scholarly journals Comparison of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools for Road Pavement Infrastructure

2017 ◽  
Vol 2646 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Miguel Oliveira dos Santos ◽  
Senthilmurugan Thyagarajan ◽  
Elisabeth Keijzer ◽  
Rocío Fernández Flores ◽  
Gerardo Flintsch
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Road Pavement ◽  
Life Cycle Stages ◽  
Project Construction ◽  
The Impact

Road pavements have considerable environmental burdens associated with their initial construction, maintenance, and usage, which have led the pavement stakeholder community to join efforts to understand and mitigate these negative effects better. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a versatile methodology for quantifying the effect of decisions regarding the selection of resources and processes. However, there is a considerable variety of tools for conducting pavement LCA. This paper provides the pavement stakeholder community with insights into the potential differences in the life-cycle impact assessment results of a pavement by applying American and European LCA tools, namely, PaLATE Version 2.2, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute–University of California asphalt pavement LCA model, GaBi, DuboCalc, and ECORCE-M, to a Spanish pavement reconstruction project. Construction and maintenance life-cycle stages were considered in the comparison. On the basis of the impact assessment methods adopted by the various tools, the following indicators and impact categories were analyzed: energy consumption, climate change, acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation. The results of the case study showed the need to develop ( a) a standardized framework for performing a road pavement LCA that can be adapted to various tools and ( b) local databases of materials and processes that follow national and international standards.

scholarly journals Case study of a water bioengineering construction site in Austria. Ecological aspects and application of an environmental life cycle assessment model

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. von der Thannen ◽  
S. Hoerbinger ◽  
C. Muellebner ◽  
H. Biber ◽  
H. P. Rauch
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Construction Site ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Soil And Water

AbstractRecently, applications of soil and water bioengineering constructions using living plants and supplementary materials have become increasingly popular. Besides technical effects, soil and water bioengineering has the advantage of additionally taking into consideration ecological values and the values of landscape aesthetics. When implementing soil and water bioengineering structures, suitable plants must be selected, and the structures must be given a dimension taking into account potential impact loads. A consideration of energy flows and the potential negative impact of construction in terms of energy and greenhouse gas balance has been neglected until now. The current study closes this gap of knowledge by introducing a method for detecting the possible negative effects of installing soil and water bioengineering measures. For this purpose, an environmental life cycle assessment model has been applied. The impact categories global warming potential and cumulative energy demand are used in this paper to describe the type of impacts which a bioengineering construction site causes. Additionally, the water bioengineering measure is contrasted with a conventional civil engineering structure. The results determine that the bioengineering alternative performs slightly better, in terms of energy demand and global warming potential, than the conventional measure. The most relevant factor is shown to be the impact of the running machines at the water bioengineering construction site. Finally, an integral ecological assessment model for applications of soil and water bioengineering structures should point out the potential negative effects caused during installation and, furthermore, integrate the assessment of potential positive effects due to the development of living plants in the use stage of the structures.

A semi-quantitative method for the impact assessment of emissions within a simplified life cycle assessment

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter Fleischer ◽  
Karin Gerner ◽  
Heiko Kunst ◽  
Kerstin Lichtenvort ◽  
Gerald Rebitzer
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Quantitative Method ◽  
The Impact

Improving Life Cycle Assessment by Including Spatial, Dynamic and Place-Based Modeling

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Reap ◽  
Bert Bras ◽  
Patrick J. Newcomb ◽  
Carol Carmichael
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Spatially Explicit ◽  
Spatial Dynamic ◽  
Ecosystem Models ◽  
Lumped Parameter ◽  
Additional Improvement ◽  
Explicit Dynamic ◽  
The Impact

Drawing from the substantial body of literature on life cycle assessment / analysis (LCA), the article summarizes the methodology’s limitations and failings, discusses some proposed improvements and suggests an additional improvement. After describing the LCA methodology within the context of ISO guidelines, the article summaries the limitations and failings inherent in the method’s life cycle inventory and impact assessment phases. The article then discusses improvements meant to overcome problems related to lumped parameter, static, site-independent modeling. Finally, the article suggests a remedy for some of the problems with LCA. Linking industrial models with spatially explicit, dynamic and site-specific ecosystem models is suggested as a means of improving the impact assessment phase of LCA.

scholarly journals Life Cycle Assessment dan Life Cycle Cost untuk Serat Kenaf

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-224
Author(s):  
Desrina Yusi Irawati ◽  
Melati Kurniawati
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Impact Category ◽  
Kenaf Fiber ◽  
A Value ◽  
Treatment Stage ◽  
The Impact

Kenaf fiber from the kenaf plant is the excellent raw material for industry because of the various diversified products it produces. To develop sustainable kenaf fiber, information is needed on the strengths and weaknesses of kenaf cultivation systems with respect to productivity and environmental impact. Therefore, a comprehensive environmental and economic impact assessment was conducted from cultivating kenaf to kenaf fiber. The environmental impact assessment uses the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method and economic calculations from the life cycle of kenaf to kenaf fiber to collectors use the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) method. The calculation of environmental impacts is in accordance with the stages of ISO 14040, using a single score assessment. The LCA results show that the treatment stage is the highest contributor of the three groups of impact categories. The highest to the lowest in the impact category group that was influenced by the treatment stage were resources with a value of 21.4 mPt, human health with a value of 8.76 mPt, and ecosystem quality with a value of 1.91 mPt. The cost identified through the LCC is Rp. 6,088,468,333, NVP and B/Cnet are positive. The results of the sensitivity analysis if there is a reduction in production> 6%, the business is still profitable and can be run.

scholarly journals Valuing Biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (20) ◽  
pp. 5628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Lindner ◽  
Horst Fehrenbach ◽  
Lisa Winter ◽  
Judith Bloemer ◽  
Eva Knuepffer
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Value Chains ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Impact Assessment Method ◽  
The Impact

In this article, the authors propose an impact assessment method for life cycle assessment (LCA) that adheres to established LCA principles for land use-related impact assessment, bridges current research gaps and addresses the requirements of different stakeholders for a methodological framework. The conservation of biodiversity is a priority for humanity, as expressed in the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Addressing biodiversity across value chains is a key challenge for enabling sustainable production pathways. Life cycle assessment is a standardised approach to assess and compare environmental impacts of products along their value chains. The impact assessment method presented in this article allows the quantification of the impact of land-using production processes on biodiversity for several broad land use classes. It provides a calculation framework with degrees of customisation (e.g., to take into account regional conservation priorities), but also offers a default valuation of biodiversity based on naturalness. The applicability of the method is demonstrated through an example of a consumer product. The main strength of the approach is that it yields highly aggregated information on the biodiversity impacts of products, enabling biodiversity-conscious decisions about raw materials, production routes and end user products.

Life Cycle Assessment of Particulate Recycled Low Density Polyethylene and Recycled Polypropylene Reinforced with Talc and Fiberglass

2011 ◽  
Vol 471-472 ◽  
pp. 999-1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariam Al-Ma'adeed ◽  
Gozde Ozerkan ◽  
Ramazan Kahraman ◽  
Saravanan Rajendran ◽  
Alma Hodzic
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Composite Materials ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Human Toxicity ◽  
Acidification Potential ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Abiotic Depletion

Although recycled polymers and reinforced polymer composites have been in use for many years there is little information available on their environmental impacts. The goal of the present study is to analyze the environmental impact of new composite materials obtained from the combination of recycled thermoplastics (polypropylene [PP] and polyethylene [PE]) with mineral fillers like talc and with glass fiber. The environmental impact of these composite materials is compared to the impact of virgin PP and PE. The recycled and virgin materials were compared using life cycle assessment method according to their environmental effects. Within the scope of the study, GaBi software was used for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis. From cradle-to-grave life cycle inventory studies were performed for 1 kg of each of the thermoplastics. Landfilling was considered as reference scenario and compared with filled recycled plastics. A quantitative impact assessment was performed for four environmental impact categories, global warming (GWP) over a hundred years, human toxicity (HTP), abiotic depletion (ADP) and acidification potential (AP) were taken into consideration during LCA. In the comparison of recycled and virgin polymers, it was seen that recycling has lower environmental effect for different impact assessment methods like acidification potential, abiotic depletion, human toxicity and global warming.

scholarly journals Comparative Study of Conventional and Zero-joint Edgebanding

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Mária Réka Antal ◽  
Levente Dénes ◽  
Zsigmond András Vas ◽  
András Polgár
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Impact Category ◽  
Environmental Indicators ◽  
Manufacturing Technology ◽  
Aesthetic Appearance ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Quality Categories

Edgebanding affects both the visual appearance and edge protection of wood-based panels. In order for edgebanding to provide the desired protection, it must adhere strongly to the entire surface of the panel edges and maintain this adhesion throughout the life of the product. The present research compares conventional and so-called zero-joint edgebandings in terms of water and steam resistance, and examines the environmental impacts of edgebanding technologies using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). In-line with our hypothesis, our test results showed that corners are the critical points of edgebanded furniture fronts, especially when exposed to moisture. Due to high variations in measurements, there is no significant difference between the two edgebanding methods at the beginning. However, differences become more significant after longer treatment times. These differences amount to two quality categories after 6 hours and three quality categories after 12 and 24 hours. The edgebanded fronts exposed to water for less than 30 minutes experience no significant deteriorations with any of the edgebanding methods. In the case of steam resistance, zero-joint edgebanding provides better protection, especially after the second and third treatment cycle. We can state that the surplus costs of zero-joint technology are 1.45 times greater than costs associated with conventional technology. Both show the considerable costs of edging materials, chipboard, and electrical energy. The applied environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) method corresponds to the requirements of ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 standards. We built up the environmental inventory and the life cycle model of the manufacturing technology using the GaBi Professional LCA software. In the impact assessment, we analysed the specific environmental impact categories of the differing production processes by technology according to the operation order of the manufacturing technology. In relation to traditional and the zero-joint edging technologies, according to all impact assessment methods, the life-cycle contribution rate was uniformly 47% traditional – 53% zero-joint by impact category. The higher indicator values of the zero-joint method are due to larger edge material consumption and higher energy demand. Zero-joint technology appears to avoid the application of conventional hot melt adhesives, but replacing these adhesives does not necessarily result in better environmental indicators. Nevertheless, zero-joint egdebanding does not just improve aesthetic appearance but also exceeds the durability provided by conventional edgebanding technology.

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de modelos de Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida Social

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2 esp.) ◽  
pp. 66-81
Author(s):  
Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya ◽  
Alexandre Monteiro Souza ◽  
Sueli Aparecida de Oliveira ◽  
Jaylton Bonacina De Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Spatial Differentiation ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Life Cycle Impact ◽  
The Impact

Modelos de Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida Social (AICV-S) podem ser classificados em três tipos, dependendo da forma como o inventário é associado: (I) às partes interessadas; (II) por meio de cadeia de causa-efeito e, (III) com o uso de correlações entre variáveis macroeconômicas. Com o surgimento de modelos, o presente estudo tem como objetivo propor critérios para avaliá-los, baseados na UNEP e SETAC (2009), na JRC (2011) e em Ugaya et al. (2016). Após brainstorming entre os participantes do subgrupo de Avaliação de Impacto do Grupo de Trabalho de Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida (GTACV-S), três critérios foram selecionados: a abrangência do escopo (tipo, diferenciação espacial, inclusão de questões temporais, partes interessadas e subcategorias incluídas, robustez científica (reconhecimento pela comunidade internacional, apresentação de cadeia de causa e efeito, transparência e acessibilidade, disponibilidade de fator de caracterização (FC), possibilidade de regionalização e, FC nacional (existência e viabilidade de obtenção). Cada um dos subcritérios foi classificado (melhor, mediano e pior). Por exemplo, para atender o escopo das partes interessadas e subcategorias, o modelo deveria incluir 5 partes interessadas e 31 subcategorias para receber a melhor classificação). Os critérios foram aplicados parcialmente em 6 artigos e os resultados preliminares demonstram que é possível fazer a diferenciação entre os modelos. Como próximos passos, os critérios serão aplicados para outros artigos levantados na revisão sistemática, a partir da qual será recomendado um modelo para AICV-S.  Palavras-chave: Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida. Critérios. Avaliação dos Impactos do Ciclo de Vida Social.ResumenLos modelos de análisis de impacto social del ciclo de vida (AICV-S) pueden clasificarse en tres tipos, dependiendo de cómo se asocie el inventario: (I) a las partes interesadas; (II) por medio de cadena de causa-efecto y, (III) con el uso de correlaciones entre variables macroeconómicas. Con el surgimiento de modelos, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo proponer criterios para evaluarlos, basados en UNEP y SETAC (2009), en la JRC (2011) y en Ugaya et al. (2016). Después de brainstorming entre los participantes del subgrupo de Evaluación de Impacto del Grupo de Trabajo de Análisis Social del Ciclo de Vida (GTACV-S), se seleccionaron tres criterios: la cobertura del alcance (tipo de AICV-S, diferenciación espacial, inclusión de cuestiones temporales, partes interesadas y las subcategorías incluidas, robustez científica (reconocimiento por la comunidad internacional, presentación de cadena de causa y efecto, transparencia y accesibilidad, disponibilidad de factor de caracterización (FC), posibilidad de regionalización del FC y, existencia y viabilidad de obtención de FC nacional. Cada uno de los subcriterios fue clasificado (mejor, mediano y peor). Por ejemplo, para atender el alcance de las partes interesadas y subcategorías, el modelo debería incluir 5 partes interesadas y 31 subcategorías para recibir la mejor clasificación). Los criterios se aplicaron parcialmente en 6 artículos y los resultados preliminares demuestran que es posible distinguir entre los modelos. En los próximos pasos, los criterios se aplican a otros modelos.  Palabras clave: Valoración Social del Ciclo de Vida. Criterios. Evaluación del Impacto del Ciclo de Vida Social.AbstractSocial Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models (S-LCIA) may be classified into three types, depending on the linkage of the inventory to impacts: (I) to stakeholders; (II) through cause-effect chains and, (III) through correlations between macroeconomic variables. With the emergence of models, the present study aims to propose criteria to evaluate them, based on UNEP and SETAC (2009), JRC (2011) and Ugaya et al. (2016). A brainstorming was performed involving the participants of the Impact Assessment subgroup of the Working Group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (GTACV-S) which resulted in three criteria: the scope (type of S-LCIA, spatial differentiation, inclusion of temporal aspects, stakeholders and subcategories included, scientific robustness (recognition by the international community, presentation of the cause-effect chain, transparency and accessibility), availability of characterization factor (CF), possibility of regionalization of the CF and the existence and feasibility of obtaining national CF. Each of the subcriteria was classified in three levels (best, medium and worst). For example, to meet the scope of stakeholders and subcategories, the model should include 5 stakeholders and 31 subcategories to receive the best rating. The criteria were applied partially in 6 papers and the preliminary results showed that it is possible to differentiate between the models. As a next step, the criteria will be applied to other.  Keywords: Social Life Cycle Assessment. Criteria. Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment.

Evaluating the Environmental Impact Score of a Residential Building Using Life Cycle Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Manish Sakhlecha ◽  
Samir Bajpai ◽  
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Thermal Power ◽  
Residential Building ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Evaluation Tool

Buildings consume major amount of energy as well as natural resources leading to negative environmental impacts like resource depletion and pollution. The current task for the construction sector is to develop an evaluation tool for rating of buildings based on their environmental impacts. There are various assessment tools and models developed by different agencies in different countries to evaluate building's effect on environment. Although these tools have been successfully used and implemented in the respective regions of their origin, the problems of application occur, especially during regional adaptation in other countries due to peculiarities associated with the specific geographic location, climatic conditions, construction methods and materials. India is a rapidly growing economy with exponential increase in housing sector. Impact assessment model for a residential building has been developed based on life cycle assessment (LCA) framework. The life cycle impact assessment score was obtained for a sample house considering fifteen combinations of materials paired with 100% thermal electricity and 70%-30% thermal-solar combination, applying normalization and weighting to the LCA results. The LCA score of portland slag cement with burnt clay red brick and 70%-30% thermal-solar combination (PSC+TS+RB) was found to have the best score and ordinary Portland cement with flyash brick and 100% thermal power (OPC+T+FAB) had the worst score, showing the scope for further improvement in LCA model to include positive scores for substitution of natural resources with industrial waste otherwise polluting the environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document