Advances in environmental research

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of roof-waterproofing systems for reinforced concrete building

  • Ji, Sukwon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST)) ;
  • Kyung, Daeseung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST)) ;
  • Lee, Woojin (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST))
  • Received : 2014.09.10
  • Accepted : 2014.11.05
  • Published : 2014.12.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated a life cycle assessment (LCA) of six roof-waterproofing systems [asphalt (C1), synthetic polymer-based sheet (C2), improved asphalt (C3), liquid applied membrane (C4), Metal sheet with asphalt sheet (N1), and liquid applied membrane with asphalt sheet (N2)]for reinforced concrete building using an architectural model. To acquire accurate and realistic LCA results, minimum units of material compositions for life cycle inventory and real data for compositions of waterproofing materials were used. Considering only materials and energy demands for waterproofing systems per square meter, higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be generated in the order of C1 > N2 > C4 > N1 > C2 > C3 during construction phase. However, the order was changed to C1 > C4 > C3 > N2 > N1 > C2, when the actual architecture model was applied to the roof based on each specifications. When an entire life cycle including construction, maintenance, and deconstruction were considered, the amount of GHG emission was in the order of C4 > C1 > C3 > N2 > C2 > N1. Consequently, N1 was the most environmental-friendly waterproofing system producing the lowest GHG emission. GHG emissions from maintenance phase accounted for 71.4%~78.3% among whole life cycle.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

References

  1. Architectural Institute of Korea (2008), Architectural engineering guide: Architecture 2. (5th Edition)
  2. CML (2002), "Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards", (Guinee Jeroen Editor), Centrum Milieukunde Leiden (CML), Leiden University, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  3. Guggemos, A. and Horvath, A. (2005), "Comparison of environmental effects of steel and concrete framed buildings", J. Infrastruct. Syst., 11(2), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:2(93)
  4. Hoff, J.L. (2011), "Life cycle assessment (LCA) and the building envelope: Balancing durability and environmental impact", pp. 1-14.
  5. Hong, T., Ji, C. and Park, S. (2012), "Integrated model for assessing the cost and $CO_2$ emission (IMACC) for sustainable structural design in ready-mix concrete", J. Environ. Manag., 103, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.034
  6. Hong, T., Ji, C., Jang, M. and Park, H. (2014), "Assessment model for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions during building construction", J. Manag. Eng., 30(2), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000199
  7. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2013), "Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis", The 5th Report.
  8. ISO (2006), ISO 14040-Environmental management - Life cycle assessment-principles and framework, Geneva, Switzerland.
  9. Jang, S. (2002), "Development and application of combined waterproofing system using rigid metal sheet", Ph.D. Thesis, Chon-buk National University, Korea, pp. 17-80.
  10. Kim, J. (2003), "Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings by LCA trends and challenges", Korea Land Housing Corporation, 91-103.
  11. Kim, J., Hong, T. and Koo, C. (2012), "Economic and environmental evaluation model for selecting the optimum design of green roof systems in elementary schools", Environ. Sci. Technol., 46(15), 8475-8483. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2043855
  12. Lee, B. (2010), "An estimation of life cycle cost of roof waterproofing methods, including $LCCO_2$ and costs", Master Thesis, Kyong-gi University, Korea, pp. 1-65.
  13. Marceau, M.L. and VanGeem, M.G. (2002), "Comparison of the life cycle assessments of an insulating concrete form house and a wood frame house", ASTM Int., 3(9).
  14. Monteiro, H. and Fausto, F. (2012), "Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods", Energ. Buildings, 47, 572-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.032
  15. Rossi, B., Marique, A. and Reiter, S. (2012), "Life cycle assessment of residential buildings in three different European locations", Build. Environ., 51, 402-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.002
  16. Zhang, X., Shen, L. and Zhang, L. (2013), "Life cycle assessment of the air emissions during building construction process: A case study in Hong Kong", Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 17, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.024

Cited by

  1. Environmental and economic comparison of the life cycle of waterproofing solutions for flat roofs vol.24, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.002
  2. Building life-span prediction for life cycle assessment and life cycle cost using machine learning: A big data approach vol.205, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108267
  3. Su yalıtımı uygulamalarının üretim ve yapım süreci çevresel etki değerlendirmesi vol.37, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.723798