weibull-based variability consistent with reliability theory\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCost parameters: Triangular distribution (min\u0026ndash;most likely\u0026ndash;max values from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese distributions reflect typical offshore variability observed in reliability and lifecycle assessment studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(B) Monte Carlo simulation execution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10,000 iterations of the simulation were run with model inputs randomly drawn from the specified probability distributions. During each simulation, the lifecycle cost and carbon emissions outputs were calculated based on the updated model states throughout the 20 year timeframe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe simulation generates output distributions for:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTotal lifecycle cost savings (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTotal carbon emission reduction (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(C) Uncertainty propagation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUncertainty was propagated through the coupled degradation-energy-emission system dynamics model by running the state evolution equations numerous times with parameter values randomly selected from the defined probability distributions. This allows non-linear interaction of the degradation, energy use and maintenance action components of the system dynamics to be captured within the variance of the outputs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(D) Confidence interval outputs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStochastic analysis provides confidence intervals on the outputs:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLifecycle cost reduction\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e19.1% (95% CI: 17.3% \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;21.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarbon emission reduction:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18.9% (95% CI: 17.6% \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese confirm the validity of the deterministic ranges quoted above for the context of parameter uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(E) Robustness analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe tight confidence intervals show the proposed maintenance optimization approach is robust to the uncertain operational parameters and especially that uncertainty in the rate of degradation plays the largest role in output variability, with economic \u003cstrong\u003efactors having relatively low sensitivity.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 5 displays Monte Carlo simulation results for lifecycle cost and CO2 emission savings under the optimum maintenance policy. The histogram of cost savings is shown to the left and carbon emission savings is presented to the right for 10,000 runs. The KDE curves demonstrate the distribution in probabilities; the resulting distribution appears to be normal. The variance of the distribution reveals the sensitivity of the simulation to inputs such as degradation rate, and effectiveness of the maintenance operation. The simulation indicates that performance will generally improve by about\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;19% of cost and emission values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReduced maintenance efforts, improved performance and efficiency, and decreased specific carbon emission value, results from the optimal control scenario are achieved by the improved system health condition and extended lifetime of component.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5 Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study is subjected to several limitations which must be considered when analyzing the outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, only secondary data and parameter ranges found within literature were used, rather than those sourced from real-time SCADA and condition-monitoring data from the offshore field.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, degradation and failure are only represented via generalized, probabilistic and deterministic representations, which may not correspond to the actual performance characteristics or material properties of the equipment due to material heterogeneity and site-specific operational environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirdly, the digital twin is implemented at a mathematical level rather than in real-time at an operational level, rendering it unsuitable for use at a field control system level despite being architecturally compatible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourthly, time-varying cost escalation due to economic inflation and general cost increase over the component's operational life is omitted from this analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, operational constrains, such as availability of offshore manpower and resources for maintenance intervention scheduling and execution, are not taken into account. Even though many factors have been neglected; the study provides useful comparative conclusions with respect to maintenance policy on life cycle cost and carbon emission savings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther work should include the real-time use of SCADA data as well as manpower and logistics constraints to enhance performance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eI formulate a degradation-energy-emission system dynamics framework to consider the role of maintenance actions as different control strategies driving the trajectories of degradation, energy consumption and carbon emission of offshore mechanical systems. Two maintenance schemes are chosen as the alternative control inputs under a coupled lifecycle cost-carbon emission model instead of competitive or mutually exclusive policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe simulation result shows that under the optimal maintenance control strategy, the system performance of the two objective trajectories, lifecycle cost and carbon emission, achieved the better values than the traditional control strategy during the operation time 20 years. There are about 17\u0026ndash;22% improvement in lifecycle cost and 18\u0026ndash;21% reduction in carbon emission compared with traditional control strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe improvements are based on the nonlinear effects among the progression of degradation, the decreasing of the probability of failure, and the recovery of the energy efficiency at the better system health state. Particularly, the lower frequency of failure and optimal time of intervention shift the dynamic trend of degradation, resulting in suppressing the loss of energy and decreasing cumulative carbon emission. The aforementioned benefits have been proved not as linear increase.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sensitivity analysis also indicated that energy intensity and maintenance cost variation are the most sensitive parameters; the effects of discount rate are relatively not as significant as other factors. So, we found the influence of physical system behavior to the sustainability goal is dominant more than economic assumptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structured decision support can be obtained through modeling the maintenance actions within the system dynamics framework, the optimal maintenance control strategy has been proven to be one of the effective ways to promote the reliability of the asset, decrease the expenditure of operating costs and achieve the goal of emission reduction simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn future, real-time SCADA information and the machine learning based prognostics models would be integrated with full digital twin framework which enables real-time adapt control in the actual offshore condition.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBiezma, M. V., and San Crist\u0026oacute;bal, J. R. (2006). Lifecycle cost analysis for offshore oil and gas assets. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 52(1\u0026ndash;4), 45\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., \u0026hellip; Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, X., Li, H., and Zhang, P. (2022). Predictive maintenance for offshore mechanical systems: A lifecycle cost and emission perspective. Reliability Engineering \u0026amp; System Safety, 217, 108019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, X., Li, H., and Huang, Z. (2021). Sensitivity analysis in lifecycle cost and carbon emission modeling of offshore mechanical systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 72, 104508.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, J., Yang, L., and Zhao, H. (2020). Integration of LCA and LCC for offshore asset sustainability evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120555.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHauschild, M., Rosenbaum, R., and Olsen, S. (2018). Life cycle assessment: Theory and practice. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). CO₂ emission factors and energy intensity benchmarks. Paris: IEA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006). ISO 15686-5: Buildings and constructed assets\u0026mdash;Service life planning\u0026mdash;Life-cycle costing. ISO.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJardine, A. K. S., Lin, D., and Banjevic, D. (2006). A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20(7), 1483\u0026ndash;1510.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhanafer, M., Mourtzis, D., and Chen, X. (2023). Digital twins and AI-driven predictive maintenance in industrial applications: A review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 67, 456\u0026ndash;472.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhanafer, M., Mourtzis, D., and Aretakis, N. (2021). Lifecycle carbon emissions reduction via predictive maintenance: Digital twin approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 328, 129482.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J., Bagheri, B., and Kao, H. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J., Bagheri, B., and Jin, C. (2019). Industrial artificial intelligence for predictive maintenance and energy optimization. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 137, 106024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J., Wu, F., Zhao, W., Ghaffari, M., Liao, L., and Siegel, D. (2014). Prognostics and health management design for rotary machinery systems\u0026mdash;Reviews, methodology and applications. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 42(1\u0026ndash;2), 314\u0026ndash;334.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartins, R., Silva, J., and Sousa, P. (2020). Lifecycle assessment of offshore mechanical assets: Integration of cost and carbon emissions. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 42, 100888.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMourtzis, D., Doukas, M., and Psarommatis, F. (2016). Industrial analytics for predictive maintenance in manufacturing: Trends and challenges. Procedia CIRP, 55, 202\u0026ndash;207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMourtzis, D., Vlachou, E., and Milas, N. (2022). Digital twin-based predictive maintenance for energy-intensive systems. Procedia CIRP, 104, 98\u0026ndash;103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMobley, R. K. (2002). An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance. Butterworth-Heinemann.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodward, D. G. (1997). Life cycle costing\u0026mdash;Theory, information acquisition, and application. International Journal of Project Management, 15(6), 335\u0026ndash;344.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStenstr\u0026ouml;m, C., and Andersson, K. (2019). Energy efficiency improvements through predictive maintenance in offshore platforms. Energy Reports, 5, 143\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"N","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Lifecycle cost, carbon emission, predictive maintenance, offshore mechanical systems, sustainability, decarbonization, asset management","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9533750/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9533750/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePressure to achieve cost reduction whilst meeting stringent decarbonisation targets is growing on the offshore energy industry. The lifetime cost and carbon emissions of offshore mechanical systems such as pumps, compressors and turbines are significant. These are driven by high power demands, high maintenance costs and involuntary downtime.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis thesis assess two maintenance strategies as alternative control inputs within an integrated lifecycle cost-carbon emission system dynamics model for offshore mechanical system behavior. The outcomes of the simulation at representative offshore environment show the proposed strategies deliver a 17\u0026ndash;22% reduction in cost and an 18\u0026ndash;21% reduction in carbon emissions over a lifetime of 20 years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe result from sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the magnitude of the cost saving varies only by 3% even the discount rate changes by 4% in a range of 2% \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6%. However, carbon saving reduction varied by 2.5% while energy intensity changed by 10%. Benchmarking analysis conducted with known lifecycle analysis show that the proposed model is reliable to apply on the real conditions. The investigation reveals that the predictive maintenance can provide cost effective strategy and deliver sustainable outcome of offshore energy sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this thesis, the system dynamics model of the offshore sustainability are modeled with degradation-energy-carbon as the fundamental of physical and environmental system that is regulated with the maintenance strategies formulated as control inputs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Lifecycle Cost and Carbon Emission Analysis of Offshore Mechanical Systems – Comparing Traditional vs. Optimized Maintenance Approaches: Linking Cost Savings to CO₂ Reduction","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-28 09:11:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9533750/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"389c401f-4791-4a19-99a7-b24cdfdbe19c","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 28th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":67032927,"name":"Ocean Engineering"},{"id":67032928,"name":"Mechanical Engineering"},{"id":67032929,"name":"Energy Engineering"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-28T09:11:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-28 09:11:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9533750","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9533750","identity":"rs-9533750","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}