4.6 Article

Life Cycle Assessment and Service Life Prediction A Case Study of Building Envelope Materials

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 187-200

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12089

关键词

service life prediction; buildings; materials; life cycle assessment (LCA); maintenance; case study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Models of buildings in life cycle assessment (LCA) often use simple descriptions of operational energy, maintenance, and material replacement. The scope of many building LCAs is often limited and uses assumptions such as building lifetimes of 30 to 50years. In actuality, building lifetimes vary considerably, and scenarios using standard assumptions may have incorrect results. Assumptions concerning material replacement, repair, and maintenance should be deliberate and as realistic as possible. This research was initiated to demonstrate the importance of service life assumptions on building life cycle assessment results. Three roof types (built-up, thermoplastic membrane, and vegetated) and three wall forms (brick, aluminum, and wood siding) were analyzed. These materials were combined and modeled as nine distinct building envelopes. Five service life models were used to determine the service life of materials and systems. The analysis considered impacts related to material manufacturing, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts global warming potential, atmospheric eco-toxicity, and atmospheric acidification impact assessment indicators were used. The analysis of the cumulative life cycle impact and life cycle impact per year found that life cycle impact was primarily dependent on the predicted frequency of major material replacement as well as differences in the frequency and intensity of prescribed maintenance. In some scenarios, the relative differences in the life cycle impact of the alternatives were dependent on the environmental indicator used.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据