Life-cycle modelling of concrete cracking and reinforcement corrosion in concrete bridges: A case study

2021 ◽  
Vol 237 ◽  
pp. 112143
Author(s):  
Shilun Chen ◽  
Colin Duffield ◽  
Saeed Miramini ◽  
Babar Nasim Khan Raja ◽  
Lihai Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Concrete Bridges ◽  
Reinforcement Corrosion ◽  
Concrete Cracking

scholarly journals Life Cycle Costing: Understanding How It Is Practised and Its Relationship to Life Cycle Management—A Case Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 3252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianna Lena Kambanou
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Life Cycle Management ◽  
Life Cycle Costing ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Manufacturing Company

Despite the existence of many life cycle costing (LCC) methods, LCC is not widely adopted and LCC methods are usually further tailored by practitioners. Moreover, little is known about how practising LCC improves life cycle management (LCM) especially if LCM is considered emergent and constantly developing. In a manufacturing company, LCC is prescriptively introduced to improve LCM. In the first part, this study describes how various methodological choices and other aspects of practising LCC were the outcome of contestation and conformity with extant practices and not only the best way to fulfil the LCC’s objective. This contestation can even influence if LCC is adopted. In the second part of the research, the implications of practising LCC on LCM are explored. LCC is found to positively propel LCM in many ways e.g., by spreading the life cycle idea, but may lead to a narrower understanding of the term life cycle resulting in the sustainability focus of LCM being overridden. The article also discusses how the findings can be taken into consideration when researchers develop LCC methods and when industry practises LCC.

Utilization of CO2 in renewable DME fuel production: A life cycle analysis (LCA)-based case study in China

Fuel ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 254 ◽  
pp. 115627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Tomatis ◽  
Ashak Mahmud Parvez ◽  
Muhammad T. Afzal ◽  
Sannia Mareta ◽  
Tao Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Life Cycle Analysis ◽  
Fuel Production

scholarly journals A Comprehensive Framework for Standardising System Boundary Definition in Life Cycle Energy Assessments

Buildings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 230
Author(s):  
Hossein Omrany ◽  
Veronica Soebarto ◽  
Jian Zuo ◽  
Ruidong Chang
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Energy Use ◽  
Embodied Energy ◽  
Building Energy Efficiency ◽  
System Boundary ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Energy Assessment ◽  
Boundary Definition ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

This paper aims to propose a comprehensive framework for a clear description of system boundary conditions in life cycle energy assessment (LCEA) analysis in order to promote the incorporation of embodied energy impacts into building energy-efficiency regulations (BEERs). The proposed framework was developed based on an extensive review of 66 studies representing 243 case studies in over 15 countries. The framework consists of six distinctive dimensions, i.e., temporal, physical, methodological, hypothetical, spatial, and functional. These dimensions encapsulate 15 components collectively. The proposed framework possesses two key characteristics; first, its application facilitates defining the conditions of a system boundary within a transparent context. This consequently leads to increasing reliability of obtained LCEA results for decision-making purposes since any particular conditions (e.g., truncation or assumption) considered in establishing the boundaries of a system under study can be revealed. Second, the use of a framework can also provide a meaningful basis for cross comparing cases within a global context. This characteristic can further result in identifying best practices for the design of buildings with low life cycle energy use performance. Furthermore, this paper applies the proposed framework to analyse the LCEA performance of a case study in Adelaide, Australia. Thereafter, the framework is utilised to cross compare the achieved LCEA results with a case study retrieved from literature in order to demonstrate the framework’s capacity for cross comparison. The results indicate the capability of the framework for maintaining transparency in establishing a system boundary in an LCEA analysis, as well as a standardised basis for cross comparing cases. This study also offers recommendations for policy makers in the building sector to incorporate embodied energy into BEERs.

scholarly journals Modelling Sustainable Industrial Symbiosis

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1172
Author(s):  
Hafiz Haq ◽  
Petri Välisuo ◽  
Seppo Niemi
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Environmental Performance ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Industrial Symbiosis ◽  
Comprehensive Model ◽  
Network Connections

Industrial symbiosis networks conventionally provide economic and environmental benefits to participating industries. However, most studies have failed to quantify waste management solutions and identify network connections in addition to methodological variation of assessments. This study provides a comprehensive model to conduct sustainable study of industrial symbiosis, which includes identification of network connections, life cycle assessment of materials, economic assessment, and environmental performance using standard guidelines from the literature. Additionally, a case study of industrial symbiosis network from Sodankylä region of Finland is implemented. Results projected an estimated life cycle cost of €115.20 million. The symbiotic environment would save €6.42 million in waste management cost to the business participants in addition to the projected environmental impact of 0.95 million tonne of CO2, 339.80 tonne of CH4, and 18.20 tonne of N2O. The potential of further cost saving with presented optimal assessment in the current architecture is forecast at €0.63 million every year.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document