Sustainable Construction A Life Cycle Approach in Engineering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. List of categories and sustainability indicators of the SBTool PT® methodology. Dimension Categories Sustainability indicators Environment C1 – Climate change and outdoor P1 – Construction materials’ embodied environmental air quality impact Society C2 – Land use and biodiversity C3 – Energy efficiency C4 – Materials and waste management C5 – Water efficiency C6 – Occupant’s health and comfort C7 – Accessibilities P2 - Urban density P3 – Water permeability of the development P4 - Use of pre-developed land P5 – Use of local flora P6 – Heat-island effect P7 – Primary energy P8 – In-situ energy production from renewables P9 – Materials and products reused P10 – Use of materials with recycled contend P11 – Use of certified organic materials P12 – Use of cement substitutes in concrete P13 – Waste management during operation P14 – Fresh water consumption P15 – Reuse of grey and rainwater P16 – Natural ventilation efficiency P17 – Toxicity of finishing P18 – Thermal comfort P19 – Lighting comfort P20 – Acoustic comfort P21 – Accessibility to public transportations P22 – Accessibility to urban amenities P23 – Education of occupants C8 – Awareness and education for sustainability Economy C9 – Life-cycle costs P24 – Capital costs P25 – Operation costs Figure 1. Framework of the methodology SBTool PT® . At the level of the societal performance, the evaluation guide presents the analytical methods that should be used to quantify the parameters. The economical performance is based in the market value of the dwellings and in their operation costs (costs related to water and energy consumption). 28
Table 2. Parameters declared in the built-in LCA database for building technologies Parameter Unit/declared unit Source Depletion of abiotic resources [kg Sb equiv.] CML 2 baseline 2000 Global warming potential (GWP) [Kg CO2 equiv.] IPCC 2001 GWP 100a Destruction of atmospheric ozone (ODP) [KgCFC-11 equiv.] CML 2 baseline 2000 Acidification potential (AP) [Kg SO2 equiv.] CML 2 baseline 2000 Eutrophication potential (NP) [Kg PO4 equiv.] CML 2 baseline 2000 Photochemical Ozone Creation (POCP) [Kg C2H4 equiv.] CML 2 baseline 2000 Non-renewable primary energy [MJ equiv.] Cumulative Energy Demand Renewable primary energy [MJ equiv.] Cumulative Energy Demand 3.3 Normalization, Aggregation and Weights The objective of the normalization of parameters is to avoid the scale effects in the aggregation of parameters inside each indicator and to solve the problem that some parameters are of the type ―higher is better‖ and others ―lower is better‖. Normalization is done using the Diaz- Balteiro et al. Equation 1 (Diaz-Balteiro, 2004). P i P P i * i i P * P i * i In this equation, Pi is the value of ith parameter. P*i and P*i are the best and worst value of the ith sustainable parameter. The best value of a parameter represents the best practice available and the worst value represents the standard practice or the minimum legal requirement. Normalization in addition to turning dimensionless the value of the parameters considered in the assessment, converts the values between best and conventional/reference practices into a scale bounded between 0 (worst value) and 1 (best value). Excellent practices will have a score above 1 and performances bellow the reference will have a negative normalized value. This equation is valid for both situations: ―higher is better‖ and ―lower is better‖. For example, the normalization of the primary energy used for heating (hot water heating included) is done as presented in Table 3 and Equation 2. In order to facilitate the interpretation of results, the normalized values of each parameter are converted in a graded scale, as presented in Table 4. Although building sustainability assessment across different fields and involves the use of numerous indicators and tens of parameters, a long list of parameters with its associated values won’t be useful to assess a solution. The best way is to combine parameters with each other inside each dimension in order to obtain the performance of the solution in each indicator (Allard, 2004). Table 3. Parameters declared in the built-in LCA database for building technologies Parameter Primary energy used for heating (hot water heating included) Notation Eh Unit kWh/m²/year Value 100 Reference value 140 Best practice 35 Eh Eh* 100 140 Eh 0,38 (2) * Eh Eh 35 140 * The methodology uses a complete aggregation method for each indicator, according to Equation 3. j n I w . P (3) i1 i i (1) 29
Page 3: Sustainable Construction A Life Cyc
Page 6 and 7: COST- the acronym for European COop
Page 9 and 10: Foreword The COST Action C25 "Susta
Page 11 and 12: Contents Sustainability of Construc
Page 13 and 14: Sustainability of Constructions Int
Page 15 and 16: 1.4 Raising the level of Sustainabl
Page 17 and 18: Sustainability of Construction Stru
Page 19 and 20: WP9 WP10 ‣ Verification methods f
Page 21 and 22: In the context of the Action a comp
Page 23 and 24: ia. (“Politehnica” University o
Page 25: - Introduction to the aims and obje
Page 29 and 30: The Role of Environmental Assessmen
Page 31 and 32: 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF BUILD
Page 33 and 34: process is used to facilitate the e
Page 35 and 36: With assistance of information tech
Page 37 and 38: Building Sustainability Assessment:
Page 39: • To improved reliability through
Page 43 and 44: From the outputs of this building s
Page 45 and 46: Green Building Design Guideline İ.
Page 47 and 48: 2.2.1. Solar shading Solar shading
Page 49 and 50: Use state-of-the-art irrigation con
Page 51: REFERENCES: Ayaz ,E. Mimarist perio
Page 55 and 56: Structural, economic and environmen
Page 57 and 58: Figure 1. Types and sources of data
Page 59 and 60: espiratory inorganic substances and
Page 61 and 62: Table 3. CML results, exact values
Page 63 and 64: nario. That means, flows of the rec
Page 65 and 66: 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
Page 67 and 68: Alt. A Alt. B Figure 8. Alternative
Page 69: ACKNOWLEDGMENT Authors from Technic
Page 72 and 73: Load, kN The aim of this comparativ
Page 74 and 75: On the basis of previous conclusion
Page 76 and 77: Table 6. Inventory table per FU (1p
Page 78 and 79: As the experiments have shown, comp
Page 80 and 81: 1) covered with patterned stainless
Page 82 and 83: • Energy: the operational energy
Page 84 and 85: 4 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY 4.1 Methodol
Page 86 and 87: 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT B. Rossi is suppo
Page 89 and 90: The potential use of Waste Tyre Fib
Page 91 and 92:
Table 2: Geometric properties of th
Page 93 and 94:
Table 3: Tensile Strength of shredd
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 8: Compressive strength 28 d
Page 97 and 98:
IFCC-2.0 IFCC-1.0 IFCC-1.5 Figure 1
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 17: Toughness Index - Effect
Page 101:
Laws of Malta. 2001. CAP 435 Enviro
Page 104 and 105:
the future, the model will most lik
Page 106 and 107:
for each of the potential solutions
Page 108 and 109:
stavb. Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana,
Page 110 and 111:
1.2 UK Roadmap to Carbon Zero The U
Page 112 and 113:
1.5 Design Team Cabe, the governmen
Page 114 and 115:
• Perceptions of End Users: Discu
Page 116 and 117:
REFERENCES BAILEY L, TOLMIE-THOMSON
Page 118 and 119:
to the production of the specific u
Page 120 and 121:
Figure 1. Proposals of different de
Page 122 and 123:
The sustainable development of tran
Page 124 and 125:
3.2 Bed Zed, UK Bed zed is a commun
Page 126 and 127:
GWL these uses are separated while
Page 128 and 129:
Energy consumption for heating, kWh
Page 130 and 131:
Heat losses, MWh Heat losses, MWh t
Page 132 and 133:
REFERENCES: Juodis, E. 2000. Energy
Page 134 and 135:
Facades form the biggest part of th
Page 136 and 137:
placed over the sun-path-diagram wi
Page 138 and 139:
In the table, when the simulation p
Page 140 and 141:
estimate the output of the panels i
Page 142 and 143:
plan. The aim of this kind of chang
Page 144 and 145:
First (front) group (zone) Second (
Page 146 and 147:
predicted, illustrated and listened
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 13 Evaluation of receiver po
Page 150 and 151:
138
Page 152 and 153:
140
Page 154 and 155:
2 POSITIONING STRUCTURAL FLEXIBILIT
Page 156 and 157:
Table 1: Building layers Envelope F
Page 158 and 159:
Figure 5: The results of the survey
Page 160 and 161:
1 INTRODUCTION Bridges are importan
Page 162 and 163:
3 CONCLUSION This paper reviewed st
Page 164 and 165:
tween this bridge and a reinforced
Page 166 and 167:
The construction sequence assumed f
Page 168 and 169:
Agency life cycle costs (present va
Page 170 and 171:
Figure 3a: User’s life cycle cost
Page 172 and 173:
Figure 5: system boundaries for the
Page 174 and 175:
162
Page 176 and 177:
the construction of these bridges.
Page 178 and 179:
Figure 2a „Flat-Pack‟ arch syst
Page 180 and 181:
As far as analysis of the „FlexiA
Page 182 and 183:
Figure 5 Initial/whole life cycle c
Page 184 and 185:
FLIR Systems 13.9 °C FLIR Systems
Page 186 and 187:
Figure 2: NPV of costs in 60 year b
Page 188 and 189:
REFERENCES 1. ATTMA - The Air Tight
Page 190 and 191:
2 MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING ME
Page 192 and 193:
The results of pairwise comparisons
Page 194 and 195:
with C i* =1 if A i =A * . 3 APPLIC
Page 196 and 197:
Figure 4. Criteria taken into accou
Page 198 and 199:
As far as the problem of the constr
Page 200 and 201:
timber connection with appropriate
Page 202 and 203:
Numerical simulations of ash pegs t
Page 204 and 205:
192
Page 206 and 207:
a building this gives a prime excus
Page 208 and 209:
Lack of past investment in the main
Page 210 and 211:
2.3 Methodology The research will b
Page 212:
200
show all

Sustainable Construction A Life Cycle Approach in Engineering

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?